Trump Jr.

Last school year I had to deal with a pair of students (Tweedledee and Tweedledum) I caught cheating on a takehome final. When confronted with the evidence, each insisted that it was the other’s fault, and that only that other student should face any consequences.

Bear in mind that if they complete their degrees, they would be in the top 30% of the population in terms of educational attainment. In today’s world, that basically means they’re among the best and brightest, they’re high status, and they’re “the future”. If we could meaure status on a linear scale, getting a college degree still pushes you high up on that scale. 

At the time I figured that they were at least towards the bottom of that top 30%. Certainly, I still hope they’ll grow out of it. Unfortunately, Draco Malfoy’s Junior’s latest scandal shows that being bad at cheating isn’t the social hinderance we might have hoped for.

Related link: http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/13/how-trump-apologists-will-defend-the-ind

People like Dylan Marron gave us Trump

Have we gotten it out there enough that the left’s obsession with elitist politically correct culture partially lost them the election  – per Bernie Sanders, per President Obama – throwing plenty of center folks into the authoritarian right? Yeah? Good.

Here’s an example of the tone-deaf (oops, was that ableism?) leftist reporting style that utterly alienates its audience:

The whole video is done in a patronizing, vicious manner. The reporter might have mistaken the mood of his tirade as sarcastic, or funny, or something. Instead, it comes off as the embodiment of the left’s carcinogenic (oops, was that ableism?) idée fixe: ostracizing condescension. (“If you don’t agree with me – fuck you!”) In this post-election nation, where Jonathan Haidt’s message of understanding might yet get a chance, videos like this are just tedious.

I was struck not just by the venomous fashion of the sketch, but its utter lack of depth that has become familiar in most comedic reporting since the election. Moreover, the entertainer Dylan Marron clearly misunderstands one of his own vital points. He writes off disability method acting (in films, not just Trumpian impersonations) as “ableist,” making me wonder if he understands the purpose of acting. The purpose of acting is to portray someone you are not, and do a good job. Marron stress the point: “witness Arts academies honor able-bodied actors over and over again for pretending they have a disability.”

Yes, acting is also known as pretending. For a tautology, Marron thinks it packs much more of a punch. There is a reason disabled people don’t often play disabled roles, and it’s not just because most celebrities – with a great many exceptions – are able-bodied, physically and mentally. Actors aren’t hired to portray who they actually are, unless it’s a biopic, and the more difficult the role, the better the acting. Marron, it seems, wants a world where actors must portray their actual, own lived experience. Hollywood directors need to recruit genuine serial killers for their horror films. In essence, the abolishment of acting.

Portraying a character with a disability is a role every good actor should be capable of executing. Celebrities get roles portraying disabled people because they’re good actors, and there’s nothing ableist about it. Tom Hanks won the Best Actor Academy Award because the character of Forrest Gump was a difficult one to convey. Doesn’t actively seeking someone who is developmentally challenged, just to put them in a feature film as a mentally-disabled character – as a token – seem far worse than recruiting someone qualified with good acting talent to take on the role?

In case you think Marron doesn’t actually want an end to all acting, ever, Marron stresses, again, that actors are taking on a role “they’ve never lived” when they portray mentally-challenged individuals. In other words, they’re acting. Not just acting, but acting well. Boom, take that, you ableist scum!

Here, a point could be made that Marron doesn’t even bother to observe: if actors have never lived life disabled, isn’t their research on the role going to be informed by vicious stereotypes and come off as derogatory or insensitive? Now this actually is something to be concerned about. Directors and actors should, certainly, consult people with actual intellectual or physical disabilities when they feature these roles in their films, for the sake of decency and guidance. Good information should be researched rather than baseless stereotypes about what it means to be bipolar, or autistic, or depressed, or what have you.

This also answers a potential rebuttal of my post: if actors can portray any role, even if they haven’t lived that experience, what’s the problem with “blackface”? It’s simple: the difference is that blackface, and acting as a different race or ethnicity, is informed by vicious stereotypes. It’s been abandoned by Hollywood because it was genuinely racist, and based on ethnic clichés. Thus, the difference between Tropic Thunder‘s “Simple Jack” and Forrest Gump: one actually attempted to portray a mental disability, realistically, and one played off vulgar stereotypes (ironically, of course).

In the world of this marronic sketch, The Dark Knight would never have been filmed. A Beautiful Mind, Fight Club, Psycho would never have been filmed. Donnie Darko would never have been filmed. Benjamin Button would never have been filmed (not so bad). The obsession with politically correct culture already gave us Trump, and nonsensical videos like this are essentially advertisements for his re-election. Don’t take away our cinema too.

Two points that bear repeating

  1. We could have elected Hitler and it wouldn’t have turned out significantly worse than if Clinton had won.
  2. The left and right aren’t speaking the same language, and whoever fails to take the first step (which is to not blame the other side) shares the larger share of the blame.

I just listened to the post election episode of the excellent series, The United States of Anxiety. Two interviews stand out: the Trump supporter who fails (I think) to understand the genuine (albeit overblown) fear of a black teenager, and the Trump opponent who fails to understand that trump supporter. (There was also a notably boring interview with another Trump opponent, some hand wringing by the hosts, and some genuinely insightful commentary from Chris Arnade stuffed into the back corner of the episode.)

Maybe I’m in a privileged position because I used to see myself as part of the right and now see myself as part of the left (what’s left of it). Many people on the left are being sore losers about this election and they’re making things worse. I’m talking about humans, not (necessarily) politicians. That’s what’s really disappointing.

To be fair, it’s a common pool problem. We each get social capital brownie points for being angry (“10 reasons you should be angry” gets more Internet points than “difficult social science that requires you to do things you don’t like“), and we don’t get the same rewards for sober reflection (or maybe NOL is a sensible echo chamber? Agree with me in the comments.).

The fact remains that in-group signalling trumps ideological inclusion. The result could mean wild swings of power between the right and the left with due process (and the blessings of civilization… like tolerance, economic growth, freedom, and social mobility) being steamrolled in the process.

It’s fun to blame Facebook, the media, politicians, or anyone else but ourselves. The truth is, consumer sovereignty is far stronger a force than is commonly accepted. We aren’t the victims, we’re the perpetrators. It feels good to have an ideologically tight-knit Internet cocoon and so we spend more time listening to our podcasts (talk radio) while driving our Priuses (pickups) past the coast (vast ocean of farms).

And we’ll always have some of that, but we’ve got important disagreements that we have to resolve… not permanently, but for the next generation or so. All sides (libertarians have to participate too; I don’t think we’re to blame, but some people do) have to eat some humble pie and try to genuinely understand what the others are talking about. They aren’t all morons (and we aren’t all geniuses).

What really struck me in those interviews (mostly the second, longer, better quality one by the well spoken liberal academic) was that they weren’t speaking as though they were really trying to convince their intellectual opponents. Patty (Trump supporter) was happy and felt like she was finally part of the decision making process in DC (whether that’s true is another issue). He was speaking to a liberal

Both sides need to try to adopt the language of the other side. You should be trying to convince them! Why should you expect any degree of success when you say shit like “just look at the evidence [you big dummy!]” as though they don’t think they’ve been looking at legitimate evidence. You’re both falling for confirmation bias.

The way forward is intellectual humility. Will that happen? Not a chance, but that’s all the more reason for me to shout into the void. Culture changes slowly.

People will always disagree, and always should. Ideologies have blind spots and need to depend on critics from the other ideologies to account for them. The policy we get reflects the desires of those who might do something about it. Even dictators have to walk a thin line to stay in power. What seems to be at issue here is meta-policy (Buchananian constitutional issues… not the literal constitution, but informal shared understandings about how government wields power). Right now the position from the two big camps is “to the victor go the spoils.” That’s happening because each camp has closed themselves off to the other. It’s similar to what Bastiat said; when we don’t get gains from ideological trade and cooperation, we get political strife.

Everything will be fine

Eight years ago I identified more with the right. Obama represented a charismatic leader with scary ideologies and an uncertain background. (McCain represented a very old man who didn’t seem to care much about freedom.) Obama had a cult of personality and looked ready to dismantle society.

What do I think now? I think he’s handled his position gracefully (though I haven’t been following too closely… gov’t is ~1/5 of the economy and I intend to keep it <1/5 of my life), and he’s done a good deal of harm (further entrenching the role of insurance in health care finance, drone strikes, etc.). But I don’t think he did any more harm than a Republican candidate in his position. The world didn’t end, and despite a big recession, freedom ultimately proved to be a hearty weed rather than a delicate flower.

I think Trump will follow a similar trajectory. He’ll make things worse, but the outcome won’t be dramatically different (overall) than if Clinton had won. Different special interests will be rewarded, and different special interest groups will suffer. But overall, four years from now we’ll be a little less free, a bit more rich (though probably going through a recession… that would have happened under either candidate), and ready for some more political change.

Bill Burr’s got it right: nothing’s going to change. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.