Almost all of this is so obviously true that at times it astounds me that so many people don't act as though it is. I get the incentives - eople focused on eyeballs, or gift - but for everyone else who seem to want to persuade, I don't find myself so much annoyed as surprised that they are so bad at it it so many ways.
This is great. But it misses something about what is accomplished by the “alarming the already-alarmed” articles. Some writing is about informing or persuading, but other writing is about status combat. You’ve decided to write less in the status combat area. Of course, persuasion about Trump’s awful policies will lower Trump’s status (one hopes), but it probably also helps if people are riled up and angry. My comment is really about Julia Galef’s Scout Mindset book. Do the people with “soldier mindset” do some good too in politics?
The only thing I will say about Musk is that he is undoubtedly brilliant and accomplished but can we just stipulate that at this point? I think a lot of the anti-Musk rhetoric from progressives is pretty counterproductive but I will acknowledge that a lot of center aligned writers always seem to couch their Musk criticisms with an obligatory Tesla and Space X are great shout out. It’s kind of annoying. His brilliance and accomplishments are well documented at this point. Matt actually does this less than a lot of other centrists out there so kudos for that. What freaks me out is that someone this brilliant and accomplished can also apparently be this malevolent. I get that Biden shouldn’t have excluded Tesla from the EV summit or whatever but that one diss leading to this level of negative polarization is absurd.
To my centrist aligned brethren in this here comment section, please do not let the annoying behavior of progressives and leftists push you away from the center-left. Stick around! Resist negative polarization! Help build a movement within the Democratic Party to make us more competitive in purple districts!
Tried to find a logical place to fit this in on reply but could not.
We can debate to what extent political appeals to voters are more effective when based on facts/policy content versus aesthetics/"vibes". But let's stipulate that - for better or worse - to a significant extent vibes matter. And that, the more effective the vibes, the more leniency a politician has with regard to the substance of his/her policy.
The Dems have a serious vibes issue, and it does not help that, in the Trump era they have become so closely aligned with the mainstream/prestige media, because its vibes are, very roughly speaking, even worse. Hysteria is bad vibes. Scolding is bad vibes. Priggishness is bad vibes. Telling people that activities, places and things they have long enjoyed are now "problematic" is atrociously bad vibes.
I know: Trump has himself talked quite a bit about "American carnage" and other topics that are, content-wise, doom and gloom. But I think his vibes are just different and more "chill" than this kind of content would suggest.
The upside is that this should be a relatively easy fix. Especially given their connections to Hollywood, social-psychology and marketing experts, etc., one would imagine the Dems would be well on top of this by now. I can only surmise that a critical mass in and around the party is so consumed with righteous indignation, sanctimony and anti-Trump mono-mania that they can't abide a vibes-oriented re-appraisal.
What is Stonewall London? Is this something that a voter should have an opinion on? Is it even something that a president should have an opinion on? It seems that if congress gets the top things right (“we should have a state department with a budget of XX billion that they distribute through ambassadors and other officers to whatever programs they think will have the best impact on opinion of the USA and economic development worldwide”) then no one should be digging through and trying to second-guess unless they actually know the details of how the decisions were made.
That article doesn’t seem to suggest there was any financial savings. They are just doing the politically correct thing of declining to say anything about DEI any more.
Thanks for the reminder on the ITN framework and suggesting it be applied to make our actions effective. Susan Crawford has received my donation. I look forward to more ideas!
In an attempt to keep events in perspective, I have been looking for good budget summaries. About a decade ago the Death and Taxes poster contained a detailed visual summary of taxes and spending at the federal level. This seems to have been a massive, and not especially lucrative undertaking, and they seem to have stopped producing it in 2017. (maybe this also relates to the breakdown of the standard budgeting process??) But it was very useful. I miss it, as I do much of the weird and niche pre social media internet.
Has anyone encountered a comparable summary or calculator? There is a very basic calculator at the Bipartisan Policy Center, but I am both suspicious of their motives, and annoyed at the lack of detail or updating. They do not seem to have included proposals actually discussed by Trump / house or senate republicans.
"At this point in time, if you’re putting out ideas like “Trump is a fascist” or “Trump is a white supremacist” or “Elon Musk is only rich because of his father’s mining business,” then the people backing Trump are just going to tune you out."
I think this is a really important point. Too often the conversation is sidetracked with "is this guy racist? No, he's not racist! Yes, he is!" with very little discussion even of *what was actually said*. Like....who cares if he meets a threshold of being a racist! Let's talk about the substance of what was said, or more importantly, what he is actually *doing.*
I have some friends that voted for Trump that will immediately dismiss arguments that Trump is "racist" or "fascist." But if you talk about your concern about tariffs (they're in the construction business, that matters to them!) or even major cuts to government (one has a special needs child!) suddenly they are open to listening and perhaps even to being persuaded.
The Methodist church was one of the early providers of malaria nets to Africa. I very much like the important, tractable, and neglected framework. Its good spin for a non-profit.
And I think it incapsulated the Methodist methodology for charity. But does it translate to political issues? I'm not convinced. Joe Biden has taken a position that's designed to make the Ukrainian conflict intractable. Same for Republicans and tax cuts. You cant just ignore intractable problems as a) things like the budget and wars have to be dealt with and b) you would be rewarding bad behavior.
The solution is for people to actually want to solve problems versus having strategies that are designed to inflict maximum damage to their adversaries at minimum cost. Once that thinking predominates, then people are going to die in wars, poor people are going to go without.
Matt, excellent piece! More down to earth storytelling about the “waste” being found in Medicaid could help in understanding both sides. Dementia care for the elderly is so expensive that many people give up their savings to their children and become eligible for Medicaid. Depending on the State, they claim poverty and have Medicaid pay for Grandma or Grandpa approximately 10 years at $200,000/year in nursing home. The alternative for people with Alzheimers who have exhausted their savings is homelessness without healthcare. One side sees only the ever growing government spending; the other side doesn’t want to see Grandparents dying even though many can’t function without full-time care. Stories get get attention when people can relate.
Not this Substack's comparative advantage but a big need is information on populist mistakes that Musk is making (things our marginal Trump voter will think is a mistake, not how bad, though it is bad, for civil servants), refutation of the most widespread egregious misinformation about Musk "achievements," (again, things our marginal Trump voter may have heard) and, to be prepared, of actual achievements.
I fear this article won't be popular with a lot of readers but if more people thought like Matt, American politics would be far, far better off.
Almost all of this is so obviously true that at times it astounds me that so many people don't act as though it is. I get the incentives - eople focused on eyeballs, or gift - but for everyone else who seem to want to persuade, I don't find myself so much annoyed as surprised that they are so bad at it it so many ways.
This is great. But it misses something about what is accomplished by the “alarming the already-alarmed” articles. Some writing is about informing or persuading, but other writing is about status combat. You’ve decided to write less in the status combat area. Of course, persuasion about Trump’s awful policies will lower Trump’s status (one hopes), but it probably also helps if people are riled up and angry. My comment is really about Julia Galef’s Scout Mindset book. Do the people with “soldier mindset” do some good too in politics?
The only thing I will say about Musk is that he is undoubtedly brilliant and accomplished but can we just stipulate that at this point? I think a lot of the anti-Musk rhetoric from progressives is pretty counterproductive but I will acknowledge that a lot of center aligned writers always seem to couch their Musk criticisms with an obligatory Tesla and Space X are great shout out. It’s kind of annoying. His brilliance and accomplishments are well documented at this point. Matt actually does this less than a lot of other centrists out there so kudos for that. What freaks me out is that someone this brilliant and accomplished can also apparently be this malevolent. I get that Biden shouldn’t have excluded Tesla from the EV summit or whatever but that one diss leading to this level of negative polarization is absurd.
To my centrist aligned brethren in this here comment section, please do not let the annoying behavior of progressives and leftists push you away from the center-left. Stick around! Resist negative polarization! Help build a movement within the Democratic Party to make us more competitive in purple districts!
Tried to find a logical place to fit this in on reply but could not.
We can debate to what extent political appeals to voters are more effective when based on facts/policy content versus aesthetics/"vibes". But let's stipulate that - for better or worse - to a significant extent vibes matter. And that, the more effective the vibes, the more leniency a politician has with regard to the substance of his/her policy.
This is not really new. Remember the 2004 "beer test" and how John Kerry "failed" it? https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/257274-likability-shouldnt-matter-when-electing-a-president/?rl=1
The Dems have a serious vibes issue, and it does not help that, in the Trump era they have become so closely aligned with the mainstream/prestige media, because its vibes are, very roughly speaking, even worse. Hysteria is bad vibes. Scolding is bad vibes. Priggishness is bad vibes. Telling people that activities, places and things they have long enjoyed are now "problematic" is atrociously bad vibes.
I know: Trump has himself talked quite a bit about "American carnage" and other topics that are, content-wise, doom and gloom. But I think his vibes are just different and more "chill" than this kind of content would suggest.
The upside is that this should be a relatively easy fix. Especially given their connections to Hollywood, social-psychology and marketing experts, etc., one would imagine the Dems would be well on top of this by now. I can only surmise that a critical mass in and around the party is so consumed with righteous indignation, sanctimony and anti-Trump mono-mania that they can't abide a vibes-oriented re-appraisal.
This is why I subscribe- I don’t need more panic
How much, exactly, should the USA be spending on Stonewall London? Do you support continuing this money?
What is Stonewall London? Is this something that a voter should have an opinion on? Is it even something that a president should have an opinion on? It seems that if congress gets the top things right (“we should have a state department with a budget of XX billion that they distribute through ambassadors and other officers to whatever programs they think will have the best impact on opinion of the USA and economic development worldwide”) then no one should be digging through and trying to second-guess unless they actually know the details of how the decisions were made.
Looks like the Brits are saving some money too. https://archive.is/diLSw
That article doesn’t seem to suggest there was any financial savings. They are just doing the politically correct thing of declining to say anything about DEI any more.
You’re right. Just zero out USAID. Since it is something I, a retired bureaucrat, can’t second guess, then just zero out the line item.
That seems like a bad policy, that would effectively mean never visiting doctors or mechanics or any other skilled professionals.
Just donated to Judge Crawford. $25 a week until April 1st.
Thanks for the reminder on the ITN framework and suggesting it be applied to make our actions effective. Susan Crawford has received my donation. I look forward to more ideas!
In an attempt to keep events in perspective, I have been looking for good budget summaries. About a decade ago the Death and Taxes poster contained a detailed visual summary of taxes and spending at the federal level. This seems to have been a massive, and not especially lucrative undertaking, and they seem to have stopped producing it in 2017. (maybe this also relates to the breakdown of the standard budgeting process??) But it was very useful. I miss it, as I do much of the weird and niche pre social media internet.
Has anyone encountered a comparable summary or calculator? There is a very basic calculator at the Bipartisan Policy Center, but I am both suspicious of their motives, and annoyed at the lack of detail or updating. They do not seem to have included proposals actually discussed by Trump / house or senate republicans.
"At this point in time, if you’re putting out ideas like “Trump is a fascist” or “Trump is a white supremacist” or “Elon Musk is only rich because of his father’s mining business,” then the people backing Trump are just going to tune you out."
I think this is a really important point. Too often the conversation is sidetracked with "is this guy racist? No, he's not racist! Yes, he is!" with very little discussion even of *what was actually said*. Like....who cares if he meets a threshold of being a racist! Let's talk about the substance of what was said, or more importantly, what he is actually *doing.*
I have some friends that voted for Trump that will immediately dismiss arguments that Trump is "racist" or "fascist." But if you talk about your concern about tariffs (they're in the construction business, that matters to them!) or even major cuts to government (one has a special needs child!) suddenly they are open to listening and perhaps even to being persuaded.
Amen
The Methodist church was one of the early providers of malaria nets to Africa. I very much like the important, tractable, and neglected framework. Its good spin for a non-profit.
And I think it incapsulated the Methodist methodology for charity. But does it translate to political issues? I'm not convinced. Joe Biden has taken a position that's designed to make the Ukrainian conflict intractable. Same for Republicans and tax cuts. You cant just ignore intractable problems as a) things like the budget and wars have to be dealt with and b) you would be rewarding bad behavior.
The solution is for people to actually want to solve problems versus having strategies that are designed to inflict maximum damage to their adversaries at minimum cost. Once that thinking predominates, then people are going to die in wars, poor people are going to go without.
This attitude is why I subscribe to SB, and I wish more figures in the media would take it up.
Matt, excellent piece! More down to earth storytelling about the “waste” being found in Medicaid could help in understanding both sides. Dementia care for the elderly is so expensive that many people give up their savings to their children and become eligible for Medicaid. Depending on the State, they claim poverty and have Medicaid pay for Grandma or Grandpa approximately 10 years at $200,000/year in nursing home. The alternative for people with Alzheimers who have exhausted their savings is homelessness without healthcare. One side sees only the ever growing government spending; the other side doesn’t want to see Grandparents dying even though many can’t function without full-time care. Stories get get attention when people can relate.
Not this Substack's comparative advantage but a big need is information on populist mistakes that Musk is making (things our marginal Trump voter will think is a mistake, not how bad, though it is bad, for civil servants), refutation of the most widespread egregious misinformation about Musk "achievements," (again, things our marginal Trump voter may have heard) and, to be prepared, of actual achievements.