Nicholas, Thanks for another post with lots of interesting pieces. But I have an exception to take with your remarks concerning the Thomas Homer-Dixon article. I think you picked the wrong exemplar of academic insularity. Having read Homer-Dixon's excellent trilogy, Ingenuity Gap, Upside of Down, and Commanding Hope, all written for general audiences, I've been extremely impressed (and surprised) about how far he ranges from academia and within academia, often going deep outside his own field of political science. For his books, I've sometimes wondered as an academic how he received the funding necessary to do some of the field work that he did for those books. In addition, two of the individuals he quoted by name are journalists. (David Frum is also a former W. Bush speechwriter; Stephen Marche a Canadian "novelist & journalist."). Of the two academics he quoted by name, I know of Jack Goldstone, who wrote a terrific book about the conditions leading to the English and French revolutions. Not man on the street stuff, I admit, but still, I think these folks do some field work (and archive research) such that any academic insularity is minimized. And I do agree that all too often an ivory tower exists. Just much less so in this particular case.
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to take me to task Stephen. On re-reading the piece to try to explain what I was talking about, I found I didn't have much to show for my side of things as I read the first half of what was a long piece. So I can appreciate your point.
Still let me try to explain my reaction by reference to these paragraphs.
<blockquote>Jack Goldstone, a political sociologist at George Mason University in Washington, D.C., and a leading authority on the causes of state breakdown and revolution, told me that since 2016 we’ve learned that early optimism about the resilience of U.S. democracy was based on two false assumptions: “First, that American institutions would be strong enough to easily withstand efforts to subvert them; and second, that the vast majority of people will act rationally and be drawn to the political centre, so that it’s impossible for extremist groups to take over.”
But especially after the 2020 election, Dr. Goldstone said, we’ve seen that core institutions – from the Justice Department to county election boards – are susceptible to pressure. They’ve barely held firm. “We’ve also learned that the reasonable majority can be frightened and silenced if caught between extremes, while many others can be captured by mass delusions.” And to his surprise “moderate GOP leaders have either been forced out of the party or acquiesced to a party leadership that embraces lies and anti-democratic actions.”</blockquote>
I think that was one of the triggers for me. My whole life it's seemed obvious that if we are serious about checks and balances we should be asking what roadblocks we're putting in the way of the executive if it's hellbent on increasing its power. At least in the US there are confirmation hearings (now themselves pretty debauched alas.) But in the US and elsewhere most officials can be fired by government. Simple as that. And what have people done about it in the past. Bugger all.
In fact I tried to do something about it decades ago
But to no avail. So I don't regard Mr Goldstone as an 'expert' for being optimistic that America's institutions will hold as the President fires one critical officeholder after another.
I think I could quote some other paragraphs, but you might find them a little nit-picking or perhaps just bad tempered. Anyway, hopefully I've given you a bit of a picture of the way I was thinking when I wrote those words to my (ex) academic friend.
Nicholas, Thanks for another post with lots of interesting pieces. But I have an exception to take with your remarks concerning the Thomas Homer-Dixon article. I think you picked the wrong exemplar of academic insularity. Having read Homer-Dixon's excellent trilogy, Ingenuity Gap, Upside of Down, and Commanding Hope, all written for general audiences, I've been extremely impressed (and surprised) about how far he ranges from academia and within academia, often going deep outside his own field of political science. For his books, I've sometimes wondered as an academic how he received the funding necessary to do some of the field work that he did for those books. In addition, two of the individuals he quoted by name are journalists. (David Frum is also a former W. Bush speechwriter; Stephen Marche a Canadian "novelist & journalist."). Of the two academics he quoted by name, I know of Jack Goldstone, who wrote a terrific book about the conditions leading to the English and French revolutions. Not man on the street stuff, I admit, but still, I think these folks do some field work (and archive research) such that any academic insularity is minimized. And I do agree that all too often an ivory tower exists. Just much less so in this particular case.
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to take me to task Stephen. On re-reading the piece to try to explain what I was talking about, I found I didn't have much to show for my side of things as I read the first half of what was a long piece. So I can appreciate your point.
Still let me try to explain my reaction by reference to these paragraphs.
<blockquote>Jack Goldstone, a political sociologist at George Mason University in Washington, D.C., and a leading authority on the causes of state breakdown and revolution, told me that since 2016 we’ve learned that early optimism about the resilience of U.S. democracy was based on two false assumptions: “First, that American institutions would be strong enough to easily withstand efforts to subvert them; and second, that the vast majority of people will act rationally and be drawn to the political centre, so that it’s impossible for extremist groups to take over.”
But especially after the 2020 election, Dr. Goldstone said, we’ve seen that core institutions – from the Justice Department to county election boards – are susceptible to pressure. They’ve barely held firm. “We’ve also learned that the reasonable majority can be frightened and silenced if caught between extremes, while many others can be captured by mass delusions.” And to his surprise “moderate GOP leaders have either been forced out of the party or acquiesced to a party leadership that embraces lies and anti-democratic actions.”</blockquote>
I think that was one of the triggers for me. My whole life it's seemed obvious that if we are serious about checks and balances we should be asking what roadblocks we're putting in the way of the executive if it's hellbent on increasing its power. At least in the US there are confirmation hearings (now themselves pretty debauched alas.) But in the US and elsewhere most officials can be fired by government. Simple as that. And what have people done about it in the past. Bugger all.
In fact I tried to do something about it decades ago
https://clubtroppo.com.au/2021/08/22/lockdowns-and-liberty.
But to no avail. So I don't regard Mr Goldstone as an 'expert' for being optimistic that America's institutions will hold as the President fires one critical officeholder after another.
I think I could quote some other paragraphs, but you might find them a little nit-picking or perhaps just bad tempered. Anyway, hopefully I've given you a bit of a picture of the way I was thinking when I wrote those words to my (ex) academic friend.