Low-IQ politics is not the same as low-IQ voters. Some political appeals are targeted at different parts of the human person, so I don’t see a problem with distinguishing “low-iq” politics in contradistinction to “intellectual” or “elite” politics.
Perhaps because of his time in intellectual circles and his time in law school (Yale), Mithril Capital (San Francisco), and Revolution LLC (DC).
He has lived and worked in Ohio most of his adult life akaik though (including attending Ohio State), so I generally agree with your point.
Julian Farrows
2 years ago
We may not quite be in a “regime” yet, but our institutions are most certainly laying the groundwork for one – I call it a rainbow police state for lack of any better term: a capricious system of governance built up from mock-sympathetic feelings toward social outliers. I’m glad that there are some politicians out there trying their best to stop its advance.
“Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles.”
Martin Johnson
2 years ago
Robert Barnes is of the opinion that Vance started to climb in the polls after he was the only candidate in a debate who was not in favor of unlimited escalation in the Ukraine War, which rise had started before Trump endorsement. To admit that would be against the approved narrative of universal support for unlimited escalation of the war, so we can’t talk about it, though.
He has beliefs, principles, and I agree with most of them (same as the earlier commenter – differ on abortion and drug policy). Nice to see integrity in a politician.
But you are talking about it, so what is your point? And who or what is ‘approving’ the narrative you don’t like?
Michael J
2 years ago
The “dark enlightenment” thinkers such as Mencius Moldbug/Curtis Yarvin and others who have influenced Thiel and JD Vance have some good ideas and critiques even if their eventual solutions go off the deep end somewhat. It’s interesting to see it get more traction and even become “cool” as the counterculture to wokeism. The Vanity Fair article does a relatively good job of describing it.
I’m curious which of Curtis Yarvin’s ideas you consider “off the deep end”. They mostly seem eminently sensible to me, but perhaps that’s because I can swim.
Yarvin points out that Trump failed because he could not, or would not, or was simply incapable of doing what FDR did in the 1930s ie a root and branch reform / replacement of the bureaucracy, so that he could implement his mandate from the people.
Michael Coleman
2 years ago
It would have helped the article to actually have mentioned what are Vance’s stances on the issues, and not just use tired labels -we are all so tired of worn-out labels on the single right – left axis. https://jdvance.com/issues/
I don’t agree with Vance on abortion or drug policy, but on bigger issues like free speech and fighting the woke virus pandemic he says all the right things – wish I could vote for him.
Alan Groff
2 years ago
One way to understand the intellectual foundation of the political divide is to compare the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Rene Girard to Georg Hegel and Michel Foucault.
The latter, the foundation for the left, is in a decadent phase typical of the late stages of the lifecycle. The former is more obscure and sometimes associated with those that seem less sophisticated, provides foundation for a new era that goes forward with a stream of time and human innovation.
Hegel’s a thinker who rejects independent Perception and Foucault’s follows to The logic call conclusion of extreme skepticism that rejects things as basic as biology and nature.
Wittgenstein is a thinker who moves philosophy out of the Kantian thinking domain on to ground where perception is once again possible and perception and rationality can be integrated.
Rene Girard provides anthropological grounding for sense and intuition as determinants of culture that are at least as important rationality.
Why do you say he is a “parachute candidate”? He was born in Ohio and went to Ohio state, didn’t he?
(And I really liked Hillbilly Elegy)
And the comment about low IQ voters?! As if anyone who believes in God, borders and that men and women are different is low IQ. How insulting.
Low-IQ politics is not the same as low-IQ voters. Some political appeals are targeted at different parts of the human person, so I don’t see a problem with distinguishing “low-iq” politics in contradistinction to “intellectual” or “elite” politics.
Perhaps because of his time in intellectual circles and his time in law school (Yale), Mithril Capital (San Francisco), and Revolution LLC (DC).
He has lived and worked in Ohio most of his adult life akaik though (including attending Ohio State), so I generally agree with your point.
We may not quite be in a “regime” yet, but our institutions are most certainly laying the groundwork for one – I call it a rainbow police state for lack of any better term: a capricious system of governance built up from mock-sympathetic feelings toward social outliers. I’m glad that there are some politicians out there trying their best to stop its advance.
“Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles.”
Robert Barnes is of the opinion that Vance started to climb in the polls after he was the only candidate in a debate who was not in favor of unlimited escalation in the Ukraine War, which rise had started before Trump endorsement. To admit that would be against the approved narrative of universal support for unlimited escalation of the war, so we can’t talk about it, though.
He has beliefs, principles, and I agree with most of them (same as the earlier commenter – differ on abortion and drug policy). Nice to see integrity in a politician.
But you are talking about it, so what is your point? And who or what is ‘approving’ the narrative you don’t like?
The “dark enlightenment” thinkers such as Mencius Moldbug/Curtis Yarvin and others who have influenced Thiel and JD Vance have some good ideas and critiques even if their eventual solutions go off the deep end somewhat. It’s interesting to see it get more traction and even become “cool” as the counterculture to wokeism. The Vanity Fair article does a relatively good job of describing it.
I’m curious which of Curtis Yarvin’s ideas you consider “off the deep end”. They mostly seem eminently sensible to me, but perhaps that’s because I can swim.
Yarvin points out that Trump failed because he could not, or would not, or was simply incapable of doing what FDR did in the 1930s ie a root and branch reform / replacement of the bureaucracy, so that he could implement his mandate from the people.
It would have helped the article to actually have mentioned what are Vance’s stances on the issues, and not just use tired labels -we are all so tired of worn-out labels on the single right – left axis.
https://jdvance.com/issues/
I don’t agree with Vance on abortion or drug policy, but on bigger issues like free speech and fighting the woke virus pandemic he says all the right things – wish I could vote for him.
One way to understand the intellectual foundation of the political divide is to compare the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Rene Girard to Georg Hegel and Michel Foucault.
The latter, the foundation for the left, is in a decadent phase typical of the late stages of the lifecycle. The former is more obscure and sometimes associated with those that seem less sophisticated, provides foundation for a new era that goes forward with a stream of time and human innovation.
Hegel’s a thinker who rejects independent Perception and Foucault’s follows to The logic call conclusion of extreme skepticism that rejects things as basic as biology and nature.
Wittgenstein is a thinker who moves philosophy out of the Kantian thinking domain on to ground where perception is once again possible and perception and rationality can be integrated.
Rene Girard provides anthropological grounding for sense and intuition as determinants of culture that are at least as important rationality.
Lovely assessment, thanks. I hope late stage = soon to fall away if it’s own excess.