Yes, it's interesting that a many (most?) of these 'centrists' in your sample caucus with the left, since the usual refrain from the terminally online contingent is that a centrist is just a conservative in sheep's clothing, and even (when they are among comrades) that when forced to choose between communism and fascism, a centrist will side with the fascists to protect their property. But this might be a peculiarity to the bubble of academia, where people are implicitly or explicitly aware that the distribution of political thought skews heavily to one side in a non-normally distributed fashion. Thus the mid point (or centrist zone) of the curve is likely to be further left than the mid point of the wider New Zealand population. Perhaps at university, a centrist really is just a 'vote red until I'm dead'. Of course that perception might also be influenced by not meeting the shy conservative at the institution who is not comfortable wearing their political leanings on their sleeve, but your data suggests otherwise.
I'd be interested to know though, the way the question was framed as to what political parties they would support, was it 'typically I would vote for x', was there a carve out for 'I could see myself voting for Y'? How was your questions for political party support capturing their voting habits?
Wow, I was just considering writing about this, and you've raised things I haven't thought of. Yeah, I would expect the mid-zone to be further left. Their 'centre' is in relation to whoever else is at the institution, and given they are almost all left-wingers, well, this means the end up left of centre. The other thing is that centrists, I think, love calling themselves centrists to believe they are impartial and objective, without bias to any side, and 'swing' based upon policy etc. Now, this might be true to some extent, but as I knew when I was a centrist, some of that is complete BS. They want their cake and they eat it to - appear impartial, but often behave biased (beside from voting, they may always go along with the leftist wave at Universities as an example). Win-win for them: The objective scientist who, by definition, sides with the most scientific side - which ends up being the left. Of course, there is a reverse to this, with people afraid to call themselves conservatives or right-wingers because they don't like the term, or being associated with Christians, or racists or fascists. To me, they are just falling into the left's propaganda language trap, and accepting the labels they have created. If you analyse your beliefs in relation to the general population as it stands now, not twenty bloody years ago, and you end up on the right, be honest about it, rather than hiding behind rationalisations. But that's my opinion - and my opinion now, it's changed over the last few years.
So the question was: "What political party best represents your views today?" Jamin and I went back and forth, because I wanted some clear behavioural data (who they voted for last election), and he wanted up to date current belief. Both are valid I believe.
Yeah that's interesting. If you're trying to capture whether somebody is a centrist though, or let's even say a 'swing voter', as some might even eschew the former label, do you think there might be value in taking a broader approach to voting patterns? A lot of people voted for the Key/English governments who voted for Labour in the early-mid 2000s, and then back again to Labour in 2020, before returning once again to the right in 2024. It's not clear how much of that is down to policies vs. anti policies vs. leadership. It's something of a time honored tradition among a good 1/6 to 1/5 voters (judging by voting trends) to endorse a government fit for the needs of the day. Whether or not that exists in academics to the same extent I would guess not, but a recommendation is to consider broader patterns in people's voting behavior as a marker of their alignment. For a first study what you've got is probably good, but there's room to go deeper and with more statistical nuance.
As for hiding behind labels, I'm sure that exists for some. Wearing one's political feathers openly requires no privilege for liberals or progressives (if anything it is actually beneficial to them to do so). But I would hazard a guess that not all conservatives have the privilege to do so, particularly if it could materially affect their career prospects, compounded if they have children or dependents.
True, of real centrists, there is likely a proportion that create a discreet identity out of their centrism, giving rise to the memes of the 'enlightened centrist'. I haven't come across hard data on what proportion of the centrist population engages in that, and so there is always the risk that we are over generalizing from what could be a vocal minority. I know I tend to still see myself in that camp, not because I think centrism is any great way of governance but more because I'm very risk minded, I believe what we have is quite precarious, and that most people engage in a good deal more normalcy-bias with regards the robustness of our modern way of life than I do. But of course, I would recognize that I am still just as much if not more subject to all sorts of other biases.
I guess the psycho-political construct of a 'centrist' might be something akin to the 'averager'; the one who chooses the middle because, if we are being honest, to judge accurately all the interlocking forces that go into grand political movements as a singular individual is hopeless, and this 'the left must be right sometimes, and the right must also be right sometimes' is a half-decent heuristic for being right more often than not. Although, I would say, as an intellectual, when making bold predictions about the future, the centrist can come into trouble - because of this risk-aversion. They are not willing to take the gamble of an extreme or outlandish idea (now these 'extreme' ideas are not limited to politics), because if they're wrong, they're going to look stupid big time. If they stay a centrist, they win small, but they only lose small. In some ways, the centrist is the most risk-averse intellectually of the three rough 'types', left, centre, and right.
Of course, I would love to dive deeper into these constructs, and discussed with my supervisor at length about including a political compass test (although they all now seem to suck), but it would unfortunately lengthen the survey too long. Already the student attrition is disgusting (over 230 or something signed up, we got 80 finished). Now, that is at least in part down a lack of a decent incentive, and you could argue, with a big enough incentive (unlimited fortnite coins), we could add in the compass. But we'll see. What is interesting though, about what you said, the type of person who is the swing voter. It does fascinate that some people switch like this, over there entire lifetimes. Though, many, if not most, people do shift over time.
Mmm, the issue with centrism is a lack of cultural and political innovation. Status quo struggles to regenerate out of stagnation or worse, decay, I fear. But I don't know if I'm confusing two separate things here, status quo and centrism, they're not precisely the same. Also, something that I do believe centrist do have a bias for, is a tendency to believe - as I did - that if they sway either way, they will suddenly become closer to the extreme, closer to the tyrannical edges of politics. This is totally understandable, of course, but a considered and reflective thinker is a considered and reflective thinker, whatever their alignment. They ain't going to suddenly start ethnic cleansing.
A good view of centrism however, and why they are necessary, is that in many ways they are the glue between the two sides (if they are true centrists, of course). So, with a shrinking 'centre', then of course, the divide grows.
I think the framing of 'win small/lose small' fairly accurately sums up the risk profile of a true centrist. I also think the issue you highlight is salient, that status quo struggles to deal with events and societal trends that might require substantive reform. But if we are to extend the casino analogy. It's not that people such as myself are averse to making a big bet, we are just intolerant of making such bets when the payoff matrix is not acceptable. In poker you have tight aggressive players, who have a smaller range of hands they'll get involved in, but once they're in, they're not mucking around. They just choose not to enter hands where the probabilities aren't in their favor. Then you've got the rock, the guy who plays even less hands, they're very risk averse, but they don't bleed money needlessly, and you won't see them getting felted and crashing out of the game. So it's not really about 'looking stupid' it's more about not having economy (and lifestyle) ruining civil strife, war, or annihilation. And the problem is that from the 20th century, the balance that prevents those things has become increasingly delicate at least in so far as the totality of the consequences.
I think there's plenty of centrists who fall into the former poker strategy, the tight aggressive, willing to bleed chips slowly because eventually they'll get a good hand and they'll be able to play it, and there's a good chance they'll win more than just a small amount. These are the situations where they'll move off the fence, and I am among them.
I'm not sure how many people in the middle really fear that moving off the fence will lead them to endorsing ethnic cleansing man. I don't. My concern of moving off the centre is that the payoff matrices I've been given of late are tantamount to demagogues such as the Gracchi or reform/reaction dictators such as Marius and Sulla. In a Bayesian sense, I'm not willing to move off the center until there's an above even probability that the reformer isn't going to lead to even greater problems that will leave us in a worse position than when we started.
If we take the case of the late roman republic (and it's not a guarantee that the same status is in play right now). If you play too hard in one direction (Marius), you either crush your opposition entirely, or you wind up with an even more powerful reaction in the other direction (Sulla), you set in motion forces that it's not easy to contend with. And neither of those options are good. Channeling Lee Kuan Yew, it is one of the failures of democracy, that we are consumed by the problems of the moment, and that the problems our present actions (or societal trends) may cause in the mid to long term are not even a factor. Of course, that criticism of democracy is not an endorsement of a Marian or Caeserian figure either.
The Casino analogy is a good one, though if you don't mind, I am going to switch it to something I know: Cricket (lol). The best batters always have two things - they have great defence, but they also are great attacking players, who can dominate bowling attacks. Some have different balances, with someone like Williamson being more defensive, and someone like Ponting being attacking, but all can absorb pressure, and then dominate. I accept that some centrists have to capacity to take that big bet, yet I would only see it as evidence that they can (I might be wrong here), if they occasionally strongly sway to one side, and make a big, bold call about something (you can say someone like Sam Harris is like this, fairly centre in many ways, but does make big calls). If this doesn't happen, then they are too defensively minded, to return to cricket, to be considered an intellectual force. They may be effective, they may be necessary and useful to any 'team' (the society as a whole), but they won't lead the way. And I would disagree about the looking stupid thing, because if I am right, this is the heart of a lot of centrist psychology. When it comes to intellectualism, social perception is incredibly important, and in many cases is more important than whatever the ideas or policies are (people just say it isn't - this is the point of invisible social hierarchies!). If they are more right than they are wrong, because of their heuristic, they fit in neatly to the intellectual-social hierarchy. They won't be dismissed as insane, or stupid. It's very intelligent as a social strategy. Furthermore, those sensible on the left and right would say the same things about economy not ruining civil strife, war, or annihilation. They would also accept your 'delicacy' of the situation, but lean on one side because, at the moment, this is more likely to prevent bad things from happening and to make good things happen - I am certainly in that camp.
Ah, well, that was an exaggeration - ethnic cleansing is ridiculous. But conscious prejudice? Xenophobia? Now I'm thinking whether the cricket and casino analogies were good ones, because as I said earlier, we can never even get remotely close to know the probability of a political outcome, especially today, I feel. In this way, 'the risk' in being attacking in cricket is known, where the risk in politics is never known (and only pretends to be known). Hmm, no I'm rethinking this, maybe in some cases it can known, and many cases cannot be known. I'm not sure. What I was going to say though, is based on this discussion, we would agree that the personality of a person determines their betting (or voting).
Of course, the other thing is social conformity and non-conformity. We spoke earlier about how the university centrists are only centrist in that they are just not as left-wing as everybody else. But I wonder, if in this case, there is a little bit of disagreeableness going on? That they don't want to be exactly like everyone else, and so say they aren't? But there's the reverse of this - conformity, and you mentioned reasons why, like fear of being labelled bad things. Maybe these 'left-centrists' would in other cases be right-centrists or even conservatives, but because of their environment, shift left.
I don't know of the figures you speak of, but I understand the 'demagogue problem' - though, the irony is that the status quo itself has been criticised as a group of demagogues if you like, a corrupt interlocking oligarchy of corporate leaders and civil-busy-bodies, (the uniparty), that limits the functionality of democracy. In my mind, and in many people both left and right, we have a form of tyranny right now - the claims of future tyranny seem ridiculous when it appears like no one is trying fix the current tyranny - and in fact, it is the reinforcement of the status quo, rather than the reform, that makes a future demagogue more likely.
As someone who embraces Ayn Rand's philosophy that she called Objectivism, I do see a schism developing in the world. There are actually several schisms. One religion vs. another. Those who want to control others due to their self-view of being elites. Those who want us to be free in some ways and controlled in others. No one just wanting to let us live our lives our way.
Yes, good to point out the various schisms. They are everywhere it seems, overlapping, and sometimes in competition. Our world, especially our digital world, is becoming ... smaller, more focussed and more niche. For artists ironically, this can be a good thing - you can find fans and sell your work. But in other ways, on the ground, it may affect our culture by exciting disunion. Now, in the long run (I mean loooonnnnggg run), this may be a good thing - we might birth new cultures and civilisations as our current one splits and/or dies. We'll see I guess.
Any analysis that posits Democrats and Republicans as isomorphic to some presumably ideological "Left" and "Right" is irredeemably flawed from the jump. Tiresomely so, given that I was hearing the came crap from Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter 40 years ago. And also from Bill Clinton and Mary McGrory, come to think of it. It's a game, designed to keep you housed within the Duopoly and stuck for your entire life at the level of a callow 13-year old.
The University of Austin, Texas is one of many privately funded institutions in the US - that doesnt mean they aren’t captured. They have chosen to adhere to the qualifications framework, so they are not outside the usual capitalist paradigm. With Shellenberger appointed to a role there, I can tell you now that it is already full of contradictions. As I keep saying, our language of academic freedom, and the laws that ambiguously and arbitrarily ‘supported’ it, have been hijacked: it’s time to start again from the ground up.
Yes - the qualifications framework is a good point. However, I am interested - do you think it is the framework that is the issue, or how the framework is interpreted (an example would be grade-inflation)? Furthermore, what do you think Ivan Illich, and his learning-web/networks idea?
Wonderful writing, as usual. The information you present here is something that I think many, if not most of us on Substack have been at least tangentially aware of for some time, but seeing the numbers you present as taken from the survey you did are illuminating; grain of salt duly taken for the small sample size. It does make me wonder which way the winds will blow in the coming years/decades, with the public seeming to more openly shift against this heavy leftward lean.
Yes, it's so hard to say. I've been having discussions with family and friends about whether our Liberal Democracies will right themselves - as they have so advertised for centuries - or whether their time has come, and what we are seeing is simply the end of a decadent Empire. Of course, we could talk for hours about the warning signs, but to me, what I think is happening, is that the 'nation state' is becoming less and less important. Privatisation - and digital privatisation at that - has been shifting allegiances and incentives for decades now. We may see a future where the 'nation state' in geo-politics is but a minor consideration when compared to multi-national companies. Though the fertility-crisis is one to watch, too.
Yes, it's interesting that a many (most?) of these 'centrists' in your sample caucus with the left, since the usual refrain from the terminally online contingent is that a centrist is just a conservative in sheep's clothing, and even (when they are among comrades) that when forced to choose between communism and fascism, a centrist will side with the fascists to protect their property. But this might be a peculiarity to the bubble of academia, where people are implicitly or explicitly aware that the distribution of political thought skews heavily to one side in a non-normally distributed fashion. Thus the mid point (or centrist zone) of the curve is likely to be further left than the mid point of the wider New Zealand population. Perhaps at university, a centrist really is just a 'vote red until I'm dead'. Of course that perception might also be influenced by not meeting the shy conservative at the institution who is not comfortable wearing their political leanings on their sleeve, but your data suggests otherwise.
I'd be interested to know though, the way the question was framed as to what political parties they would support, was it 'typically I would vote for x', was there a carve out for 'I could see myself voting for Y'? How was your questions for political party support capturing their voting habits?
Wow, I was just considering writing about this, and you've raised things I haven't thought of. Yeah, I would expect the mid-zone to be further left. Their 'centre' is in relation to whoever else is at the institution, and given they are almost all left-wingers, well, this means the end up left of centre. The other thing is that centrists, I think, love calling themselves centrists to believe they are impartial and objective, without bias to any side, and 'swing' based upon policy etc. Now, this might be true to some extent, but as I knew when I was a centrist, some of that is complete BS. They want their cake and they eat it to - appear impartial, but often behave biased (beside from voting, they may always go along with the leftist wave at Universities as an example). Win-win for them: The objective scientist who, by definition, sides with the most scientific side - which ends up being the left. Of course, there is a reverse to this, with people afraid to call themselves conservatives or right-wingers because they don't like the term, or being associated with Christians, or racists or fascists. To me, they are just falling into the left's propaganda language trap, and accepting the labels they have created. If you analyse your beliefs in relation to the general population as it stands now, not twenty bloody years ago, and you end up on the right, be honest about it, rather than hiding behind rationalisations. But that's my opinion - and my opinion now, it's changed over the last few years.
So the question was: "What political party best represents your views today?" Jamin and I went back and forth, because I wanted some clear behavioural data (who they voted for last election), and he wanted up to date current belief. Both are valid I believe.
Yeah that's interesting. If you're trying to capture whether somebody is a centrist though, or let's even say a 'swing voter', as some might even eschew the former label, do you think there might be value in taking a broader approach to voting patterns? A lot of people voted for the Key/English governments who voted for Labour in the early-mid 2000s, and then back again to Labour in 2020, before returning once again to the right in 2024. It's not clear how much of that is down to policies vs. anti policies vs. leadership. It's something of a time honored tradition among a good 1/6 to 1/5 voters (judging by voting trends) to endorse a government fit for the needs of the day. Whether or not that exists in academics to the same extent I would guess not, but a recommendation is to consider broader patterns in people's voting behavior as a marker of their alignment. For a first study what you've got is probably good, but there's room to go deeper and with more statistical nuance.
As for hiding behind labels, I'm sure that exists for some. Wearing one's political feathers openly requires no privilege for liberals or progressives (if anything it is actually beneficial to them to do so). But I would hazard a guess that not all conservatives have the privilege to do so, particularly if it could materially affect their career prospects, compounded if they have children or dependents.
True, of real centrists, there is likely a proportion that create a discreet identity out of their centrism, giving rise to the memes of the 'enlightened centrist'. I haven't come across hard data on what proportion of the centrist population engages in that, and so there is always the risk that we are over generalizing from what could be a vocal minority. I know I tend to still see myself in that camp, not because I think centrism is any great way of governance but more because I'm very risk minded, I believe what we have is quite precarious, and that most people engage in a good deal more normalcy-bias with regards the robustness of our modern way of life than I do. But of course, I would recognize that I am still just as much if not more subject to all sorts of other biases.
I guess the psycho-political construct of a 'centrist' might be something akin to the 'averager'; the one who chooses the middle because, if we are being honest, to judge accurately all the interlocking forces that go into grand political movements as a singular individual is hopeless, and this 'the left must be right sometimes, and the right must also be right sometimes' is a half-decent heuristic for being right more often than not. Although, I would say, as an intellectual, when making bold predictions about the future, the centrist can come into trouble - because of this risk-aversion. They are not willing to take the gamble of an extreme or outlandish idea (now these 'extreme' ideas are not limited to politics), because if they're wrong, they're going to look stupid big time. If they stay a centrist, they win small, but they only lose small. In some ways, the centrist is the most risk-averse intellectually of the three rough 'types', left, centre, and right.
Of course, I would love to dive deeper into these constructs, and discussed with my supervisor at length about including a political compass test (although they all now seem to suck), but it would unfortunately lengthen the survey too long. Already the student attrition is disgusting (over 230 or something signed up, we got 80 finished). Now, that is at least in part down a lack of a decent incentive, and you could argue, with a big enough incentive (unlimited fortnite coins), we could add in the compass. But we'll see. What is interesting though, about what you said, the type of person who is the swing voter. It does fascinate that some people switch like this, over there entire lifetimes. Though, many, if not most, people do shift over time.
Mmm, the issue with centrism is a lack of cultural and political innovation. Status quo struggles to regenerate out of stagnation or worse, decay, I fear. But I don't know if I'm confusing two separate things here, status quo and centrism, they're not precisely the same. Also, something that I do believe centrist do have a bias for, is a tendency to believe - as I did - that if they sway either way, they will suddenly become closer to the extreme, closer to the tyrannical edges of politics. This is totally understandable, of course, but a considered and reflective thinker is a considered and reflective thinker, whatever their alignment. They ain't going to suddenly start ethnic cleansing.
A good view of centrism however, and why they are necessary, is that in many ways they are the glue between the two sides (if they are true centrists, of course). So, with a shrinking 'centre', then of course, the divide grows.
I think the framing of 'win small/lose small' fairly accurately sums up the risk profile of a true centrist. I also think the issue you highlight is salient, that status quo struggles to deal with events and societal trends that might require substantive reform. But if we are to extend the casino analogy. It's not that people such as myself are averse to making a big bet, we are just intolerant of making such bets when the payoff matrix is not acceptable. In poker you have tight aggressive players, who have a smaller range of hands they'll get involved in, but once they're in, they're not mucking around. They just choose not to enter hands where the probabilities aren't in their favor. Then you've got the rock, the guy who plays even less hands, they're very risk averse, but they don't bleed money needlessly, and you won't see them getting felted and crashing out of the game. So it's not really about 'looking stupid' it's more about not having economy (and lifestyle) ruining civil strife, war, or annihilation. And the problem is that from the 20th century, the balance that prevents those things has become increasingly delicate at least in so far as the totality of the consequences.
I think there's plenty of centrists who fall into the former poker strategy, the tight aggressive, willing to bleed chips slowly because eventually they'll get a good hand and they'll be able to play it, and there's a good chance they'll win more than just a small amount. These are the situations where they'll move off the fence, and I am among them.
I'm not sure how many people in the middle really fear that moving off the fence will lead them to endorsing ethnic cleansing man. I don't. My concern of moving off the centre is that the payoff matrices I've been given of late are tantamount to demagogues such as the Gracchi or reform/reaction dictators such as Marius and Sulla. In a Bayesian sense, I'm not willing to move off the center until there's an above even probability that the reformer isn't going to lead to even greater problems that will leave us in a worse position than when we started.
If we take the case of the late roman republic (and it's not a guarantee that the same status is in play right now). If you play too hard in one direction (Marius), you either crush your opposition entirely, or you wind up with an even more powerful reaction in the other direction (Sulla), you set in motion forces that it's not easy to contend with. And neither of those options are good. Channeling Lee Kuan Yew, it is one of the failures of democracy, that we are consumed by the problems of the moment, and that the problems our present actions (or societal trends) may cause in the mid to long term are not even a factor. Of course, that criticism of democracy is not an endorsement of a Marian or Caeserian figure either.
The Casino analogy is a good one, though if you don't mind, I am going to switch it to something I know: Cricket (lol). The best batters always have two things - they have great defence, but they also are great attacking players, who can dominate bowling attacks. Some have different balances, with someone like Williamson being more defensive, and someone like Ponting being attacking, but all can absorb pressure, and then dominate. I accept that some centrists have to capacity to take that big bet, yet I would only see it as evidence that they can (I might be wrong here), if they occasionally strongly sway to one side, and make a big, bold call about something (you can say someone like Sam Harris is like this, fairly centre in many ways, but does make big calls). If this doesn't happen, then they are too defensively minded, to return to cricket, to be considered an intellectual force. They may be effective, they may be necessary and useful to any 'team' (the society as a whole), but they won't lead the way. And I would disagree about the looking stupid thing, because if I am right, this is the heart of a lot of centrist psychology. When it comes to intellectualism, social perception is incredibly important, and in many cases is more important than whatever the ideas or policies are (people just say it isn't - this is the point of invisible social hierarchies!). If they are more right than they are wrong, because of their heuristic, they fit in neatly to the intellectual-social hierarchy. They won't be dismissed as insane, or stupid. It's very intelligent as a social strategy. Furthermore, those sensible on the left and right would say the same things about economy not ruining civil strife, war, or annihilation. They would also accept your 'delicacy' of the situation, but lean on one side because, at the moment, this is more likely to prevent bad things from happening and to make good things happen - I am certainly in that camp.
Ah, well, that was an exaggeration - ethnic cleansing is ridiculous. But conscious prejudice? Xenophobia? Now I'm thinking whether the cricket and casino analogies were good ones, because as I said earlier, we can never even get remotely close to know the probability of a political outcome, especially today, I feel. In this way, 'the risk' in being attacking in cricket is known, where the risk in politics is never known (and only pretends to be known). Hmm, no I'm rethinking this, maybe in some cases it can known, and many cases cannot be known. I'm not sure. What I was going to say though, is based on this discussion, we would agree that the personality of a person determines their betting (or voting).
Of course, the other thing is social conformity and non-conformity. We spoke earlier about how the university centrists are only centrist in that they are just not as left-wing as everybody else. But I wonder, if in this case, there is a little bit of disagreeableness going on? That they don't want to be exactly like everyone else, and so say they aren't? But there's the reverse of this - conformity, and you mentioned reasons why, like fear of being labelled bad things. Maybe these 'left-centrists' would in other cases be right-centrists or even conservatives, but because of their environment, shift left.
I don't know of the figures you speak of, but I understand the 'demagogue problem' - though, the irony is that the status quo itself has been criticised as a group of demagogues if you like, a corrupt interlocking oligarchy of corporate leaders and civil-busy-bodies, (the uniparty), that limits the functionality of democracy. In my mind, and in many people both left and right, we have a form of tyranny right now - the claims of future tyranny seem ridiculous when it appears like no one is trying fix the current tyranny - and in fact, it is the reinforcement of the status quo, rather than the reform, that makes a future demagogue more likely.
As someone who embraces Ayn Rand's philosophy that she called Objectivism, I do see a schism developing in the world. There are actually several schisms. One religion vs. another. Those who want to control others due to their self-view of being elites. Those who want us to be free in some ways and controlled in others. No one just wanting to let us live our lives our way.
Yes, good to point out the various schisms. They are everywhere it seems, overlapping, and sometimes in competition. Our world, especially our digital world, is becoming ... smaller, more focussed and more niche. For artists ironically, this can be a good thing - you can find fans and sell your work. But in other ways, on the ground, it may affect our culture by exciting disunion. Now, in the long run (I mean loooonnnnggg run), this may be a good thing - we might birth new cultures and civilisations as our current one splits and/or dies. We'll see I guess.
Any analysis that posits Democrats and Republicans as isomorphic to some presumably ideological "Left" and "Right" is irredeemably flawed from the jump. Tiresomely so, given that I was hearing the came crap from Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter 40 years ago. And also from Bill Clinton and Mary McGrory, come to think of it. It's a game, designed to keep you housed within the Duopoly and stuck for your entire life at the level of a callow 13-year old.
Fascinating. Thanks for putting this great piece together.
No worries! Thanks for reading.
The University of Austin, Texas is one of many privately funded institutions in the US - that doesnt mean they aren’t captured. They have chosen to adhere to the qualifications framework, so they are not outside the usual capitalist paradigm. With Shellenberger appointed to a role there, I can tell you now that it is already full of contradictions. As I keep saying, our language of academic freedom, and the laws that ambiguously and arbitrarily ‘supported’ it, have been hijacked: it’s time to start again from the ground up.
Yes - the qualifications framework is a good point. However, I am interested - do you think it is the framework that is the issue, or how the framework is interpreted (an example would be grade-inflation)? Furthermore, what do you think Ivan Illich, and his learning-web/networks idea?
Wonderful writing, as usual. The information you present here is something that I think many, if not most of us on Substack have been at least tangentially aware of for some time, but seeing the numbers you present as taken from the survey you did are illuminating; grain of salt duly taken for the small sample size. It does make me wonder which way the winds will blow in the coming years/decades, with the public seeming to more openly shift against this heavy leftward lean.
Yes, it's so hard to say. I've been having discussions with family and friends about whether our Liberal Democracies will right themselves - as they have so advertised for centuries - or whether their time has come, and what we are seeing is simply the end of a decadent Empire. Of course, we could talk for hours about the warning signs, but to me, what I think is happening, is that the 'nation state' is becoming less and less important. Privatisation - and digital privatisation at that - has been shifting allegiances and incentives for decades now. We may see a future where the 'nation state' in geo-politics is but a minor consideration when compared to multi-national companies. Though the fertility-crisis is one to watch, too.