But I don't think this explains all of the Right's obsession.
1/People I know on the Right tend to be obsessed with the idea of "crimethink", taboos, and the (supposedly) oppressive, omnipresent enforcement of liberal cultural norms.
Why?
My new theory: A lot of it is guilt.
But I don't think this explains all of the Right's obsession.
But I don't think that's all of it either.
But I don't think this is all of it, either.
I get the sense that they're not just afraid of external censure, but have also internalized liberal norms.
In other words, we're not just a "shame society", we're a "guilt society" as well.
It lets them externalize the locus of control.
More from Noah Smith
Today's @bopinion post is about how poor countries started catching up to rich ones.
It looks like decolonization just took a few decades to start
Basic econ theory says poor countries should grow faster than rich ones.
But for much of the Industrial Revolution, the opposite happened.
https://t.co/JjjVtWzz5c
Why? Probably because the first countries to discover industrial technologies used them to conquer the others!
But then colonial empires went away. And yet still, for the next 30 years or so, poor countries fell further behind rich ones.
https://t.co/hilDvv0IQV
Why??
Possible reasons:
1. Bad institutions (dictators, communism, autarkic trade regimes)
2. Civil wars
3. Lack of education
But then, starting in the 80s (for China) and the 90s (for India and Indonesia), some of the biggest poor countries got their acts together and started to catch up!
Global inequality began to fall.
It looks like decolonization just took a few decades to start
Basic econ theory says poor countries should grow faster than rich ones.
But for much of the Industrial Revolution, the opposite happened.
https://t.co/JjjVtWzz5c
Why? Probably because the first countries to discover industrial technologies used them to conquer the others!
But then colonial empires went away. And yet still, for the next 30 years or so, poor countries fell further behind rich ones.
https://t.co/hilDvv0IQV
Why??
Possible reasons:
1. Bad institutions (dictators, communism, autarkic trade regimes)
2. Civil wars
3. Lack of education
But then, starting in the 80s (for China) and the 90s (for India and Indonesia), some of the biggest poor countries got their acts together and started to catch up!
Global inequality began to fall.
Krugman is, of course, right about this. BUT, note that universities can do a lot to revitalize declining and rural regions.
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
One thing I've been noticing about responses to today's column is that many people still don't get how strong the forces behind regional divergence are, and how hard to reverse 1/ https://t.co/Ft2aH1NcQt
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 20, 2018
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
More from Society
Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+
Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+
It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+
My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.
But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+
Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+
\u0926\u0947\u0936 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092a\u0939\u0932\u0940 \u092c\u093e\u0930 \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3
— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) March 12, 2021
\u0926\u0947\u0936\u092d\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0940 \u0938\u094d\u092a\u0947\u0936\u0932 \u0915\u094d\u0932\u093e\u0938 \u0932\u0917\u093e\u090f\u0917\u0940 @ArvindKejriwal \u0938\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0964
\u090f\u0915 \u092a\u093e\u0920\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0930\u092e \u092c\u0928\u093e\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u093e, \u091c\u093f\u0938\u0938\u0947 \u092c\u091a\u094d\u091a\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0915\u0942\u091f \u0915\u0942\u091f \u0915\u0930 \u0926\u0947\u0936\u092d\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u092d\u0930\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u0940\u0964 pic.twitter.com/iO6WMBh4YG
Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+
It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+
My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.
But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+
Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+
