
The deep roots of modern resentment - dashboard
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21715636-original-attempt-explain-todays-paranoid-hatreds-deep-roots-modern-resentment
======
dandare
Sometimes I feel like the more has been achieved by western liberalism the
more is it being criticized for not magically fixing everything there is to be
fixed. Coincidentally those who criticize it never offer alternative realistic
solutions.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
In my perspective, the issue is less that the critics decline to offer
alternative realistic solutions, but rather that they seek to repackage
discredited and harmful solutions (like supply-side economics) as being the
correct fix _if only it gets implemented correctly and without opposition
meddling._

This line of argument is also often used to whitewash Communism by saying
things along the line of: "Communism would work just fine if it wasn't
implemented poorly like the way China or the Soviet Union did."

It's rather troubling that in such a connected and technologically advanced
age, we can't seem help ourselves from looking to the past to organize
ourselves for the future.

~~~
stinkytaco
Perhaps part of the problem is our desire to bundle solutions into grand
theories, like supply-side economics or Marxism? I agree that we can beat a
horse over and over again until there's nothing left to see, but small changes
are how the world actually works. I can say "lowering taxes on producers of
_x_ can stimulate growth" or "increased public investment in industry _y_ will
resolve the problems it currently experiences" and those things occur all the
time. But they also don't sell books.

EDIT: Perhaps a better way of stating this is our desire to package
academically useful economic models into grand policy solutions.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yes, I think it's a big part of the problem. Packaging things together and
discussing them as _ideologies_ , instead of stripping them to components and
evaluating each component on its merits.

~~~
discreteevent
This is exactly it. It's also a good approach when constructively criticising
technical solutions. But we tend to like silver bullets too much.

------
diego_moita
As a Latin American this is very ironic and surprising.

Latin America is painfully emerging from an age of populism fed by resentment
(e.g.: Kirchner in Argentina, PT/Lula in Brazil, Chavismo in Venezuela). The
economic policies being proposed by Trump (protectionism, discretionary
subsidies for corporations, big spending...) are precisely the main cause of
our misery.

The fact that the developed world is flirting with the disaster we are trying
to fix is astonishing.

------
rdtsc
Interestingly it was specifically leftist thinkers and personalities who have
been against globalization as promoted by free-market capitalism. That might
seems shocking in light of recent election rhetoric.

[https://chomsky.info/secrets03/](https://chomsky.info/secrets03/)

\---

About half of what are called US exports to Mexico are intrafirm transfers of
this sort. They don’t enter the Mexican market, and there’s no meaningful
sense in which they’re exports to Mexico. Still, that’s called "trade."

\---

This interview by Sanders on Vox is also very illustrative:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5vOKKMipSA&t=352](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5vOKKMipSA&t=352)

\---

Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal. Ezra Klein:
Really? Bernie Sanders: Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says
essentially there is no United States. ...

\---

It is sad really. People keep calling those who voted and promoted Hillary
"the left" but there is not much "left" left in there. Trump apparently took
the traditional bread-and-butter leftist issues NAFTA and jobs and ran with
it. Whether he cares for those things or not, at least he picked them up. So
the Democrats ended up with identity politics, mixed with corporatism. They
are trying to appeal to Occupy Wall St. and also give $200k speeches to Wall
St., they are for gay rights but also take donations from states which throw
gays off of buildings. It was rather upsetting when during the nightclub
shooting in Orlando, Hillary's campaign and the rest of the media moved
quickly to suppress the news because it involved a what apparently an Islamic
Terrorist attack. I know a few gay people who never quite got over that and
never forgot it...

Moreover on identity politics and the left. Has Marx never wrote anything
about labeling groups correctly so they don't get offended? It was always
about being very offended, specifically offending the ownership class and not
just offending them, but annihilating them.

Maybe one good thing about Trump winning is that it cleared the table for
creation of a new political party. A more authentic left party. Those people
who followed Sanders what happened to them? There such tremendous energy
there. Is it wasted on boycotting Uber, and re-tweeting the same things over
and over... I am afraid it is.

~~~
martincmartin
The Economist has previously mused that the old distinction between "left" and
"right" isn't as relevant any more. Instead, the extreemes on both the left
and right have a lot in common, they're both "drawbridge up:" don't like free
trade or open borders.

~~~
kmicklas
That's classic horseshoe theory nonsense.

~~~
rdtsc
Surely you can explain more than that

------
Animats
It's our fault, in tech. We've created a world where there's no good role for
anyone with an IQ below 100. That's half the population.

This is a new thing in history. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, there were
more smart people than jobs for them. Strength and robustness were more valued
than brainpower. That lasted well into the 20th century.

The big change started during WWII. For the first time, war started to become
more technical and bureaucratic than macho. There had always been some
military heavy thinkers, but only a few were needed, at command and general
staff level. In WWII, there were a lot more people turning knobs, reading
dials, making calculations, and writing plans, and they were moving up in
authority.

Post-WWII, there was enough work for everybody for a while. But automation and
mechanization were starting to be widely deployed. A milestone was reached in
1974, when auto companies in Detroit started requiring a high school diploma
for new hires. Until then, they'd hire anyone who could tighten a bolt, and
paid well enough that employees could afford a house, car, and family.

1974 was the peak year for the American working class. It's been a slow
downhill slide since then for people with high school diplomas and less.

This was all before computers were widely available. Computers accelerated
this process, but more than that, they broadened it. Detroit was highly
automated by the 1970s. Now almost every business can be. Businesses that
couldn't keep up went under. The US is full of abandoned factories in small
towns and cities.

This has taken away the support system which provided stability, and
prosperity in the developed world. That's where Trump voters came from. The
system betrayed them. Of course they're angry.

~~~
martincmartin
Then how do you explain earlier bouts of populism, like Huey Long? Liberalism
has had its challengers ever since it existed.

------
jwhitlark
It took >100,000 years for humans to spread across the globe. Reuniting them
in a far shorter span of time was always going to be a messy process.

I'm not saying we're doing everything right, I'm just saying it's amazing that
we're able to do it at all.

------
pklausler
As a liberal, I have to admit to feeling stung by ingratitude for 2009. Rust-
belt auto workers ain't ever getting bailed out again.

------
basicplus2
There are fundamental beliefs and strictural issues which are present in any
system that allow a few to own and control a majority of the worlds assets and
income, and that do not value all people equally, that need to be changed.

To start to fix some of these issues in the Western System, one of the first
steps that is required to take is to only allow all company and trust entity
shares and interests to be owned SOLEY by REAL PERSONS, and all such
owenership should be public knowledge.

------
peterashford
I think the problem isn't liberalism, per se, but neo liberalism. The fact
that the market hasn't made for an egalitarian society, but one that is
markedly lopsided in terms of distribution of wealth. THAT is a problem, but
not necessarily one that requires demolishing liberalism, democracy nor
capitalism.

------
jankotek
Elites are really closed in their own bubble. "Nihilists" and terrorist
attacks :-(

------
known
Voting in elections is hegemony, NOT democracy due to
economist.com/node/21715555/

------
guard-of-terra
Unfortunately this article doesn't penetrate this extremelly important topic.
It doesn't arrive anywhere.

> Ceaseless change gave birth to liberalism, which, for all the mistakes made
> in its name, continues to adapt. Despite those mistakes, it remains the best
> response today.

I mean, seriously? That's proof by assertion.

~~~
iak8god
This "article" is a book review. The author of the review is trying in 1200
words to give the reader of this review a sense for what the 400+ page book is
about -- not to present a compelling and penetrating argument for any
particular point of view.

~~~
guard-of-terra
This means I don't like book reviews on HN, that's like paywall but worse.

------
coding123
I think there are two major ways liberals and conservatives think. Liberals
tend to come up with solutions to problems they see over and over again.
Conservatives are more like, hey look at Joe, he needs some help, can someone
get him food and see why he's doing so poorly.

It's odd, but when you think about systems vs single solutions, liberals like
to think of the "systemic solution" so it doesn't happen again. A Factory
explodes? Regulation is the answer. A baby is switched at birth? We need much
more complicated computer systems to track babies. etc...

Conservatives are more like, oh shit, that WONT happen again, we promise. And
likely it doesn't or rarely does.

I'm not really arguing which of these routes is better here, but I see more
and more that these opposite ways of thinking is the crux of our anti-trusting
of the other side. I think the only way they will is if we, as a people, try
to sit in each other's shoes more.

What's funny as an interesting parable, I see the liberal route of making
rules (to save lives, stop mis-matched babies) as procedural/imperative
programming.

The conservative route of simply fixing the problems that went wrong as a
social fix as a machine learning.

