Meritocracy and narrow proceduralism inevitably produce a crony culture which has, as its "philosophy", the preservation of what the highest status members consider the conditions that made them high status. Hey, it worked, right? They are where they are, after all, and people just like them are too. The liberal crony culture's salient distinction from the conservative crony culture is a concern with achieving merit metrics that are harder to fudge, i.e. metrics that don't favor conservatives. This becomes justice. Both have the same love of seeking out a mediagenic ad hominem determination of worthiness, on an individual, case-by-specific-case basis, in which the highest ambition is setting a precedent for the next individual, case-by-specific-case basis for an ad hominem determination of worthiness, and both have a love of collective determination of worthiness, as it pertains to their own immediate needs. The conservative crony culture plays the game better, however, and in response the liberal crony culture has adopted the business model, used advisedly, of attempting to manage the race to the bottom.
That works well for them electorally when, and only when, the crony culture of the conservatives guides the race to the bottom at pace too fast and too frightening for the people whose business model is the power-tie Stakhanovite's extraction of rents. Politically, win or lose in elections, the liberal crony culture prospers. They're indispensable. Although for how much longer is an interesting question.
What makes the liberal crony culture so much more contemptible, which takes some effort with the conservatives as competition, is that they have a vague inkling that somehow, in some strange way, they've handed power to the conservatives.
And that's why it's funny when Glenn Beck targets Cass Sunstein. The spectacle of a Pillsbury Doughboy clown flailing away at a schlemiel is hilarious.
Comments (7)
gladstoned to the end
"The deference to the will of the people will go only so far "
Posted by op | September 20, 2009 2:09 PM
Posted on September 20, 2009 14:09
I'll bet the doughboy could take the egghead. It's too much to hope that they'd implode into a grease spot on collision. That would be ideal, but I doubt it's in the warp and woof.
Posted by Al Schumann | September 20, 2009 5:22 PM
Posted on September 20, 2009 17:22
«business model is the power-tie Stakhanovite's extraction of rents.»
That is another definition of the American Dream, and the politics of aspiration in the USA means that every loves that, and they cheer and salute the best at that business model.
Posted by Blissex | September 20, 2009 5:31 PM
Posted on September 20, 2009 17:31
Don't forget - the pwogs have crackpot realism and incrementalism in their mighty arsenal. The poor freepers only have petty resentment and willful ignorance.
Personally, my money is on the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man.
Posted by AlanSmithee | September 20, 2009 6:50 PM
Posted on September 20, 2009 18:50
Blissex, yeah, you're right. It's got a nasty hold that trumps everything for a hell of a lot of people.
Smithee, I wish I disagreed. Fortunately for me, I've hedged my bet on the doughboy with a tenner on the Stay-Puff dude.
Owen, I really enjoyed that Toobin article. Drum's take too. But the enjoyment is the same as chatting with a bright fellow who's going to drive off a cliff after a careful explanation, and a good one, of why doing so is such a very bad idea.
Posted by Al Schumann | September 20, 2009 7:32 PM
Posted on September 20, 2009 19:32
(Re: the links) I love how they go into all this minutia about getting things done in the Senate because Supreme Court nominations will impede it and so on--yet the minute Empire and Business need a mountain moved its Done.
I.e., I think these guys are talking about stuff that's not all that relevant. They generally operate in a bipartisan fashion when the ruling class wants something. And when they don't--all the better for us.
Posted by Peter Ward | September 20, 2009 11:56 PM
Posted on September 20, 2009 23:56
Indeed they do operate in a bipartisan fashion. You could probably say that they both have a love of collective determination of worthiness, as it pertains to their own immediate needs.
As regards the minutia, I've seen it compared to chatting with a bright fellow who's going to drive off a cliff after a careful explanation, and a good one, of why doing so is such a very bad idea. Baffling! One might think that a discussion of the physics of the impact would be trivial compared to the impact itself on the life forms undergoing it. But that's life.
Posted by Al Schumann | September 21, 2009 12:45 AM
Posted on September 21, 2009 00:45