Meet Craazyman: “Craazyman is the fake name for a Racket subscriber who is a nobody by standards of public life. Just like you, dear reader! But we both like Enlightenment values, that's for sure. We'll tolerate experts, but we love honest seekers of any kind. Cute fluffy kittens are OK too. So are seals.”
I have to wonder when seeing Putin with an (independently verified) 87% approval rating. Is it because he's making an honest case for his policies? I think the answer is yes. For some reason, our government not only censors but is wrong about the most important things. Biden and all other western leaders are constrained to say stupid things such as covid has a natural origin (at best we don't know for sure), nobody knows who blew up Nord Stream (even though we were all formerly saying that Putin did it), Putin has already lost the Ukraine War, if you get the vax you won't get covid, Putin hacked our elections and is responsible for Trump's presidency, ISIS-K committed the terrorist attack in Moscow -- we know for sure that nobody else (such as Ukraine) could possibly have had anything to do with this, etc. etc. As Jeffrey Sachs says, our leaders just routinely lie because they've screwed up in the past and won't face up to their mistakes, and the current lying, in turn, is screwing up the future. Then they double down by trying to eliminate the truth in the guise of stopping misinformation. This is incompetence of epic proportions, and most of the world sees this for what it is. As the truth dawns on our liberal elite, we see them starting to go silent as they think about how to cut their losses. The Ukrainian flags, "I believe science is real" signs, etc are all now markers of naivety and are quietly being disposed of. Jimmy Kimmel and Steven Colbert are about as cool as Lawrence Welk and John Wayne were in the 1970s -- i.e. hopelessly out of touch. Hollywood no longer sets the pace for culture, but rather has fallen way behind events on the ground. Putin is more popular than any western leader for good reason -- he's more in touch with reality.
When you hit 87% it is itself a lie or you simply have the level of government media control that this entire conversation is pushing back against.
However, all of your other points are great ones. In particular I always laugh at how people who still believe Russiagate are aghast at election deniers. Hello, you ARE election deniers.
I also really like your point about Lawrence Welk, how Steven Colbert now represents the out-of-touch mainstream old school that we are pushing back against.
I always go back to - you want me to believe what the President says incredulously or listen to what critical voices who echo the lauded criticism of the past say. Heck, Van Morrison and Eric Clapton are both lauded critics or the status quo in the past and in the present You want me to throw them overboard and embrace Joe Biden('s staffers puppeteering)?
87% approval seems like something a leader might get in an existential environment such as war against NATO. Putin's in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of Russians. And, unpleaseant as it seems, that includes controlling the press and the democratic process so as to marginalize the opposition. That seems like an inherent contradiction in our democratic ideal -- people will support an undemocratic leader who is acting in their best interests in other respects. There are tradeoffs between majority rule and minority rights. Minority right may be a product of success for the majority as much as a principled foundation for government. The Biden Administration's anti-democratic policies would be much more popular if the administration was competent with regard to the basics. My view is that we'll eventually get a successful authoritarian leader who will then have some room to support freedom of the press, third parties, etc. Putin is not as draconian as depicted in the west because he doesn't need to be.
I don't follow your logic at all. If the 87% is achieved by control of the media and propaganda, it is not a representation of inherent support but only a measure of the level of dominance of your message control, and likely, the ability to create a strong fear of not answering with a thumbs up and a smile. In other words, it ceases to matter if it's measured accurately or not, because no one should care about what it measures.
It's like doing a survey on how much people like a restaurant where if someone gives a five star review they get to enter a sweepstakes to win money, but they get no entry if they answer four and a half or lower. Wow, we got 4.8 stars, we're awesome! Pat on the back to us!
A big part of our unhappiness with censorship is that the truth is being censored. If lies are being censored, then that can increase a leaders popularity. Of course, that's a double-edged sword, but there's no denying that it's working in Russia at the moment. At least, that's how I see it...
And then, in hindsight (because I didn’t get it at the time) I see my government can simply shut down people’s bank accounts for protesting. Arrest them. Shadow ban them. Tilt media coverage.
All that inconvenience…..led my elected officials to throw out any Charter Of Rights (or fill in here The Constitution or whatever sacrosanct ironclad document western democracies have brilliantly arrived at previously with the wisdom of time and experience)
Jesus Christ! I did not agree with several aspects of the protestors’ claims - but at this stage I fully stand behind their rights to not be censored or destroyed.
Who decides who should be heard? Definitely NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
Well, I have to give you credit for making me think about this. But my conclusion is that, aligned with my longtime thinking that Bush 43 and the Neocons' push of NATO eastward fueled Putin's rise and strength, Putin's high approvals are based on the fact that he's largely judged by his people on a foreign policy scale where NATO looms large.
The piece I link here makes the best case I've seen. Basically, for 60-65% of the Russian populace, they are stuck in a societal and economic development mode very much less mature than the West, which the writer covers as ""developed in a semi-feudal rural environment before being forced to rapidly urbanize in collectivist conditions... without going through the school of capitalism". As such, they are more tribal and clannish in thinking, and informal actions and words in support of Russia's great power status is highly prized. The next 15% also highly prize the NATO conflict specifically, and come to support him when that flares up.
They also don't hold him responsible for economic issues in any way, though he obviously is. They say that is the realm of the Parliament and Prime Minister, and that any woes are carefully shed off on Yeltsin and the oligarchs' corruption and crimes. That portion is entirely dependent on his control of the media, of course, there are no alternative viewpoints circulated on that topic so he gets off scot free on economic issues he's entirely responsible for. He prosecutes an oligarch when needed to scapegoat someone for an economic ill plaguing the people. Lovely.
The takeaway from all of this is exactly what many of us knew before the war though: this is a clash of cultures, not something where one can remove Putin and this Ukraine fight goes away. The US's policy is horrible in this arena to be sure. Should have brokered peace in Jan 2022.
Putin is a product of the Russian system. He's not a particularly charsimatic or populist except in the fact that he's successfully halted the bleeding (economic, cultural, and military) and returned Russia to great power status.
In my studies of Russia under Putin, I've seen a double standard with regard to western perspectives. For example, you say,
"He prosecutes an oligarch when needed to scapegoat someone for an economic ill plaguing the people."
I'm sure there is some truth to that. I'm also sure that there's quite a bit of that in every country, including especially the United States. The more relevant question is how does Putin's Russia do in comparison to what he inherited and what we have in the west. I'll quote from the late Russian scholar Stephen Cohen in "Who Putin is Not" (https://archive.ph/FKqW1):
<beginquote>
Nor did Putin create post–Soviet Russia’s “kleptocratic economic system,” with its oligarchic and other widespread corruption. This too took shape under Yeltsin during the Kremlin’s shock-therapy “privatization” schemes of the 1990s, when the “swindlers and thieves” still denounced by today’s opposition actually emerged.
Putin has adopted a number of “anti-corruption” policies over the years. How successful they have been is the subject of legitimate debate. As are how much power he has had to rein in fully both Yeltsin’s oligarchs and his own, and how sincere he has been. But branding Putin “a kleptocrat” also lacks context and is little more than barely informed demonizing.
A recent scholarly book finds, for example, that while they may be “corrupt,” Putin “and the liberal technocratic economic team on which he relies have also skillfully managed Russia’s economic fortunes.” A former IMF director goes further, concluding that Putin’s current economic team does not “tolerate corruption” and that “Russia now ranks 35th out of 190 in the World Bank’s Doing Business ratings. It was at 124 in 2010.”
I'm not sure what evidence you have of me having a double standard. If I mentioned that someone is a murderer, it's not a double standard for not naming murders committed by their ideological opponents. I am analyzing Putin's power and use of it, not comparing it to other countries.
Hopefully you read my words carefully enough to see that I blamed Yeltsin for kleptocracy and not Putin, so you're arguing with prepossessions from other conversations, not with me.
Putin leveraged the kleptocracy and it was fundamental to his success, though. Putin was able to seize power and stay in power with a nice judo move: dear oligarchs, I see what you have done and I know how to make you pay if I so choose. But, I would like to rule over all of this, so in return for your support of me, you keep everything, unless and until you step out of line.
With regard to the double standard, I think that is true of the West in general. With regard to you specifically, who do you see as a better world leader than Putin?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply -- don't mean to say that you don't make some good points.
Fair enough. I think he's an exceptionally effective world leader. Corruption has been greatly reduced under his leadership, Russia's economy has prospered, and (in stark comparison to the United States, & its western allies) Russia is now experiencing a surge in civic pride.
Love this addition to Racket News! Maybe you could pin the "Nailed It" comment so it's easy to find? I do enjoy scrolling through the comments, but it would also be great if commenter of the week was at or near the top. 😁 Thank you Matt! For all of your writing, etc; keep up the great work!
She doesn’t understand because she never had to compete in the world of ideas. Questioning her would be Oppressive. So, she was never challenged. In the name of The Good. Ironically and tragically, it kept her from fully developing whatever talents she had.
do you actually think she's never had her views challenged? c'mon, let's be real here. i constantly see quips like these and i often wonder if mister sparks is being truthful, or that they've never been to law school / any decent undergrad program(s) where related ideas are commonly discussed. it's not as bad as portrayed on various media (though there are some ridiculisms and it has gotten worse)
so many of these farcical statements like the aforementioned really make me wonder whether any of these people graduated a decent undergrad program, let alone grad - academia isn't that "off" as you might think unless you never attended one. (yes it's gotten worse - but it's not all dei, not a majority, and many departments have in fact gotten more conservative over the years due to the amount of students from less developed countries getting in grad programs etc. - ie asian and indian students in physics / math phds, and so on)
and that's not a quip towards you, simply to stop believing the various mischaracterizations out there mistaking the forest from the trees.
Actually I have a BSc from MIT and MSc from Northwestern. Five of six kids/kids in law are college graduates, some with advanced degrees. One a lawyer. All report the same thing. Corporate America too
i simply don't believe that she's never been challenged - she has. and i frankly don't believe you and characterization of the situation, leading me to question whether you are being truthful here, that's all.
things have gotten "worse" in some ways no doubt, but it's not univeral to the point that a supreme court justice wouldn't have her views questioned because of racial issues etc. that's mad.
"Believe" whatever you want. It's actually not just that protected classes don't get challenged in traditionally ways (ie, having to support a position) they are actually allowed to bully others who might disagree. It's human nature, whether black, white or greeen; man or woman. It's the rare person who is handed unaccountable power and doesn't misuse it. ESPECIALLY one who is ambitious, which you'd have to be to have ultimately ended up on SCOTUS. "Protected Classes" have the power in nearly all institutions now. But, believe what you want.
A BIG irony here is that KBJ is representative of nothing if not the elite class that has zero connection to the actual population. None of the anointed 9 are. Nor are Uni Presidents, etc. Bureacrats all, despite various enthicities and heritages.
As Matt & GG discussed recently, these ppl are ALL in the same camp. Class is the issue, much moreso than anything else. And keeping the mute button on that issue firmly pressed is why it is so goddamned hard to see any real change. Its highly effective. It's also why something like a 'Trump phenomenon' has taken on such a massive chunk of our collective attention.
there's no way one attends law school and doesn't get their views challenged, especially any in the top 20 - sorry but no. let alone in any decent undergrad programs that broach related subjects. the whole point of post structuralism is that sole narratives are dead, meaning there are other narratives in addition to what xx person says their one is -
She checked Genocide Joe's demographic boxes, including being a pro-censorship corporatist and reliable shill. The Bill of Rights is all about "hamstringing" government but she doesn't care.
Government, and by that I mean its employees at virtually every level, has very little faith in the wisdom of its subjects. So worrying that we might all be misled and ignore the clearly superior guidance of our Government betters falls right in line with the general hubris.
It takes a craazyman to talk some sense these days apparently. I like this new feature. It is conversational.
I LOVE this new feature where readers are connected to other readers' ideas
Thanks Matt!!
Way to go, craazyman! Fifteen minutes of anonymous fame? Put it on your resume that you “nailed it!”
I’m a bit jealous.
Nicely done "Craazyman"!
something to strive for
American Government is Of, By and For *ITSELF* and the People can go to Hell.
I have to wonder when seeing Putin with an (independently verified) 87% approval rating. Is it because he's making an honest case for his policies? I think the answer is yes. For some reason, our government not only censors but is wrong about the most important things. Biden and all other western leaders are constrained to say stupid things such as covid has a natural origin (at best we don't know for sure), nobody knows who blew up Nord Stream (even though we were all formerly saying that Putin did it), Putin has already lost the Ukraine War, if you get the vax you won't get covid, Putin hacked our elections and is responsible for Trump's presidency, ISIS-K committed the terrorist attack in Moscow -- we know for sure that nobody else (such as Ukraine) could possibly have had anything to do with this, etc. etc. As Jeffrey Sachs says, our leaders just routinely lie because they've screwed up in the past and won't face up to their mistakes, and the current lying, in turn, is screwing up the future. Then they double down by trying to eliminate the truth in the guise of stopping misinformation. This is incompetence of epic proportions, and most of the world sees this for what it is. As the truth dawns on our liberal elite, we see them starting to go silent as they think about how to cut their losses. The Ukrainian flags, "I believe science is real" signs, etc are all now markers of naivety and are quietly being disposed of. Jimmy Kimmel and Steven Colbert are about as cool as Lawrence Welk and John Wayne were in the 1970s -- i.e. hopelessly out of touch. Hollywood no longer sets the pace for culture, but rather has fallen way behind events on the ground. Putin is more popular than any western leader for good reason -- he's more in touch with reality.
When you hit 87% it is itself a lie or you simply have the level of government media control that this entire conversation is pushing back against.
However, all of your other points are great ones. In particular I always laugh at how people who still believe Russiagate are aghast at election deniers. Hello, you ARE election deniers.
I also really like your point about Lawrence Welk, how Steven Colbert now represents the out-of-touch mainstream old school that we are pushing back against.
I always go back to - you want me to believe what the President says incredulously or listen to what critical voices who echo the lauded criticism of the past say. Heck, Van Morrison and Eric Clapton are both lauded critics or the status quo in the past and in the present You want me to throw them overboard and embrace Joe Biden('s staffers puppeteering)?
87% approval seems like something a leader might get in an existential environment such as war against NATO. Putin's in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of Russians. And, unpleaseant as it seems, that includes controlling the press and the democratic process so as to marginalize the opposition. That seems like an inherent contradiction in our democratic ideal -- people will support an undemocratic leader who is acting in their best interests in other respects. There are tradeoffs between majority rule and minority rights. Minority right may be a product of success for the majority as much as a principled foundation for government. The Biden Administration's anti-democratic policies would be much more popular if the administration was competent with regard to the basics. My view is that we'll eventually get a successful authoritarian leader who will then have some room to support freedom of the press, third parties, etc. Putin is not as draconian as depicted in the west because he doesn't need to be.
I don't follow your logic at all. If the 87% is achieved by control of the media and propaganda, it is not a representation of inherent support but only a measure of the level of dominance of your message control, and likely, the ability to create a strong fear of not answering with a thumbs up and a smile. In other words, it ceases to matter if it's measured accurately or not, because no one should care about what it measures.
It's like doing a survey on how much people like a restaurant where if someone gives a five star review they get to enter a sweepstakes to win money, but they get no entry if they answer four and a half or lower. Wow, we got 4.8 stars, we're awesome! Pat on the back to us!
Success breeds popularity.
A big part of our unhappiness with censorship is that the truth is being censored. If lies are being censored, then that can increase a leaders popularity. Of course, that's a double-edged sword, but there's no denying that it's working in Russia at the moment. At least, that's how I see it...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/03/29/where_is_the_political_courage_on_the_right_150717.html
And then, in hindsight (because I didn’t get it at the time) I see my government can simply shut down people’s bank accounts for protesting. Arrest them. Shadow ban them. Tilt media coverage.
All that inconvenience…..led my elected officials to throw out any Charter Of Rights (or fill in here The Constitution or whatever sacrosanct ironclad document western democracies have brilliantly arrived at previously with the wisdom of time and experience)
Jesus Christ! I did not agree with several aspects of the protestors’ claims - but at this stage I fully stand behind their rights to not be censored or destroyed.
Who decides who should be heard? Definitely NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
Well, I have to give you credit for making me think about this. But my conclusion is that, aligned with my longtime thinking that Bush 43 and the Neocons' push of NATO eastward fueled Putin's rise and strength, Putin's high approvals are based on the fact that he's largely judged by his people on a foreign policy scale where NATO looms large.
https://russiapost.info/politics/ratings_pu
The piece I link here makes the best case I've seen. Basically, for 60-65% of the Russian populace, they are stuck in a societal and economic development mode very much less mature than the West, which the writer covers as ""developed in a semi-feudal rural environment before being forced to rapidly urbanize in collectivist conditions... without going through the school of capitalism". As such, they are more tribal and clannish in thinking, and informal actions and words in support of Russia's great power status is highly prized. The next 15% also highly prize the NATO conflict specifically, and come to support him when that flares up.
They also don't hold him responsible for economic issues in any way, though he obviously is. They say that is the realm of the Parliament and Prime Minister, and that any woes are carefully shed off on Yeltsin and the oligarchs' corruption and crimes. That portion is entirely dependent on his control of the media, of course, there are no alternative viewpoints circulated on that topic so he gets off scot free on economic issues he's entirely responsible for. He prosecutes an oligarch when needed to scapegoat someone for an economic ill plaguing the people. Lovely.
The takeaway from all of this is exactly what many of us knew before the war though: this is a clash of cultures, not something where one can remove Putin and this Ukraine fight goes away. The US's policy is horrible in this arena to be sure. Should have brokered peace in Jan 2022.
Putin is a product of the Russian system. He's not a particularly charsimatic or populist except in the fact that he's successfully halted the bleeding (economic, cultural, and military) and returned Russia to great power status.
In my studies of Russia under Putin, I've seen a double standard with regard to western perspectives. For example, you say,
"He prosecutes an oligarch when needed to scapegoat someone for an economic ill plaguing the people."
I'm sure there is some truth to that. I'm also sure that there's quite a bit of that in every country, including especially the United States. The more relevant question is how does Putin's Russia do in comparison to what he inherited and what we have in the west. I'll quote from the late Russian scholar Stephen Cohen in "Who Putin is Not" (https://archive.ph/FKqW1):
<beginquote>
Nor did Putin create post–Soviet Russia’s “kleptocratic economic system,” with its oligarchic and other widespread corruption. This too took shape under Yeltsin during the Kremlin’s shock-therapy “privatization” schemes of the 1990s, when the “swindlers and thieves” still denounced by today’s opposition actually emerged.
Putin has adopted a number of “anti-corruption” policies over the years. How successful they have been is the subject of legitimate debate. As are how much power he has had to rein in fully both Yeltsin’s oligarchs and his own, and how sincere he has been. But branding Putin “a kleptocrat” also lacks context and is little more than barely informed demonizing.
A recent scholarly book finds, for example, that while they may be “corrupt,” Putin “and the liberal technocratic economic team on which he relies have also skillfully managed Russia’s economic fortunes.” A former IMF director goes further, concluding that Putin’s current economic team does not “tolerate corruption” and that “Russia now ranks 35th out of 190 in the World Bank’s Doing Business ratings. It was at 124 in 2010.”
</endquote>
I'm not sure what evidence you have of me having a double standard. If I mentioned that someone is a murderer, it's not a double standard for not naming murders committed by their ideological opponents. I am analyzing Putin's power and use of it, not comparing it to other countries.
Hopefully you read my words carefully enough to see that I blamed Yeltsin for kleptocracy and not Putin, so you're arguing with prepossessions from other conversations, not with me.
Putin leveraged the kleptocracy and it was fundamental to his success, though. Putin was able to seize power and stay in power with a nice judo move: dear oligarchs, I see what you have done and I know how to make you pay if I so choose. But, I would like to rule over all of this, so in return for your support of me, you keep everything, unless and until you step out of line.
Putin didn't "seize power".
With regard to the double standard, I think that is true of the West in general. With regard to you specifically, who do you see as a better world leader than Putin?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply -- don't mean to say that you don't make some good points.
I am interested in analyzing Putin's power and the use of it, but not interested in comparing to other countries thx.
Fair enough. I think he's an exceptionally effective world leader. Corruption has been greatly reduced under his leadership, Russia's economy has prospered, and (in stark comparison to the United States, & its western allies) Russia is now experiencing a surge in civic pride.
Can Craazyman take Brown Jackson's place on the Court? He seems to have a much better grasp of the Constitution.
Love this addition to Racket News! Maybe you could pin the "Nailed It" comment so it's easy to find? I do enjoy scrolling through the comments, but it would also be great if commenter of the week was at or near the top. 😁 Thank you Matt! For all of your writing, etc; keep up the great work!
She doesn’t understand because she never had to compete in the world of ideas. Questioning her would be Oppressive. So, she was never challenged. In the name of The Good. Ironically and tragically, it kept her from fully developing whatever talents she had.
do you actually think she's never had her views challenged? c'mon, let's be real here. i constantly see quips like these and i often wonder if mister sparks is being truthful, or that they've never been to law school / any decent undergrad program(s) where related ideas are commonly discussed. it's not as bad as portrayed on various media (though there are some ridiculisms and it has gotten worse)
so many of these farcical statements like the aforementioned really make me wonder whether any of these people graduated a decent undergrad program, let alone grad - academia isn't that "off" as you might think unless you never attended one. (yes it's gotten worse - but it's not all dei, not a majority, and many departments have in fact gotten more conservative over the years due to the amount of students from less developed countries getting in grad programs etc. - ie asian and indian students in physics / math phds, and so on)
and that's not a quip towards you, simply to stop believing the various mischaracterizations out there mistaking the forest from the trees.
Actually I have a BSc from MIT and MSc from Northwestern. Five of six kids/kids in law are college graduates, some with advanced degrees. One a lawyer. All report the same thing. Corporate America too
i simply don't believe that she's never been challenged - she has. and i frankly don't believe you and characterization of the situation, leading me to question whether you are being truthful here, that's all.
things have gotten "worse" in some ways no doubt, but it's not univeral to the point that a supreme court justice wouldn't have her views questioned because of racial issues etc. that's mad.
"Believe" whatever you want. It's actually not just that protected classes don't get challenged in traditionally ways (ie, having to support a position) they are actually allowed to bully others who might disagree. It's human nature, whether black, white or greeen; man or woman. It's the rare person who is handed unaccountable power and doesn't misuse it. ESPECIALLY one who is ambitious, which you'd have to be to have ultimately ended up on SCOTUS. "Protected Classes" have the power in nearly all institutions now. But, believe what you want.
A BIG irony here is that KBJ is representative of nothing if not the elite class that has zero connection to the actual population. None of the anointed 9 are. Nor are Uni Presidents, etc. Bureacrats all, despite various enthicities and heritages.
As Matt & GG discussed recently, these ppl are ALL in the same camp. Class is the issue, much moreso than anything else. And keeping the mute button on that issue firmly pressed is why it is so goddamned hard to see any real change. Its highly effective. It's also why something like a 'Trump phenomenon' has taken on such a massive chunk of our collective attention.
there's no way one attends law school and doesn't get their views challenged, especially any in the top 20 - sorry but no. let alone in any decent undergrad programs that broach related subjects. the whole point of post structuralism is that sole narratives are dead, meaning there are other narratives in addition to what xx person says their one is -
just try and be nuanced next time.
Nailed It! comments deserve a pin.
I love this new feature!
"Why Does A Supreme Court Justice Not Understand This?"
Never been taught or encouraged to?
A Supreme Court Justice (inexplicably) appointed for life, turns out to be something like an empress with no (mental) clothes.
She checked Genocide Joe's demographic boxes, including being a pro-censorship corporatist and reliable shill. The Bill of Rights is all about "hamstringing" government but she doesn't care.
Man, I was really pulling for that scissoring guy
Government, and by that I mean its employees at virtually every level, has very little faith in the wisdom of its subjects. So worrying that we might all be misled and ignore the clearly superior guidance of our Government betters falls right in line with the general hubris.
Gross generalization, I'm afraid...