Silicon Valley billionaire Marc Andreessen has made his first public statement on the problem & opportunity presented by the Department of Gov’t Efficiency in saving America from death by bureaucracy & debt in an interview with the most winsome man in media, Peter Robinson.
1.) Peter Robinson's job is to be a skeptical journalist and to bring his experience to bear, 2.) the separation-of-powers and governmental status of DOGE is vague, and may turn out to be fatally problematic (see the questions raised by Naomi Wolf and Emerald Robinson here: https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/emerald-and-naomi-tech-bro-transhumanism), 3.) Andreesen is not young, and conservatives should wonder what it says about his core beliefs that he supported the Dems well into his adult years, 4.) my sense is that Steve Bannon has better instincts about the tech bros than most Trump-worlders do, and like me, and like the Hamilton of the Report on Manufactures, he would reject the Andreesen-idea (33:00-ish) that "our civilization is founded on technology" or that it is the key marker of human potential and glory.
5.) You ask, jumping off of your not noticing enthusiasm for DOGE, "Are conservatives dead intellectually or politically?" My larger reply, which I urge you take with utmost seriousness, is this: "If they don't repent soon of the Suppression they have been involved in, and insist that Trump cease his participation in it, they will be dead ethically." Any quantitative American Renewal will be rotted out from the inside if we don't see decisive conservative leadership to Make American Honest Enough Again. That will be impossible if conservative leaders, including Peter Robinson, refuse to level with the people about how and why they helped suppress all discussion about the greatest ongoing disaster, which not incidentally was a tech disaster, of our time.
Well, my other comment here was made in a fit of pique, or early morning coffee--something. My lonely fear of 2025 destroying the soul of conservativism is in there also, but that's better left for other discussions. I apologize for it's tone.
But look, Titus has studied some of Andreesen's writings and statements, and has reported that he has an open and questing mind. His report is enough for me to trust that he's more one to watch, in terms of intellectual development, than Musk, etc. What Wolf and E. Robinson asked about DOGE three or so weeks ago is worth pondering as we go forward, but we still don't know what it will turn out to be. Maybe just an advisory cmte. Obviously, we ought to wish its mission the best.
Somehow, the two demands must be connected -- the demand of morality & the demand of efficiency. I'm not sure how we're going to get there. I think taking responsibility for gov't, for the state (as opposed to the constitutional gov't) will come easier to people & feels more urgent for most people who are now active or who support the new admin. I hope that will lead, by way of the need to tell the truth to the American people about what's going on, to the moral concern for freedom, to the 'truth & reconciliation' about COVID.
I don't have any insider knowledge, of course, I only judge by the publicly available knowledge. I've modest hopes.
Dear Titus, the only word I'd change in your very informative and incisive summary cum commentary was I'd change "tyranny" to "hegemon." I know you like a certain pungent rhetoric ... .
Normally, I'd agree. Reading the Greek historians again, as I am, I hurry to agree, in fact. But there is a reason for the rhetoric -- I think the wars of the 21st c. have changed the character of that hegemony.
The enforcing of "blob" rule against democratic regimes in Central Europe makes problems worse -- that was the great anti- & post-Communist expansion of American generosity. But not these days. The coming conflicts over NATO & China in Western Europe will again strain the credibility of hegemony.
It's hard to say which way American policy will turn; obviously, a return to freedom & a limit on expansion would be good for Americans, but that might not matter as much as imperial strength -- so far, it seems like that strength requires turning hegemony into increasingly naked tyranny, no doubt an attractive vision. It's easy to see how much American power remains to be unleashed; hard to see how Americans will be persuaded to do so any time soon, however: Americans are as skeptical of the war-making power as anyone under their hegemony... I think partly that's because people find it harder to believe American power is wielded well, or even innocently. A strange time-
This may help explain my understanding of the distinction: hegemony = a ruler state dictates the foreign policy of subordinated states, while allowing them freedom within, but also does its best to have "its people" in charge (call me a hypocrite!); tyranny is total control of policy and personnel. I'm open to correction or improvement. Your point that things have changed because of the 21st century is undeniable. How that effects foreign policy with enemies (which currently include European and English elites, the WEF, the WHO, the UN, Bill Gates, Larry Fink) and friends (Hungary, Costa Rico, Argentina) is a great question.
Yes, agreed -- that regime change used to be more eagerly or willingly accepted than now; the regime towards imperial clients & marches were changing used to be more prestigious & believable, too.
By degrees, it seems that both the character of the empire & its reliability are coming into question.
Partly, it's the consequence of success, or the vice of our virtues. After all, Trump has had much more to fear from the CIA & FBI helping ban him from social media &c. than from any foreign danger. That's true a fortiori of most of us.
1.) Peter Robinson's job is to be a skeptical journalist and to bring his experience to bear, 2.) the separation-of-powers and governmental status of DOGE is vague, and may turn out to be fatally problematic (see the questions raised by Naomi Wolf and Emerald Robinson here: https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/emerald-and-naomi-tech-bro-transhumanism), 3.) Andreesen is not young, and conservatives should wonder what it says about his core beliefs that he supported the Dems well into his adult years, 4.) my sense is that Steve Bannon has better instincts about the tech bros than most Trump-worlders do, and like me, and like the Hamilton of the Report on Manufactures, he would reject the Andreesen-idea (33:00-ish) that "our civilization is founded on technology" or that it is the key marker of human potential and glory.
5.) You ask, jumping off of your not noticing enthusiasm for DOGE, "Are conservatives dead intellectually or politically?" My larger reply, which I urge you take with utmost seriousness, is this: "If they don't repent soon of the Suppression they have been involved in, and insist that Trump cease his participation in it, they will be dead ethically." Any quantitative American Renewal will be rotted out from the inside if we don't see decisive conservative leadership to Make American Honest Enough Again. That will be impossible if conservative leaders, including Peter Robinson, refuse to level with the people about how and why they helped suppress all discussion about the greatest ongoing disaster, which not incidentally was a tech disaster, of our time.
Well, my other comment here was made in a fit of pique, or early morning coffee--something. My lonely fear of 2025 destroying the soul of conservativism is in there also, but that's better left for other discussions. I apologize for it's tone.
But look, Titus has studied some of Andreesen's writings and statements, and has reported that he has an open and questing mind. His report is enough for me to trust that he's more one to watch, in terms of intellectual development, than Musk, etc. What Wolf and E. Robinson asked about DOGE three or so weeks ago is worth pondering as we go forward, but we still don't know what it will turn out to be. Maybe just an advisory cmte. Obviously, we ought to wish its mission the best.
A good second thought, Carl. Your first was provocative, your second moved things along.
Somehow, the two demands must be connected -- the demand of morality & the demand of efficiency. I'm not sure how we're going to get there. I think taking responsibility for gov't, for the state (as opposed to the constitutional gov't) will come easier to people & feels more urgent for most people who are now active or who support the new admin. I hope that will lead, by way of the need to tell the truth to the American people about what's going on, to the moral concern for freedom, to the 'truth & reconciliation' about COVID.
I don't have any insider knowledge, of course, I only judge by the publicly available knowledge. I've modest hopes.
Dear Titus, the only word I'd change in your very informative and incisive summary cum commentary was I'd change "tyranny" to "hegemon." I know you like a certain pungent rhetoric ... .
Normally, I'd agree. Reading the Greek historians again, as I am, I hurry to agree, in fact. But there is a reason for the rhetoric -- I think the wars of the 21st c. have changed the character of that hegemony.
The enforcing of "blob" rule against democratic regimes in Central Europe makes problems worse -- that was the great anti- & post-Communist expansion of American generosity. But not these days. The coming conflicts over NATO & China in Western Europe will again strain the credibility of hegemony.
It's hard to say which way American policy will turn; obviously, a return to freedom & a limit on expansion would be good for Americans, but that might not matter as much as imperial strength -- so far, it seems like that strength requires turning hegemony into increasingly naked tyranny, no doubt an attractive vision. It's easy to see how much American power remains to be unleashed; hard to see how Americans will be persuaded to do so any time soon, however: Americans are as skeptical of the war-making power as anyone under their hegemony... I think partly that's because people find it harder to believe American power is wielded well, or even innocently. A strange time-
This may help explain my understanding of the distinction: hegemony = a ruler state dictates the foreign policy of subordinated states, while allowing them freedom within, but also does its best to have "its people" in charge (call me a hypocrite!); tyranny is total control of policy and personnel. I'm open to correction or improvement. Your point that things have changed because of the 21st century is undeniable. How that effects foreign policy with enemies (which currently include European and English elites, the WEF, the WHO, the UN, Bill Gates, Larry Fink) and friends (Hungary, Costa Rico, Argentina) is a great question.
Yes, agreed -- that regime change used to be more eagerly or willingly accepted than now; the regime towards imperial clients & marches were changing used to be more prestigious & believable, too.
By degrees, it seems that both the character of the empire & its reliability are coming into question.
Partly, it's the consequence of success, or the vice of our virtues. After all, Trump has had much more to fear from the CIA & FBI helping ban him from social media &c. than from any foreign danger. That's true a fortiori of most of us.