I don’t entirely agree that all of the things Katherine Boyle characterizes as “unserious” at Bari Weiss’s Substack are, in fact, unserious but I think they’re worth reflecting on. Here’s a partial list:
It is unserious to beg dictators in failed states to send America oil when we invented fracking. It is unserious to talk about renewables and not nuclear. It is unserious to attack the companies leading our electrification revolution because you don’t like their memes on Twitter.
It is unserious when the most trusted men in news are stand-up comedians.
It is unserious to LARP the culture war on cable television while our adversaries bomb maternity wards.
It is unserious to attack American tech companies while turning a blind eye to China’s theft of it.
It is unserious to watch the most educated generation in American history not be able to afford a starter home.
That last is a good example of something that I don’t think is unserious. I think it’s simply mistaken. Education is an input. There is no necessary relationship between the cost of inputs and prices. Prices are based on willingness to pay. No willingness to pay at the asking price—either the asking price will go down or the product won’t be sold. There are two different and interrelated factors that are unserious: 1) thinking that education ipso facto leads to higher wages and 2) not recognizing that prices are determined by willingness to pay.
Something else I believe was unserious: believing that we could convert Afghanistan into a liberal democracy in something other than geological time. I don’t think the unseriousness was in letting the country fall into chaos through a botched withdrawal after investing trillions in it. I think that anything beyond a punitive expedition was unserious.
Here are her prescriptions:
Build housing for the middle class. Build schools for the kids who want to learn math. Build next-generation defense capabilities with young people who grew up coding. Build PCR tests so that a nasal swab stops the nation from closing businesses at the mere sight of Covid case increases. Build trade schools. Encourage men and women to work with their hands again. Cut the red tape that stops us from building infrastructure fast. Build factories in America. Build resiliency in the supply chain. Build work cultures that support mothers and fathers so they can have more children.
I think there’s a lot of unseriousness built into that list in the form of bad assumptions, e.g. she assumes that young people grow up coding and that coding is enough for a next-generation defense capability. IMO those are assumptions of a coder. I on the other hand think that some young people grow up coding and that coding is an input to building a next-generation defense capability but not the most important input.
What are unserious policies other than those she mentions? IMO anything other than an “all of the above” energy policy is unserious. I think it’s unserious to increase the vitalness of reliable electricity without increasing grid capacity, security, and reliability. I think saddling future generations with debt for personal consumption today is unserious.
What would be serious policies?
I thought she started out fairly strong. I have recently incorporated the unserious nature of current debates into comments. But like you, I think she drifted into banality.
“IMO anything other than an “all of the above†energy policy is unserious.”
Of course, all of the above. But I would note that various energy production modalities should be sequenced by things like price, technical capability and reliability. We have sequencing by zealotry now.
The so called infrastructure bill contained precious little infrastructure, but lots of pork. A glaring issue in the US right now is the grid, especially in light of the push towards electrification. But also militarily. Improving this rather than “constituency service” would be a serious policy.
I can’t leave this comment without an observation on this:
“Build schools for the kids who want to learn math.”
The kids in the KIPP charter school program in which my daughter teaches are supposedly admitted based upon a competitive process driven by their parents. A better breed if you will. Sounds like the basis for a political speech. But it ain’t so. A major funding source, the Gates Foundation, has, um, certain goals and philosophies. Her experience has been that its just thinly disguised public school philosophy with a fancy bow on it.
You want a serious policy? Private competition in education. Vouchers. One can hardly argue that public education is not a miserable failure. The odds? Close to zero. Controlling young minds is the holy grail for Democrats, at least progressives. At Tasty’s advice, I’ll put the crack pipe down now.
It is clear that today we have very badly educated young people. They are in large part delusional and superstitious. They will not be able to maintain our current high technology economy, and there will be further losses of manufacturing capacity, mostly to China.
The rise of China, while abetted by Wall Street financiers, is mostly a result of China’s superior leadership (after Mao), better economic policies, and high IQ, well-educated population.
“It is clear that today we have very badly educated young people.”
I think its more accurate to say that there has arisen an ethic of accommodating the bottom end of the class room. This least common denominator approach helps no one in the long run.
“The rise of China, while abetted by Wall Street financiers…..”
Financiers are clever guys. They can move factories AND underwrite securities……
“The so called infrastructure bill contained precious little infrastructure, but lots of pork. A glaring issue in the US right now is the grid, especially in light of the push towards electrification. But also militarily. Improving this rather than “constituency service†would be a serious policy.”
Agree. What I dont know is how of this has to go through the states. That could be a big weak point.
“I think its more accurate to say that there has arisen an ethic of accommodating the bottom end of the class room.”
I will at least partially agree with this. I would probably pause it like ” we are actually pretty good at educating our top end kids. They are as smart or smarter than ever. The competent for top schools is fierce so they have to be good.” I dont think we are good at educating the bottom end but I think that is still largely a function of those families being so poor/awful. As Kesey (?) said, poor people are often poor people.
Steve
“One can hardly argue that public education is not a miserable failure.”
There are many places where public education is criminally abysmal (Baltimore) and many other places where it is very good (Many suburban districts).
Part of the problem is that people expect too much of education or think it has more influence than it actually does. Education and the education system is but a single factor and it’s one that is dependent on other factors like parents, peers and the local community. No school can make up for shitty or absent parents, violence in the community, etc.
That said, I do think that it’s important that poor parents in bad areas tied to bad schools have the right and ability to exit a bad public school system for something better. In places like Baltimore, vouchers or something similar could do some good.
Where I live (one of the top school districts in Colorado) I doubt they would make any difference. The same goes for the other places my kids have been in Florida and Ohio. In all those places “school choice” within the public school system was available and supported if you didn’t like the school your kids was geographically slotted to. And the district we are in now has a couple of different “alternative” schools for kids in special situations or circumstances. My middle boy transferred to one of those and it’s a perfect fit for him. The downside is that bussing is not available, so we have to drive him every day. But that’s a small price to pay and we are fortunate enough to be able to support that.