I like to think your subscribers are interested in more serious analysis than that required to cast doubt on the self-satisfied chest-thumping chatter of a few news cycles. You are, if anything, too gentle and modest in your push-back. At best, the putative outrage is rhetorical cover for Trump's pro-tariff "tariff is a beautiful word" change in economic policy aimed at reindustrializing America, boosting the working class, and shifting economic interdependencies away from the Pacific (and also away from Europe) toward our own hemisphere, where the two interpretations of "America First" that you mention arguably complement each other. (A comparatively stable equilibrium b/w spatials and temporals?) I have no idea how realistic so large-scale a shift is, but would be interested in your thoughts. I was hoping you would transition from your account of tariffs and the birth of modern Canada to an assessment of tariffs in late 19th C America to the current situation. Regardless, a worthwhile listen, as always.
Hi Douglas. Thanks for your comment. I do kind of use the audios to comment on some current news cycle. Though, usually I attempt to ground that comment in some reflection on the broader issues addressed here -- as per the managerial class or the phenotype wars. I think it was because I failed to do so on this occasion that the audio didn't quite work. And indeed did seem to be somewhat superficial, if I correctly take that to be your opinion. Though I appreciate your kind words that it was a worthwhile listen.
As to your thoughts regarding the two meanings of America First providing for a stable equilibrium between spatials and temporals, I would doubt that. The kind of aggressive statism of the "national conservative" or "national populist" positions are still manifestations of monist sovereignty -- over a population of 350ish million people. I concede, though for analytical purposes it's easier to think in terms of binaries, in fact the temporal-spatial tension can resemble a spectrum. Particularly as other personality traits modify the openness-conscientiousness structures. So, it's plausible that a more nationalist focus (even in such a populous nation) might be considered MORE temporalist than aggressive pursuit of a global empire. But it is still such a massively administered, extensive space, that the dynamics of collapse I've emphasized, drawing upon the work of Weber and others, are still going to be the operative dynamics.
To my mind, the equilibrium between temporals and spatials, within the U.S., was a temporary condition -- like two ships passing in the night -- sometime in the 20th century. I'm inclined to think it was maybe in the 80s, but I concede that's open to debate. I don't see a new equilibrium arising from voluntarist political action. It's certainly not what the phenotype wars model would suggest. But, hey, I could be wrong.
Thanks again for your contribution to the comments.
I like to think your subscribers are interested in more serious analysis than that required to cast doubt on the self-satisfied chest-thumping chatter of a few news cycles. You are, if anything, too gentle and modest in your push-back. At best, the putative outrage is rhetorical cover for Trump's pro-tariff "tariff is a beautiful word" change in economic policy aimed at reindustrializing America, boosting the working class, and shifting economic interdependencies away from the Pacific (and also away from Europe) toward our own hemisphere, where the two interpretations of "America First" that you mention arguably complement each other. (A comparatively stable equilibrium b/w spatials and temporals?) I have no idea how realistic so large-scale a shift is, but would be interested in your thoughts. I was hoping you would transition from your account of tariffs and the birth of modern Canada to an assessment of tariffs in late 19th C America to the current situation. Regardless, a worthwhile listen, as always.
Hi Douglas. Thanks for your comment. I do kind of use the audios to comment on some current news cycle. Though, usually I attempt to ground that comment in some reflection on the broader issues addressed here -- as per the managerial class or the phenotype wars. I think it was because I failed to do so on this occasion that the audio didn't quite work. And indeed did seem to be somewhat superficial, if I correctly take that to be your opinion. Though I appreciate your kind words that it was a worthwhile listen.
As to your thoughts regarding the two meanings of America First providing for a stable equilibrium between spatials and temporals, I would doubt that. The kind of aggressive statism of the "national conservative" or "national populist" positions are still manifestations of monist sovereignty -- over a population of 350ish million people. I concede, though for analytical purposes it's easier to think in terms of binaries, in fact the temporal-spatial tension can resemble a spectrum. Particularly as other personality traits modify the openness-conscientiousness structures. So, it's plausible that a more nationalist focus (even in such a populous nation) might be considered MORE temporalist than aggressive pursuit of a global empire. But it is still such a massively administered, extensive space, that the dynamics of collapse I've emphasized, drawing upon the work of Weber and others, are still going to be the operative dynamics.
To my mind, the equilibrium between temporals and spatials, within the U.S., was a temporary condition -- like two ships passing in the night -- sometime in the 20th century. I'm inclined to think it was maybe in the 80s, but I concede that's open to debate. I don't see a new equilibrium arising from voluntarist political action. It's certainly not what the phenotype wars model would suggest. But, hey, I could be wrong.
Thanks again for your contribution to the comments.