<<A “total loss of corporate vision and innovation, a turn to decadence and corporate bloat—that is the real threat to our way of life.” The whole shape of centralized corporate life has paralyzed American vitality. (Drawing from the economist Joseph Schumpeter, Roberts argues that this is what the “socialism” dreaded by conservatives really is: centralized managerialism.)>>
A few thoughts on this section, for your consideration.
One is that — not to take away from this point, which seems a valid one — but surely “socialism” is also dreadful for other reasons.
It institutionalizes covetousness.
Second: you know Parkinson’s law? It goes something like: work will expand to fill the time allotted for its completion.
I wonder whether something analogous happened when we decided in the post WWII period that “everybody” should go to college. “The number of managerial jobs will expand to fill the demand created by the flood of degreed individuals.”
It’s not an idea originated by me although sadly I can’t call to mind where I first read it. And perhaps it is not defensible (what exactly are the mechanics / incentives that would make this come to pass? Not sure).
But in my corporate career I encountered entire multi-million dollar departments that seemed to exist for no other reason than to please the vanity of upper management. Functionally, their main activity was to slow things down, complicate them, and throw up roadblocks. The result, needless to say, can certainly be considered stagnation. But it wasn’t for lack of talent and initiative, nor from external forces; it was the sheer weight of all those impassioned salaried keyboard workers…
Lastly, another substack writer, J Daniel Sawyer, suggested the descriptor “mercantilist corporatism“ (derived I guess from Adam Smith) which I thought was pretty great and describes our present economic system to a T: “a system in which monopolies are chosen/fostered/created by government action (either directly), often as a result of lobbying, and managed by bureaucrats, for the advancement of the interests of the State as perceived by those State actors on the payroll of the lobbyists.”
<<This seems to be in large part what happened to conservatives in the 1990s, when they spurned Buchanan and accepted the shift from “containment” to “enlargement,” turning America from an empire of necessity to an empire of choice.>>
Love that insight.
Riffing on it a bit: I am currently working out a hypothesis that something deep (spiritually) happened to our country in the 20-30 years spanning the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The hinge point may have been when McKinley was murdered (by the anarchist naturally) which put the presidency into the hands of our first Roosevelt.
It seems to me that during that time period, we were presented with two options for how the American Spirit would be expressed in the 20th century. A murder, of all things, made the choice for us, bequeathing to us the ruling spirit of the progressive, immature jingoist.
It is interesting to me that McKinley has never been taught as part of our civics education — not even in the mid-20th century, when our public education wasn’t as terrible as it is now.
It’s also interesting that one of Trump’s rumored plans is to roll back Obama’s renaming of Mt McKinley...
Great piece. Thank you.
<<A “total loss of corporate vision and innovation, a turn to decadence and corporate bloat—that is the real threat to our way of life.” The whole shape of centralized corporate life has paralyzed American vitality. (Drawing from the economist Joseph Schumpeter, Roberts argues that this is what the “socialism” dreaded by conservatives really is: centralized managerialism.)>>
A few thoughts on this section, for your consideration.
One is that — not to take away from this point, which seems a valid one — but surely “socialism” is also dreadful for other reasons.
It institutionalizes covetousness.
Second: you know Parkinson’s law? It goes something like: work will expand to fill the time allotted for its completion.
I wonder whether something analogous happened when we decided in the post WWII period that “everybody” should go to college. “The number of managerial jobs will expand to fill the demand created by the flood of degreed individuals.”
It’s not an idea originated by me although sadly I can’t call to mind where I first read it. And perhaps it is not defensible (what exactly are the mechanics / incentives that would make this come to pass? Not sure).
But in my corporate career I encountered entire multi-million dollar departments that seemed to exist for no other reason than to please the vanity of upper management. Functionally, their main activity was to slow things down, complicate them, and throw up roadblocks. The result, needless to say, can certainly be considered stagnation. But it wasn’t for lack of talent and initiative, nor from external forces; it was the sheer weight of all those impassioned salaried keyboard workers…
Lastly, another substack writer, J Daniel Sawyer, suggested the descriptor “mercantilist corporatism“ (derived I guess from Adam Smith) which I thought was pretty great and describes our present economic system to a T: “a system in which monopolies are chosen/fostered/created by government action (either directly), often as a result of lobbying, and managed by bureaucrats, for the advancement of the interests of the State as perceived by those State actors on the payroll of the lobbyists.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/jdanielsawyer/p/the-speaking-pebble?r=9avpd&utm_medium=ios
<<This seems to be in large part what happened to conservatives in the 1990s, when they spurned Buchanan and accepted the shift from “containment” to “enlargement,” turning America from an empire of necessity to an empire of choice.>>
Love that insight.
Riffing on it a bit: I am currently working out a hypothesis that something deep (spiritually) happened to our country in the 20-30 years spanning the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The hinge point may have been when McKinley was murdered (by the anarchist naturally) which put the presidency into the hands of our first Roosevelt.
It seems to me that during that time period, we were presented with two options for how the American Spirit would be expressed in the 20th century. A murder, of all things, made the choice for us, bequeathing to us the ruling spirit of the progressive, immature jingoist.
It is interesting to me that McKinley has never been taught as part of our civics education — not even in the mid-20th century, when our public education wasn’t as terrible as it is now.
It’s also interesting that one of Trump’s rumored plans is to roll back Obama’s renaming of Mt McKinley...
Very interesting about the spiritual shift re: McKinley--I hope you write more about that!