You’re a great person to engage with. Thank you so much. I’m glad we connected. No time for the Reddit now, but I’ll get to it. I’ve read some other helpful stuff I’ll copy links to when I get a chance.
Andrew, I agree completely with your take and thank you for writing it. This is an overarching issue--the long campaign to make voters choose their own disempowerment.
Gun safety, bodily autonomy, UBI, promoting local culture and the arts, safe food, water, and air, people-owned enterprise and utilities, thriving-based local healthcare, geographic mobility, new housing, education and business models……………. 😏
Omg. I carry this idea too!!!! Amazing. Can’t wait to read it. I’ve been speaking about it a little as part of my larger vision for systems overhaul. People often seem dubious or blank in reaction.
To what extent are you well-versed on the details of gun safety? There are different aspects to the whole domain of policy; there are handguns as opposed to rifles, for example.
Yes, I’ve only got a remedial understanding of the technicalities. I’ve read a few knowledgeable articles by responsible gun owners and military personnel. I think these perspectives need to be front and center in the national discussion. Their knowledge and perspective is mostly sidelined by radicals. I also think that getting overly mired in the weeds of that could obscure common sense discussion since it precludes anyone who can’t bone up from being allowed to have an opinion on protecting innocent lives. Not a fan of reactionary anti-gun extremism either.
Awesome! My burning curiosity about gun safety is how a gun-safety advocate would respond to this particular article that my friend showed me: https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-riddle-of-the-gun. And the article may well be nonsense, but I personally found it to be skillfully articulated and skillfully argued.
I have some mixed thoughts on this though I agree it’s a thoughtful, string article. I’d like to hear whether Sam would tweak any aspect of his stance 9 years on. I don’t see a recent podcast on it. I certainly appreciate where he landed in the final 4 paragraphs or so.
As I see it, captured politicians with their cynical interests and backers have allowed weapons manufacturers to create a domestic arms race in which they’re the ultimate “winners,” and the entire country loses. ANY attempts to stuff that genie back in the bottle look like quixotic suicide. They’ve fomented civil polarity/hostility while overarming one side (along with every criminal and psychotic person who wants in) with military-grade deadly weapons. Seriously. The most hyper-deadly weaponry is being stockpiled almost entirely by one hyper-engaged group. They’re hostile, interested in coup, have been organizing toward it for decades, and have infiltrated every level of governance and law enforcement, so where to make a dent?!
I’m interested in all aspects of societal rebirth at the level of rebuilding community. Modern, hyper-local solutions and initiatives with new energy that focus on thriving. I’m also strongly dedicated to reclaiming the term Pro-Life so that it makes sense by actually respecting Life. I want to build a new movement around it. I’ve written an abortion piece I’ll probably be posting next. I’ve got a long list of topics that tend to involve optimizing quality of life systems individually and communally.
That sounds really cool! I'm excited to see your abortion piece! You probably know all this stuff regarding abortion already, but here's a piece I did that addresses abortion rights: https://join.substack.com/p/humanitys-death-warrant.
One of the hopes of employee ownership of firms is that people would learn to belong to a community where decisions have to be discussed and made all the time instead of every few years. That would build democratic character and teach the skills of genuine dialogue in a context where people cannot just blow off those who disagree (as happens on the Internat as a supposed arena for dialogue). Deliberative democracy should start with what most people do all day long.
Good article. Usually I like to challenge people's articles (username checks out right?), but in this case I agree with everything written here. I would like to add one other observation of mine to build off what you wrote.
The way the legislative process is taught and explained to people is so broken/boring, that a reason for this de-politization you mention is because the government lawmaking process seems so convoluted and difficult to understand that many people just give up in trying to influence the process altogether and would rather do something simple, like vote and hope for the best. Then tune out until next time they're supposed to vote. I can't say I blame them sometimes.
The process makes it way easier for special interest groups/corporations to get away with what they do because they have the money and resources to game the process inside and out, get the best talent to go on the hill for them, and donate to the right candidates so that they feel indebted to them to some degree. The game is slanted towards them in more ways than we can imagine.
For example, I support Medicare for All, but there are so many moving parts in the legislature that it can seem overwhelming at times to accomplish anything on that matter. Same with climate change or other things, especially when the goal is to make radical changes in a short period of time. You need to get buy in from the legislators (and their staff) in subcommittee who decide which bills to move forward to the committee, then you have to fight a ton of special interest groups to ensure that nobody waters down the bill in committee, then when it's in committee, you need to get the right people in there to testify in support of the matter and give them the right information, then when it passes committee you need to get a majority of the house on board (and avoid ear marks/mark ups and all the other nonsense that comes with that), and so on so forth. And all of this is while members of Congress are being bombarded with hundreds of issues/bills at a time. Nothing comes easy when trying to accomplish something legislatively in DC (or even a state level for that matter). Anyone who says otherwise has not spent a day working on capitol hill.
None of this even talks about the bureaucracy at the Federal level and how they would go about enforcing/implementing something like Medicare for all. And everyone has a different vision for how all of this should work too from subcommittee all the way up to its implementation.
I think that's why a lot of people check out and why people gravitate towards anti-governmental populism. If they can't understand the process and feel (correctly) that it is not made to benefit them, why not just burn it to the ground? The more people understand how things get done and feel engaged/empowered to utilize it, the less disengagement and disgruntled sentiment you get. You can make changes and get things done, but it's not easy. The easier we can make it for people to understand, the easier it will be to join activist groups.
1: I want to follow up on your whole idea and do a piece about how to explain the legislative process to people; could we use charts and graphs in order to explain the whole process and would you be able to help me with the piece?
2: I want to do a piece based on your comment here; is it OK if I include your comment in the piece as a big block quote?
3: In my next piece I want to do a block quote of your comment and then make the argument that people lack not only a PICTURE of how the legislative process works but also a PICTURE of how the peace process might work in Ukraine; Chomsky (who REALLY liked your comment here, by the way!) told me that everyone knows the answers to the below questions, and yet I feel strongly that that's not true and that almost NOBODY knows the answers to the below questions. So can you let me know if you yourself know the answers to the below questions?
If the war drags on, what's at stake from worst thing to least worst thing?
--this is easy to enumerate; you can start with global heating and go down to global starvation and how inflation will hand power to the GOP
But how could peace possibly happen?
Would the Ukrainian people vote on this? How would that vote happen in a country that's at war?
Would all Ukrainians participate? Would Ukrainians abroad participate?
How would the referendum actually be conducted? Is there precedent for a referendum like this?
Which elements is Z on board with? And which elements are the Ukrainian people on board with?
Wow I have never been asked to be interviewed before, I am flattered! Feel free to use my comment in whatever means necessary. I’m still very new to the game in Washington, so before deciding to interview me, I will give you a list of activist groups or possible people you might want to reach out to to interview people from it. These people will have more experience and insights than I will since I just started lobbying recently and many of these groups have been playing the game for years. If you don’t hear from any of these groups, reach out to me and we can discuss more.
Humane Society - They make the activism process very simple to understand and get a lot of stuff done. I love animals so I sent in stuff a few times for them in the past. https://www.humanesociety.org/
Citizens Climate Lobby - Given the more limited financial resources they have compared to bigger lobbying orgs, I think they do a great job. I heard from a friend of mine that Don Cheadle is on their board but I don’t know if that is true. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
I wish they focused more on a specific issue (like climate change or animal welfare) as opposed to a laundry list of 4 or 5 different policy buckets, but NextGen America (it was called NextGen Climate when I was in college) also has some cutting edge grassroots strategies. https://nextgenamerica.org/
Look through these committees, look at the House members in the committees that interest you, and see if you can find a staffer from that Representative to interview with. Maybe ask them about the things about the process people should know and what is effective in impacting their lawmaker. Some are more open about their policy stances than others. There is a brief recess coming up in July so staffers should have time to speak with you then. Who knows, maybe the actual Representative may want to speak with you too. You never know.
I plan to do a piece on your point about explaining the legislative process, so I'm excited for that.
Did you see my comments about the war in Ukraine? There's this notion that everyone in the society has somewhat of a grasp on what that peace process looks like, but my experience is that 0% of people have any grasp on this, so I wanted to sort of "poll" you if that's OK and ask you (a simple "Yes"/"No") if you have a grasp on what the answers to these questions are.
I would say progressives haven't done a good job breaking issues down into bite-size pieces that are understandable, that are administratively doable, and that provide real gains.
Medicare for All is a great example; the proponents have spent almost no time on a serious incremental approach. They talk about getting us there in four or five years; that's close to nuts, would never happen politically, and would likely be a disaster even if by some super-miracle Congress approved it.
I agree with that assessment on Medicare for All. Unfortunately I have no idea what the diplomacy process is. That sounds like something to ask someone in UN Peacekeeping or the State Department. Or foreign service
Hah! Great TED talk! I'd love to do a piece on this matter that you raise of educating people about the process and elucidating the process for people; could I interview you about this or if not who could I interview about this?
If I interview you then we could polish up your comment here and use it as the answer to a question! :)
You’re a great person to engage with. Thank you so much. I’m glad we connected. No time for the Reddit now, but I’ll get to it. I’ve read some other helpful stuff I’ll copy links to when I get a chance.
Reddit sucks, but this particular response to Sam was really good; let me know what you think. Maybe I could interview you on one or another issue. :)
Yes, let’s look for opportunities to collab!! Gotta go. Thx for meaningful engagement. I appreciate it. 🙏
Andrew, I agree completely with your take and thank you for writing it. This is an overarching issue--the long campaign to make voters choose their own disempowerment.
Thanks so much! What are you primarily interested in when it comes to your Substack? Are you interested in gun-safety issues, for example?
Gun safety, bodily autonomy, UBI, promoting local culture and the arts, safe food, water, and air, people-owned enterprise and utilities, thriving-based local healthcare, geographic mobility, new housing, education and business models……………. 😏
You might like this idea: https://join.substack.com/p/could-we-democratize.
Omg. I carry this idea too!!!! Amazing. Can’t wait to read it. I’ve been speaking about it a little as part of my larger vision for systems overhaul. People often seem dubious or blank in reaction.
Let me know what you think! Maybe we can write pieces back on forth on this matter! :)
To what extent are you well-versed on the details of gun safety? There are different aspects to the whole domain of policy; there are handguns as opposed to rifles, for example.
Yes, I’ve only got a remedial understanding of the technicalities. I’ve read a few knowledgeable articles by responsible gun owners and military personnel. I think these perspectives need to be front and center in the national discussion. Their knowledge and perspective is mostly sidelined by radicals. I also think that getting overly mired in the weeds of that could obscure common sense discussion since it precludes anyone who can’t bone up from being allowed to have an opinion on protecting innocent lives. Not a fan of reactionary anti-gun extremism either.
Check this out: https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/uy6siy/a_counterargument_to_sams_article_riddle_of_the/.
Awesome! My burning curiosity about gun safety is how a gun-safety advocate would respond to this particular article that my friend showed me: https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-riddle-of-the-gun. And the article may well be nonsense, but I personally found it to be skillfully articulated and skillfully argued.
I have some mixed thoughts on this though I agree it’s a thoughtful, string article. I’d like to hear whether Sam would tweak any aspect of his stance 9 years on. I don’t see a recent podcast on it. I certainly appreciate where he landed in the final 4 paragraphs or so.
As I see it, captured politicians with their cynical interests and backers have allowed weapons manufacturers to create a domestic arms race in which they’re the ultimate “winners,” and the entire country loses. ANY attempts to stuff that genie back in the bottle look like quixotic suicide. They’ve fomented civil polarity/hostility while overarming one side (along with every criminal and psychotic person who wants in) with military-grade deadly weapons. Seriously. The most hyper-deadly weaponry is being stockpiled almost entirely by one hyper-engaged group. They’re hostile, interested in coup, have been organizing toward it for decades, and have infiltrated every level of governance and law enforcement, so where to make a dent?!
I’m interested in all aspects of societal rebirth at the level of rebuilding community. Modern, hyper-local solutions and initiatives with new energy that focus on thriving. I’m also strongly dedicated to reclaiming the term Pro-Life so that it makes sense by actually respecting Life. I want to build a new movement around it. I’ve written an abortion piece I’ll probably be posting next. I’ve got a long list of topics that tend to involve optimizing quality of life systems individually and communally.
That sounds really cool! I'm excited to see your abortion piece! You probably know all this stuff regarding abortion already, but here's a piece I did that addresses abortion rights: https://join.substack.com/p/humanitys-death-warrant.
Oh thank you!
One of the hopes of employee ownership of firms is that people would learn to belong to a community where decisions have to be discussed and made all the time instead of every few years. That would build democratic character and teach the skills of genuine dialogue in a context where people cannot just blow off those who disagree (as happens on the Internat as a supposed arena for dialogue). Deliberative democracy should start with what most people do all day long.
Good article. Usually I like to challenge people's articles (username checks out right?), but in this case I agree with everything written here. I would like to add one other observation of mine to build off what you wrote.
The way the legislative process is taught and explained to people is so broken/boring, that a reason for this de-politization you mention is because the government lawmaking process seems so convoluted and difficult to understand that many people just give up in trying to influence the process altogether and would rather do something simple, like vote and hope for the best. Then tune out until next time they're supposed to vote. I can't say I blame them sometimes.
The process makes it way easier for special interest groups/corporations to get away with what they do because they have the money and resources to game the process inside and out, get the best talent to go on the hill for them, and donate to the right candidates so that they feel indebted to them to some degree. The game is slanted towards them in more ways than we can imagine.
For example, I support Medicare for All, but there are so many moving parts in the legislature that it can seem overwhelming at times to accomplish anything on that matter. Same with climate change or other things, especially when the goal is to make radical changes in a short period of time. You need to get buy in from the legislators (and their staff) in subcommittee who decide which bills to move forward to the committee, then you have to fight a ton of special interest groups to ensure that nobody waters down the bill in committee, then when it's in committee, you need to get the right people in there to testify in support of the matter and give them the right information, then when it passes committee you need to get a majority of the house on board (and avoid ear marks/mark ups and all the other nonsense that comes with that), and so on so forth. And all of this is while members of Congress are being bombarded with hundreds of issues/bills at a time. Nothing comes easy when trying to accomplish something legislatively in DC (or even a state level for that matter). Anyone who says otherwise has not spent a day working on capitol hill.
None of this even talks about the bureaucracy at the Federal level and how they would go about enforcing/implementing something like Medicare for all. And everyone has a different vision for how all of this should work too from subcommittee all the way up to its implementation.
I think that's why a lot of people check out and why people gravitate towards anti-governmental populism. If they can't understand the process and feel (correctly) that it is not made to benefit them, why not just burn it to the ground? The more people understand how things get done and feel engaged/empowered to utilize it, the less disengagement and disgruntled sentiment you get. You can make changes and get things done, but it's not easy. The easier we can make it for people to understand, the easier it will be to join activist groups.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
Sorry...more questions here to add to the list:
What are the elements of a peace deal?
For each element, what do the Ukrainian people think?
For each element, what do Z and his government think?
Z says a lot of hawkish stuff and our media covers that hawkish stuff, so what should we make of that hawkish stuff?
How long would Z and his government have to persuade Ukrainians to vote "Yes"?
How effective might such efforts—from Z and his government—to change Ukrainians' opinions be?
Would the West back such efforts—from Z and his government—to change Ukrainians' opinions?
For each element, how specifically is Washington impeding peace through actions?
For each element, how specifically is Washington impeding peace through statements?
How can we get Washington to remove the impediments?
How can we get Washington to actually start to facilitate peace?
What does doing nothing look like? China is doing nothing. And doing nothing is better than blocking peace.
What does facilitating peace look like? Facilitating peace is better than doing nothing.
How much time do we have?
Why should Ukrainians vote "Yes"?
1: I want to follow up on your whole idea and do a piece about how to explain the legislative process to people; could we use charts and graphs in order to explain the whole process and would you be able to help me with the piece?
2: I want to do a piece based on your comment here; is it OK if I include your comment in the piece as a big block quote?
3: In my next piece I want to do a block quote of your comment and then make the argument that people lack not only a PICTURE of how the legislative process works but also a PICTURE of how the peace process might work in Ukraine; Chomsky (who REALLY liked your comment here, by the way!) told me that everyone knows the answers to the below questions, and yet I feel strongly that that's not true and that almost NOBODY knows the answers to the below questions. So can you let me know if you yourself know the answers to the below questions?
If the war drags on, what's at stake from worst thing to least worst thing?
--this is easy to enumerate; you can start with global heating and go down to global starvation and how inflation will hand power to the GOP
But how could peace possibly happen?
Would the Ukrainian people vote on this? How would that vote happen in a country that's at war?
Would all Ukrainians participate? Would Ukrainians abroad participate?
How would the referendum actually be conducted? Is there precedent for a referendum like this?
Which elements is Z on board with? And which elements are the Ukrainian people on board with?
Wow I have never been asked to be interviewed before, I am flattered! Feel free to use my comment in whatever means necessary. I’m still very new to the game in Washington, so before deciding to interview me, I will give you a list of activist groups or possible people you might want to reach out to to interview people from it. These people will have more experience and insights than I will since I just started lobbying recently and many of these groups have been playing the game for years. If you don’t hear from any of these groups, reach out to me and we can discuss more.
Humane Society - They make the activism process very simple to understand and get a lot of stuff done. I love animals so I sent in stuff a few times for them in the past. https://www.humanesociety.org/
Citizens Climate Lobby - Given the more limited financial resources they have compared to bigger lobbying orgs, I think they do a great job. I heard from a friend of mine that Don Cheadle is on their board but I don’t know if that is true. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
I wish they focused more on a specific issue (like climate change or animal welfare) as opposed to a laundry list of 4 or 5 different policy buckets, but NextGen America (it was called NextGen Climate when I was in college) also has some cutting edge grassroots strategies. https://nextgenamerica.org/
Another thing to think about:
Here is a list of all the committees in the US House https://www.house.gov/committees
Look through these committees, look at the House members in the committees that interest you, and see if you can find a staffer from that Representative to interview with. Maybe ask them about the things about the process people should know and what is effective in impacting their lawmaker. Some are more open about their policy stances than others. There is a brief recess coming up in July so staffers should have time to speak with you then. Who knows, maybe the actual Representative may want to speak with you too. You never know.
Thanks!
I plan to do a piece on your point about explaining the legislative process, so I'm excited for that.
Did you see my comments about the war in Ukraine? There's this notion that everyone in the society has somewhat of a grasp on what that peace process looks like, but my experience is that 0% of people have any grasp on this, so I wanted to sort of "poll" you if that's OK and ask you (a simple "Yes"/"No") if you have a grasp on what the answers to these questions are.
I'm friends with Dean Baker; he's testified to Congress regarding M4A (https://cepr.net/dean-baker-s-testimony-to-the-house-rules-committe-on-the-medicare-for-all-act-of-2019/).
Someone told me this too:
Issues aren't inherently complicated.
I would say progressives haven't done a good job breaking issues down into bite-size pieces that are understandable, that are administratively doable, and that provide real gains.
Medicare for All is a great example; the proponents have spent almost no time on a serious incremental approach. They talk about getting us there in four or five years; that's close to nuts, would never happen politically, and would likely be a disaster even if by some super-miracle Congress approved it.
I agree with that assessment on Medicare for All. Unfortunately I have no idea what the diplomacy process is. That sounds like something to ask someone in UN Peacekeeping or the State Department. Or foreign service
My friend said she liked your TED talk too. :)
Hah! Great TED talk! I'd love to do a piece on this matter that you raise of educating people about the process and elucidating the process for people; could I interview you about this or if not who could I interview about this?
If I interview you then we could polish up your comment here and use it as the answer to a question! :)
Can you comment on my new piece in which I quote your comment? https://join.substack.com/p/how-can-i-improve