Electoral Fideism

And now for a terribly delayed post in what seems like an unending streak of terribly delayed posts in this space. Regrettably, I have succumbed to another disruption of a three part sequence project which I intended to finish long ago. The sequence will be completed... wait for it... In The Future. 

Until then, it’s Me vs. SkidRowRadio in… This Time, It’s Electoral.


Some of this will feel dated. The spar I am revisiting, screencapping and hopefully concluding was instigated in early March, so in the thick of Super Tuesday when the American primaries were hotly and then lukewarmly contested. I would normally self-cringe for taking a time-sensitive topic and putting the finishing touches on it roughly a month after its time-sensitivity expires. And I am self-cringing, believe me, just not as strongly as I might need to. This is because I tamely believe the lateness has an out: cyber-normies won’t be exposed to this. People who experience time in internet years where days are weeks and months are years, will not be reading this.


Abnormal readers — who might be thought to represent the old normal, where “a month ago” does not absurdly feel like ancient history — are the prospected readers. My clash with SkidRowRadio (henceforth SRR) initially centered on decision-theoretical issues fraught with probabilities and uncertainties. Few of these issues remain unknown to us as of my writing this [2020-04-14]. But the developments and later knowledge (i.e. Bernie endorsing Biden) don’t make those disagreements any less steep or unworthy of reposting. SRR's responses to my criticisms, and other radical mishandlings of similar criticisms, remain, put amicably, instructive.


All this to say that I am cautiously optimistic that the disciplined reader is the one who won’t care how non-current or non-recent this technically current-events themed post is. If you do care and are wondering why I didn’t have it up sooner, skip to the bottom for a psychological sob story from me giving a detailed account of what holds me up these days. Otherwise head straight to content.

Also, I created a (hopefully helpful) visual that summarizes what I'm battling against here.

Capitalism ⬌ Socialism: The Other Economic Stagnation

When skilled and unskilled people living in the digital age are asked about the sharpest divides behind economic belief, responses indicate that Socialism vs. Capitalism is (still) where it's at. It will come as no surprise that I am far from convinced that bifurcating economics along this especial a lane is coherent or productive in 2018. That is, once one applies exclusively forward-looking criteria for determining what we have most reason to dispense with and what we'd do well to preserve.

If this comes across as a pitch for the Mixed Economy as the only way forward, it goes to show just how attentively propagandized things are. There's a multitude of so-called Third Ways. Some of them incorporate aspects of ― or the totality of ― the LTV. It would be more accurate to refer to these buried models as Fourth Way, Fifth Way, etc. That won't happen, and each of those highly multifaceted mixed systems will continue to receive zero airtime and attention. So the next time you hear about the drawbacks of the Mixed Economy, try to point out that "it" has as many if not more offshoots as all the unmixed doctrines do.

Hair-splitting example: Whether an economy is mixed or unmixed says nothing about whether it is ultimately grounded in steady-state precepts or in unfettered "growthism". Visual aid time: