Apparition of Saint George on the Mount of Olives by Gustave Doré (France, 1832-1883)
Click to enlarge.
Monday, February 2, 2026
An incapacity to understand and choose to appeal to a disparate electorate.
From Gavin Newsom is very similar to Kamala Harris by Matthew Yglesias. The subheading is Two San Francisco local elected officials who successfully ran statewide in CA.
Not much of a fan of Yglesias but he has some interesting points every now and then. He spends some time establishing the parallels between the political careers of Harris and Newsom. But his point is this.
To get to the Super Bowl, you need to win several playoff games against the N.F.L. teams with the best records. To get to the playoffs, you need to win a lot of regular season games. To become an N.F.L. player, you need to beat opposing football teams in college.This is a pretty normal tournament-type structure, one that we see pretty frequently in a variety of contexts. Because the playoffs are single elimination, there’s no guarantee that the Super Bowl will feature literally the two best teams. But in a broad sense, the Super Bowl is a football game, and you make it to the Super Bowl by demonstrating skill at winning football games.You could imagine a world where politics is like that, where a Democratic Party presidential nominee is normally someone with a lot of demonstrated skill at beating Republicans in elections, and a Republican Party presidential nominee is normally someone with a lot of demonstrated skill at beating Democrats in elections.For that to be the case, though, you would need to live in a world where the typical election was highly competitive. And that’s actually not the world we live in. The vast majority of House members and state legislators hold seats that aren’t remotely competitive in a D vs. R sense. Senate races and governor’s mansions aren’t as skewed, but there are still tons and tons of safe seats out there. As a result, a politician can achieve an extremely prominent role in American politics — like governor of the largest state in the country — without ever winning a hard race against a Republican.
Its one thing to win competitively among competitors who are also intramural. Real winning is at the varsity level where the competition draws from the broadest range of talent.
My point, though, is that going from holding statewide office in California to running in a national election is not like the A.F.C. champion going to the Super Bowl.It is hard to win these jobs, and getting them involves a real display of political skill. But that skill is not beating Republicans in elections. It’s catering to Democratic Party insiders and affiliated advocacy groups and generating media buzz and endorsements. And this environment is a bad training ground for developing politicians who are good at beating the opposition party. It’s as if you took the winning team from the Champions League and then sent those players to the N.B.A. Finals on the theory that they’re top-notch athletes. You’re selecting on the wrong thing. And it shows.
Yglesias frequently uses the language of beating the Republicans but edges around what is to me the central issue - the capacity to understand and choose to appeal to a disparate electorate.
I have lived in a deep blue city for decades. The leading politicians are barely competent and often with the odor of corruption about them. Yet they are lionized within the Democratic Party as rising stars in the party. Rising stars whose celestial glow fades once they emerge from the cocoon of intramural mono-party political jostling. Some crash and burn with convictions, others simply fade away quietly on ill-gotten gains.
I have long commented that the failure of local City and County governance is primarily because there is little to no real multiparty political competition. And that is broadly true. But Yglesias is hinting at what might be the greater point. An incapacity to comprehend and respond to the full spectrum of electorate interests rather than the narrow band with which those politicians are familiar.
The Tocqueville paradox
From Wikipedia:
Tocqueville effectThe Tocqueville effect (also known as the Tocqueville paradox) is the phenomenon in which, as social conditions and opportunities improve, social frustration grows more quickly. It is named after the French diplomat, historian, and political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville.DefinitionThe effect is based on Alexis de Tocqueville's observations on the French Revolution and later reforms in Europe and the United States. Another way to describe the effect is the aphorism "the appetite grows by what it feeds on". For instance, after greater social justice is achieved, there may be more fervent opposition to even smaller social injustices than before.The effect suggests a link between social equality or concessions by the regime and unintended consequences, as social reforms can raise expectations that are difficult to fulfill. According to the Tocqueville effect, a revolution is likely to occur after an improvement in social conditions, in contrast to Marx's theory of revolution as a result of progressive immiseration of the proletariat (deterioration of conditions).
Related to the perhaps more commonly recognized concept of Affluenza.
Affluenza describes the psychological and social effects of affluence. It is a portmanteau of affluence and influenza, and is used most commonly by critics of consumerism. Some psychologists consider it to be a pseudo-scientific term; however, the word continues to be used in scientific literature.The word is thought to have been first used in 1908, and to have been adopted for its most common current usage in California in 1973. It was also used by John Levy, executive director of the C.G. Jung Institute in San Francisco in 1984 to describe the lack of motivation that could dog wealthy people. It was popularized in 1997 with a PBS documentary of the same name and the subsequent book Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic (2001, revised in 2005, 2014). These works define affluenza as "a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety, and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more". A more informal definition of the term describes it as "a quasi-illness caused by guilt for one's own socio-economic superiority". The term "affluenza" has also been used to refer to an inability to understand the consequences of one's actions because of financial privilege.
Sunday, February 1, 2026
2 compared to 25,000
A serendipitous conjunction.
A few days ago I received an email update from my old church (Episcopal) which I left as they veered hard Woke several years ago (with consequent decline in congregation.)
The weekly letter from the Rector:
Dear saints,I’m writing to you today in an attempt to speak into the present hour of our nation’s life, especially thinking of recent events in Minneapolis, MN, as well as events closer to home. I wish to write this letter to you not because of any authority I might think belongs to the church to talk about national immigration policy, the rule of law or any other such matter that is the purview of other people in other places. Instead, I wish to write to you about a matter the church is clearly in authority to talk about: human dignity and God’s call upon our lives to uphold it.I am not going to pretend to know what you think or feel about the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. I don’t know the extent to which we see the world the same way as one another. We watch different news channels. We vote for different parties. I do know, though, what our baptismal covenant says and that when asked if we will ‘seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself’ and ‘strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being’ Episcopalians answer, ‘I will, with God’s help.’ That covenant is our north star for a moral life. It is grounded in our faith and it is a commitment we make together as the Body of Christ. As such, this commitment in faith is how the world knows who and whose we are, and it is how we come to know one another.For my own part, when I think about the needless loss of Renee Good and Alex Pretti and the span of life that they each had before them, I find myself thinking about who they were to their parents, to loved ones, to friends, to colleagues, and the heartbreak those people must now be feeling. As I watch news footage of children held in immigration detention centers in Texas protesting alongside their parents the imprisonment of children and the inhumane nature of their daily conditions, I lament over the kind of society Monica and I are raising our own children to live in and the values that seem to have been so easily eroded in our common life. And when I hear the voices of my own clergy colleagues in Hispanic congregations across this diocese crack with emotion as they describe church members who are too afraid to leave their homes, I grieve not only that they are immobilized by fear, but that day-by-day they are being rendered invisible. It is easy to despair.
There was much more noisy nonsense. Indeed, there are many arguments to be had about the accumulating evidence in both shootings. Any death is tragic. But the labored emotionalism is repugnant and ideological. And emotionalism always without acknowledging trade-offs. These two deaths occurred in kinetic opposition to authorized law enforcement performing their lawful duties in support of public policies central to the most recent election resulting in both a popular and electoral college majority. We can still regret the tragic loss of life even while acknowledging the victims' own contributions to their demise.
Thomas Sowell is in the back of my mind whispering his infamous primary question, "Compared to what?" Good and Pretti died violently opposing public policies at the center of the most recent election. Policies which have been put into place over the past year. Despite being in place less than a year, we can make comparisons between the old normal (supported by Good and Pretti) and the new normal chosen by the electorate and this new administration.
Being of an analytical turn of mind (though also fully cognizant of the limits and dangers of utilitarianism), my immediate thought after the first couple of paragraphs was to answer Sowell's question. Good and Pretti died supporting the old policies. What did we gain or lose between the Good/Pretti policies and the new policies? There are the two deaths the rector is lamenting. What is the other side of the ledger? How many lives were saved by the new policies which Good and Pretti opposed?
TRADEOFFS. The deportation of illegal criminals is one of multiple public safety policies deployed in the past year which have resulted in an historic reduction in the US murder rate of 20% in a single year. Among those policies have been the effective closing of the border to illegal immigration. Repatriation of violent illegal aliens is another (the central point of Good and Pretti's actions.)These new policies have resulted in 3,600-4,000 saved lives in the US from a lower murder rate as well as 400-800 fewer lost lives from drownings and other deaths among illegal border crossers.Further, many of the border and crime policies pursued in 2025 are tied to the drug war. While the drop in dug overdose deaths began in 2024, it fell an additional ~20% in 2025, another roughly 19-20,000 fewer deaths.The policies being protested by Renee Good and Alex Pretti have saved 23,000-24,800 lives in 2025 alone. For context, American lost about 58,000 lives in eight years of the Vietnam War and 37,000 lives in the three years of the Korean War.
The old rector is focused solely on the loss of two individuals opposed to policies which have resulted in saving roughly 23-24,800 lives in 2025 alone. Yes, even if the result of their own bad decisions, the loss of two lives is tragic. But where is the Rector's concern for the nearly 25,000 lives which would have been lost had the old trend lines (supported by Good and Pretti) continued?
The asymmetry in interest is staggering. Put in Woke terms it is even more appalling. Those 25,000 lives are overwhelmingly black, brown, and poor. Good and Pretti were middle-class whites. I don't accept the Woke identitarian worldview but it is their construct, I would expect that there would be some consistency.
That mewling, ideological, muddle minded, effluvium from the rector was Wednesday the 28th.
Today, I am at our new church, the cathedral, which is much more non-political.
When I arrive early, listening to the choir and organ practice, I review the readings for the day and dip into the Bible for a little reading. The first coincidence was that I randomly opened to Matthew Chapter 6 verses 1-8.
Charitable Giving to the Poor and Prayer6 “Take care not to practice your righteousness in the sight of people, to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.2 “So when you [a]give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, so that they will be praised by people. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3 But when you [b]give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your charitable giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.5 “And when you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they [c]will be seen by people. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 But as for you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.7 “And when you are praying, do not use thoughtless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8 So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
The contrast between Matthew 6 and the pathological altruism and emotionalism so typical of Woke, where the appearance of charity and concern is so much more important than actually doing good deeds, was inescapable.
The old rector's screed on Wednesday was a renunciation of Matthew.
Outwardly making a show of righteousness.Sounding the trumpet of meaningless emotionalism.Thoughtless repetition of Woke catechisms.
Oh, and not to mention the studied indifference to the deaths of 25,000 poor and marginalized and suffering people.
But that wasn't all. The sermon at the Cathedral today was an early celebration of Candlemas. More than that, beyond leveraging the day's readings, the sermon incorporated Michael Faraday's 1861 The Chemical History of a Candle. Ultimately leading to a ringing endorsement of the pursuit of Truth (and an unstated sotto voce endorsement of the Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Method.) That's a sermon I can get my cognitive teeth into and turn around and around over the coming week. I am so glad for the change of churches.
Rounding off this Sunday of serendipitous intersections, this afternoon, I come across Stop Falling for Weaponized Empathy by Michael Clary. The subheading is For all the gullible Christians angrily venting about ICE, your Christian love is not pure. You're functioning as agents of chaos. Stop it.
Weaponized empathy is everywhere right now. And Christian, you have got to stop being so gullible and falling for it.Seriously, your naivete might feel warm, nice, friendly, and loving. But that’s not how true Christian love works.[snip]That’s a big problem in the modern church. Too many people are gullible, and gullible Christians are causing a lot of harm in the church. These people aren’t blue-haired radical leftists we see at ICE protests in Minneapolis. No, they are ordinary Christians who sit next to you in church on Sunday but are led by their emotions. They are the nicest people you’d ever meet. They just don’t have the stomach to face hard realities. They think being “Christlike” is whatever seems “nice” or makes them feel good.But here’s the truth: it isn’t Christlike to be gullible. It isn’t Christlike to believe and share debunked propaganda. It isn’t Christlike to be led by your emotions. It isn’t Christlike to outsource your critical thinking skills to the left-wing activists in the media.So why are Christians so gullible? It’s because they’ve been trained to think “love” means whatever it feels like in their happy place. They assume Jesus just wants us to be nice and get along and never do unpleasant things like hold people accountable for their actions. They equate “love” with their feelings. They assume Jesus wants them to go around and feel sorry for people, no matter what they’ve done to bring harm upon themselves, because Jesus is all compassion and zero accountability. And if people are held accountable in ways that cause them pain, then that is not being “Christlike.”
There is much more.
History
I mean, honestly, what are people even going to do that can compete with this title?
— John Hawks (@johnhawks) January 15, 2026
“Genome Shows no Recent Inbreeding in Near-Extinction Woolly Rhinoceros Sample Found in Ancient Wolf's Stomach”https://t.co/9WAKiC7v7I
An Insight
James knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s recycling a Marxist slogan that was already refuted in Marx’s own lifetime and selling it to people who don’t know the history, the economics, or the incentives. He’s not trying to explain poverty. He’s trying to weaponize envy.
— Rock Chartrand🤑 (@RockChartrand) December 27, 2025
The claim… https://t.co/fi8a8Pakng
I see wonderful things
🚨: This is the "impossible" shot of our home galaxy. 🌍✨
— Curiosity (@MAstronomers) January 14, 2026
We can't physically travel outside the galaxy to look back, so we used math and physics instead. This simulation visualizes 11 years of observations from the Gaia space telescope to reveal what the Milky Way looks like… pic.twitter.com/ReysHpzt7z
Data Talks
If you *only* used SAT to admit to elite colleges, share of admits from top 1% income falls 15.8% → 9.9% and representation from <$200k rises by +8.8%, with no reduction in post-college outcomes.
— Garry Tan (@garrytan) August 22, 2025
It's 'holistic review' and 'ban SAT' policy that allows the most wealthy and… pic.twitter.com/PAiscMOa3u
Harbour by Night by Constantinos Volanakis
Harbour by Night by Constantinos Volanakis (Greece, 1837-1907)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
Click to enlarge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
