Holiday Pajamas

And Intellectual Catastrophists

The world continues to be furious. So, let’s start with the fun stuff.

I agree with Jonah Ryan: It is time to punch Daylight Saving Time in the clock.

Not because I think it has failed to reduce energy costs. Not because time zones are confusing. (TBH, I wear a watch because I am not cool enough to wear hipster leather bracelets.)

Rather, it’s for the children.

See, in the BBG times, once a year, that extra hour of sleep was glorious. And, this year, after months of Anisa’s daily 5:45 AM wake up calls, Toya and I were looking forward to that extra hour.

Of course, come Sunday morning of the glorious clock fall back, Baby Girl decided it was time to wake up at … 4:45 AM. Because, as you see above, she had to show me her five teeth.  

So, for the children (or at least the parents of very young children), let’s bring an end to the madness that is Daylight Saving Time. Life is stressful enough now that I have come to terms with the intensity of the holidays in my future.

Because as adorable as Ladybug Baby Girl was for Halloween, I am not sure I am up to the challenge of the intensity of holiday decorations in my future. But, this is not Anisa’s fault.

The fact is that Toya came into my life and all of a sudden both the dog and I are grinning like fools in matching Christmas pajamas. Now, with Baby Girl on the scene, mine is a future of sweaty costumes, complicated and dangerous lighting arrangements, and squeals of delight.

I assume Toya and Baby Girl will have a good time too.

Zero Sum Intellectual Catastrophists

In my new line of work, I think a lot about democracy. What it is. What it isn’t. The different ways people define our democracy - and why it is (or isn’t) important to them. I am struck by how often the debate feels zero sum.

In other words, if your definition of democracy - and why you hold it dear - is an existential threat to my definition (and what I hold dear)., well, I hate you.

As a friend pointed out, something has to be limited in order to be zero sum. So, why do we treat “justice and liberty for all” like a scarce commodity?

Danielle Allen, in addition to being the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University and a contributing columnist at the Washington Post, is author of an amazing new book I’ve started to read, Justice by Means of Democracy.

In unpacking John Rawls’ 1971 Theory of Justice, Allen writes, “When you de-emphasize the political rights and focus primarily on the private rights or negative liberties, you can easily come to focus exclusively on economic questions and lose sight of political questions.”

Look, all of us would agree that by every measure, society is becoming more culturally diverse. And, building on Allen’s point, I would argue our primary focus on economic wealth and security leads to our ignorance of political — or cultural— questions; as a result, weakening our democracy.

Because, as Allen points out, if “participation and the opportunity for influence constitute a discretionary, sacrificeable value rather than a necessary good,” those who hold power must be “reasonably close to the cultural universe that characterizes the population governed by the state.” Which is most certainly not the case

Which brings us to a New York Times Guest Essay by Damon Linker that introduces us to, “A coalition of intellectual catastrophists on the American right,” suggesting “that officials might contemplate overthrowing liberal democracy in favor of revolutionary regime change or even imposing a right-wing dictatorship on the country.”

Oh. Fantastic.

Linker believes intellectual catastrophists have gotten to this point because of their, “Intense dislike of what America has become, combined with panic about the right’s ability to win sufficient power in the democratic arena to force a decisive change.”

So, instead of improving our democracy, much less relying on, “its historical flexibility in response to cultural, social and economic changes over time,” the intellectual catastrophists create a current of ideas that create the conditions for political extremism, leaving shards of our political community strewn across the ground.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are led to believe that the next election is the one that will save democracy; implying we are unable to expand the political liberties that are implicit to our democracy. Falling into the trap set by the catastrophists who want us to believe liberty and justice is not intended for all.

This is the thing. Democracy is always on the ballot. There were winners and losers in the election this week. There will be winners and losers next year. “Those on different sides of these conflicts need to be willing to accept the possibility of losing,” writes Linker. “That’s the democratic deal: No election is ever the final election.”

And, every election is an opportunity to expand the coalition of Americans who truly believe in the idea of liberty and justice for all. If we do that in a way that crosses ideologies, our democracy will get better. If not, well, I am worried.

Three Other Things

First of all, I am thrilled to join the 2023 Center for Effective Government class of Fellows at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy. Apologies in advance to my fellow fellows for dragging down the level of discourse.

Second, 17 years ago, when I was in Massachusetts, a colleague’s sister committed suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. (Her other sister recently wrote a beautiful oped on the family’s loss in the SF Chronicle.) Well, finally, after at least 2,000 people have leapt to their demise from the amazing span, steel netting has been installed along the bridge.

Ken Holmes, the former coroner in Marin County, across the bridge from San Francisco, whose office was responsible for examining the recovered bodies of jumpers, told the New York Times, “It’s about damn time.” Couldn’t agree more.

Finally, give this conversation between Yascha Mounk and David Brooks a listen.