* positivity
* awards and goals -- which is the positive side of . . .
* surveillance and evaluation
* charisma, coolness, attractiveness
* credentialism
* the language (but not the reality) of innovation and entrepreneurialism.
* promoting the culture of fear for the world outside [1]
* bureaucratese
* political correctness (as policy and trainings)
* levels of irony and meta-irony
* promoting the culture of fear for the world outside [1]
* bureaucratese
* political correctness (as policy and trainings)
* levels of irony and meta-irony
* smarm
It worked just well enough to hold together an empire through the Great Cultural Suicide -- they did try to kill all weirdness, but the owners of capital were even more interested in sales. . . Ah, the internal contradictions upon which systems fall. . . eventually.
The Trump thing was a crack in this order, confusing and then infuriating to some, refreshing to others. He a) showed the futility of all of those sensitivity trainings, b) decoupled charisma from keeping ones cool, and c) was decidedly not invested in positivity. His ascent in the primary showed that rank-and-file Republicans preferred their hierarchy raw and aggressively stated, rather than hidden behind some bougie tricks [2]. Note that #neverTrump Republicans by and large based their critique on presentation and competence, not on policy, with the fantastically telling exception of Trump's challenging globalization.
Though Bernie has been neutralized, his movement represented the stand of a) the young and b) care workers against a) the old and b) management. Before the South Carolina Primary and the seismic move of voters that lead to the Biden landslide on Super Tuesday, the critiques I saw of Bernie were by and large personality based. I heard Bernie is "cranky" and "always yelling." Hilary Clinton needed to let us know "no one likes him." (See how much everything turns into a "popularity contest" with these people? There are very formal, though hidden, rules of who gets to say what in middle-management world).
I would contend that the pressure to find "anybody but Bernie" -- and yes, though it was desperate, it was more or less hidden pressure, but that is the way of middle management -- was not just that Bernie would raise taxes on the comfortable or that he self-identified as a socialist (which did turn out to be a problem for people over 65 who have a more extensive Cold War context), it is that he violated bougie norms, such as positivity and coolness. You are never supposed to show anger in Bureaucrat World, at least not on a "punch up" basis. Everyone must calmly accept that the technocrats are doing the best they can -- nay, the best anyone can.
Well, people under 45 aren't buying it, and that cohort probably never will. But it turns out they are (still) not where the votes are among Democratic primary voters. So, the siege continues, and the political appetite to prop up the paper pushers' world lessens. I am very interested to see how it plays out for them, but I wouldn't put my money on their economic survival.
==
Also, for posterity, a twitter thread from the night of Super Tuesday.
==
[1] I'm making a nuanced argument here. While, yes, I think there is more out-and-out bullies and tyrants in management than nearly anyone is willing to admit, I think it is more common to use all the scary things outside the office to promote general fear and anxiety. We need to "take precautions" . . . "better safe than sorry" as a way of life. This makes the day-to-day work place seem better by comparison and makes losing one's job seem to be a more dreadful prospect.
[2] That's how Trump won the primary; he won in the general election because enough people in the Rust Belt who would lean Democratic decided to stay home for a whole portfolio of reasons -- an important one being that another Clinton signed NAFTA.
It worked just well enough to hold together an empire through the Great Cultural Suicide -- they did try to kill all weirdness, but the owners of capital were even more interested in sales. . . Ah, the internal contradictions upon which systems fall. . . eventually.
The Trump thing was a crack in this order, confusing and then infuriating to some, refreshing to others. He a) showed the futility of all of those sensitivity trainings, b) decoupled charisma from keeping ones cool, and c) was decidedly not invested in positivity. His ascent in the primary showed that rank-and-file Republicans preferred their hierarchy raw and aggressively stated, rather than hidden behind some bougie tricks [2]. Note that #neverTrump Republicans by and large based their critique on presentation and competence, not on policy, with the fantastically telling exception of Trump's challenging globalization.
Though Bernie has been neutralized, his movement represented the stand of a) the young and b) care workers against a) the old and b) management. Before the South Carolina Primary and the seismic move of voters that lead to the Biden landslide on Super Tuesday, the critiques I saw of Bernie were by and large personality based. I heard Bernie is "cranky" and "always yelling." Hilary Clinton needed to let us know "no one likes him." (See how much everything turns into a "popularity contest" with these people? There are very formal, though hidden, rules of who gets to say what in middle-management world).
I would contend that the pressure to find "anybody but Bernie" -- and yes, though it was desperate, it was more or less hidden pressure, but that is the way of middle management -- was not just that Bernie would raise taxes on the comfortable or that he self-identified as a socialist (which did turn out to be a problem for people over 65 who have a more extensive Cold War context), it is that he violated bougie norms, such as positivity and coolness. You are never supposed to show anger in Bureaucrat World, at least not on a "punch up" basis. Everyone must calmly accept that the technocrats are doing the best they can -- nay, the best anyone can.
Well, people under 45 aren't buying it, and that cohort probably never will. But it turns out they are (still) not where the votes are among Democratic primary voters. So, the siege continues, and the political appetite to prop up the paper pushers' world lessens. I am very interested to see how it plays out for them, but I wouldn't put my money on their economic survival.
==
Also, for posterity, a twitter thread from the night of Super Tuesday.
==
[1] I'm making a nuanced argument here. While, yes, I think there is more out-and-out bullies and tyrants in management than nearly anyone is willing to admit, I think it is more common to use all the scary things outside the office to promote general fear and anxiety. We need to "take precautions" . . . "better safe than sorry" as a way of life. This makes the day-to-day work place seem better by comparison and makes losing one's job seem to be a more dreadful prospect.
[2] That's how Trump won the primary; he won in the general election because enough people in the Rust Belt who would lean Democratic decided to stay home for a whole portfolio of reasons -- an important one being that another Clinton signed NAFTA.
