notes on Mitchell's "American Awakening"

A big chunk of Joshua Mitchell's book is about "identity politics" (introduced in the preface and developed throughout the book). Included in this is a comparison to Christianity. Mitchell (xix) notes that universities were based on Greek ideals of knowledge and wisdom—and have ironically moved back toward "the Christian fixation on transgression and innocence" (and even, a version of "original sin"). Unfortunately, this new religion painfully operates without God, grace, or forgiveness. Later, Mitchell refers to this as "spiritual eugenics" (xx) and our times as another "American Awakening" (41). 

As is clear from the aftermath of Adam and Eve falling into various temptations in Genesis 3, there is something fundamental in our desire to shift blame and evade personal responsibility. C.S. Lewis has a number of poignant observations about how we hold others to higher standards than ourselves. Of course, Jesus speaks to this temptation as well—and calls us to judge others and ourselves proportionately. Likewise, in contrast to Christian norms, Mitchell (200) observes that "...identity politics finds the Christian shortcut too difficult to endure, for it demands that man be hard on himself and admit both his stain and his inability to remove it without Divine assistance." One mark of a bad religion is holding others up to a high standard while letting ourselves off the hook. 

Mitchell (xx) is also helpful in teasing out the religious aspects of politics as often practiced today. "Americans have not lost their religion. Americans have relocated their religion to the realm of politics. The institutional separation of church and state may be largely intact, but the separation between religion and politics has largely collapsed. More precisely, with respect to the matter of presumption of guilt and innocence, they have traded places. Once, because of the doctrine of original sin, there was a presumption of guilt in the churches, and because of our legal history, a presumption of innocence in the realm of politics. Today, [we are] lifting the burden of guilt in the churches and [are] shifting it to politics."

Mitchell also makes a series of related miscellaneous observations: 

-Adherents of this religion feign guilt, but they always arrange for others to pay the price. Here, Mitchell (xxxii) cites William Voegeli who observed that no white Leftists have given up their positions to be replaced by someone from an oppressed, under-represented group: they "reliably devise penances that will be performed by other people." 

-The ideological mishmash of LGBTQ+ can only be coherently unified by describing "white cis-gen males" as scapegoats (87). As a comparison, Mitchell (94) cites Orwell's "Two Minute Hate" toward Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984.

-Mitchell reminded me about details on racial classifications in the Census (which I learned about in David Bernstein's books: Black and mulatto were included in 1850; proportions of "blackness" up to 1/8th were measured in 1890; all of this was discarded in 1900 (79); and "Hispanic" was added as a category in 1970 (82).

-Mitchell (230) reminds us that Trump was roundly called a racist for shutting down airline flights from China early in Covid-19—what Mitchell rightly observes (along with Bill Maher: https://youtu.be/dEfDwc2G2_8) should have been labeled the "Wuhan flu".

-Mitchell provides a nice description of the simplistic, clean "analysis" inherent to various forms of fundamentalism—e.g., as is often seen in environmentalism (192-193).

-Prophetically as per the 2024's election results, Mitchell (65) wonders how Dems can win any more elections while believing and saying publicly that white voters are stained. With the increasing Left-based racism of the last decade or so, Dem political success (such as it has been) may be mostly explained by the onset of Covid and the GOP running a flawed character like Trump. If the Dems can't reverse their dramatic and public move from "working class" issues to Leftist "identity politics", they may spend a good chunk of time in the electoral wilderness.  

-Really provocative to me: Mitchell describes tariffs as a strategy to promote a nationalistic identity. As an economist, I'm used to seeing and describing the (cronyistic) benefits and (larger) costs of trade restrictions—in largely economic terms. But Mitchell ties them into broader psychological and cultural concerns—and ironically, links them to identity politics. In his words, identity politics "establishes interpersonal tariffs, intended to protect the identity bearer's fragile interior" (25). Interestingly, economic tariffs do the same thing for populists and nationalists on the Right. 

Mitchell develops two other big ideas. The first was amusing and interesting, but not of great use to me in my work—his pokes at "management society and selfie man" (140ff). The second was powerful for me in understanding the world and some of the people around me. He argues that many things are wonderful as supplements, but detrimental if they become substitutes for the real or greater thing (147ff). He provides a long list and I'll add a few more: GPS instead of geographical literacy and understanding maps; reliance on calculators while increasing innumeracy; using medication and surgery as substitutes for diet, exercise, and other healthy practices; weapons as a substitute for diplomacy or fighting skill; social media trumping personal relationships; Amazon replacing storefronts; and on-line education driving out face-to-face classroom experiences. Of course, AI opens a grand new frontier of temptations in this regard. The wise person will work to limit the subsequent problems while embracing its benefits.

thoughts on the election

I’m not a fan of either Trump or Harris — and whoever won, I had big worries about the country’s future, especially on government spending and debt. But I was thankful for a decisive outcome on Tuesday. I prayed for a large enough victory to avoid inflaming at least one set of partisans — and to give a better opportunity for the losers to reconsider their approach in the future.  

To the GOP: Congratulations! You got what you wanted short-term. But now, it's more likely that you'll lose in 2026 and 2028. Trump is a lame duck and will be a mishmash on policy, so I'd lower your expectations. You might hope for a vigorous debate between your various factions: the populists, small-L libertarians, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. But your future is now more likely to be populist until current events or a charismatic candidate pushes you somewhere else. 

Did Trump get a “mandate” with his victory? The surprising win in the popular vote certainly points that direction. But a mandate on what? Going a different direction? Sure. But specifically? Inflation is already under control (unless Trump’s spending and tariffs bring it back). Immigration? That’s easy to reduce going forward. But what to do with those already here? Good luck getting the toothpaste back in the tube.

To the Dems: It can be hoped that your fears of Trump and “democracy” will not be validated. The good news is that you can start over, shedding Hillary, Biden and Harris. What's the future of your party? Get ready for blame-shifting between the power-brokers, the Progressives, and the Identity Politics folks. And who's on your bench? Maybe Biden and Harris really were your best (ouch). Since you've ironically had only one robust and fair democratic primary since 2008, it's difficult to know. But a handful of governors or a smooth speaker will probably emerge for 2028.  

On election night, there was statistical analysis claiming that "Harris under-performed Biden." But Harris was largely a proxy for Biden’s administration. Really, it was the Biden record that was under-performing. Biden was largely ineffective as president — and painfully so, on inflation, immigration and international issues. And then Harris and others gaslighted those who were concerned about Biden’s mental competence. 

Related: the vote was not anti-woman, but a referendum on Biden and Harris. She was dealt a bad hand, ran a middling campaign, and looked unimpressive along the way. Even though Trump is a hot mess, he was able to soundly beat the bigger mess on the other side. Pick better people next time and do better when you're in charge. 

Harris was chosen in 2020 explicitly because of her race and gender. A necessary problem with “DEI” and “Affirmative Action” is the reality or at least the perception that one is not (as) qualified. Given this, it was that much more important to see competence or ideally, excellence. Unfortunately, that was not the case this time. 

While I was watching election returns, I bounced through the four legacy networks. (I forgot to check out CNN or MSNBC.) I was pleasantly surprised that they were somewhere between balanced and friendly with Trump. The mainstream media has shredded its credibility in the last decade. Was this an effort to rehabilitate their reputation? Did they have inside information, despite supposedly-even polling data—a strong sense that Trump was going to win?

Trump’s election elicited everything from fear and anger to relief and messianic expectations. For all of us, this is an opportunity to take stock of our faith in (and potentially idolatry toward) politics and government. Politics and public policy matter, but they often disappoint. In particular, a suggestion for the most passionate Trump supporters and the most fearful anti-Trumpers: Write down what you think will/could happen over the next year or throughout Trump’s term — and save it to read in the future. It'll be helpful for you as you reassess your beliefs down the road.

Finally, one of the most unfortunate things about democracy: many people imagine that 51 percent jamming their preferred vision of society down the throats of the other 49 percent is somehow glorious. For one thing, 51-49 is not impressive. For another, whoever wins, it's generally better to leave it out of government's hands when you can. To use a silly example, we wouldn't want pizza toppings decided by majority rule; we leave it to the market. Sure, use democracy when you must. But promote choice, competition and decentralization of government to the state and local level — and leave it to markets and personal decisions — as much as possible.

message to partisans and a prayer before the election results

If Harris wins...

To the Dems: Congrats! You saved democracy. (Ahh, just kidding; you've been demagoguing it! But with Trump gone, maybe you won't feel like you have to do that anymore? Please? Please?!) You tried to give us Trump, but we appreciate you doing enough to avoid that. You got what you want short-term, but now it's more likely that you'll lose in 2026 and 2028. Harris will probably move to the middle, so it'll be interesting to see how much this upsets the Progressives and Identity Politics folks. 

To the GOP: Thanks for giving us Biden and now Harris. Just imagine how DeSantis or Haley would have crushed either one of them! Hopefully, your fears of her and the elites will not be validated. The good news is that you can shed the Trump baggage and have a vigorous debate between the big-govt populists (since the Dems have given up on the working poor and middle class) and your other factions (small-L libertarians, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives). Hopefully, from your relatively deep bench, someone will emerge as a Reagan-like leader for 2028. 

If Trump wins...

To the GOP: Congrats! By choosing Trump, you took a big risk that we would get Harris, but we appreciate you doing enough to avoid the latter. You got what you want short-term, but now, it's more likely that you'll lose in 2026 and 2028. Trump is a lame duck and will be a mishmash on policy, so I'd start lowering expectations ASAP. You might hope for a vigorous debate between your various factions, but your future is now more likely to be populist until current events or a charismatic candidate push you somewhere else. 

To the Dems: Thanks for choosing poor candidates who governed and campaigned poorly, resulting in Trump. Hopefully, your fears of him will not be validated. The good news is that you can start over, shedding Hillary, Biden, and Harris. What's the future of your party? Get ready for some blame-shifting between the power-mongers and the Progressives. And who's on your bench? Maybe Biden and Harris really were your best. (Ouch!) Since you've (ironically) had only one robust and fair democratic primary since 2008, it's difficult to know. But a handful of governors or a smooth/dynamic speaker will probably entice you for 2028. 

Either way: I'm praying/hoping for a split Congress/President result and a large enough victory by the new president to avoid inflaming existing idolatries and to give partisans on one of the two sides to mitigate, eliminate idolatries going forward.  

"Sign Stealers"

On the road to/from the Touchstone Conference and the ND/UL football game, I listened to this episode on Netflix. Key takeaways: 

-"Stealing signs" is allowed within bounds, including hiring people to decipher signs.

-Good sign stealing may add (significant noise) to understanding player quality. (E.g., if you're on a team with good/bad sign stealing, the quality of your play may be less/more than expected.)

-Stealing the sign is one thing, but I wasn't clear how they communicated the info to their own players.

-It was strange that the NCAA acted so quickly on the allegations in the Michigan case. 

-It's noteworthy that UM won (higher-pressure, tougher-opponent) games without the apparent benefit of sign stealing and with Harbaugh sidelined. 

-One wonders the extent to which it played head games with opponents more than making a difference. 

-Modern helmets are now allowed by the NCAA, but would have avoided much/all of this problem. (Why not before?!)

"Am I racist?"-- the movie...

Saw "Am I racist?" on Saturday with Brennan. Good if you're into the topic. Well-done, but left money on the table. Walsh gets in the way too much, especially (big-time) in the opening scene, and misses the op to let them speak for themselves and look sad/funny.

Funniest subtle moment: Walsh redefining "mansplaining" with DiAngelo.

Most powerful moment: African-American Christians talking about race as secondary to love and our identity as humans. (It's a bigger deal to those who make it a bigger part of their identity.)

Coolest question: I'm excited that my daughter loves Moana, but I don't know what to do with the cultural appropriation if she wears the costume at Halloween. What to do?

Most surprising: DiAngelo was quite reasonable/rational-- and the only person who wasn't silly or seemingly in it just for the money (a bunch of cynics or clowns).

Most provocative: DiAngelo seemingly earnest bewilderment at the reparations payment. I don't understand why she described it as "weird" rather than beautiful, interesting, etc. She said, reasonably from her perspective, that such things are systemic, so systemic solutions are required-- except that she tries to persuade individuals all the time in her training/books. (She said she would "process this"-- and again, seemed earnest. Does anyone know if she's said anything serious about this?)

thoughts and principles on responding to transgenderism

Transgender questions (from Chris): Is it genuine? Should they pursue care? Is it a function of sin nature? Puberty blockers, etc. before age 18? 

Short answers: 

Is it "genuine": I think most of it is genuine (at least in its perception), but especially for adults (and especially before the recent social push). 

Should they pursue "care"? I can't recommend it (especially if more intrusive/permanent), but I'm not terribly opposed. 

Should they be allowed to pursue care? Yes. 

Is it a function of sin nature? Well, yes, everything is influenced by sin nature. Putting it differently and borrowing from Kyle: we're all broken sexually (and in other ways too). As always, a failure to understand this is going to lead to all sorts of different (and often unfortunate) inferences and choices. 

Treatment before 18? Probably, with parental consent (especially if the science indicates little/no long-term harm from reversing course later). 

Key principles in play for me: 

-Our temptations and sinful responses always come from some combination of Sin Nature, the World (system), and the Devil. In this realm, the Devil has been happy/gleeful to use recent changes in the World to interact with Sin Nature. 

-Is it sin nature and/or biology, etc.? Yes. As always, it's *much* more important to consider what is done with various "orientations" (from biology, environment, etc.) than having the orientations. 

-Identity is a crucial issue in Christianity. The top priority for a Christian is to have one's identity "in Christ". Other aspects of identity are important, including race, sex, gender, and class (e.g., Gal 3:28, Rev 5:9). But if they occupy the top position (or too high of a priority), then this is idolatry, is damaging to the human person and others, etc. If my top identity is anything else, I'm not in the Kingdom (I Cor 6:9-11) or struggling with idolatry and not comfortable in the goodness of God's Kingdom. 

-Similarly, our bodies and our feelings matter, but can be emphasized too little or too much. 

-We identify with Jesus, in part, through sufferings. We follow Jesus, in large part, through self-denial, sacrifice, putting others first, taking up our cross, etc. Any behaviors or worldviews that reject this out of hand-- or de-emphasize it too much-- are not consistent with following Jesus. 

-Throughout Scripture, there is an emphasis on character over circumstance, finding blessing and contentedness where we are vs. where we imagine we want to be, joy over happiness, staying in circumstances vs. escapism, etc. I Cor 7 is strong on this. My favorite passage/story on this is Dan 3:16-18. There is a time to leave, to change, to flee, etc. (Eccl 3), but we have an unfortunate (albeit understandable) bent toward escapism, grass is greener, utopianism. 

-Likewise, if someone does pursue treatment, then the ideal response going forward is the same: do the best you can with where you are now. 

-In terms of public policy, we draw big distinctions between adults and "children" at various ages-- and we also (almost always) defer to parents over other authorities in raising children. I'm reasonably happy with those policy decisions. That said, the ages are somewhat arbitrary; there are differences in the extent to which science is invoked; good people can disagree on such things; and so on. So, I'm open to various conceptions of where to draw these lines-- as long as people are reasonably consistent. For example, it seems asinine to allow surgeries but to ban conversion therapy-- or vice versa. And it seems ridiculous to allow children full discretion here (especially going around parents), when we don't allow this in many/any other realms. 

-This lines up with Shrier who is fine with transgenderism in adults, but quite worried about it in teen girls. 

brief review of Jean Twenge's "IGen"

-easy read and somewhere between common sense and provocative at times; but a 2017 book; how dated?

-p. 3's summary of topics; p. 9's data sources

-p. 19's less sex, HW, reading, work, and sleep; less dating; less alcohol until college; later driver's license and ask for money vs. allowance; more TV/videos and fewer movies; less time with friends (more likely to be with parents-- and vice versa); less religion (except blacks-- 133; similar #'s with college-ed dad-- 134). Related, see: Derek Thompson in The Atlantic on the decline in "hanging out".

--> activity: internet and social media, especially for girls (self-present, less happy, lonelier, depression, anxiety-- despite more anti-depressants), less homicide but more suicide; for boys, video games; See: my review of Abigail Shrier's excellent book on this in the context of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and transgenderism, especially in young girls. Shrier has written a follow-up on the connection of therapy and kids failing to "grow up" (reviewed here).

--> big emphasis on safety (ch. 6); 312's "physically safest and most mentally fragile"

--> independent and libertarianish (ch. 10), except abortion and subsidies for child care and college

--> RX's: phone control, get out more, exercise, grow up and stretch

Jonathan Haidt has weighed in on a related topic in the past-- in a book with Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind (reviewed here). And Haidt has a new book on "the anxious generation" (reviewed here and here-- and excerpted here. 

trying to meaure the impact of Covid-era restrictions on mortality

Good research that's worth a look if you understand empirical work and are interested in the topic. It's really good work, as far as it goes. The authors find that restrictions had efficacy, but some restrictions (e.g., in schools) were not likely to be a net gain. Some limits/concerns:

-They use cross-sectional data when panel data would be far superior.
-They knock out the early months/deaths of the pandemic. This makes the modeling easier, but will definitely skew the results. (As a thought experiment, imagine a world where Covid kills off all the vulnerable people in the early stages. Restrictions will have exaggerated effectiveness.)
-Their decision (and stated reasons) to drop (only) the earliest wave is arbitrary, since the later waves also had significantly lower fatality rates, treatment protocols, etc.
-The authors talk about this, but it's difficult if not impossible to tease out the impact of vaccine availability and decisions on the dependent variable here.
-The authors mention Covid being listed as "the underlying cause", but they ignore the trouble with identifying Covid as the true underlying cause.
-The estimated values of human life (p. 10) seem to be independent of age, when there is tremendous sample selection bias in the ages of those who died.