From Einstein to Musk: The Narrowing of American Achievement

 

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, marking his controversial return to the White House. The ceremony, held inside the US Capitol Rotunda, became a showcase of America's new power brokers. In the front row, a who's who of Silicon Valley sat shoulder to shoulder: Elon Musk, fresh from pumping over $275 million into Trump's victory, Mark Zuckerberg, who had just gutted Meta's fact-checking system at Trump's behest, Jeff Bezos, and other tech titans, their combined net worth exceeding an astonishing $1 trillion.

The irony of this scene was palpable. Trump, who has long positioned himself as a populist champion of the "forgotten" rural Americans struggling with stagnant wages and rising living costs, surrounded himself with the ultra-elite oligarchs of the tech world. The stark contrast between Trump's rhetoric of being the voice of the common people and the reality of his billionaire-studded inauguration highlights the bizarre nature of his populist claims – claims that somehow survived even as Musk doled out million-dollar daily "prizes" to voters in swing states through his PAC, a brazen scheme that distributed  $17 million by Election Day.

This gathering of tech moguls at the inauguration reflects a broader shift in our cultural values and the figures we choose to lionize. Nothing illustrates this transformation more clearly than examining who our leading biographers deem worthy of chronicling. When Walter Isaacson, perhaps America's preeminent biographer, looks to history, he finds subjects of profound humanistic impact: Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein – figures who not only innovated but wrestled deeply with the moral implications of their work, contributing to human understanding far beyond their specific fields.

Yet when Isaacson surveys our present era for subjects of similar stature, he finds science and tech titans, and venture capitalists: Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Jennifer Doudna. This absence of contemporary figures whose impact transcends biotech, ai and market disruption speaks volumes about our cultural priorities. That his collection marketed as "The Genius Biographies" places Jobs alongside Einstein, Franklin, and da Vinci reveals how thoroughly we've narrowed our vision of meaningful achievement. Where are today's philosophers? Poets? Composers and artists? Our culture seems to have lost interest in contributions that don't translate directly to big tech and market capitalization.

Isaacson's "The Wise Men" chronicles how figures like Dean Acheson, George Kennan, and Averell Harriman shaped the post-World War II order through careful statecraft and long-term thinking. The absence of such figures in his contemporary works reflects how thoroughly we've replaced patient diplomacy and institution-building with technological disruption and profit-seeking. The architects of the Marshall Plan worked to rebuild and stabilize the world; today's tech titans make grandiose claims about "saving civilization" while spending hundreds of millions to influence elections and erode democratic safeguards. Indeed, on inauguration day itself, Musk declared, "My heart goes out to you. It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured. Thanks to you, we're going to have safe cities, finally. Safe cities, secure borders, sensible spending, basic stuff."

The absurdity of this rhetoric – equating campaign donations and voter incentive schemes with "saving civilization" – is matched only by its widespread acceptance. Right-wing activist wing activist Charlie Kirk, citing Isaacson's biography as authority, celebrated Musk's political machinations as equivalent to his business achievements on the PBD podcast: "When you have that kind of focus from obviously the highest capacity person on the planet coupled with Donald Trump, you're talking about a force multiplier that literally, in my opinion, saved civilization."

This new paradigm, which romanticizes rule-breaking and profit-making, has sidelined the importance of patient ethical inquiry, statecraft, and the humanities that have traditionally helped to balance and manage technological innovations. We see this playing out in real time: Meta dismantled its fact-checking system in response to presidential pressure, while Zuckerberg dined at Mar-a-Lago and appointed UFC chief Dana White to Meta's board. These are not mere business decisions but represent a fundamental realignment of power, where tech leaders actively participate in dismantling the very safeguards they once championed.

The scene at Trump's inauguration, with its congregation of tech billionaires, serves as more than just a symbol – it represents the culmination of a profound transformation in American values under the neoliberal paradigm. As political scientist Brendan Nyhan observed regarding Meta's recent changes, we are witnessing "a pattern of powerful people and institutions kowtowing to the president in a way that suggests they're fearful of being targeted." This very dynamic threatens not just the independence of American enterprise that has historically set it apart from more authoritarian systems, but the very notion of what we consider valuable in human achievement and worthy of celebration. In our rush to embrace technological disruption and market dominance, we have lost sight of the broader spectrum of human accomplishment – the kind that seeks not merely to innovate, but to improve the human condition through ethical reflection, artistic expression, and thoughtful governance.

 

--PD 1/22/25

 

Here's The Guardian's Owen Jones responding to the Inauguration. Worth watching:  

Plato and Aristotle on demagoguery & democracy

In many posts and comments here I've mentioned how Plato and Aristotle viewed demagoguery and the threat to democracy it constitutes. I don't recall doing a post dedicated to this critically important political issue.

Some people believe that the re-election of DJT is evidence that the American Republic no longer working. Exactly, what that means isn't clear to me. Maybe it's an implicit justification of people voting for a corrupt demagogue like DJT. Maybe it is an implicit criticism of the Democratic Party and/or liberalism generally that it failed. Maybe is justifies burning everything down because its all broken

But why doesn't the American Republic work any more? Lots of people believe that.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons. First, decades of demagoguery, propaganda, dark free speech, lies, slanders and crackpot "reasoning" from ruthless, radical right American authoritarian elites. Second, weakening and corruption of government, democracy and the rule of law by tens of billions of special interest dollars spent over decades. That is why our government arguably is broken, corrupted and subverted. That, plus some significant false beliefs by demagogues, is mostly why a lot of rank and file MAGA are really pissed off and voted for a deeply corrupt, authoritarian monster.  

From what I can tell, this weakness to demagoguery in democracy has been known for millennia. Plato was critical of democracy , viewing it as inherently flawed due to its susceptibility to mob rule and the manipulation by demagogues. He believed that democracy would inevitably lead to tyranny because the masses could be easily swayed by charismatic leaders who promise to fulfill their desires without regard for the common good. Plato described demagogues as individuals who gain power by claiming to be champions of the people, making wild promises, and exploiting the populace's fears and desires. He saw them as leading democracy into tyranny by manipulating public opinion and undermining democratic institutions.   

Aristotle emphasized that in a well-functioning democracy , laws should govern, not the decrees of the assembly influenced by demagogues. He warned that when demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, democracy devolves into a form of tyranny.  No one has ever figured out a democratic way to stop charismatic, ruthless demagogues. That is what American democracy and its rule of law are falling prey to right now, in real time before our eyes.

Both philosophers focused on how demagogues manipulate public opinion through rhetoric, appealing to emotions rather than reason, which leads to the degradation of public discourse and the undermining of democratic principles. Both saw a pathway from democracy to tyranny facilitated by demagogues who, once in power, could become tyrants by exploiting the very system that allowed them to rise.
Both believed in the importance of education and virtue in political leaders. They argued that only those with the proper training and moral character should govern, contrasting sharply with the idea of rule by the many, which they saw as prone to demagoguery.

So neither believed that pure democracy was a good way to go because demagoguery would cause it to degenerate into tyranny. In the Republic Plato suggested there five basic forms of government, with his ideal seen as either royalty or aristocracy, where carefully trained guardians or "good authoritarians" are in power. 

By contrast, Aristotle favored a form of government he called "polity." He described this form of government as a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. The intent was to balance the interests of both the rich and the poor while incorporating elements of virtue from aristocracy. He envisioned the middle class playing a crucial role in maintaining stability and balance. Virtue is seen as a necessary moral value to balance excess and defect in both democracy and authoritarianism. His idea was that the best life and the best constitution are those in a middle ground, avoiding the extremes of both democracy and oligarchy or authoritarianism generally. 

His polity is thus characterized by a balance of power between the rich and the poor, with the middle class holding significant power. Aristotle intended this balance to prevent the excesses of both oligarchy (rule by the rich) and "excessive" democracy (rule by the poor). Aristotle's polity concept arguably leans more towards democracy than oligarchy.

Plato's reasoning sounds strange to me. He advocates for good authoritarians to have power to prevent bad authoritarians from rising to power out of a democracy. In view of the human condition, the concept of such a "good authoritarian" sounds like nonsense. 

Obviously, both Plato and Aristotle were uncomfortable with both bad authoritarianism and democracy. Plato given up on democracy and called for a benign philosopher king or good authoritarian ruler. That's not going to happen. By contrast, Aristotle tried to figure out a middle way to deal with the mess inherent in the human condition. 

Qs: Is the rise of DJT back into power something that both Plato and Aristotle were arguing against, assuming DJT is seen as a "bad authoritarian"? Or, is DJT's character and behaviors consistent with a "good authoritarian" or is he not any kind of an authoritarian at all?

Regarding the public interest: A contested concept

I haven't posted about the concept of the public interest in quite a while, I think. In Feb. 2015, I posted my conception of the public interest as I envisioned it then:

Governing in the public interest means governance based on identifying a rational, optimum balance between serving public and individual or commercial interests based on an objective, fact- and logic-based analysis of competing policy choices, while (1) being reasonably transparent and responsive to public opinion, (2) protecting and growing the American economy, (4) fostering individual economic and personal growth opportunity, (5) defending personal freedoms and the American standard of living, (6) protecting national security and the environment, (7) increasing transparency, competition and efficiency in commerce when possible, (8) fostering global peace, stability and prosperity whenever reasonably possible, all of which is constrained by (i) honest, reality-based fiscal sustainability that limits the scope and size of government and regulation to no more than what is needed and (ii) genuine respect for the U.S. constitution and the rule of law with a particular concern for limiting unwarranted legal complexity and ambiguity to limit opportunities to subvert the constitution and the law, [later included: and (9) engaging in reasonable political compromise as a pro-democracy bulwark against extremism, corruption and authoritarianism].

I get some criticism for arguing I am pro-democracy and pro-service to the the public interest because my notion of those concepts allegedly is often very different than what many--if not most--would consider "the public interest" and "democratic." I reject that criticism. I doubt that most Americans would reject my conception of service to the public interest or democracy. From what I can tell, most don't have much or any idea of what they are or ought to be. Maybe it's what makes them happy and comfortable, whatever that might be, e.g., getting rid of illegal immigration and wokeness, and making the price of food and housing go back down. 

And for what it is worth, at least I have the guts to be explicit about how I view the public interest. Everybody can criticize such a juicy, big target.

Obviously, there are contested concepts in that description, e.g., (i) "the scope and size of government and regulation [limited] to no more than what is needed", and (ii) "reasonably transparent and responsive to public opinion." Those are loaded with contested concepts, maybe even some essentially contested concepts. But that is why "reasonable political compromise" is now included. Opinions obviously differ about contested concepts, that's why I call them contested. Democratic regimes have to compromise, but authoritarian regimes don't unless forced to by out-of-control circumstances. That is why the existence and importance of contested concepts has to be acknowledged. I do not hide from, deny or irrationally downplay reality and reasoning that is inconvenient or complex.

When asked, most MAGA people do not have much of an idea about lots of things. Ask them what regulations they want to get rid of? Usually little to no answer. Ask them where power flows when businesses are deregulated and who or what usually gets shafted? Almost always little to no answer. Most of them don't have a freaking clue. A lot of them still falsely believe the 2020 election was stolen, vaccines are bad and Biden caused all the inflation. 

Guess what happens when I describe my vision of the public interest to people who think I'm a liar, full of crap, a radical socialist tyrant, and/or whatever? They generally got little to nothing coherent to say. Gutless pussies go silent. Some respond by deflecting or degenerating into whataboutism or crackpottery. They hate it, but just can't or won't say why. In my opinion, the main reason for silence in the face of a solid defense of my vision of democracy and the public interest probably is there's just too much cognitive dissonance for most people to handle. Brains either just seize up or fly into biased unconscious self-defense mode.

Lots of people like to think they are staunchly pro-democracy, while in fact they are mostly anti-democracy. Being deeply steeped in pro-democracy morals or principles is probably why my conception of the public interest is so hard for most people, including old-fashioned conservatives, to attack. 

Random Thoughts.

 What a shitshow. We all knew it was coming though. It's not like I haven't been paying attention or not caring about the outcome of the election and the consequences.

However, I find myself amused. That has ruffled a few feathers. It's not funny. Well, no, it isn't, but...........

I still find myself amused.

I am amused that there now appears to be some who voted for Trump experiencing buyer's remorse because they voted on improved border security and improving the economy, not on cancelling out birthright citizenship, renaming the Gulf of Mexico, or pardoning even the most violent of the Jan. 6 rioters. 

I am amused that many Arab Americans actually voted for Trump. Believing he would help the situation in the Middle East. Now they are p*ssed at the selection of Marco Rubio as Secretary of State.

I am amused with Fox News. Have you been listening to them lately? They are having orgasms over there. You would think Trump is the next coming they way they are carrying on.

I am amused by leftwing media. The end is nigh. Self-reflection and figuring out how to take back the country has become secondary to whining and moaning. Sheesh.

But mostly I am amused because I am surrounded by others who are amused. I have to say this - Canadians better not be too sure of themselves - I see a push towards the Right even up here. But the Right up here is different kettle of fish. Take Doug Ford, a conservative, one of the few Canadian leaders talking tough AGAINST Trump. Our Liberal leader, this Trudeau guy, is being oh so diplomatic in his response. Nauseating.

But most Canadians, in fact almost all I've talked to, are taking the attitude - well, they (meaning Americans) got what they wanted. Now they have to live with it.

Up here, there is MORE conversation about the upcoming Four Nations hockey tournament than there is about politics. Down south it is ALL Trump this and Trump that. 

Mind you, if Canada does end up becoming the 51st state, Canadians will have to take on the American persona of entitlement, greatness, intolerance, anger and uncompromising loathing of "the other side."

Maybe Canada should annex Greenland before Trump gets around to it. 

Maybe Snowflake should take the impending doom more seriously. Or maybe he should just go back to bed.

Whatchathink?