by PaulHoule | 2025-06-24 18:46:51+00:00
If I had to describe the asymmetry between the left and right in terms one thing it is this.

Charles Koch can fund the Koch organization and have an organization that promotes his right wing agenda. Since he's bankrolling the whole thing, if that organization drifts from following his interest he can take the money away.

Left wing organizations promote the interest of people who are less well heeled. If they take the structure of say, Greenpeace, they could get a few million to become members at $25 a year. They'll spend 90% of their money soliciting memberships so at best 10% of the donations wind up going to actual activism. If I feel my $25/yr investment is not well spent I can quit but the leadership doesn't care because there are 999,999 others. See [1] [2] [3]

To address the argument of the blog though, I think you have to see 'the left' as not being one entity. I'll break it into three parts:

(A) Most democratic candidates and the professionals who support them. (Ezra Klein, Slow Boring) Today their motto is "protect the status quo no matter what". Regardless of the merits of the status quo (it could be a lot worse!) there isn't a lot of support for the status quo on an emotional level however.

(B) A far-left oriented around broad economic issues. Think Bernie Sanders or Jacobin. (A) is afraid of (B) because (A) most of all serves big ticket donors. It wants (B) to show up when it is time to vote but it doesn't want (B) to expect anything because it wants to give most of the spoils to donors. Not least broad-based programs like social security cost a lot of money because they benefit everybody.

(C) An identitarian movement which is essentially nihilistic and doesn't expect to win. In theory policies aimed at (C) are on the right side of [2] and could buy support for less money, but (C) is particularly unpopular among (most) minority groups (who aren't nihilistic) and is in decline because people blame (C), (A) and (B) for the 2024 election results in that order.

Insofar as the Democrats are successful they make policies that paper over the inconsistencies of these groups/world views. It can make good policy. Obamacare widely expanded health care coverage and bent the cost curve in the right direction. Emotionally people don't like it. You might get decent health care but when the "bill" comes due you get an "explanation of benefits" that says THIS IS NOT A BILL and doesn't explain anything all. If you want to know what you're paying for they tell you it would violate your privacy to tell you.

Nate Silver says that Kamala Harris comes across as disingenuous. I think it's a statement that has to be better quantified: as much as I find myself wanting to believe Silver for a lot of things, he often falls down when it comes to the details. Part of it comes down to the problems of the (A), (B), (C) triangle, not least (A) keeping (B) at arm's length if not outright suppressing it while it makes overtures to (C) with cheap talk.

(B) and (C) have some possibility as coming across as authentic and being "influencers" but (A) has the hardest time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty