i don’t understand why our discontent is a mystery. everything that allowed us to flourish was taken away. everything. and it was not a hidden thing this taking away but it was incremental. it was out in the open for all to see but its slow pace allowed for it to not alarm us…until now. its too awful to take in that a part of our country that has the power to hurt us could care less about so doing….until now. though i don’t think its the end times i do think its too late to avoid some very bad times.
Funny that at key moments in laying out this cultural critique of our times, a likely more casual issue repeatedly rears its head. At 7:27 we first hear a glimmering of the problem - the empty pursuit of money has replaced genuine social concerns as our highest value (social concerns which include family, church, community etc., as he says.) So the question naturally arises, why has this happened? This is where cultural critiques endlessly run in circles. For culture to be the sole issue, the whole dynamic must end/begin with values -- the possibility that policy choices and the structural realities they create could have a formative effect on values is totally ignored. Tremendous economic changes have occurred since the early 20th century compromise between rising industrial giants and the economic majority of workers and consumers. One doesn't need to agree with the order that was overturned in the 70s and 80s free market revolution to see just how huge this shift was. And once implemented, an order that enshrined in policy the rights of shareholders in big businesses over the vast majority, via austerity politics and ever increasing tax breaks, of course this is bound to become a formative factor in people's worldviews. We are socialized into placing the pursuit of money over our family and community, and thus our religious values, more than partly due to the simple competitiveness forced upon us by a stringent economy. Just look up the changing tax brackets and rates since the 40s. Again, the point isn't whether you agree or disagree with these policies, but rather that such big shifts would self evidently have an effect on future generations' navigation of the world and their value formations. At another key moment, 10:30 we hear this paradox hit head on, but without addressing it. In trying to uphold this "values only" causal logic, he discusses the, indeed deplorable, decrease in civic values among elites and intellectuals. Yet listen closely and we briefly hear that a primary reason is not simply some aesthetic, moral or otherwise cultural choice, but the very strain of the economy that pressures elites into making this still irresponsible, hollow, value choices. And for what its worth I do think values, including the loss of religion, are a factor. But even here we would want to consider a double ended acknowledgement - that the loss of values is a driver and a response. And even here, at the level of values alone, the economic revolution of the 70s and 80s plays a big role. One way the free market revolutionaries justified their evisceration of the prior compromise was through constant cultural, journalistic and academic argumentation that humans are at core little more than self-interested economic actors. This argument was given to justify policy ideas being pushed electorally, but even before such policy changes could work to change our values this propaganda tried to destroy the delicate values of our democracy in favor of one thing and one thing only - profit. Tell people this enough of course they'll believe it. So even on this value level alone, one would have to look pretty deeply at the free market revolutionaries as culprits. They openly ran a campaign to demote values other than self interest and money. Yet discussions like this always seem to stop short at a sort of nebulous, "well people became unmoored, its sad but it's a mystery" argument. Hm 🤔 All said I see both sides, and people are still responsible for their value system which, inshallah, clearly should not cave to putting money above life. This value as cause aspect does drive things, too. It isn't all structural, there's a dialectic here. This is denied in this video, where only one half of the dialectic is acknowledged. Would that we all had stronger allegiance to our principles and, if we're people of faith, our faith. The world could use it!
I want to say something about your RUclips video SEO I hope you are well. I watched your RUclips channel and saw that the videos on your RUclips channel are very beautiful. But I found some problems in your video. if you update this all area then you can see a good result and day by day, For all your reasons. You will get No views if you have not done the proper SEO & keyword research for title, description, tags and more.
@@virtualpilgrim8645 Well, to start with, straw manning Liberalism is not conducive to great discourse. But I think it goes even far beyond that here, it appears to be a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting Liberalism. I mean, the mere fact that he is talking about a supposed "Left-liberalism" is inane. There is no such thing (even though yes, I am well aware that many Leftists call themselves "liberals." News flash: that does not make them so). Liberalism is NOT about emancipation from the group, or traditions, or obligations. Quite the contrary, in fact. Liberalism is automatically conservative (though conservatism is not necessarily Liberal). Neither is it about "ever expanding freedom. But is DOES emphasize the right to free association, a very different concept. So pretty much everything in the video is utter nonsense.
@@KRGrunerHe does have a broader definition of liberalism than you do, but that does not mean it is wrong. To you, liberalism is limited to what he calls classical liberalism. But Deneen believes, as I do, that there is a thread running from classical liberals to modern progressives, and he emphasizes the role of Mill as a bridge between those two conceptions of liberalism. Progressives do believe in the role of goverment in helping people achieve personal realization, but they are definitely closer to Mill than to socialists, so they can be seen as liberals. And actually, much of the discourse of those who claim the heritage of classical liberals in the U.S. has become more and more libertarian, promoting a boundless free market. So you may disagree with him, but what he says certainly cannot be dismissed as nonsense.
@@munyansebastien7127 Yeah, OK. You and Deneen believe wrong. No system that subjugates the individual to the collective can be called "liberal." That ought to be perfectly obvious. But I guess not to you! Which is weird... Oh, and Mill was a socialist, I guess you missed that part.
@@KRGruner Modern progressive liberalism does not subjugate the individual to the collective, on the contrary it uses the state as a means to ensure individual liberty and the right to self-expression. As Robert Bellah said: "the disagreement with the Neocapitalists is about the _means_ to foster indidual self reliance, not about the ultimate value of fostering it."
i don’t understand why our discontent is a mystery. everything that allowed us to flourish was taken away. everything. and it was not a hidden thing this taking away but it was incremental. it was out in the open for all to see but its slow pace allowed for it to not alarm us…until now. its too awful to take in that a part of our country that has the power to hurt us could care less about so doing….until now. though i don’t think its the end times i do think its too late to avoid some very bad times.
Gosh, the content the Financial Times is dropping these days is amazing.
Interesting discussion. Thank you.
We know who we are as a people. The Americans who died protecting this country died for Jefferson and Paine and Teddy Roosavelt's America.
What happens when the elite rule in a corrupt manner, if we had elites that were selfless than that would be a different story.
Funny that at key moments in laying out this cultural critique of our times, a likely more casual issue repeatedly rears its head.
At 7:27 we first hear a glimmering of the problem - the empty pursuit of money has replaced genuine social concerns as our highest value (social concerns which include family, church, community etc., as he says.)
So the question naturally arises, why has this happened? This is where cultural critiques endlessly run in circles. For culture to be the sole issue, the whole dynamic must end/begin with values -- the possibility that policy choices and the structural realities they create could have a formative effect on values is totally ignored.
Tremendous economic changes have occurred since the early 20th century compromise between rising industrial giants and the economic majority of workers and consumers. One doesn't need to agree with the order that was overturned in the 70s and 80s free market revolution to see just how huge this shift was. And once implemented, an order that enshrined in policy the rights of shareholders in big businesses over the vast majority, via austerity politics and ever increasing tax breaks, of course this is bound to become a formative factor in people's worldviews. We are socialized into placing the pursuit of money over our family and community, and thus our religious values, more than partly due to the simple competitiveness forced upon us by a stringent economy. Just look up the changing tax brackets and rates since the 40s. Again, the point isn't whether you agree or disagree with these policies, but rather that such big shifts would self evidently have an effect on future generations' navigation of the world and their value formations.
At another key moment, 10:30 we hear this paradox hit head on, but without addressing it. In trying to uphold this "values only" causal logic, he discusses the, indeed deplorable, decrease in civic values among elites and intellectuals. Yet listen closely and we briefly hear that a primary reason is not simply some aesthetic, moral or otherwise cultural choice, but the very strain of the economy that pressures elites into making this still irresponsible, hollow, value choices.
And for what its worth I do think values, including the loss of religion, are a factor. But even here we would want to consider a double ended acknowledgement - that the loss of values is a driver and a response. And even here, at the level of values alone, the economic revolution of the 70s and 80s plays a big role. One way the free market revolutionaries justified their evisceration of the prior compromise was through constant cultural, journalistic and academic argumentation that humans are at core little more than self-interested economic actors.
This argument was given to justify policy ideas being pushed electorally, but even before such policy changes could work to change our values this propaganda tried to destroy the delicate values of our democracy in favor of one thing and one thing only - profit. Tell people this enough of course they'll believe it. So even on this value level alone, one would have to look pretty deeply at the free market revolutionaries as culprits. They openly ran a campaign to demote values other than self interest and money.
Yet discussions like this always seem to stop short at a sort of nebulous, "well people became unmoored, its sad but it's a mystery" argument. Hm 🤔
All said I see both sides, and people are still responsible for their value system which, inshallah, clearly should not cave to putting money above life. This value as cause aspect does drive things, too. It isn't all structural, there's a dialectic here. This is denied in this video, where only one half of the dialectic is acknowledged.
Would that we all had stronger allegiance to our principles and, if we're people of faith, our faith. The world could use it!
"noble lie" - Ha
I want to say something about your RUclips video SEO I hope you are well.
I watched your RUclips channel and saw that the videos on your RUclips channel are very beautiful. But I found some problems in your video.
if you update this all area then you can see a good result and day by day,
For all your reasons.
You will get No views if you have not done the proper SEO & keyword research for title, description, tags and more.
This guy truly has not a clue as to what's going on. And he is a professor? He gets paid for this kind of BS? Jesus...
Thanks for pointing out the thing we have not been able to grasp the essential premise of this discussion. Tell us more!
@@virtualpilgrim8645 Well, to start with, straw manning Liberalism is not conducive to great discourse. But I think it goes even far beyond that here, it appears to be a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting Liberalism. I mean, the mere fact that he is talking about a supposed "Left-liberalism" is inane. There is no such thing (even though yes, I am well aware that many Leftists call themselves "liberals." News flash: that does not make them so). Liberalism is NOT about emancipation from the group, or traditions, or obligations. Quite the contrary, in fact. Liberalism is automatically conservative (though conservatism is not necessarily Liberal). Neither is it about "ever expanding freedom. But is DOES emphasize the right to free association, a very different concept. So pretty much everything in the video is utter nonsense.
@@KRGrunerHe does have a broader definition of liberalism than you do, but that does not mean it is wrong. To you, liberalism is limited to what he calls classical liberalism. But Deneen believes, as I do, that there is a thread running from classical liberals to modern progressives, and he emphasizes the role of Mill as a bridge between those two conceptions of liberalism. Progressives do believe in the role of goverment in helping people achieve personal realization, but they are definitely closer to Mill than to socialists, so they can be seen as liberals. And actually, much of the discourse of those who claim the heritage of classical liberals in the U.S. has become more and more libertarian, promoting a boundless free market. So you may disagree with him, but what he says certainly cannot be dismissed as nonsense.
@@munyansebastien7127 Yeah, OK. You and Deneen believe wrong. No system that subjugates the individual to the collective can be called "liberal." That ought to be perfectly obvious. But I guess not to you! Which is weird... Oh, and Mill was a socialist, I guess you missed that part.
@@KRGruner Modern progressive liberalism does not subjugate the individual to the collective, on the contrary it uses the state as a means to ensure individual liberty and the right to self-expression. As Robert Bellah said: "the disagreement with the Neocapitalists is about the _means_ to foster indidual self reliance, not about the ultimate value of fostering it."