My Best Friend Died from Loneliness
thefp.com
thefp.com
As an recovered addict/alcoholic I've heard every sad story in the book. If you find yourself similarly trapped in the personal drama of substance use disorder, know that in your neighborhood there is likely a 12 step meeting with free coffee and cookies where people will greet you and even get you to have a laugh at your common predicament. As my buddy Jimmy B used to tell me "you're a special case of the same old thing". Don't listen to the do gooders who feel sorry for you because that sh*t is deadly.
What we really need is better research to develop treatment methods that don't require people to essentially join a new religion and devote 5-10 hours of volunteer participation for the rest of their lives (I think it's understandable that not everyone wants to adopt this lifestyle). I fear that the "12 steps for everybody" model of addiction treatment gets in the way of that.
But I fail to see the message from this article. He mentions many ways to potentially "save" his friend in the world of class based politics and not just being used as "pawns", but never talks about the regret of not being in constant contact with them over the 20+ years of corporate life and chain smoking since they parted ways.
But as I read in a book about systems: it's a lot more comforting to think that the problem is somewhere "out there", rather than confronting the fact that our system is setting up people to fail.
It's a lot easier to point at guns and say, "let's get these off the streets!", rather than confront the more difficult reality of everything I mentioned.
It was not tight-knit poor family.
Of course there are various political policies that could have improved Mike's life in several ways, but whether they would have changed the ultimate outcome, who knows. "He had stopped trying to meet a woman by his late thirties." I'm not saying there weren't any economic aspects to that, but the author doesn't explain exactly how his partisan political analysis is relevant to that, how either party would have or could have helped. There's no obvious, conclusive logical inference from Democrats forgetting about the working class — which may be true! — to Mike's loneliness.
Although government policies can definitely have an effect on the lives of all Americans; cases like this one cannot be solved by government programs. The people we surround ourselves with (family, friends, neighbors) have a far greater influence over our emotional and social well-being than some faceless bureaucracy in Washington D.C.
Life expectancy is quickly falling to intersect the retirement age. The median household income is about half of what's needed to own the median home. The student loan crisis has many starting out in tremendous debt just to be able to work until they die!
Mike is not example of squeezed working class. And even less example of being squeezed by democrats specifically.
> The student loan crisis has many starting out in tremendous debt just to be able to work until they die!
You might want to check on recent votes, there is a party that does not want to help with tremendous student loan debt, and it's not the Democratic party.
I'm not American though I have lived there, but it's the same issue everywhere in democracies. The left political parties have stopped representing the working person. The right pretend they do but never have and never will.
How would government fix loneliness, lack of spouse, lack of grit, failed marriages, domestic abuse, teenage rebellion, bullying, chain smoking, alcoholism, and all the things ailing the white middle class (men?) according to the author?
George Orwell had an answer to that.
Could the government reverse the export of manufacturing jobs to the far east? If you believe they can, you might think that would improve the lot of the working class. Or is that beyond the power of the state?
Could the government rebrand pink collar jobs like nursing, where demand is rising due to our ageing population, to be more gender-neutral and higher status? Or is that beyond the power of the state?
Are there social organisations like sports clubs which the government could make easier to set up and operate? Or has the state already done all it can in that area?
Should the government be providing venues like town halls, sports facilities and libraries in every town? Or is that better left to the private sector anyway?
How far should the government go in regulating tobacco and alcohol? America has gone as far as prohibition in the past. Or should adults have as few limits on freedom of choice as possible?
The government is more than happy to support films that glorify the American military. And other countries have far more heavy-handed media controls. Given the government is willing to support films and TV that advance certain values, why not advance pro-having-grit and anti-domestic-abuse messages as well as pro-military messages?
What about getting more people into church? I'm not religious myself, but I know it's important to a lot of people and loads of people get married in churches. But some would say the separation of church and state is more important than other concerns.
Some people think the mighty and powerful state could deliver all those things, given the will to do so. Others would expect a lot less.
Zoning and urban design.
If everyone is in their cars because driving is a necessity, people are more isolated compared to places where you can walk/cycle/transit for most errands and day-to-day life, where you are more likely to bump into someone. Car-centric suburbs also tend to have fewer 'third places':
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place
If the only way kids can get places is via a car ride, everything is also more regimented, as compared to a neighbourhood where there's a local park where older kids can go by themselves and younger kids/toddlers/infants are taken by their parents so there are some adults around.
It feels like it's trying to make me sad and empathetic, and that makes me feel it's manipulative.
Honestly, it's kinda the same libertarianism over and over again. Weird unpasteurized milk articles, complaining about college undergrads and admins, purported insider views of Washington from obvious outsiders, complaints about getting into the Ivy leagues, etc. Like most libertarian stuff, it's people stuck in their 20s realizing that their life isn't going to plan.
Like, 'this year I'm going to learn Spanish/practice piano/be more intentional' Great, sure, have fun, I really do mean that. Everyone with kids and a mortgage and responsibilities has moved on from these, I dunno, frivolous/childish/trying-to-create-meaning things (not good with English today, sorry!).
TheFP is kinda stuck in that zeitgeist.
They come back to it as kids get older and don't need that much of your time. If feels unbelievable and impossible at first, but slowly it comes back and you start learning things and finding hobbies again.
None of the things you mentioned is childish either. Especially nit learning foreign languages. That is like ... super adult thing.
Very frustrating to notice half-way through the article that the text is slowly getting more and more pale - I thought my vision was going for a couple minutes or so, then I saw the "SUBSCRIBE"
No thanks, archive.is to the rescue!
> THE FREE PRESS
> This post is for paying subscribers only
> That didn’t make us fire-breathing conservatives. It made us human.
Which doesn't seem like a sensical ending for this piece.
The author of this piece is writing something similar, but doesn't really grasp what aspects of the American system created the economic dystopia of 'flyover country' - but it began in the late 1970s, expanded through the 1980s, hit its stride in the 1990s and achieved total dominion in the 2000's, and it's called neoliberal economic policy - i.e. the elimination of nation-state controls on capital flows, the removal of well-paid manufacturing jobs to Mexico, China, Indonesia, India, the import of cheap labor to fill jobs in agriculture and construction that couldn't be outsourced (using tactics like dumping US agribusiness output in Mexico to drive small farmers into poverty).
I mean, there's a reason we have something called 'The Rust Belt' stretching across mid-America, there's a reason the streets are filled with homeless encampments, and it's not because of moral breakdown or class-vs-identity politics, it's because of the trade and economic policies implemented by financial oligarchs and their paid-off politicians.
Woah now, but people were telling me just yesterday that all these people who lost their jobs found new high paying jobs.
> 'Deaths of despair' on the rise in the US: Why here and not in other nations?
> Mortality rates in the United States have increased, with suicide and poisoning by alcohol and drugs significantly contributing to the increase, alongside the cardiovascular effects of rising obesity. The causes of despair-related deaths involve factors such as increased isolation and people’s attempts to use substances to satisfy a lack of dopamine in the brain. Some experts suggest that the United States should look at how other countries support the human life cycle and adopt these policies to help prevent despair-related deaths.
[1]https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=pmpweb...
[2] https://www.economist.com/international/2018/11/24/suicide-i...
[3] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/deaths-of-despair-...
The fact that the phrase deaths of despair has not been reused much outside the USA at best tells us something about propagation of language.
This is ridiculous. US culture is so overwhelmingly influential people there were Black Lives Matter protests in 40 countries outside the US[1]. The US’ cultural dependencies would absolutely be talking about deaths of despair if they had them.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/map-george-floyd-protests...
While that phrase is uniquely American, it certainly has been used to describe decreases in living conditions in the UK. [1]
It's impossible to accurately compare the US with Western Europe where we've had social safety nets and affordable health care. Unfortunately, in the UK a decade of under-staffing, under-funding and stealth privatisation has crippled the NHS. If you go to the former industrial towns in England you can definitely see the same issues as America's Rustbelt play out but to a lesser extent.I think most Europeans would be shocked by the poverty and deprivation in certain parts of the UK.
[1] https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/podcast/episode-0...
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodokushi and https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/22/s-korea-breaks-reco...
I don't know any other economies are as neoliberal as the USA (and have been for a similar time), so I'm not sure which countries you are referring to?
> Fentanyl-related deaths are coded as synthetic opioid-related deaths. Fentanyl comprises approximately 90% of the synthetic opioids category, the CDC said.
> The spokesperson said “accidents (unintentional injuries)” was the leading cause of death in the age 18-45 group in 2021.
> If one were to break out the unintentional injury category to make the drug categories rankable, the leading cause for people ages 18-45 would be unintentional drug overdose due to synthetic opioids. That number would exceed the second highest leading cause of death (suicide in 2020 and COVID-19 in 2021.)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2023/02/02/fentanyl-over...
Yeah, that one is called deinstitutionalization.
>>across mid-America, there's a reason the streets are filled with homeless
>>encampments, and it's not because of moral breakdown or class-vs-identity
>>politics,
Maybe you are right, but I would need more evidence that this is the case.
I think we've pretty conclusively proven this to be false.
There are several reasons the streets are filled with unhoused people. Some are so mentally ill that they can't function in society. Some have lost control of their drug addictions. Some are undocumented and don't know how to secure the things they need. And sure, some percentage are there due to trade and economic policies.
There's not one tidy reason to explain the problem, and I suspect that if you start talking to the unhoused, the reason you've latched on to is not even going to be the predominant one.
Substance abuse, screen addiction, depression and suicide, relationshiplessness, friendlessness, childlessness, populist fascism, and mass shootings are all signals pointing to a rotten core that doesn't meet basic human needs: connection and affording necessities.
Growing up, my grandparents knew most of their neighbors on the block and had them over frequently. I rarely see that anymore as most people treat neighbors and strangers with automatic suspicion if not hostility or contempt. This is a terrible cultural attitude that leads to suffering and loneliness. Interestingly, I hear community is still a thing in a number of non-G20 countries.
If anyone wants a nicer country, individuals need to take pro-social chances to encourage real talk about their struggles and good vibes with those around them, starting at home and anyone they meet. Community doesn't cost money, it costs time and emotional reserves.
Paying Americans fair wages and not overworking them is the result of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism that balks at any and all suggestions of reform as "communism". Except for China, almost no one else works on a constant crash schedule.
Mike does not seem to be particularly unsuccessful person. I do not know what him being single or him not liking his standard corporate job has to do with democrats. Mike was not an unsuccessful unemployed person with no prospects - he was not too happy in his job and did not succeeded in politics. Mike came from parents that failed him massively at multiple points. Later on failed to connect with people, could not forging friendships or family. Short of psychotherapy paid from insurance, nothing in politics can fix this. More protection for kids might prevent future Mikes. This was not caused by feminism nor by anti-racist movements later in his life.
Plus as I told, some dubious claims.
> That so many of us who made it to campus never learned the cues, lingos, tastes, and mannerisms of the upper classes, which are, in a way, more important than the degree. That was the subtext of J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy.
Was this an actual subtext of that book? Because imo it was not. Actual subtext was that poor whites deserve to be poor, because they make bad choices. J.D. Vance’s policies later on were to remove parts of social system.
> Since 2000, white working-class Americans between the ages of 45 and 54 have been one of the only demographics in the world that has seen its life expectancy fall. These deaths are mostly suicides.
Is this an actual true? Is this an actual true in 2023 right after epidemic, right after finding out that child mortality is going up, right after births became more dangerous?
From World War I to the 1950s or 1960s, the idea that factory workers in Europe, or of European descent, might take over their countries, displacing the rich/capitalists/bourgeoisie, was an idea that was people took seriously, on all sides of the political spectrum. Not only would this class take over, but be the vanguard of the change.
Does anyone think this is going to happen now?
This article indicates an opinion on that question. A class of people taking power for themselves don't have to beg for pity from a coastal professional-managerial class. It would organize itself and take power.
The words needed to have a sensible political discussion are ill-defined and only add noise. I'm afraid it's beyond repair: we need a new vocab to discuss social issues, or we will never have the discussion at scale (and are doomed to live under capitalism until the collapse into autoritrianism).
This is wrong. It just so happens that the sorts of Republicans one is most likely to meet in silicon valley or New York city or Los Angeles tend to be this kind of libertarian Republican. These are also the richest Republicans and sometimes the most vocal in the kinds of media consumed by liberals, which explains the confusion
Most republicans do not care about free market purity and certainly do not care about making government smaller. For example, the majority of Republicans (myself included) praised trump for his establishment of proper protective tariffs. This isn't what is typically meant by neoliberal free markets. Moreover, I would like to see the government grow, just not in the way the Democratic party and many democrats do. Most republicans think like me.
In which way are those?
> Most republicans think like me.
I don't want this to sound like a snarky "[Citation Needed]", and I believe you believe that, but how are you so certain that this is true and no just your local circle or your own projection? I mean Ted Nuggent just called Zelensky -a man with a wife- a gay man at a political rally. I don't see what you are saying reflected in the republicans I see.
Sure. Let's go over a few topics. Please don't argue with me about them. You asked for my beliefs, not a debate.
1. Police -- I believe we need more police and more jails. I don't at all understand the democratic concern over mass incarceration. If someone has committed a crime, they should be in jail. The concern I often get from white liberals (I'm not white) is that white people are not being punished for the same crimes non-whites are. That's a terrible thing if true, and I believe we should have more jails and police in that case. Police are a form of government. I would happily pay more taxes for more jails. In my city, people are routinely released due to no prison space, and in several instances have gone on to kill their victims (i.e., a domestic abuser now is a murderer; easily prevented had we kept them in jail). I actually would pay 100% of my income in taxes if it meant we actually kept people in jail. Law enforcement is a basic responsibility of the government.
I am not against social programs to help economic development to attempt to deter people from criminality. However, releasing people from jail is not a meaningful way to lower prison stats.
2. Social Life -- I believe the government should be more involved in community and social life. I believe the government should institute programs to prevent divorce and encourage marriage and child-bearing. I would also like to see the government actively promote stay at home parents via the tax code. Marriage should be encouraged. Those taking care of elderly parents should receive heavy tax breaks. Tax brackets should be changed to be even more progressive for single income earners / married couples without kids. Social media for children should be banned. Pornography should be restricted to adults who can prove their age (exact same standard as strip clubs and night clubs.. it is ridiculous my local tiki bar has more regulations regarding minors entering it than pornhub). The War on Drugs should continue. Social media of particular community sizes should be highly regulated in what kinds of speech they can censor / what ways they can censor it (censorship should be opt-in, not imposed).
3. Economic development -- The government should take an active approach to managing American imports / exports, including taxation standards, preferences for buying American made goods, active punishment for companies choosing to do business with non-friendly states, like China and Russia. We should by and large adopt an America first mentality on economics and defense issues.
4. Immigration -- The federal government quite obviously needs more immigration enforcement, including physical barriers. I cannot honestly comprehend how people do not understand this. By and large our drug problem is caused by the Chinese communist party wishing to replay the Opium wars in reverse via the importation of cheap Chinese fentanyl via the Mexican border. This is a major national security concern. The government should immediately levy a tax of whatever amount necessary to construct a wall / fund border agencies.
5. Education -- The American education system needs to become more efficient. Useless educational programs subject to the whims of principals and administrators seeking their latest degrees need to be eliminated (my mother taught at an inner city school... I saw what happened there). Eliminate the 'right' of violent children to an education in the normal public school system. Eliminate government grants for majors not deemed in the national interest. Full scholarships for those studying subjects the country needs.
I have never heard a democrat politician of any importance speak to these concerns. The democrats are ambivalent towards policing / (in my state at least) are attempting to lower the number of people in jail with disastrous affects / unwilling to criticize the more extreme ends of their party protesting on the streets and driving up the cost of policing. In terms of social life, it's an anything goes sort of policy. Economic development... well they've finally come around to it after years bashing Trump and other republicans (remember everyone making fun of Romney for saying Russia was the biggest national security threat... jokes on you!). On immigration, there is just denial. On education, sometimes they're into it, but mostly they just spend money on things that are useless. for example, my city is funding universal pre-school and day care, which is just dumb. Parents should be able to stay home with their children; this policy only further encourages the separation. Terrible.
> I don't want this to sound like a snarky "[Citation Needed]", and I believe you believe that, but how are you so certain that this is true and no just your local circle or your own projection? I mean Ted Nuggent just called Zelensky -a man with a wife- a gay man at a political rally. I don't see what you are saying reflected in the republicans I see.
I'm a republican; I've been a republican for many years. I know a lot of republicans (on the west coast at least). That's my source. I don't know who Ted Nugent is.
He is a 70's hard rock guitarist/singer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ted-nugent-calls-zelensky-a-ho...
::Neil deGrasse Tyson emoji::