And the “almost” is simply because often the articles are very well written and a pleasure to read even when the actual topic and argument are deeply deranged. Amazingly this was especially true when Boris was the editor!
The problem is he is also almost amoral, and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities, and he has some deeply unpleasant ones. (at least, from what I know of him from reading online, having never met him in the flesh)
[0]: "My Boris Johnson Story" by Jeremy Vine: https://spectator.com/article/my-boris-johnson-story/
There is form and there is content. Poor content is more dangerous with alluring form. Some declared having witnessed a bewildering scientific ignorance ("He can't understand data representations").
> and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities
I personally prefer this form of government over other popular choices. But ignoring this aspect is exactly what leads to unqualified people being elected to office.
Is it?
I get that being charming and literally convincing voters it a prerequisite for the job. However the idea that even despite having those qualities there are parts of his character that should disqualify him as a candidate seem equally plausible.
Charles Manson was very charming, but he should still not hold office.
Similarly, Obama or Mamdani being charming is not what gained them interest in progressive circles.
I recall a story about Calvin Coolidge, who had earned the nicname "Cool Cal" for his standoffish attitude, about a dinner party he attended. Another guest bet him they could get him to say three words to them by the time the party was over. He didn't say anything in response, then found them at the end of the party and said, "You lose."
From monarchs to pure direct democracy, decisions have to be made. But how?
I see "government" as a kind of consensus algorithm. Policy work, adjudicating, record keeping, legislating, appropriations, etc. It's all just one big data processing machine, trying to discern signal from noise (information), hopefully learning stuff (knowledge), and occasionally acting.
For all our history, we've experimented with strategies for reducing transaction costs. Building trust, predictability, and stability.
How do you think we've done so far?
IMHO: Government, and especially bureaucracy, ain't great. But the alternative of no government isn't acceptable.
> How do you think we've done so far?
Peter Oborne on resigning from the Telegraph, 10 years ago: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/why-i-have-resigned-from-te...
Before reading them you're merely uninformed, after you're misinformed which is far worse
Human knowledge is siloed and you need to already be well-informed to judge the quality of information (this is the cause of the dunning-Kruger effect, if you’re really bad at something you lack the tools to understand just how bad you are).
So imo you have to accept you’ll always be ignorant of most topics and get comfortable with thinking “I don’t know”.
Within your own specific areas of competence you should be able to identify independent sources of information that add value and consume those while discarding the rest.
Also when it comes to politics and international affairs: no substitute for travel. Go to lots of places with different systems, talk to people and you will learn a lot more than you will from reading the economist
Ok but I have to (or rather - I am expected to) vote on those topics. And not just during the elections or referendums, but also figuratively with my wallet and attention. In other words, my actions will be driven by how (mis)informed I am.
And even though I am comfortable with being ignorant, from my experience other people aren't comfortable with me being ignorant. Saying "I don't know, I haven't thought about it" is often met with shock if not anger. I don't have the luxury of dropping those people from my life either.
As for the travel, the perspective of a tourist is different from a person who lives there even for a few months, much less a few years. I agree it beats reading third-party summaries, but I don't think it gives you a much better clarity.
There's a softer middle ground. You could try to deflect or say that you'd rather not talk about it.
And honestly, it would be a pretty big issue for me if someone in my life got angry at me for saying "I don't know" or "I'm not sure".
Maybe it's the "I haven't thought about it part" that is triggering them? It sounds like you have thought about a lot of these things.. it's just that they are genuinely difficult in many cases.
But I hear you. I've had similar thoughts and struggle with it as well.
P.S. Btw, here's a big one: Finding common ground by agreeing on certain core facts or values is usually very appreciated. This alone can dissolve the tension much of the time, especially when done with humility and grace.
Unless of course you’re dealing with a zealot who gets angry if you do anything other than passionately agree with them, but there’s not much you can do in that case anyway
The pink is also wrong more often than not when they're talking about non-European issues.
When they talk about Europe they lie.
Subtle difference.
I tend to think this is true. The economist doesn't project into quite the same mindset of outcome, so I still think (despite your polemic) it's less likely the fin randomly lies about things, but I'm prepared to consider it on it's merits if somebody gives me better reasons than what I am afraid is just .. ranting.
I find that pretty convincing and I do check out such papers occasionally for that reason.