I've always found it interesting that conservatives often are the ones complaining about over-large beauracracies, especially in government, but basically never do anything about it. I think it is because conservatives are also more resistant to large-scale change. This is why so many supposedly 'small-government' conservatives did nothing but complain about things like DOGE. I wrote about this idea here: https://open.substack.com/pub/moralstructure/p/the-conservative-dilemma?r=hnzyk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I agree. Conservatives in the United States (and the West more broadly) are basically a subordinate opposition party, while liberals are the party of power (i.e., leading/expanding large orgs/bureaucracy). Temperamentally, you’re looking at “just leave me alone” types more inclined toward avoidance, lower in agency, who as a result almost never sort into muscular elite blue pipelines; they tend toward more of an evangelical path (civically disengaged), passive therapeutic rage (think Fox News), libertarianism (avoidance and civic disengagement par excellence), or basically lightweight, “soft” managerials (establishment GOP core for decades). In contrast, the more socially dominant or power driven folks have a clear pathway through elite pipelines, so that’s where they overwhelmingly sort.
That’s only changing with the defection of liberal elites to the GOP, with Trump followed by other former Dems. So MAGA now has a vocal minority of temperamentally dominant, high-agency types—defectors or “counterelites”—that is actually willing to pursue a positive vision of society that goes beyond traditional temperamental conservative passivity. That’s what makes things a little more interesting; the right-wing ecosystem is actually starting to endorse real civic engagement and positive visions for society.
It’s still very challenging though, because our base is still very populist (lots of heat and not enough theory/vision); we need more elite defections, especially among intellectuals and data types, if the right is really going to make a durable impact. That might be happening, but it needs to happen a lot faster, because we don’t have nearly enough. The coalition with the tech right (many former progressive elites) is promising, but the tech right is still intellectually nascent, and that alliance is uneasy because tech goes against the populist right base on skilled immigration. Tech right should take pains to at least signal a more America first stance to avoid stirring up resentment with populist right, but that’s difficult for them because they have such a robust spine of Asian talent.
The tech right is most interesting because they actually are the types to most appreciate just how dysfunctional and stagnant proceduralist bureaucracies are compared to lean, mission-driven, founder led orgs.
It’s a hard problem. We know from psychological studies that humans are more strongly motivated by risk avoidance than by potential gain. Evolution all but guarantees that — better to have one fewer offspring than to die and have none.
Done. Got my rebuilt institution. But the donors, lawyers, activists, students, media, etc. are demanding that we put some policies in place here to make it safe and avoid an optics blow up and big headline or lawsuit. So what I think I’ll do is add an HR office, compliance office, university counsel, etc. and import the procedures from the blown up institution. Looks like we’ve got a giant bureaucracy now that does the same exact thing it used to. Why did we blow this thing up to begin with anyway? Strange. Anyway, now we have achieved progress. An award? Accept it? Why I don’t mind if I do…
I think you are more than directionally correct. Perhaps other comments forthcoming.
But on “DEI”, you implicitly define it here within institutions as no more than “Political Correctness on steroids”.
If that was all that it is in the culture, then I’d agree with your conclusions: big orgs are gonna bow down to it, because it’s easier to do so than not.
But when it’s in fact a loose proxy for oppressor-oppressed ideology, where the oppressed have a right to overcome their oppressors BY.ANY.MEANS.NECESSARY, it’s something else again. And the large majorities of the young left who are openly pro-Hamas (not merely pro-Palestinian) in the wake of October 7th demonstrate this.
Even if you are mostly correct about most of what you suggest, to lump “DEI” in as nothing more than bureaucratic inevitability is to miss something substantial.
Revolutionary critique is done by blocked/ejected outsiders. It is what creates the big org DEI/HR/compliance governance regime by putting optics/risk pressure on the institutions. It is the threat to "destroy everything" that generates the governance regime to deal with the legitimacy threat. "Gives me [and the ppl I speak for] more stuff" basically. Sometimes critics then become absorbed. The right is doing this too now, which is certainly interesting. But you'll still get the same cows grazing on grass mentality in rw-coded big rich institutions, just according to a different ideological flavor. However, I do wonder whether rw critique, which you might say I am doing one step removed, might actually also insist on structural changes. And in fact we might see the rw critique growing structurally because the bloat is becoming unsustainable (debt, etc.), which means pruning time. LW=growing. RW=pruning. Meta. Idk.
"Modern progress is conceived as more fairness, more safety, more comfort, less risk, for larger numbers of groups, as implemented by the ever-expanding bureaucracy."
This along with your ending prescription read as a masculine attempt to countervale the 'feminization debate.' If so, I agree, and have been banging that drum. It's about equilibrium (relative to the telos of the institution) not dominance.
I've always found it interesting that conservatives often are the ones complaining about over-large beauracracies, especially in government, but basically never do anything about it. I think it is because conservatives are also more resistant to large-scale change. This is why so many supposedly 'small-government' conservatives did nothing but complain about things like DOGE. I wrote about this idea here: https://open.substack.com/pub/moralstructure/p/the-conservative-dilemma?r=hnzyk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I agree. Conservatives in the United States (and the West more broadly) are basically a subordinate opposition party, while liberals are the party of power (i.e., leading/expanding large orgs/bureaucracy). Temperamentally, you’re looking at “just leave me alone” types more inclined toward avoidance, lower in agency, who as a result almost never sort into muscular elite blue pipelines; they tend toward more of an evangelical path (civically disengaged), passive therapeutic rage (think Fox News), libertarianism (avoidance and civic disengagement par excellence), or basically lightweight, “soft” managerials (establishment GOP core for decades). In contrast, the more socially dominant or power driven folks have a clear pathway through elite pipelines, so that’s where they overwhelmingly sort.
That’s only changing with the defection of liberal elites to the GOP, with Trump followed by other former Dems. So MAGA now has a vocal minority of temperamentally dominant, high-agency types—defectors or “counterelites”—that is actually willing to pursue a positive vision of society that goes beyond traditional temperamental conservative passivity. That’s what makes things a little more interesting; the right-wing ecosystem is actually starting to endorse real civic engagement and positive visions for society.
It’s still very challenging though, because our base is still very populist (lots of heat and not enough theory/vision); we need more elite defections, especially among intellectuals and data types, if the right is really going to make a durable impact. That might be happening, but it needs to happen a lot faster, because we don’t have nearly enough. The coalition with the tech right (many former progressive elites) is promising, but the tech right is still intellectually nascent, and that alliance is uneasy because tech goes against the populist right base on skilled immigration. Tech right should take pains to at least signal a more America first stance to avoid stirring up resentment with populist right, but that’s difficult for them because they have such a robust spine of Asian talent.
The tech right is most interesting because they actually are the types to most appreciate just how dysfunctional and stagnant proceduralist bureaucracies are compared to lean, mission-driven, founder led orgs.
(I’m using LOTS of broad brush strokes here.)
It’s a hard problem. We know from psychological studies that humans are more strongly motivated by risk avoidance than by potential gain. Evolution all but guarantees that — better to have one fewer offspring than to die and have none.
"The only way out is to design institutions that reward responsibility and risk-taking, not manage decline."
WRONG.
The only way out is to dismantle the entire parasitical paradigm. If you really want institutions, rebuild them from the ground up.
Done. Got my rebuilt institution. But the donors, lawyers, activists, students, media, etc. are demanding that we put some policies in place here to make it safe and avoid an optics blow up and big headline or lawsuit. So what I think I’ll do is add an HR office, compliance office, university counsel, etc. and import the procedures from the blown up institution. Looks like we’ve got a giant bureaucracy now that does the same exact thing it used to. Why did we blow this thing up to begin with anyway? Strange. Anyway, now we have achieved progress. An award? Accept it? Why I don’t mind if I do…
make real ethical rules - it start by understanding self regulation
Yup, return to forever.
Institutionalist vs Brokenist, as Arnold Kling writes.
Just because you are sometimes correct that the best answer is to tear it all down:
a) doesn’t mean that it always is, and b
b) you still gotta deal with what orgs there are and do your best to reform them.
I think you are more than directionally correct. Perhaps other comments forthcoming.
But on “DEI”, you implicitly define it here within institutions as no more than “Political Correctness on steroids”.
If that was all that it is in the culture, then I’d agree with your conclusions: big orgs are gonna bow down to it, because it’s easier to do so than not.
But when it’s in fact a loose proxy for oppressor-oppressed ideology, where the oppressed have a right to overcome their oppressors BY.ANY.MEANS.NECESSARY, it’s something else again. And the large majorities of the young left who are openly pro-Hamas (not merely pro-Palestinian) in the wake of October 7th demonstrate this.
Even if you are mostly correct about most of what you suggest, to lump “DEI” in as nothing more than bureaucratic inevitability is to miss something substantial.
Revolutionary critique is done by blocked/ejected outsiders. It is what creates the big org DEI/HR/compliance governance regime by putting optics/risk pressure on the institutions. It is the threat to "destroy everything" that generates the governance regime to deal with the legitimacy threat. "Gives me [and the ppl I speak for] more stuff" basically. Sometimes critics then become absorbed. The right is doing this too now, which is certainly interesting. But you'll still get the same cows grazing on grass mentality in rw-coded big rich institutions, just according to a different ideological flavor. However, I do wonder whether rw critique, which you might say I am doing one step removed, might actually also insist on structural changes. And in fact we might see the rw critique growing structurally because the bloat is becoming unsustainable (debt, etc.), which means pruning time. LW=growing. RW=pruning. Meta. Idk.
"Modern progress is conceived as more fairness, more safety, more comfort, less risk, for larger numbers of groups, as implemented by the ever-expanding bureaucracy."
This along with your ending prescription read as a masculine attempt to countervale the 'feminization debate.' If so, I agree, and have been banging that drum. It's about equilibrium (relative to the telos of the institution) not dominance.
A funny version:
https://open.substack.com/pub/graymirror/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the-cathedral?r=j0s6f&utm_medium=ios