Pig-in-a-poke
At the heart of the US retirement industry, underpinning the later-life plans of millions of Americans, is a set of financial products that hardly anyone can tell you a thing about. No one knows exactly how much money they control. No one can say how it’s all allocated. No single financial regulator is in charge of them. Yet Collective Investment Trusts are now a multi-trillion dollar business to rival mutual funds or ETFs — and are poised to become the backdoor through which more private assets are added to Americans’ retirement savings. (Source: bloomberg.com)
Via John Ellis. But don’t forget cryptocurrency, Mr. Ellis; its opacity is baked into its very name.
I’m uneasy, by the way, about allowing private assets in Americans’ retirement savings, but if you’re going to insist on its permissibility, professional management and selection of those private assets by something like Collective Investment Trusts seems one of the less bad ways of doing it.
Deep worries
Congress’s weakness is our deepest constitutional problem, because it is not a function of one man’s whims and won’t pass with one administration’s term. It is an institutional dynamic that has disordered our politics for a generation. It results from choices that members of Congress have made, and only those members can improve the situation. It is hard to imagine any meaningful constitutional renewal in America unless they do.
Yuval Levin, The Missing Branch (May 6, 2025)
Man versus myth
Thoreau’s cabin, it turns out, was not in the woods, but in a clearing near the woods that was in sight of a well-traveled public road. Thoreau was only a thirty-minute walk from his hometown of Concord, where he returned regularly for meals and social calls. Friends and family, for their part, visited him constantly at his cabin, and Walden Pond, far from an untrammeled oasis, was then, as it remains today, a popular destination for tourists seeking a nice walk or swim.
Cal Newport, Digital Minimalism
In principle and in practice
In a Press Release, ADF (the “Alliance Defending Freedom”) announced that Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has resigned, effective June 7, in order to take a position with them.
From 2002 and a few years after, I provided a few hundred hours of pro bono legal services to “pay ADF back” for training they provided, free of charge, at the Ritz Carlton Kapalua. (It was memorable partly for the return flight, Honolulu to Houston, after which I understood how people can develop dangerous circulatory problems on long flights and vowed never again to fly a Redeye flight other than in an Aisle seat, and certainly not in the center seat of the center section of an L1011, with two sleeping people between me and an aisle. Another memorable part was figuring out ways to “get around” Employment Division v. Smith in pursuing religious freedom claims.) So I’ve kept an eye on ADF.
ADF described itself in the Press Release as “the world’s largest legal organization committed to advancing every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth” (italics added).
I’m not sure why they chose that italicized part. I suspect it has to do with keeping things vague as they try to attract more donors. I’m pretty sure that ADF and I no longer see exactly eye-to-eye on “truth” (they’re de facto evangelical). I don’t recall any ADF Press Release trumpeting how they vindicated the religious freedom of, say, a Jehovah’s Witness or a Sikh, or even an Orthodox Christian; that isn’t, or at least wasn’t, the kind of case that appeals to their donors. They’re mostly into eccentric evangelicals and devout Catholics.
That’s why my donations for the cause of religious liberty go to Becket Fund. Becket is tightly focused on core religious liberty interests, avoiding peripheral culture warrior battles. And comparing its home page to ADF’s accurately reflects contrasting, public-facing construals of “every person.” And as Becket says, perhaps pointedly, “Becket defends religious liberty for all—in principle and in practice.”
I’m not saying ADF is hypocritical. Other groups with broad mandates, be they “civil liberties” (ACLU) or “free speech” (FIRE) walk a tightrope with their donors, who don’t always appreciate that government threats to people they dislike threaten them as well. I am just saying that, for understandable if somewhat mercenary reasons, ADF falls short of what I want from a religious liberty defender.
Religion (and politics)
As a preliminary matter, I want to record an objection that I feel the need to record from time to time: I do not accept the premise, common in the popular press and pervasive at the New York Times, that religion is just away for people to feel more righteous about their political commitments; that religion is really all about politics.
I don’t buy it because my personal experience tells me it’s a facile falsehood — at least some of the time. It persists because it’s true often enough, especially in the most visible religiopreneurs, to tempt nonreligious reporters into assuming a categorical rule.
Time to change sides?
Dad seemed lost in a depressed daze. He had recently been saying privately that the evangelical world was more or less being led by lunatics, psychopaths, and extremists, and agreeing with me that if “our side” ever won, America would be in deep trouble. But by then Dad was dying and knew he had very little time left. There was no time to change his life or his new “friends.” All I could do was to bitterly regret what I’d gotten him into. I still do.
Frank Schaeffer, Crazy for God, of the late Evangelical icon Francis Schaeffer, his father.
Frank, who was an angry Evangelical, became an angry Orthodox Christian. I’ve written written about him before and really have nothing new since I’ve lost all track of what he’s currently doing.
Partisanship/Binary Collapse
Ted Gioia moved an essay (which I don’t think I had seen before) from behind the Substack paywall. It’s very timely stuff, I think, even if it doesn’t give a detailed roadmap to the end of America’s vicious tribalism.
How can you tell when you’re living in a binary collapse? Here are seven warning signs:
1. All conflicts are channeled into a single binary opposition between two teams. There is never a third team—if someone tries to create it, one or both of the two teams will work fervently to destroy the third option.
2. Each team is obsessed with punishing the other—and this becomes more important than taking steps that might help their own supporters.
3. The common good turns into an empty concept, and is only mentioned as a rhetorical device in attacking the other team (which is always opposed to the common good). Policies that might help everybody are ignored (as in the Roman example), because they can’t be used to energize team supporters—which is where all power and resources reside.
4. Even institutions and vocations that have no direct connection with the two teams get drawn into the battle. Everything becomes part of the conflict—science, entertainment, math, medicine, architecture, etc.
5. The fault of the other team is never a simple matter, but always involves a long list of extreme accusations. As Rene Girard shows in his book The Scapegoat, the same charges are invariably lodged against the other team—violence, sexual transgressions, greed, ethical abuses, moral corruption, violation of taboos, and a litany of other abuses. Even if the conflict begins with a single difference (class, religion, race, etc.), it soon expands to encompass every one of society’s most feared transgressions. It sounds absurd but, in periods of binary collapse, the opposing team is always accused, sooner or later, of incest, rape, murder, devil worship, profanations of all sorts.
6. Despite their espoused hatred, the two teams repeatedly imitate each other—in fact the hated enemy is also the main role model. Like warring Mafia gangs, they engage in tit-for-tat behavior. Hence, the exact same accusations are made, back and forth. Threats, excuses, reprisals are always identical; even promises for the future (after the victory) are eerily similar. These mirror-like reflections merely increase the polarization and escalate the conflict.
7. People who try to operate outside this binary conflict have no impact. They are literally individuals without a team—which in a binary crisis is always the worst possible situation. They are the weakest of all parties. To have any influence, they must join one of the two teams…and so the cycle continues.
Having rejected the Republican party in 2005 and unable thus far to accommodate myself to Democrat foibles, I am now 21 years politically homeless. So that 7th point isn’t one I instinctively like. But Gioia continues:
Anybody who dares suggest a remedy outside the binary conflict will be attacked by the now massive forces of the two teams.
And they will get lectured endlessly about the “lesser of two evils” theory. (When you start hearing that argument constantly, pay close attention—because it identifies the source of a potential structural shift in the situation.)
This oft-stated theory declares that you must always limit yourself to the best of two bad options—because anything else is EVIL.
Maybe that’s true. But there’s another theory, perhaps even more persuasive. This other theory states that a system which only offers lesser-of-two-evil choices is already broken, and people deserve more and better options.
(Bold added) Yeah! Politically, my placeholder “better option” is the American Solidarity Party. But there’s a hint at still another route:
When athletes play, they turn against a common enemy—the opposing team. But when musicians play, they operate in a purer realm—and the audience still packs into the arena or stadium (the same venues!) for this peaceful way of forming into teams.
Yay, music! “Beauty will save the world.” (Dostoevsky)
Block quotes all from Gioia’s *How to Tell If You’re Living in a Binary Crisis8.
A story on NPR’s All Things Considered on the 13th suggested that what used to be known as American liberal democracy is now American competitive authoritarianism. It seems to fit observed fact and to be congruent with Gioia.
I’m filled with dread that it takes two or more to compete, so we may not get back to liberal democracy any time soon.
Political Evangelicalism
Political evangelicalism is a system that is deeply influenced by depraved men, and it has exactly the features that depraved men will demand of an institution they control.
First, the depraved man will alter the very definition of virtue. He’ll place a higher premium on his thoughts than his actions, so that the goal is theological or ideological purity rather than, say, the fruit of the spirit, which includes kindness, peace, patience, gentleness and self-control.
In this formulation, the absolute worst thing you can be is a heretic, with heresy defined according to the leader’s inflexible interpretation of Scripture.
You can see this temptation across the length and breadth of American religion and politics. How many people see themselves as good because their theology or ideology is pure? How many of the same people then feel righteous even as they inflict extreme cruelty on their theological or ideological foes? To them, cruelty in the name of truth isn’t cruelty at all; it’s a form of tough love.
…
The modern history of political evangelicalism is riddled with [this] kind of story: A powerful man gains a following by casting himself as the heroic warrior against the heretical and the godless. When he uses his power and fame to indulge his basest desires, he treats exposure as an attack and justice as persecution.
And because he’s built a following, he has an army of people ready to leap to his defense. After all, if they stay silent, then the liberals will win, and no one can let the liberals win. Ever.
Against this backdrop, President Trump wasn’t an aberration; he was an inevitability. When he asked evangelicals for their political support, little did he know that he was walking into the house that Paul Pressler built.
David French, primarily about the Southern Baptist Convention’s winking at the homosexual ephebophilia of the late Paul Pressler — but with, I think, broader application.
I’m starting to think that muckraker David French either has exceptionally thick skin against the barbs of his fellow-evangelicals or else he “has had it” with them and is on the cusp of leaving, or prepared to leave if pushed, for another Christianish tradition.
One lame cheer for Russian Victory Day
A day (Victory Day) that was meant to epitomize the military might of Mr Putin’s Russia instead signaled its vulnerability and weakness. In this, at least, it was an accurate reflection of Russia’s battlefield setbacks, and of Russia’s fear of the growing effectiveness of Ukraine’s long-range strikes. For the first time in nearly three years the initiative in the war appears to have shifted in favour of Ukraine. Having got through a harsh winter, when its cities and energy grid were pummelled almost nightly by massed Russian drones and missiles, Ukraine is now turning the tide. It is imposing increasing costs on Russia by almost every measure.
“Overall, it feels like an inflection point in the war,” says Sir Lawrence Freedman, an emeritus professor of war studies at King’s College London. “If the Russians have nothing to show for their efforts I would not be surprised if in some places things start crumbling.” Losses of soldiers, running at 35,000 a month, exceed the pace at which Russia can recruit replacements. And behind the raw numbers—nearly 1.4 million killed and seriously wounded since Russia’s invasion—is a grimmer new development. Until last year, the ratio of killed to wounded Russian soldiers may have been between 1:2 and 1:3, poor by modern standards but roughly in line with past conflicts. In March Mr Zelensky said that Russia was suffering almost two dead soldiers for every one wounded. “The stoicism and fatalism of Russian soldiers must be wearing thin,” says Sir Lawrence. (Source: economist.com)
Via John Ellis.
I certainly would not have predicted Ukraine beating Russia. I fully expected Russia to win eventually, and may have written that down in front of God and everybody. Drones and other ingenuity thwarted that.
I have both Ukrainians and Russians in my parish, Russian immigrants in my near family, and some understanding of both nations, so I’m not going to be despondent about either side winning or some stalemate. It has seemed to me a logical treaty concession for Ukraine to give up heavily-Russian regions like Donetsk, which reportedly was ill-treated by Ukraine before hostilities broke out. Sounds close to a win-win solution.
Dependence on the written word
Obviously, here is a paradox, and the present writer is aware of risking another in a book which calls attention to the sin of writing. The answer to the problem seems to be that written discourse is under a limitation and that whether we wish to accept that limitation to secure other advantages must be decided after due reference to purposes and circumstances. In the Good Society it is quite possible that man will not be so dependent on the written word.
Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences.
Pick one: laissez-faire capitalism or family-friendly morality
There is among Republicans little if any appreciation of how the party’s enthusiasm for laissez-faire capitalism—and the idea that economic growth is the raison d’être of our common existence—undermines the communal and social bonds necessary to support the traditional family-centered morality Republicans claim to esteem.
Mark Mitchell and Nathan Schlueter , The Humane Vision of Wendell Berry
Shorts
- Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
- In an attention economy, one is never not on, at least when one is awake, since one is nearly always paying, getting or seeking attention. (Michael Goldhaber quoted in Charlie Warzel, I Talked to the Cassandra of the Internet) (gift link)
- Students and professors at elite universities have a long track record of targeting the free speech rights of their conservative colleagues, and Republicans are rationalizing their own constitutional violations as fighting fire with fire. (David French)
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 