A friend says: Political pundits are selected for on their ability to get and keep attention. Many though academia’s problems are, the selection process is not as pathological. And the same applies to business/finance analysts — and, to be honest, to papers like the New York Times that have serious branding power such that the individual writers are not “hustling” as much. People who strive individually for attention have to resist a riptide pulling them towards “we have to fight wicked evil childeating [outgroup].”
The internal rhetoric of the left is of being overcome with emotion, with rage and sadness that overspills uncontrollably yet the actions of the left are deliberate and cohesive over a timescale of decades. The internal rhetoric of the right is all about plans coming to fruition at some time in the usually distant future yet the actions of the right are spontaneous, reactive, short-term oriented.
It’s like we’re on a very big ship, and a crowd is fighting over the steering wheel. There’s little point in throwing yourself into the melee. The ship’s course is of ultimate importance, but out of control. Lifeboats spring to mind – but most of the time, ships don’t sink. The worst should have its place in one’s priorities, but not the first place.
The first priority should go to some business on the ship which is neglected, and which you can make headway in. It seems paradoxical, but the more obvious a problem is the less likely it is that you’ll be able to make headway as a fellow arriving on the scene.
One should seek some happy medium in the ideal problem: something drab and obscure enough to be underprioritized, but not so drab and obscure as to leave you a lone crusader.
