CW inspired/shaped policy on all sides both domestically and internationally has been systematically destructive and degenerative. Negative sum, not even zero sum. Nothing generative ever seems to come if it.
Conversation
I can think of examples supporting that but again I don’t know if it’s a significant effect? Have you seen any good analysis of this?
1
1
Nope. Almost all the intelligence is in backchannel conversations among people who track this stuff. Significant effect is a statistician’s way of thinking about this. It’s a poor frame because the impact is much more direct and causal-narrative.
2
2
I’m not understanding something here. The President’s twitter account is exhibit 1, I would think? And it is the most consequential force in contemporary politics?
2
1
It’s the most visible but not the most impactful. The most significant pathway is veterans/graduates of CW actually landing positions of policy making influence as the next steps in their careers (in politicians’ staffs, media orgs, as advisors to moneyed interests etc).
2
1
3
Ah, that totally happens, I see examples of that a lot. Btw what do you think of when you think of a “moneyed interest”?
1
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Yep, Adam is right. In my IoB post I had the reverse problem of many of my more abstract posts: too many examples rather than too few, to illustrate my points. But dissecting any actual case in detail would have brought hell raining down on me.
1
1
So it has the odd feel of a post that reads like empty abstractions to people who don’t follow the CW, but a template for 100s of CW skirmishes/battles for people who do. Almost a blog-length subtweet of 100s of actual cases.


