Alpha.Sources — Alpha Sources.CV

What is Substack for?

Thus asks The Point—another magazine that I think you should subscribe to—based on a recent exchange between Becca Rothfeld, herself a writer for the Point, and Sam Kahn, who is as far as I can see a prolific Substacker. You can find the initial flurry, on Substack, via by following the link above from The Point. The subsequent exchange between Becca and Sam, hosted by The Point, comes in three chapters. So, we have a debate on the merits of Substack as a platform, which began on the platform itself, and is since hosted by the magazine employing one of the belligerents itself. Very meta!

In preview, Rothfeld is arguing the counter position to Substack, while Kahn is arguing the position in favour of the platform. It is a good discussion, and one that gets to the core of what Substack does well, what it doesn’t do well. It’s interesting, however, that the exchange neglects to mention one of the most glaring deficiencies of the platform, namely the economics of the consumers, the readers, a topic I discuss here.

Things to think about #8 - Mr. Trump, US imports from China and Cultural Wars

At this point, you will have read numerous takes, predictions and analyses of what four more years of Mr. Trump in the White House means. I promise that I will make this short. I think Sam Harris’ “The Reckoning” offers a good explanation of what went wrong for the Democrats and the liberals. I also enjoyed the discussion between Glenn Loury and Daniel Bessner, even if I strongly disagree with Mr. Bessner on a number of key areas. If you want a longer explanation of the ills that have befallen US Democrats, unrelated to the diagnosis of excessive wokeness and identity politics, you should read Thomas Franks’ “Listen, Liberal”, published on the eve of the Democrat’s first loss to Mr. Trump in 2016. It’s all there, with a straight line back to Frank’s earlier identification of the problem when he asked “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Apart from that, we should also add that Mr. Trump simply ran a superior campaign to Kamala Harris. After all, you don’t win all the swing states through luck or due to bad opposition alone.

The fertility wars

The political flurry in the US over the virtues of parenthood and a high birth rate is part of a much larger cultural moment in which the debate on the significance of falling global fertility is pitting two increasingly militant and unyielding sides against each other. We have trade wars, culture wars, even actual wars; we can now add fertility wars to the list. When Elon Musk, a US entrepreneur and businessman, calls Ms. Harris an “extinctionist”, because she has linked the reluctance of young people to have children to “climate anxiety”, he means it, just as he means it when he concludes that “the natural extension of her philosophy would be a de facto holocaust for all of humanity!”

How to get handle on this? With difficulty, but in the end, hopefully with precision and clarity. First, I will briefly show that the fertility wars have been fought for a long time. I will then draw the contours of three separate positions in the fertility wars today—on the Conservative right, on the left, and a feminist perspective—before offering a suggestion on where this discourse goes next, and where it ultimately ends up, if we are sufficiently unlucky or un-attentive.

Things to think about #5

There’s been a lot of talk about the political center* in Europe in the past few weeks, in the wake of the French parliamentary elections and the landslide victory for Labour in the UK. Is it reinvigorated, complacent, or perhaps just lucky? I offer two thoughts on this.

Firstly, sometimes a long-in-the-tooth incumbent is sacrificed on the altar of change no matter how reasonable or uncontroversial he or she is. In the context the most recent elections in Europe, this applies mostly to France, where the people has a tendency to throw their leaders under the bus, for no other reason that they’ve been in power for a bit too long. But I think it applies to England too, to an extent. Rishi Sunak and his cabinet weren’t that bad, or more specifically, the Sunak government was a lot of less controversial and risk-seeking than its Tory predecessors. But in the end, the weight of dissatisfaction and disillusion with previous iterations of Conservative cabinets were too much to bear. The Tories received the drubbing they deserved, having put their faith in a toxic mix of volatility and incompetence under Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. The doomed political and economic project of Brexit looms large in this story too. Whatever Labour decides to do with this smelling carcass of a political legacy, it brought the destruction of the Conservative party, and the right in UK politics, as we know it. Perhaps for that reason, Starmer will be inclined to leave it smelling for a bit longer, to remind people of what they’ll get should they consider jumping back into the Tory fold.

02

Alpha Sources Blog