How Populism Became The One True Way
This is a bigger topic and I may not get it all right, but I’ll do my best to try.
If you’re unfamiliar with the terms “deaths of despair,” which local news anchors sometimes mistakenly refer to as “depths of despair,” it basically refers to a trend in the last 20 years whereby we’re seeing more deaths around:
The big names in the space are Anne Case and Angus Deaton, who wrote the literal book on the subject. I guess it needs to be noted right now that Case and Deaton are both superstar academics with supposed net worth valuations into the low millions, so they themselves don’t have much issue with “deaths of despair.” Someone vaguely close to them might commit suicide, yes, but it would likely be brushed under the rug as a “mental health thing.” It’s interesting that J.D. Vance, who was considered a demigod in this space, went full Trump and became a Senator by exploiting the culture wars, even though he himself is a rich consultant who went to Yale Law School.
When I say “this space” in the paragraph above, what I mean is (sadly but honestly): explaining “how Trump happened” to liberal-aligned, coastal elites. The “deaths of despair” stuff fits right into that wheelhouse. Staying on Trump for one second (hopefully not much more), I’ve always thought that 2016 saw a lot of “closeted Trump voters,” meaning people who said “No, I’ll never vote for that asshole” — and then did exactly that. Four years later, they were just tired of some of the chaos, and how he moved markets with two tweets. That didn’t help their portfolios, and their daughter was constantly screaming at dinner, so they either didn’t vote or voted Biden. That’s a much more logical explanation for 2020 than “ballots in Korea,” IMHO.
We don’t get that deep into “deaths of despair” unless we’re interested in economics and statistics and get a half-chub looking at graphs based on random counties in Ohio. In general, the narrative most ascribe to “deaths of despair” is:
There is validity in all these bullet points, unfortunately. It’s not quite as simple as any of them, but the macro-level, 35,000-foot on “deaths of despair” is that tech + globalization + labor arbitrage + wide availability of painkillers + bars every .7 miles + guns everywhere + life is generally hard = people go out in sad, long, gruesome ways. And yes, it’s more those who aren’t college-educated. A couple of Princeton academics found this trend and got rich themselves off it. That’s the way the modern academic cycle often works.
We sadly live in a time where most things need to be ideological, and the “deaths of despair” input data has become ideological too. When it’s convenient for right-leaning people to talk to the huddled masses yearning to break the yoke of opioids, they do so. When they need to turn on these people and claim they’re addicts looking for handouts who need to man up and get a job, they do that. Liberals do the same stuff: claim to care and then, when someone who might be a candidate for a death of despair founds a kettlebell company in Indiana, said liberals still buy their kettlebells on Amazon, cheaper, and made in China. We know the dance.
As for this “numbing” question, I’d say absolutely yes. As I’ve gotten older, the main thing I’ve realized is that people have a very limited set of things they can care about, and an even-more limited set of things they’re willing to care about. Most of those involve their own ability to earn money, their immediate family, and that’s about it. Most of the other stuff we claim to be important is, unfortunately, performative.
If you’re never going to meet someone who dies of an overdose in Kentucky, would you care about the plight of, and options for, that person over your eight year-old daughter? No. That would be irrational. We focus on an insular pod of individuals and tasks/responsibilities, and everything else seems to be stuff we assign a vague, fleighty “weight” to (black squares, etc.) but don’t actually care about.
So yes, I’d say we’re generally numb to this. Even the people who got famous writing about it probably return to massive homes at the end of the week.
Now, the more important question is: Can we do anything about it?
We can, but it’s hard, for sure. The main thing we need to develop is a greater sense of community. The idea of “community” is also vaguely bantered about a lot — I’ve done that! — and tends to run up against its rival, “convenience.” Most people I know would rather have a convenient life, i.e. gated subdivision, limited financial issues, Amazon boxes on the porch, than a community-driven life. It’s the same reason most people don’t seem to know many of their neighbors anymore. They’d rather focus on their own life, their own home, their own yard, etc. That other stuff seems tedious. I mean, we talk to morons at work all day, right?
Some addiction programs work better than others. Some suicide programs work better than others. Some alcohol programs work better than others. I’m currently not drinking (32 days), and I had/have tons of problems with alcohol:
I tried to stop a million times. What’s worked this time is realizing I probably have about 40–45 years left on the planet, so I should do something semi-relevant. Within 32 days, have I? No. But I will. It was about a “future state” and a desire for more community. It’s nearly impossible for addicts to get community, because addicts needlessly alienate everyone they come in contact with eventually. Being sober has helped a bit in those ways. Hopefully it will help more over time.
Still, are most people probably numb to my story? Absolutely. I have friends of 20+ years who basically just avoid me now. Some of that is in here.
So, I definitely get it.
The main thing you can do for another person, and this sounds trite but it’s very true, is just show up. Most people want to be seen and want to belong to something. We have 10 million definitions for “inclusion” now, most of them about gender and race, but the real thing about “inclusion” is just feeling like you’re part of something beyond your own lonely existence, and that people care about you and you being around.
The lack of this feeling is why people drink and do drugs, FYI.
So, yes: you can stop a death of despair yourself. It is indeed possible. Basically, you just make others feel as if they matter.
Feeling like someone “has your six” or “has your back,” etc. — that’s more powerful than the forces of globalization, honestly.
Now, some might read some of this and think, “This moron just ignored all the economic factors of what’s happening. Pfft!” And yes, I did somewhat. And the suppression of “blue-collar” type wages is a real problem, as noted pretty well in this video:
These are decent videos on this topic too, although they kinda glaze over the problem for production value and simple solutions:
Rather than shrugging and saying “Oh, Ohio is weird,” maybe just try to care about 1–2 extra people/week and check in with them, see how they’re doing, etc? It’s very possible. It’s one less streaming show, right?
Becoming numb to the problem serves no one. So let’s … try to be better, if nothing else.
(I almost went on a mini-sidebar about how college isn’t for everyone, but I hope an increasing amount of parents are understanding that these days.)