The Arrogance of the Chattering Class

In the last few weeks I've been amazed at how the chattering class has reacted to two stories; the takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk and the actions taken in response to a woke corporation's scolding of Florida, especially their governor.  At the same time the CEO of one of the major investment firms proposed that he should decide, in behalf of his investors, how the money we put in trust for him should vote the underlying shares for corporate governance.  All three stories suggest that the hegemony of cultural elites is under pressure.  From my perspective that is a very good thing.

SO let's start with Elon Musk and Twitter.  This morning David Leonhardt had a column about the Twitter transaction and brought up Thomas Piketty (again).  The author of a flawed book on economic inequality is a go to source for issues like Musk's use of his own resources to takeover Twitter.  Obviously if Musk gets control of Twitter, that is a bad thing.  And, although I have some serious reservations about the methodology (Piketty's book Capital in the Twentyfirst Century seemed to me when I read it to have written a series of conclusions before amassing the data) we do have some very rich people in society.  

Leonhardt's colleague at the NYT Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote a supplemental column called "Friends and Foes" which created all sorts of hobgoblins relating to Musk's actions - completely ignoring the manifold bias of the "fact" checkers who have governed social media (and indeed the main stream media) for a very long time.   Sorkin's argument seemed to characterize Twitter and the other social media platforms as almost public utilities.   That could be true, (and one might consider whether that would be a good idea) but it is not.

Sorkin seems to assume that Musk's ownership will result in "More bullying? More lewd commentary and images? More misinformation?"   Well, Mr. Sorkin - the answer is yes.   But the virtue of free speech is that it is inherently messy.   As James Suroweicki pointed out in The Wisdom of Crowds - give crowds the chance and they will sort out the bad stuff.   Arguing that "the science is settled" (to prevent discussion of alternative thinking about scientific questions) or that any one of a number of other issues in dispute have definable limits  is antithetical to the limits of free speech.    Trump did not win the election.  There were some alternative strategies for dealing with the pandemic.  Free speech is better when the limits of moderation are done by the crowd not some self satisfied group of elites.  The crowd has the ability to sort out the crazies.  The WSJ this morning sorted out (in my opinion) what might happen with Musk's acquisition - "If Mr. Musk can strike a more satisfying balance on content moderation, maybe he’s right about Twitter’s hidden value. Current management is correct that most regular social-media users don’t want a daily bath of Russian bots, jihadist propaganda, noxious harassment and so forth. "

Simultaneously we've seen grumpiness and misrepresentation on the stance of Florida on teaching sex education in the early grades.   Disney's woke CEO Robert Chapek claimed that Florida's recently passed legislation which limits the teaching of sex issues before grade 3 was somehow an abridgment of free speech.  The left has also has come up with some marvelous fictions about the actions by the legislature to eliminate a special district created in behalf of the company to help them build Disneyworld. 

OK - so was it a good idea to eliminate the district and has the legislature considered the consequences of eliminating this special privilege for a wealthy California corporation that employs a lot of Floridians and adds a lot to the state's GDP?   Having worked with legislators for more than 4 decades I can affirmatively answer that the answer is NO.   But are the issues appropriate for a legislature to consider?   ABSOLUTELY   Should a legislature consider constraining the public education establishment from determining curriculum without seeking parental input or consent?   The answer is YES.  But the whining of the cognoscenti is just plain silly.   Free speech is messy, so are democratic systems - but the chattering class believes that their point of view should control.   Not in our system.  

Is part of this story the presumed candidacy in 2024 of Governor DeSantis?  Of course there may be political motives attached to the Governor's and the Legislature's actions. But then of course all the criticism on each side of the issue has some political grounding.   The chattering class tries to hide that their political motives are above judgment.  NO MORE!!!

Finally we come to Larry Fink of Blackrock Capital.   In recent years an increasing number of financial professionals have begun to talk about ESG (Sustainable Investing) where somehow the owners of the company (those who hold shares in the company) are somehow equated with the suppliers of capital.  Corporations become servants of some broader social purpose.   For the most part this new range of investment theory has been relegated to funds created for those purposes.  If you invest your funds in their investment vehicles you assume that your returns will be better. (Based on a reasonable set of criteria).  But then comes the CEO of Blackrock (FINK) who has raised the bar a bit - he now claims that he will vote the shares he owns using his personal predilections. This is ESG investing on steroids.  When he made his statement I divested the funds I had from Blackrock as his principles and mine do not coincide.   I don't want to boycott him as some want to do with Florida.  The answer for people like me who disagree with philosophies like Fink's is to not invest with the guy.   On the left, California official boycotts working with a of majority of states because those states have established positions which contradict the orthodoxy of "woke" California.  So much for tolerance.

In recent years a good portion of the cultural elite have tried to impose their values while disregarding alternative points of view.  All three of these stories suggest that attempt at dominance will be under increasing challenge.  From my perspective that is just fine.   We need, as a society, to work on two things.   First, we need to understand that in a diverse society the cultural commons will include diverse points of view.  Second, and as importantly we need to think about how to talk about issues which divide us.   My grandmother used to say "there is a good reason why God gave us two ears and only one mouth."   Not a bad place from which to start.