In war, each side strives to control the “commanding heights”. These are places, usually elevated, where it is easier to defend, harder to attack, and especially valuable for helping your other military units. Hilltops, walls, bridges, towns, harbors, etc. With control of commanding heights, you might win even if you don’t have as many troops, tanks, ships, planes, etc.
"our society has tended to seek to shrink the commanding heights of business, via anti-trust policy"
Well that has rarely been the case, and has not been the case for 50 years. Although conversely it is the left aligned tech companies that are most in need of breakup these days.
If there were a board game, players should be able to win without any high ground control. Let's face it: populism sometimes wins, and it doesn't do it by defending any institutional high ground. Bannon-esque Republicans are pursuing a low-ground-first strategy. They're happy let the left rule their ivory towers and their newly woke HR departments, just as long as they can't project power far beyond their high ground strongholds.
Would it be expected that media will remain "respected" across the board if they are openly partisan? Or will instead each side respect their own media?
I hope--and, to some extent, believe--that, with the rise of social media on the internet, the “commanding heights” are not nearly as commanding as they used to be.
I this sort of world, if you don't work hard enough to prove that you fit in the approved box, you will be presumed to fix in the other one. Agnosticism not allowed.
People don't actually fit into two boxes, and it's a struggle to get more than half the population to identify with either left or right. Both left and right are minorities, at best representing 25% of the population each. Even a majority within each 25% are grudgingly choosing between what they wish was something else. At best only about 20% of the population genuinely fits into one of the two categories.
The whole left/right thing is a poor concept borrowed from parliaments that the media uses to try to create controversy and stories to attract attention.
What about finance? It seems it has also significantly shifted to the left. Although this probably doesn't affect their investment behaviour too much, it does affect things like M&A, etc. (e.g. requiring affirmative action on company boards)
With regard to journalism, it's worth noting that papers used to be openly partisan, and often had a political party in their name. My understanding is that they shifted away from that and toward a more "objective" stance when there was a shift toward monopolies at the local level in the industry. Nowadays local news is dying as classified have moved onto the internet and big national papers like the NYT, Washington Post and WSJ gained at their expense.
When was "social tech" controlled by the right? I remember reading years ago data on political donations by industry, and social networks were the most left-wing in tech (security was the most right wing).
I largely agree but:
"our society has tended to seek to shrink the commanding heights of business, via anti-trust policy"
Well that has rarely been the case, and has not been the case for 50 years. Although conversely it is the left aligned tech companies that are most in need of breakup these days.
If there were a board game, players should be able to win without any high ground control. Let's face it: populism sometimes wins, and it doesn't do it by defending any institutional high ground. Bannon-esque Republicans are pursuing a low-ground-first strategy. They're happy let the left rule their ivory towers and their newly woke HR departments, just as long as they can't project power far beyond their high ground strongholds.
Would it be expected that media will remain "respected" across the board if they are openly partisan? Or will instead each side respect their own media?
I don't think you can confidently say that police are neutral.
I hope--and, to some extent, believe--that, with the rise of social media on the internet, the “commanding heights” are not nearly as commanding as they used to be.
A world of split partisan media is different from a world where all the respected media are all with one party.
I haven't seen anything about that, but am interested in more data.
I this sort of world, if you don't work hard enough to prove that you fit in the approved box, you will be presumed to fix in the other one. Agnosticism not allowed.
People don't actually fit into two boxes, and it's a struggle to get more than half the population to identify with either left or right. Both left and right are minorities, at best representing 25% of the population each. Even a majority within each 25% are grudgingly choosing between what they wish was something else. At best only about 20% of the population genuinely fits into one of the two categories.
The whole left/right thing is a poor concept borrowed from parliaments that the media uses to try to create controversy and stories to attract attention.
What about finance? It seems it has also significantly shifted to the left. Although this probably doesn't affect their investment behaviour too much, it does affect things like M&A, etc. (e.g. requiring affirmative action on company boards)
brilliant
With regard to journalism, it's worth noting that papers used to be openly partisan, and often had a political party in their name. My understanding is that they shifted away from that and toward a more "objective" stance when there was a shift toward monopolies at the local level in the industry. Nowadays local news is dying as classified have moved onto the internet and big national papers like the NYT, Washington Post and WSJ gained at their expense.
When was "social tech" controlled by the right? I remember reading years ago data on political donations by industry, and social networks were the most left-wing in tech (security was the most right wing).