There’s a long running conflict between people who believe in “competent” vs “incompetent” elites.
The truth is that sometimes elites are competent and sometimes they are not or they are competent at some things and incompetent at other things. Events can change perception rapidly. The Russian Armed Forces were the object of fear two years ago, today they look like a paper tiger because Russia screwed up.
It’s an entirely different question of what motivates people to stick to the “competent” or “incompetent” position categorically.
Didn't mean to dunk - just a note on the writting of the article. I'm sure I'm not the only one who lost interest when seeing this in the first paragraph. And I'm certain that the comments on the unread book are not vital to the points of the article, but they make me wonder "why am I reading this then?"
The author had choices here and made a wrong one. If you say you didn’t read the book then you certainly look bad. It might be a “dick move” to dissemble about not reading the book but it is possible that you get away with it.
The truth is that sometimes elites are competent and sometimes they are not or they are competent at some things and incompetent at other things. Events can change perception rapidly. The Russian Armed Forces were the object of fear two years ago, today they look like a paper tiger because Russia screwed up.
It’s an entirely different question of what motivates people to stick to the “competent” or “incompetent” position categorically.