When Prosperity Turns Inward

A reply to Sarah Wooten’s “Capitalism’s Paradox.”

Sarah Wooten’s great analysis in “Capitalism's Paradox” could have been enriched further with discussion of how dominant societies such as the West (i.e., empires) historically weaken through infighting once there is no credible external threat to existence. Complete dominance is never sustainable. With no significant “bad guy” against which to define themselves, dominant societies inevitably turn inward to vigorously wrestle with questions of fairness, equality, and distribution of wealth. In effect, we become our own enemy and internal division runs rampant because “right and wrong” are now an endlessly debatable matter of moral subjectivity.

—Tony Martins

Dr Wooten’s essay offers rare and penetrating insight into the psychological roots of a widespread tendency among educated, upper-middle-class individuals to focus intensely on themes of victimhood, sexism, and racism in Western society.
By many measurable standards, Western societies today enjoy unprecedented levels of material well-being—advanced medicine, abundant food, and technological conveniences ranging from smartphones to global air travel. Women comprise more than half of college students, and the United States elected a black president twice. Yet many voices on the political Left remain deeply angered by sexism, racism, and income inequality.

Dr Wooten highlights that this persistent moral intensity reflects an underlying psychological and personal agenda: a sense of guilt among comparatively privileged individuals seeking to affirm their empathy for those less fortunate. Public expressions of grievance function as a way to reconcile personal comfort and social advantage with a desire to appear morally superior.

—Geoff Marcy

Defending Liberal Institutions Without Undermining Their Independence

A reply to Matt Johnson’s “American Liberalism and Illiberalism.”

In his recent essay arguing that a broad political coalition is now required to defend liberalism, Matt Johnson rightly identifies the scale of the threat confronting American institutions. If liberal democracy is to endure, it must be defended not merely rhetorically but structurally. That raises a practical question: how should institutions respond when they lose the ability to tolerate dissent and enforce existing rules impartially?

Liberal institutions depend on open disagreement, consistent enforcement of rules, and protection of individual rights. When those norms function, correction happens through debate and lawful process. But when dissent carries predictable professional costs while conformity carries few, self-censorship spreads, and institutions can appear stable while steadily losing their capacity for honest internal correction.

When institutions can no longer tolerate dissent and enforce existing rules impartially, pressure from outside actors to intervene grows. Outside intervention—whether through funding conditions, legal enforcement, or structural change—carries undeniable risks to independence and legitimacy. But ignoring institutional breakdown does not preserve liberal norms; it assumes those norms are still operating.

The real question, then, is not whether power should ever be used. It is how it is constrained.

There is a meaningful difference between enforcing existing rules evenly and restructuring institutions around new ideological commitments. There is also a difference between narrowly scoped rule enforcement and broad punitive measures designed to send a public message. Treating these approaches as interchangeable obscures their distinct risks.
If external intervention becomes necessary, its scope must be limited, transparent, and reversible. Without clear constraints, corrective efforts risk reproducing the very failures they are meant to address.

The choice is not simply between restraint and force. It is between preserving institutions capable of self-correction and allowing their breakdown to continue unexamined.

—Jim Dye

GPR Anomalies Aren’t ‘Unmarked Graves’

A reply to Chris Champion and Tom Flanagan’s “No Bodies, No Accountability”

The McMichael Canadian Art Collection outside of Toronto is the country’s primary showcase for Canadian visual arts. In April 2024 I sent the following email (edited for relevance) about the statement accompanying the painting “Indian Residential School, Leaving the Shallow Graves and Going Home.” They didn’t reply. I don’t know if they corrected the statement.

As we explored the gallery, I noticed a serious curatorial error in a gallery that hosts a great number of classroom visits and prides itself on its educational impact.  It concerns the text that accompanies Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun’s “Indian Residential School, Leaving the Shallow Graves and Going Home.”

The commentary begins: “In May 2021 the unmarked graves of 215 children were found at the site of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School.”

This stark assertion is factually incorrect.

It is true that a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of the grounds of school identified 215 anomalies. It is also true that these anomalies were widely, but inaccurately, reported as “unmarked graves,” all the more reason not to repeat the falsehood.

GPR is a complex technology that serves simply as the start of an investigation, pointing out areas where further exploration may be warranted. GPR cannot distinguish human remains from any number of sub-surface soil disruptions including: underground pipes, changes in ground strata, geological features and rock obstructions, air pockets or voids, and excavated and back-filled areas.

Given the imprecise nature of GPR, without additional investigation it is almost certain that some, and in all likelihood a great many, of the 215 anomalies are something other than graves.

The prominent description you have with Yuxweluptun’s piece does a double disservice to those reading it.

First, it misinforms them about the nature of a technology that is widely used.  Our society relies on the technology that we use; it is vital that citizens in a democracy understand both the usefulness and the limitations of our tools.  Spreading inflated claims undermines the ability of citizens to make informed judgements and ultimately erodes public confidence when inflated claims prove to be unsubstantiated.

Second, it diverts the political discussion away from facts and from actions that might address actual challenges, rather than concerns that have shaky foundation in facts.  This allows actors with ulterior motives to promote options that either do not address the issues, or that make the problems worse.

The misleading “unmarked graves” story stoked visceral outrage that has led to significant damage and no meaningful action. Scores of community churches have been burned (the numbers range from 33 to 90 to 96), many serving indigenous communities that relied on these spaces to provide spiritual solace and guidance. I’m not a fan of either residential schools or the Catholic Church, but these arsons are wrong and harmful. And they are being fed by the same misinformation you have included in your curatorial statement.

Admirably, one of McMichael’s main goals is to provide “Artmaking, gallery tours and outdoor learning that deepen critical thinking, advance visual literacy, and promote dialogue for grades K-12.”

To achieve this goal it is vitally important that the information that you include in your gallery is scrupulously accurate.  This is especially needed when the general public narrative on an issue is misleading or false.  Including this sort of counter-narrative precision, and the willingness to weather the resulting potential uncomfortable dissonance that results, takes courage but is essential to fostering the critical thinking and prompting discussion that is at the heart of McMichael’s mission.

In this case, I urge you to alter the statement to one that explicitly challenges the prevailing narrative and promotes the complex nuanced fact-based discussion that our children, and our society, desperately need.

And I hope that you will alter your curatorial process to include critical fact-checking by people with relevant expertise of all information posted, not just the biographical and artistic details known to art historians.

—Howard Goodman

Decency, Power, and the Moral Failure of Epstein’s Circle

A reply to Claire Lehmann’s “Epstein Mania on the Digital Borderlands.”

I applaud Claire for her observation—new to me—that moral panics thrive in “edge” conditions where somebody feels threatened by an other that is powerful, antagonistic, and nearby.

But this appears not to apply to me, nor to where I live—a small-town rural area in the Midwest. People here do disagree, fundamentally, politically, and energetically—but you interact with your plumber, grocer, handyman, cleaning lady, teacher, “tree guy,” et cetera whether you like their politics or not. Eventually the natural human tendency to like another person, and the necessary trust and interaction, ameliorates the other-side-ism. Since there’s no opposing camp, you can’t lob examples of Epstein smarm at it.

Instead, the smarm provokes disgust, despair, and outrage. It also reinforces the old saying “all men are s**ts,” or as per Susan Brownmiller, rapists. As with most stereotypes there’s truth to it—for evil really does lurk in the hearts of men.

Broaden things a bit—besides actual rape add in coercion, malevolent enticement, deception, exploitation, and “taking advantage.” Apparently the Epstein documents describe such practices, and situations that facilitate, involve, and support the same practices. What would you do, if you found yourself plunked down in the middle of such a situation? Would you, or would you not, do the right thing? Be an exploiter or advocate? A taker or helper? Would you perpetrate, or protect?

As Mae West's character said in My Little Chickadee: “Funny. Every man I meet wants to protect me. I can’t figure out what from.”

The woman who holds up a protest sign saying “Don’t tell me how to dress—tell men not to rape” is actually on to something. Though the sign is silly, unrealistic, and simply too pat, something like this can actually work. Perhaps non-obviously, there is a tie here. We men, well aware of our own evil nature, generally respond as Mae West noted: a desire to protect. Protect what? Female innocence. From what? Male malevolence; our own and others’. In this case, from male willingness to take advantage of grey-area situations.

What sickens me, as it must sicken all decent people, is that apparently, a whole lot of men willingly entered that grey area and failed to do the right thing. And they weren’t suddenly “plunked down” in the situation—they sought it out. Or at least succumbed to desire and/or blandishment when they should have known better. The lure of celebrity, power, and riches; the enticement of sexy parties with attractive and apparently “loose,” eager, and/or willing girls and women; and fun on the island, in the hot tub, mansion, or compound—these were sufficient to attract rich and powerful men who enjoyed the favours of the women on offer.

A guy with just a little wisdom, some heart, self-respect, and minimum standards would realise that the females were motivated at least in part by financial coercion and/or lure. Of course they may have indicated consent; they may have been actually willing, even eager or hungry. Maybe even accomplices or gold-diggers hoping to get rich by trading their assets. Maybe they had other motivations. It doesn’t matter; it was a bad scene.

A bad scene can be broken up by just one, or perhaps a couple/few, decent men. They can forestall or interrupt bad behaviour, without heroics, shaming, or inspiring oratory. Just a simple spontaneous statement in your own words will do.

I live in the heartland of the USA—the Midwest. Flyover country—nothing special; similar regions and populations of ordinary folk are scattered all over the globe. One component of our Midwestern Nice is basic decency. We’re aware of evil in the world; we’re not dupes nor dopes. We also know that a privileged class exists. We live with this knowledge, maybe trying to avoid imagining the details.

But when those details emerge in great volume, and we realise that the elite coterie we’ve been supporting, upholding, maybe even revering, has somehow created for and in itself an environment in which disgusting, hateful, and heartbreaking misbehaviour thrives, and is encouraged, celebrated, and successfully sought-after, it’s disheartening. And maybe it’s a wake-up call. The practical problem of course is, what to do upon arousal?

Maybe Claire is right after all; but, the two sides are different. Not Left versus Right, not Catholic versus Protestant as in the days of Bamberg’s witch trials. Rather, in this corner we have regular, ordinary people who try, despite our failings, to tend toward decency and expect others to do the same.

Just who is in the other corner? Just who and what is it, that we are facing?

—Leo Hesting