One logical approach here is to focus on the local and the small, where you and a relatively small group may have the ability to affect change. On a broader societal level it argues for federalism and localism to push things down to the level where engaged people at least have a fighting chance.
I've been pretty torn on pretty much the same point. On the one hand, I know from watching the other side that burning it all down to spite the people you blame (especially if you blame the successful) is not only destructive, but self-destructive, and by itself accomplishes no good. On the other, I've come around to the realization that there are people in power, whether that power is public or private, who see normal people as enemies and who cannot be displaced as institutions in every sector of our country have organized around exactly those people – the institutions themselves are corrupt to the point of serving those people's whims and protecting themselves, and not even trying to pursue the institutions' actual purposes. What's one to do, who loves civilization and finds oneself living in a husk of a civilization, in barbarism rutting about in civilization's trappings? To make matters worse, there isn't much the average individual _can_ do, which leads to a variety of other temptations: to overestimate our own power as a cope, or to resent our lack of it, or to take pleasure in bad news or the possibility of destruction since we seemingly cannot save anything. I don't have a societal answer; not yet, at least… only the personal answer to try to save one's soul and refuse to be corrupted by the situation – and even then, one doesn't avoid corruption by denying the evidence of one's eyes; we are called, for instance, to love our enemies rather than to pretend we don't have any, which is much harder but much more truthful and therefore better.
A period of strategic withdrawal, which precipitates a decline in the influence and reputation of the institution, followed by ultimate recapture, might be our best bet. Progressivism is an exclusively corrosive force, so if everyone with a robust worldview leaves, the decline is inevitable. The challenge will be recognising when we need to come back. A similar thing is playing out before our eyes with mainline and non-denominational churches.
1. Everyone should read the Michael Pack op-ed that you linked. One detail that I'm more optimistic about today than Pack was in 2021: Trump has drastically improved odds of restoring the ability of the President to dismiss federal employees at will (and related, to decline to spend money that Congress has appropriated).
2. I liked the piece you wrote a couple months ago where you mentioned conservative vs. liberal takeover styles (https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/institutions-and-the-right), and cited Elon Musk (buying Twitter, taking it private, and purging) and Ron DeSantis (using his power as governor to fire and replace the New College Trustees).
There's a third tactic which might work for distressed-but-salvageable 501c3 institutions: get them to grant their assets to a similarly named but legally distinct 501c3 which you and/or your allies control.
Generally, 501c3s have a provision in their bylaws which requires that in the event of a dissolution all of the organization's assets have to be disbursed to another 501c3; if the DeSantis option of replacing the governing board outright isn't an option, the right combination of carrots (e.g., promises to appoint some current board members to the new entity) and sticks (legal investigations, cutoff of appropriations, threats to the existing entity's 501c3 status) could convince the current trustees of the benefit of a fresh start.
It described a wealthy couple, aging, investing their extra money in a charitable fund. As time went on, maybe after the husband passed away, a manager was hired for said fund. The manager talked a good game about helping the poor and the public, and hired a bunch of people to help distribute the funds, and so forth – and quietly neglected to broadcast to the original owners of the wealth that everyone they hired was a political hack redirecting the money to one or another type of Agenda.
The blog post posited that this scenario is far more common than anyone realizes and is a major source of finance for ideologues on a certain side of the aisle.
Donor intent violations are basically why my employer was founded. Our blog's got tons of such stories (see https://www.donorstrust.org/donor-intent-horror-stories/ for one, but you could search "donor intent" and get dozens more).
As Aaron notes, most of our major institutions (federal government, media, entertainment, many large companies) are captured by people with clear political loyalties, meaning they cannot or will not serve or respond to a huge share of the population. Additionally, many of them simply do not function well, if they ever did. The result is very little organic support from the public, something that apparently these institutions didn’t bother to consider when they moved away from at least pretending to be more or less culturally neutral.
I think you are on the right track with your earlier work on men and marriage. The basic institution of the household needs to be respected, valued and re-established. All institutions are parasitic (or perhaps symbiotic) upon the family. And if family units are not stable that instability ripples through schools, local businesses, local justice systems and everyone else pays and pays. Schools can’t educate kids whose parents don’t feed them on the weekends. If the strategy is to flee the institutions, it should be a strategy to flee toward stronger family units.
This kind of clear thinking is invaluable. Where else than Mr. Renn's Substack can we get analysis like this? Everyone should subscribe!
One of so many exasperating things about institutional / Bulwark - style writing is that they simply assume that the institutions are not so bad. And maybe, from a privileged haute-bourgeois elite enclave, they do not seem all that bad. This prior assumption (that the institutions are not so bad) makes it very difficult or impossible for them to engage with populists, or vice versa.
That's where the comparisons to the last years of Soviet Russia or the Roman Empire are so valuable -- institutions that on the surface seem mighty and impregnable can conceal a great deal of rot on the inside, and when they are seriously tested, they may (or may not) collapse suddenly.
One logical approach here is to focus on the local and the small, where you and a relatively small group may have the ability to affect change. On a broader societal level it argues for federalism and localism to push things down to the level where engaged people at least have a fighting chance.
Good job summarizing the problem, Aaron. I think about this every day. And that's not an overstatement.
I've been pretty torn on pretty much the same point. On the one hand, I know from watching the other side that burning it all down to spite the people you blame (especially if you blame the successful) is not only destructive, but self-destructive, and by itself accomplishes no good. On the other, I've come around to the realization that there are people in power, whether that power is public or private, who see normal people as enemies and who cannot be displaced as institutions in every sector of our country have organized around exactly those people – the institutions themselves are corrupt to the point of serving those people's whims and protecting themselves, and not even trying to pursue the institutions' actual purposes. What's one to do, who loves civilization and finds oneself living in a husk of a civilization, in barbarism rutting about in civilization's trappings? To make matters worse, there isn't much the average individual _can_ do, which leads to a variety of other temptations: to overestimate our own power as a cope, or to resent our lack of it, or to take pleasure in bad news or the possibility of destruction since we seemingly cannot save anything. I don't have a societal answer; not yet, at least… only the personal answer to try to save one's soul and refuse to be corrupted by the situation – and even then, one doesn't avoid corruption by denying the evidence of one's eyes; we are called, for instance, to love our enemies rather than to pretend we don't have any, which is much harder but much more truthful and therefore better.
A period of strategic withdrawal, which precipitates a decline in the influence and reputation of the institution, followed by ultimate recapture, might be our best bet. Progressivism is an exclusively corrosive force, so if everyone with a robust worldview leaves, the decline is inevitable. The challenge will be recognising when we need to come back. A similar thing is playing out before our eyes with mainline and non-denominational churches.
Couple of thoughts:
1. Everyone should read the Michael Pack op-ed that you linked. One detail that I'm more optimistic about today than Pack was in 2021: Trump has drastically improved odds of restoring the ability of the President to dismiss federal employees at will (and related, to decline to spend money that Congress has appropriated).
2. I liked the piece you wrote a couple months ago where you mentioned conservative vs. liberal takeover styles (https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/institutions-and-the-right), and cited Elon Musk (buying Twitter, taking it private, and purging) and Ron DeSantis (using his power as governor to fire and replace the New College Trustees).
There's a third tactic which might work for distressed-but-salvageable 501c3 institutions: get them to grant their assets to a similarly named but legally distinct 501c3 which you and/or your allies control.
Generally, 501c3s have a provision in their bylaws which requires that in the event of a dissolution all of the organization's assets have to be disbursed to another 501c3; if the DeSantis option of replacing the governing board outright isn't an option, the right combination of carrots (e.g., promises to appoint some current board members to the new entity) and sticks (legal investigations, cutoff of appropriations, threats to the existing entity's 501c3 status) could convince the current trustees of the benefit of a fresh start.
I like that 501c3 idea.
I read an interesting blog post somewhere, once.
It described a wealthy couple, aging, investing their extra money in a charitable fund. As time went on, maybe after the husband passed away, a manager was hired for said fund. The manager talked a good game about helping the poor and the public, and hired a bunch of people to help distribute the funds, and so forth – and quietly neglected to broadcast to the original owners of the wealth that everyone they hired was a political hack redirecting the money to one or another type of Agenda.
The blog post posited that this scenario is far more common than anyone realizes and is a major source of finance for ideologues on a certain side of the aisle.
Donor intent violations are basically why my employer was founded. Our blog's got tons of such stories (see https://www.donorstrust.org/donor-intent-horror-stories/ for one, but you could search "donor intent" and get dozens more).
As Aaron notes, most of our major institutions (federal government, media, entertainment, many large companies) are captured by people with clear political loyalties, meaning they cannot or will not serve or respond to a huge share of the population. Additionally, many of them simply do not function well, if they ever did. The result is very little organic support from the public, something that apparently these institutions didn’t bother to consider when they moved away from at least pretending to be more or less culturally neutral.
I think you are on the right track with your earlier work on men and marriage. The basic institution of the household needs to be respected, valued and re-established. All institutions are parasitic (or perhaps symbiotic) upon the family. And if family units are not stable that instability ripples through schools, local businesses, local justice systems and everyone else pays and pays. Schools can’t educate kids whose parents don’t feed them on the weekends. If the strategy is to flee the institutions, it should be a strategy to flee toward stronger family units.
This kind of clear thinking is invaluable. Where else than Mr. Renn's Substack can we get analysis like this? Everyone should subscribe!
One of so many exasperating things about institutional / Bulwark - style writing is that they simply assume that the institutions are not so bad. And maybe, from a privileged haute-bourgeois elite enclave, they do not seem all that bad. This prior assumption (that the institutions are not so bad) makes it very difficult or impossible for them to engage with populists, or vice versa.
That's where the comparisons to the last years of Soviet Russia or the Roman Empire are so valuable -- institutions that on the surface seem mighty and impregnable can conceal a great deal of rot on the inside, and when they are seriously tested, they may (or may not) collapse suddenly.
Thanks!