I can't say as I entirely agree with this post. A case in point is Chief Justice John Roberts. This man was hailed as the perfect pick when Bush nominated him. EVERYONE was tickled pink - conservatives moderates - even blue dog democrats (who still existed then). THE Brilliant Student who became a brilliant jurist who was certain to become a brilliant......except it hasn't materialized. Just one example among so many is when he cowered to a petty tyrant of a president - Obama - who used the State of the Union to bitch about CITIZENS UNITED - thus inducing a cock-eyed contorted ruling with OBAMACARE. He is guilty over the past fifteen years of subscribing entirely to Renn's suggestion - and rather than administering CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at the highest court - he has become it's 'Mother superior'; concerned principally with its 'legitimacy' to the public.
If he had an honest bone in his body - despite his earnest desires - he WOUILD RESIGN FROM HIS POSITION AND DEVOTE THE REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE - TO HONESTLY - BEING THAT ADVOCATE.
The truth is you cannot do both. Be it Chief Justice or run IBM or the Justice Department.
This has been a disaster despite good intentions. Not only did Robert's disagreement with Renquists - correct in my view (not because of outcome but rather constitutional and national necessity) BUSH v GORE decision - blind him to his primary duties - when the moment arrived in 2020, he refused to grant standing on the critical issue of Voter Integrity. When Ken Paxton - with a satisfactory plurality of states along - challenged what needed challenged - Roberts punted - and that became a license FOR EVERY LOWER COURT IN THE COUNTRY TO DO THE SAME - only serving to deepen a crisis - and encourage Democrats to do the abominable acts they have done with J.6 and lawfare.
Again - ask Bret Kavanaugh and his family what they think of Roberts protecting the 'institution' to the point of whitewashing the Dobbs leak - a 'non-decision decision' that lead to an attempt on that Justices life via a deranged pro-choice lunatic obsessed with giving Biden an Obama 'do-over' pick McConnell denied him in 2015.
The emphasis you prescribe, no matter the well intentions, cannot fix stupid. That task for restoration has - with the ships already sailed - become the NEXT generations 'great commission', just as Ben Franklin observed at the onset of our Republic....'if you can keep it Madam.'
I must likewise object that TRUMP is savvy to this (despite the handwringing & pearl clutching) - as is reflected in his un-orthodox and inspired choices for key cabinet positions and open intentions for reform - particularly with Ramaswamy & Elon. Many in their 40's - some still in their 30's - and yet all are exceptionally accomplished.
There has been so much dire Monday morning quarterbacking about 'destroying government' when in fact taking a blow torch to it in the name of limited governance is exactly the type of FEDERALISM required.
We have been plagued by an era where -outside of being credentialed at university - and feeding at the government trough for decades (and Dynastic ties) - these institutions - governmental - bureaucratic - educational - and of late even military and corporate - Leadership has been marked distinctly by their NOT BEING TESTED BY LIFE - as were earlier generations - instead hobbled by the mediocrity that folks like Peter Thiel has been correctly criticizing as a disastrous conformity leading to massive fraud and abuse.
They got rich and famous while everything they touched went to shit. And the now indebted republic teeters on extinction. That they got so rich help explains why they are so stubborn and arrogant despite the deep problems they have caused. Baby boomers hanging on till their last breath has sentenced us to live through the mistakes of the 1970's over again - only worse.
Trust will be restored when competency and accomplishment is delivered via NEW LEADERSHIP from a New Generation.
I can’t thank you enough for this post. Yuval Levin’s book A Time to Build essentially makes the same argument. He points out that people used to understand the institutions they inhabited and that they were responsible to be caretakers of their professions or vocations. Now, whether it be journalism, government, or (sadly) medicine some use the institutions as a platform for self promotion.
A good example is that politicians act as the inherent “outsider” and paint the institution they inhabit as the problem and never work to restore the respect of the instiitution to be what it was intended to be. He argues that we never really escape the reality that there are always going to be elites in any society. For good or ill, prior generations of elites believed they were caretakers for others. Now our elites deny that they are elites and promote themselves and tear down the credibility of institutions with their words or actions. It’s especially sad to me to see how the medical profession has undermined their credibility in so many ways when the culture relies upon them to provide care.
I was getting an Uber ride the other day from a man from Egypt. He loves this country and is like every Uber driver I’ve run into over the years whether it be from Latin America, Africa, or China. They come here for opportunities that they lack in their native lands and articulate that, if they work hard, they can provide for their families in ways they cannot in the land of their birth. The difference between their own countries and our prosperity owes, in no small measure, to the large amount of social trust that exists. Yet, on a daily basis, we are increasingly losing that social trust and it does not bode well for our further if we do not actively seek to preserve what we have left and restore (where possible) what has been lost.
I am waiting for the moment where the hue and cry goes up for news organizations committed to delivering utterly objective news that gives you all the information necessary to make up your own mind. And to do good reporting would require much greater resources, but I'd rather read one topnotch story than sift through 7 or 8 pieces trying to gain a true picture on some topic.
I'd say the Dispatch's news side is pretty solid for that. Utterly objective is not possible, but I think they're a pretty fair group on the whole. The editorial side is of course their own perspective.
They're allergic to context. Whenever anyone working for me provides a number or fact without context, I get fired up. But most people, who tend to read a lot about the world through journalism, seem to pick up this habit of describing the world like journalists. In the real world, a number or fact without context does not inform your decision-making in any way.
I don't think Selzer did anything especially wrong. It seems correct to me, based on all the evidence, that polls were heavily herded this time around and the effect of Selzer's career being destroyed is that they will be even more herded in the future. So yes, Aaron is right to blame the journalists. The problem here is 100% with their refusal to provide context. Which is probably driven by a combination of the facts that (1) Very few journalists have minds that are well-equipped for analysis in the first place, and (2) Short-term thinking (motivated in part by desperation) is leading to a pursuit of click-bait incentive structures.
I remember in the immediate aftermath Mark Halprin- no stranger to getting cancelled - talk to Charlie Kirk about Selzer and offering the defense that 'don't believe it was deliberate' and she just got it wrong. I for one trust Rich Baris - and the 'people's pollster' - and he is often trying to educate the audience on how difficult this field is and that there are far too many that are willing to fake it to make millions - and how they need exposed and dispatched.
Selzer is NOT considered a Traveller in that camp, making her fall that more spectacular.
Or maybe Selzer just hates Trump and knew that she was going to retire anyway, and that spinning the poll number in the "bellwether" state of Iowa could generate a flurry of publicity against Trump and influence the election against him.
I don’t buy it. Was she influenced by her biases? Sure. Did she have a diabolical plot? Nah.
The whole “shoot the messenger” thing is pretty gauche and tiresome to me. Both sides do it though, and I just have to tune them out.
Polling is really hard right now — partly related to the breakdown in trust this essay was describing. Response rates are rock-bottom. I have little doubt that the tiny number of people that respond to polls might easily lean D+20, D+30, who knows. Then the pollsters have to decide how to play with the data to find the Trump voters. Turns out she didn’t play with it enough. But it’s a legitimate debate. The current answer to that debate is “keep playing with the numbers until you get close to the other pollsters”. Which is unfortunate.
What is tiresome and gauche is people making excuses for these scumbags. Remind me when pollsters overstated the vote for Trump? Blithely dismissing the possibility of bias because you wish it wasn't so is almost as ridiculous as "accidentally" getting the voting margin wrong by 16 points!
I got into an extended argument on another site about this point. I think if people want to think this was an intentional attempt to manipulate the election, they are entitled to do so. It's not my take, but people assuming the worst is part of what it means to live in a low trust society.
I suppose that's valid. But I think that manipulating polls in order to show your favored side winning is not a very effective means of election interference in the first place. It's a double-edged sword: if the polls had shown Kamala's true position, she might have changed up her campaign strategy and perhaps come closer to the win. It's bad, actually, in practically any sort of contest, if you think you're winning when you're not.
There's also an empirical question here, and I'm not sure if anyone has attempted to measure it objectively: what is the size of the "poll-induced demotivated voter" effect that people are positing, if there even is one? My guess would be that if it exists, it's only going to be noticeable in true anticipated landslides. I also imagine that some percentage of the population is more inclined to vote for the perceived underdog; this is the norm in sports.
I also think the "shoot the messenger" effect is very real, and it's an example of poor emotional regulation. And people that struggle with it should probably self-reflect, but I know that advice is going to sound arrogant.
..."I suppose that's valid. But I think that manipulating polls in order to show your favored side winning is not a very effective means of election interference in the first place. "
Look this is biz. Billions are spent in our election cycles - and none of goes 'down a rat hole'. It GOES TO VENDORS - people are getting fat on it. Why is it ratcheting up every cycle? Why is more and more getting spent.
It isn't a matter of election LAW. It's market natural law. Stop rewarding it and better services will get offered to survive.
I agree that boosting Harris' polling numbers was not a very effective weapon but it was the only one at her disposal so its meagre impact (even with amplification by the media) does not argue against her intent to hurt Trump. It is not like she refrained from using a better tool.
Is there a good summary of what evangelical purity culture entailed and what its failures were? I hear it referred to a lot but don't have a good understanding of it.
I’d agree with Sprouting Thomas’s take. Many people want to entirely blame something else for their problem, and wildly over course-correct when they do.
As someone who grew up adjacent to it (and slightly in it), it’s several beliefs and practices that really aren’t theologically sound or grounded, and their criticism is justified.
What it looks like more specifically is many beliefs, practices, and habits that sanitize dating of any hint of sexuality.
This creates many problems but I think two prominent ones I’ve seen from me and others are 1) any natural sexual urges and feelings aren’t treated appropriately. Temptation is only natural, and it’s ok to be tempted, but purity culture seems to want to go the extra mile and remove any possibility or chance that you ever may be tempted. This is just nearly impossible but also just can get…weird
2) Sexual disfunction in marriages. I think this affects women more than men, but when you get this sea change from removing any hint of sexuality from your life (purity culture) to a incredibly active sex life (marriage), it can be jarring and almost unnatural.
What does this have to do with Aaron’s piece? Sex, relationships, and dating are huge parts of our lives and identity. The church spoke and speaks with huge authority on this issue, and gave a huge endorsement of a 20-something single guy who wrote “I kissed dating goodbye”, when he really shouldn’t have been elevated nearly that high at all. (I think Aaron had a really great piece on him?? But maybe I’m wrong)
Regardless, The church (like other institutions) thinks it’s social trust is infallible, when in reality people are leaving for the doors.
100% this. Harris's books (and the broader culture) did quite a bit of damage to me, both directly and indirectly. I still made and make lots of my own bad choices and am responsible for those, but Harris (and those even stricter than him) was the absolute last messenger I needed to read on these points so that I'd be operating from a place of wisdom and insight.
That doesn't mean I don't support Biblical chastity, because I do. Rather, I don't support either the hard seltzer version (Harris and co) or the Single Malt version (Bill Gothard). Both are millstone makers.
Yes, this assertion seems to be taken for granted most of the time. But I didn't grow up in purity culture. I know the guy who pushed "Kiss Dating Goodbye" apostatized, divorced his wife, and started hawking high-priced seminars for recovering from his own program. Which certainly isn't a ringing endorsement for his specific ideas. But how much of purity culture did he really represent?
Of course, a lot of the criticism is coming from "ex-vangelicals". Maybe there's a sense in which really bad ideas promoted their apostasy, but clearly all their criticism should be taken with a heavy grain of salt. When I Google "failures of purity culture", one of the top responses is that it: "developed out of patriarchal, ableist, heteronormative, homophobic, and transphobic ideologies." A lot of their criticism seems to be with the entire idea of waiting for marriage.
While I was dating, a lot of single, churchgoing girls from Christian homes who were passing into "old maid" status seemed to blame "Kiss Dating Goodbye" for their situation. But I've known enough churchgoing old maids from Christian homes who didn't grow up with "Kiss Dating Goodbye" that I'm not sure how much it was really the specific cause of their lack of success. But maybe it was.
EDIT: I just realized Aaron covered it much better than me in his link, though I said a lot of the same things:
Aaron: regarding pharmacies, have you read any of the pieces Matt Stoller's written about pharmacy benefit managers? His focus has been on what they do to pricing, but it'd be shocking if it had no effect on consumer trust as well.
I will say though, part of the decline of Walgreens and other drugstores isn’t entirely their fault. Many of these drugstores in large cities are the prime target of shoplifters. Many items are locked up now and they have to spend money on staff members to unlock items.
Do you believe some of Walgreen's damage is due to the Vampiress of Silicone Valley still in jail for fraud over her non-existent miracle blood tests? Has Toyota yet to fully recover from Bridgestone? That old adage - 'where do you go to get your reputation back' - extends to Corporations as well don't you think?
(1) the pharmacy side now has a lot more competition. I get my prescriptions at my grocery store. Walmart entered this business in the late 00s IIRC, watershed moment. Meanwhile a lot of health insurers ("MCOs") have pushed prescriptions through their own in-house online plays.
(2) The "front-store" (i.e. the part getting shoplifted) has more competition from Amazon/e-commerce.
Basically, this was a niche industry that was opened up to competition by much larger players with a lot more market power. CVS stock has sucked but still doing way better than WBA by seeing which way the puck was going and getting into the PBM and MCO space.
I can't say as I entirely agree with this post. A case in point is Chief Justice John Roberts. This man was hailed as the perfect pick when Bush nominated him. EVERYONE was tickled pink - conservatives moderates - even blue dog democrats (who still existed then). THE Brilliant Student who became a brilliant jurist who was certain to become a brilliant......except it hasn't materialized. Just one example among so many is when he cowered to a petty tyrant of a president - Obama - who used the State of the Union to bitch about CITIZENS UNITED - thus inducing a cock-eyed contorted ruling with OBAMACARE. He is guilty over the past fifteen years of subscribing entirely to Renn's suggestion - and rather than administering CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at the highest court - he has become it's 'Mother superior'; concerned principally with its 'legitimacy' to the public.
If he had an honest bone in his body - despite his earnest desires - he WOUILD RESIGN FROM HIS POSITION AND DEVOTE THE REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE - TO HONESTLY - BEING THAT ADVOCATE.
The truth is you cannot do both. Be it Chief Justice or run IBM or the Justice Department.
This has been a disaster despite good intentions. Not only did Robert's disagreement with Renquists - correct in my view (not because of outcome but rather constitutional and national necessity) BUSH v GORE decision - blind him to his primary duties - when the moment arrived in 2020, he refused to grant standing on the critical issue of Voter Integrity. When Ken Paxton - with a satisfactory plurality of states along - challenged what needed challenged - Roberts punted - and that became a license FOR EVERY LOWER COURT IN THE COUNTRY TO DO THE SAME - only serving to deepen a crisis - and encourage Democrats to do the abominable acts they have done with J.6 and lawfare.
Again - ask Bret Kavanaugh and his family what they think of Roberts protecting the 'institution' to the point of whitewashing the Dobbs leak - a 'non-decision decision' that lead to an attempt on that Justices life via a deranged pro-choice lunatic obsessed with giving Biden an Obama 'do-over' pick McConnell denied him in 2015.
The emphasis you prescribe, no matter the well intentions, cannot fix stupid. That task for restoration has - with the ships already sailed - become the NEXT generations 'great commission', just as Ben Franklin observed at the onset of our Republic....'if you can keep it Madam.'
I must likewise object that TRUMP is savvy to this (despite the handwringing & pearl clutching) - as is reflected in his un-orthodox and inspired choices for key cabinet positions and open intentions for reform - particularly with Ramaswamy & Elon. Many in their 40's - some still in their 30's - and yet all are exceptionally accomplished.
There has been so much dire Monday morning quarterbacking about 'destroying government' when in fact taking a blow torch to it in the name of limited governance is exactly the type of FEDERALISM required.
We have been plagued by an era where -outside of being credentialed at university - and feeding at the government trough for decades (and Dynastic ties) - these institutions - governmental - bureaucratic - educational - and of late even military and corporate - Leadership has been marked distinctly by their NOT BEING TESTED BY LIFE - as were earlier generations - instead hobbled by the mediocrity that folks like Peter Thiel has been correctly criticizing as a disastrous conformity leading to massive fraud and abuse.
They got rich and famous while everything they touched went to shit. And the now indebted republic teeters on extinction. That they got so rich help explains why they are so stubborn and arrogant despite the deep problems they have caused. Baby boomers hanging on till their last breath has sentenced us to live through the mistakes of the 1970's over again - only worse.
Trust will be restored when competency and accomplishment is delivered via NEW LEADERSHIP from a New Generation.
Off-topic: Indian Bronson on Nancy Mace
https://indianbronson.substack.com/p/nancy-mace-congresswoman-marine-trans
I can’t thank you enough for this post. Yuval Levin’s book A Time to Build essentially makes the same argument. He points out that people used to understand the institutions they inhabited and that they were responsible to be caretakers of their professions or vocations. Now, whether it be journalism, government, or (sadly) medicine some use the institutions as a platform for self promotion.
A good example is that politicians act as the inherent “outsider” and paint the institution they inhabit as the problem and never work to restore the respect of the instiitution to be what it was intended to be. He argues that we never really escape the reality that there are always going to be elites in any society. For good or ill, prior generations of elites believed they were caretakers for others. Now our elites deny that they are elites and promote themselves and tear down the credibility of institutions with their words or actions. It’s especially sad to me to see how the medical profession has undermined their credibility in so many ways when the culture relies upon them to provide care.
I was getting an Uber ride the other day from a man from Egypt. He loves this country and is like every Uber driver I’ve run into over the years whether it be from Latin America, Africa, or China. They come here for opportunities that they lack in their native lands and articulate that, if they work hard, they can provide for their families in ways they cannot in the land of their birth. The difference between their own countries and our prosperity owes, in no small measure, to the large amount of social trust that exists. Yet, on a daily basis, we are increasingly losing that social trust and it does not bode well for our further if we do not actively seek to preserve what we have left and restore (where possible) what has been lost.
Thanks, Rich.
I am waiting for the moment where the hue and cry goes up for news organizations committed to delivering utterly objective news that gives you all the information necessary to make up your own mind. And to do good reporting would require much greater resources, but I'd rather read one topnotch story than sift through 7 or 8 pieces trying to gain a true picture on some topic.
I'd say the Dispatch's news side is pretty solid for that. Utterly objective is not possible, but I think they're a pretty fair group on the whole. The editorial side is of course their own perspective.
On journalists:
They're allergic to context. Whenever anyone working for me provides a number or fact without context, I get fired up. But most people, who tend to read a lot about the world through journalism, seem to pick up this habit of describing the world like journalists. In the real world, a number or fact without context does not inform your decision-making in any way.
I don't think Selzer did anything especially wrong. It seems correct to me, based on all the evidence, that polls were heavily herded this time around and the effect of Selzer's career being destroyed is that they will be even more herded in the future. So yes, Aaron is right to blame the journalists. The problem here is 100% with their refusal to provide context. Which is probably driven by a combination of the facts that (1) Very few journalists have minds that are well-equipped for analysis in the first place, and (2) Short-term thinking (motivated in part by desperation) is leading to a pursuit of click-bait incentive structures.
I remember in the immediate aftermath Mark Halprin- no stranger to getting cancelled - talk to Charlie Kirk about Selzer and offering the defense that 'don't believe it was deliberate' and she just got it wrong. I for one trust Rich Baris - and the 'people's pollster' - and he is often trying to educate the audience on how difficult this field is and that there are far too many that are willing to fake it to make millions - and how they need exposed and dispatched.
Selzer is NOT considered a Traveller in that camp, making her fall that more spectacular.
Or maybe Selzer just hates Trump and knew that she was going to retire anyway, and that spinning the poll number in the "bellwether" state of Iowa could generate a flurry of publicity against Trump and influence the election against him.
I don’t buy it. Was she influenced by her biases? Sure. Did she have a diabolical plot? Nah.
The whole “shoot the messenger” thing is pretty gauche and tiresome to me. Both sides do it though, and I just have to tune them out.
Polling is really hard right now — partly related to the breakdown in trust this essay was describing. Response rates are rock-bottom. I have little doubt that the tiny number of people that respond to polls might easily lean D+20, D+30, who knows. Then the pollsters have to decide how to play with the data to find the Trump voters. Turns out she didn’t play with it enough. But it’s a legitimate debate. The current answer to that debate is “keep playing with the numbers until you get close to the other pollsters”. Which is unfortunate.
What is tiresome and gauche is people making excuses for these scumbags. Remind me when pollsters overstated the vote for Trump? Blithely dismissing the possibility of bias because you wish it wasn't so is almost as ridiculous as "accidentally" getting the voting margin wrong by 16 points!
I got into an extended argument on another site about this point. I think if people want to think this was an intentional attempt to manipulate the election, they are entitled to do so. It's not my take, but people assuming the worst is part of what it means to live in a low trust society.
I suppose that's valid. But I think that manipulating polls in order to show your favored side winning is not a very effective means of election interference in the first place. It's a double-edged sword: if the polls had shown Kamala's true position, she might have changed up her campaign strategy and perhaps come closer to the win. It's bad, actually, in practically any sort of contest, if you think you're winning when you're not.
There's also an empirical question here, and I'm not sure if anyone has attempted to measure it objectively: what is the size of the "poll-induced demotivated voter" effect that people are positing, if there even is one? My guess would be that if it exists, it's only going to be noticeable in true anticipated landslides. I also imagine that some percentage of the population is more inclined to vote for the perceived underdog; this is the norm in sports.
I also think the "shoot the messenger" effect is very real, and it's an example of poor emotional regulation. And people that struggle with it should probably self-reflect, but I know that advice is going to sound arrogant.
..."I suppose that's valid. But I think that manipulating polls in order to show your favored side winning is not a very effective means of election interference in the first place. "
Look this is biz. Billions are spent in our election cycles - and none of goes 'down a rat hole'. It GOES TO VENDORS - people are getting fat on it. Why is it ratcheting up every cycle? Why is more and more getting spent.
It isn't a matter of election LAW. It's market natural law. Stop rewarding it and better services will get offered to survive.
I agree that boosting Harris' polling numbers was not a very effective weapon but it was the only one at her disposal so its meagre impact (even with amplification by the media) does not argue against her intent to hurt Trump. It is not like she refrained from using a better tool.
Agreed. To do really good reporting on a topic requires (I think) years of experience and a greater investment of research time.
Is there a good summary of what evangelical purity culture entailed and what its failures were? I hear it referred to a lot but don't have a good understanding of it.
I’d agree with Sprouting Thomas’s take. Many people want to entirely blame something else for their problem, and wildly over course-correct when they do.
As someone who grew up adjacent to it (and slightly in it), it’s several beliefs and practices that really aren’t theologically sound or grounded, and their criticism is justified.
What it looks like more specifically is many beliefs, practices, and habits that sanitize dating of any hint of sexuality.
This creates many problems but I think two prominent ones I’ve seen from me and others are 1) any natural sexual urges and feelings aren’t treated appropriately. Temptation is only natural, and it’s ok to be tempted, but purity culture seems to want to go the extra mile and remove any possibility or chance that you ever may be tempted. This is just nearly impossible but also just can get…weird
2) Sexual disfunction in marriages. I think this affects women more than men, but when you get this sea change from removing any hint of sexuality from your life (purity culture) to a incredibly active sex life (marriage), it can be jarring and almost unnatural.
What does this have to do with Aaron’s piece? Sex, relationships, and dating are huge parts of our lives and identity. The church spoke and speaks with huge authority on this issue, and gave a huge endorsement of a 20-something single guy who wrote “I kissed dating goodbye”, when he really shouldn’t have been elevated nearly that high at all. (I think Aaron had a really great piece on him?? But maybe I’m wrong)
Regardless, The church (like other institutions) thinks it’s social trust is infallible, when in reality people are leaving for the doors.
100% this. Harris's books (and the broader culture) did quite a bit of damage to me, both directly and indirectly. I still made and make lots of my own bad choices and am responsible for those, but Harris (and those even stricter than him) was the absolute last messenger I needed to read on these points so that I'd be operating from a place of wisdom and insight.
That doesn't mean I don't support Biblical chastity, because I do. Rather, I don't support either the hard seltzer version (Harris and co) or the Single Malt version (Bill Gothard). Both are millstone makers.
Ah! Sprouting Thomas linked to the article! Well now my entire comment really was just overkill 😂
Yes, this assertion seems to be taken for granted most of the time. But I didn't grow up in purity culture. I know the guy who pushed "Kiss Dating Goodbye" apostatized, divorced his wife, and started hawking high-priced seminars for recovering from his own program. Which certainly isn't a ringing endorsement for his specific ideas. But how much of purity culture did he really represent?
Of course, a lot of the criticism is coming from "ex-vangelicals". Maybe there's a sense in which really bad ideas promoted their apostasy, but clearly all their criticism should be taken with a heavy grain of salt. When I Google "failures of purity culture", one of the top responses is that it: "developed out of patriarchal, ableist, heteronormative, homophobic, and transphobic ideologies." A lot of their criticism seems to be with the entire idea of waiting for marriage.
While I was dating, a lot of single, churchgoing girls from Christian homes who were passing into "old maid" status seemed to blame "Kiss Dating Goodbye" for their situation. But I've known enough churchgoing old maids from Christian homes who didn't grow up with "Kiss Dating Goodbye" that I'm not sure how much it was really the specific cause of their lack of success. But maybe it was.
EDIT: I just realized Aaron covered it much better than me in his link, though I said a lot of the same things:
https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/newsletter-7-accountability-for-failure?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
Keep in mind, that was written before Joshua Harris went off the rails.
Aaron: regarding pharmacies, have you read any of the pieces Matt Stoller's written about pharmacy benefit managers? His focus has been on what they do to pricing, but it'd be shocking if it had no effect on consumer trust as well.
Link at the end of this comment is a good place to start if you haven't, albeit kind of long (~3800 words): https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/inside-the-mafia-of-pharma-pricing
I'm very familiar with PBMs
I will say though, part of the decline of Walgreens and other drugstores isn’t entirely their fault. Many of these drugstores in large cities are the prime target of shoplifters. Many items are locked up now and they have to spend money on staff members to unlock items.
Do you believe some of Walgreen's damage is due to the Vampiress of Silicone Valley still in jail for fraud over her non-existent miracle blood tests? Has Toyota yet to fully recover from Bridgestone? That old adage - 'where do you go to get your reputation back' - extends to Corporations as well don't you think?
That's a small part of it though.
Bigger issues:
(1) the pharmacy side now has a lot more competition. I get my prescriptions at my grocery store. Walmart entered this business in the late 00s IIRC, watershed moment. Meanwhile a lot of health insurers ("MCOs") have pushed prescriptions through their own in-house online plays.
(2) The "front-store" (i.e. the part getting shoplifted) has more competition from Amazon/e-commerce.
Basically, this was a niche industry that was opened up to competition by much larger players with a lot more market power. CVS stock has sucked but still doing way better than WBA by seeing which way the puck was going and getting into the PBM and MCO space.