re: #30 Charles Johnson

The degree to which economic success depends on culture is a debate that’s perfectly valid, but for a presidential candidate to bring it up in such a ham-handed pandering manner is nothing but a self-inflicted foot-shot.

An honest debate about the effect of culture would concede that politics and economics are poles around which social structure and group-ideation bend. You can’t talk about any region without referencing how it’s local culture has been changed by the in- and out-flow of money and resources…purchasing power and trade correspond to flow of ideas and opportunities to consume novel experiences. When you’ve got a region with a long history of being administered by non-native power structures, you look at how that warps identity, ideology, and material culture.

Mitt—and others—trying to define “culture” as some kind social phlogiston…causing by not affected by economy or the political stamps of the larger regions…are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.