Very good piece, thanks. Despite being something of a Rooseveltian lefty, I’ve been wrestling with all these repressive, non-creative trends on the “left” all my life, mainly in the world of art (I’ve been a relatively traditional painter for 50 years – a drum-you-out-of-the corps – offense through much of my youth). That said, while I read Atlas Shrugged in my early twenties and couldn’t help being caught up in its romance of builders and destroyers, it always felt a bit too easily satisfying to me. As a lifelong maker myself, of all sorts of stuff, I admire people who actually build things, but a fortune is not a thing. And that Horatio Alger up-by-the-bootstraps mythos we so love here in the old USA often also hides some ugly realities about what makes mega fortunes like Thiel’s or Musk’s possible. Anyway, I hear you and appreciate that you speak out. Try this on if you’re game: https://open.substack.com/pub/windmillslayer/p/does-that-star-spangled-banner-yet?r=3a54by&utm_medium=ios
Thank you so much for reading, and I appreciate this thoughtful comment. I totally hear you on the tension between the romance of Rand and the realities of capitalism. I think for me, what’s shifted over time is how I define “value”
A fortune isn’t a thing, I agree—but the way someone earns it is. Especially in the case of people like Elon, who aren’t just collecting wealth, but fundamentally altering industries that didn’t even have incentives to change. That level of vision, risk tolerance, and execution power is rare. And I guess I’ve come to see those “fortunes” less as trophies and more as trailing indicators—evidence that someone actually built something the world couldn’t ignore
I also get the skepticism around bootstraps mythology—it can hide a lot. But I also think it’s possible to admire exceptional builders without pretending it’s all clean. That nuance is what I’m most interested in: not lionizing billionaires, but asking why they exist, what they’ve created, and whether we’d rather live in a world without those things (I wouldn't)
Anyway, grateful to have readers like you who are willing to wrestle with all of this. I'll check out the link you sent, too. Ty.
I agree with much of what you say here. It's complicated stuff for sure and the nuances are as densely packed as Brere Rabbit's briar patch! I'm working on an essay (as well as a series of paintings) about some ancestors of mine who lived at either end of the poor to rich spectrum of makers and builders. My own immediate family are stone carvers, artists and other sorts of artisans. We also have a lot of educators. I've been a carpenter all my life, right alongside my painting. But I also had a great-great-great uncle who was one of the Robber Baron "builders" of the gilded age (the dude who founded Bethlehem Steel and the Wharton school of finance). Really interesting guy, and basically a really good guy. But the disconnect between that massive wealth he accumulated and the far more modest means and lifestyles of his sisters, nephews, and cousins in my line is pretty fascinating. I grew up seeing the shortcomings of great wealth all around me — the arrogance and selfishness that it can breed into even its most well meaning members. Similar things happen though at the bottom of the social scale as well. The net result for me has been that I really have no desire for money, and never have. What I have always craved is to be the best I can be at what I do, and to do it in ways that give something to somebody else. I fail more than I succeed of corse, but I keep trying. The easy about rich and poor relations is a challenging piece to write and a challenging set of paintings to make. But like what you do here, life's a bore of you don't take it all on and speak the truths that feel right regardless of how folks might react.
Interesting history... I get the hesitation around wealth, but to me, fortune earned by creating enormous value (like Elon) isn’t something to be suspicious of—it’s something to study. I also find it interesting to see the way Elon actually lives. He doesn't have a lavish lifestyle. He lives in a 1200 square foot house and mostly wears t-shirts and jeans. I'm not saying wealthy people shouldn't be able to spend their money, I just think Elon is a very unique example of wealth due to the massive value he generates for society and humanity as a whole, and his lack of material possessions. He seems to be doing what he does because he genuinely loves building and "being useful" to society—which is something you pointed out above for yourself :)
You make some excellent points and I appreciate the builder vs destroyer paradigm, but this isn't particularly nuanced. You generalize so much about the left and give short shrift to some of the movement's motivations (even if the result has been disastrous). I see a lot of these epiphanies from former left-wing types who have been antagonized and shamed by the policing left, but then sway a bit too far in the other direction. It's hard to keep re-evaluating every opinion on every topic according to our own internal compass. It's easier to demonize one side and be done. But, that isn't going to help this country gain back the degree of equilibrium that will enable us to govern and sustain as a country. I've really enjoyed your writing on all variety of topics-including your "unpopular" thoughts on AI. This is just my off the cuff reaction as someone who rarely sees someone hold two sides of an argument without making one a strawman.
Appreciate the feedback, though I don't agree. Could you elaborate on how I've "swayed too far" to the other side? Or how I strawmanned the argument? I feel like I have an incredible grasp on the reality of the situation, especially since I've seen the inner-workings by way of Women's and Gender Studies. Which points did I make that don't seem to be rooted in objective reality?
Well, just looking through the first bit, an example would be (7th paragraph?) that the left was looking for power rather than truth. I'm not sure that what motivated that movement was entirely power. Some of it was motivated by revenge or maybe bitterness even. But, I don't think that the movement stemmed initially from a desire for power but because there was a feeling of being fed up. I think once they got some power, however, perhaps unexpectedly, they ran with it. It then became an overreaction to things that had been going on for a while, many of them shady, but many of them more complicated and many downright unfair. So, when I say swayed too far, I mean you don't flesh out the other side's arguments, and just in general have some sweeping generalizations. I only mention it because it weakens your argument about the excesses of metoo, which are real. Or rather, it allows people to more easily dismiss your accurate points if they think you are not fully acknowledging the legitimacy of some aspects of the movement.
I'm just failing to see how that paragraph proves I've "swayed too far." These are my opinions on the left based on my experiences and pattern recognition. I spent the first 30 years of my life "fleshing out their side" and trying to convince myself it made sense. It breaks down under a first principles lens. What arguments, specifically, do you think were not adequately fleshed out?
Well, I guess the motivations of the Metoo movement are not fleshed out because you say they were just interested in gaining power. I think it started out as something different and perhaps morphed into what it became precisely because it gained more power than anticipated. But, I wasn't part of this movement and you seem to have been well situated to know the inside story.
i mean yes, absolutely. the left has been happily adding fuel to their dumpster fire. the critique of the critics is required to evolve.
but is the right really the antidote? lately their ideology just feels like ruthless self-interest dressed up as principle.
these culture wars are ripping communities apart AND are a great distraction. the political class has non-partisan agreement on their playbook: endless wars no one asked for, pharma patents on plants older than civilization, subsidies for garbage that couldn’t last five minutes in a real free market. capitalism? really wish we actually had the chance to try it. what we’ve got is corporate socialism with better branding.
imo both culture and politics are divorced from objective reality by default. wouldn’t first principles thinking require ignoring both sides altogether and just focusing on issues—probably local first?
confused what i said that led to that question. if anything, focusing local is where voting actually affects communities and, ironically, where turnout is most cataclysmic.
Sorry I think I'm just confused on what we're even discussing or disagreeing on at this point. You said politics is divorced from objective reality, but politics decides things about my real, daily life. For me, personally, knowing that men aren't women (as just one example) is something objective that I'd like to protect. So for me, that means a vote for the guys who are not trying to alter what biology says. I see that as a nationwide issue. From a first principles perspective, the Left no longer makes any sense to me on almost any level. I'm not sure what that means locally. This piece was more so just exploring the reasons I no longer consider myself to be part of the Left—because for a huge chunk of my life, I did. It's less about claiming some new identity and more about dumping a couple I used to feel pretty attached to.
Very good piece, thanks. Despite being something of a Rooseveltian lefty, I’ve been wrestling with all these repressive, non-creative trends on the “left” all my life, mainly in the world of art (I’ve been a relatively traditional painter for 50 years – a drum-you-out-of-the corps – offense through much of my youth). That said, while I read Atlas Shrugged in my early twenties and couldn’t help being caught up in its romance of builders and destroyers, it always felt a bit too easily satisfying to me. As a lifelong maker myself, of all sorts of stuff, I admire people who actually build things, but a fortune is not a thing. And that Horatio Alger up-by-the-bootstraps mythos we so love here in the old USA often also hides some ugly realities about what makes mega fortunes like Thiel’s or Musk’s possible. Anyway, I hear you and appreciate that you speak out. Try this on if you’re game: https://open.substack.com/pub/windmillslayer/p/does-that-star-spangled-banner-yet?r=3a54by&utm_medium=ios
Thank you so much for reading, and I appreciate this thoughtful comment. I totally hear you on the tension between the romance of Rand and the realities of capitalism. I think for me, what’s shifted over time is how I define “value”
A fortune isn’t a thing, I agree—but the way someone earns it is. Especially in the case of people like Elon, who aren’t just collecting wealth, but fundamentally altering industries that didn’t even have incentives to change. That level of vision, risk tolerance, and execution power is rare. And I guess I’ve come to see those “fortunes” less as trophies and more as trailing indicators—evidence that someone actually built something the world couldn’t ignore
I also get the skepticism around bootstraps mythology—it can hide a lot. But I also think it’s possible to admire exceptional builders without pretending it’s all clean. That nuance is what I’m most interested in: not lionizing billionaires, but asking why they exist, what they’ve created, and whether we’d rather live in a world without those things (I wouldn't)
Anyway, grateful to have readers like you who are willing to wrestle with all of this. I'll check out the link you sent, too. Ty.
I agree with much of what you say here. It's complicated stuff for sure and the nuances are as densely packed as Brere Rabbit's briar patch! I'm working on an essay (as well as a series of paintings) about some ancestors of mine who lived at either end of the poor to rich spectrum of makers and builders. My own immediate family are stone carvers, artists and other sorts of artisans. We also have a lot of educators. I've been a carpenter all my life, right alongside my painting. But I also had a great-great-great uncle who was one of the Robber Baron "builders" of the gilded age (the dude who founded Bethlehem Steel and the Wharton school of finance). Really interesting guy, and basically a really good guy. But the disconnect between that massive wealth he accumulated and the far more modest means and lifestyles of his sisters, nephews, and cousins in my line is pretty fascinating. I grew up seeing the shortcomings of great wealth all around me — the arrogance and selfishness that it can breed into even its most well meaning members. Similar things happen though at the bottom of the social scale as well. The net result for me has been that I really have no desire for money, and never have. What I have always craved is to be the best I can be at what I do, and to do it in ways that give something to somebody else. I fail more than I succeed of corse, but I keep trying. The easy about rich and poor relations is a challenging piece to write and a challenging set of paintings to make. But like what you do here, life's a bore of you don't take it all on and speak the truths that feel right regardless of how folks might react.
Interesting history... I get the hesitation around wealth, but to me, fortune earned by creating enormous value (like Elon) isn’t something to be suspicious of—it’s something to study. I also find it interesting to see the way Elon actually lives. He doesn't have a lavish lifestyle. He lives in a 1200 square foot house and mostly wears t-shirts and jeans. I'm not saying wealthy people shouldn't be able to spend their money, I just think Elon is a very unique example of wealth due to the massive value he generates for society and humanity as a whole, and his lack of material possessions. He seems to be doing what he does because he genuinely loves building and "being useful" to society—which is something you pointed out above for yourself :)
Nice essay. One of your best. And the closer bears repeating:
"I refuse to betray my mind to stay loyal to a tribe."
Tysm 💜
You make some excellent points and I appreciate the builder vs destroyer paradigm, but this isn't particularly nuanced. You generalize so much about the left and give short shrift to some of the movement's motivations (even if the result has been disastrous). I see a lot of these epiphanies from former left-wing types who have been antagonized and shamed by the policing left, but then sway a bit too far in the other direction. It's hard to keep re-evaluating every opinion on every topic according to our own internal compass. It's easier to demonize one side and be done. But, that isn't going to help this country gain back the degree of equilibrium that will enable us to govern and sustain as a country. I've really enjoyed your writing on all variety of topics-including your "unpopular" thoughts on AI. This is just my off the cuff reaction as someone who rarely sees someone hold two sides of an argument without making one a strawman.
Appreciate the feedback, though I don't agree. Could you elaborate on how I've "swayed too far" to the other side? Or how I strawmanned the argument? I feel like I have an incredible grasp on the reality of the situation, especially since I've seen the inner-workings by way of Women's and Gender Studies. Which points did I make that don't seem to be rooted in objective reality?
Well, just looking through the first bit, an example would be (7th paragraph?) that the left was looking for power rather than truth. I'm not sure that what motivated that movement was entirely power. Some of it was motivated by revenge or maybe bitterness even. But, I don't think that the movement stemmed initially from a desire for power but because there was a feeling of being fed up. I think once they got some power, however, perhaps unexpectedly, they ran with it. It then became an overreaction to things that had been going on for a while, many of them shady, but many of them more complicated and many downright unfair. So, when I say swayed too far, I mean you don't flesh out the other side's arguments, and just in general have some sweeping generalizations. I only mention it because it weakens your argument about the excesses of metoo, which are real. Or rather, it allows people to more easily dismiss your accurate points if they think you are not fully acknowledging the legitimacy of some aspects of the movement.
I'm just failing to see how that paragraph proves I've "swayed too far." These are my opinions on the left based on my experiences and pattern recognition. I spent the first 30 years of my life "fleshing out their side" and trying to convince myself it made sense. It breaks down under a first principles lens. What arguments, specifically, do you think were not adequately fleshed out?
Well, I guess the motivations of the Metoo movement are not fleshed out because you say they were just interested in gaining power. I think it started out as something different and perhaps morphed into what it became precisely because it gained more power than anticipated. But, I wasn't part of this movement and you seem to have been well situated to know the inside story.
i mean yes, absolutely. the left has been happily adding fuel to their dumpster fire. the critique of the critics is required to evolve.
but is the right really the antidote? lately their ideology just feels like ruthless self-interest dressed up as principle.
these culture wars are ripping communities apart AND are a great distraction. the political class has non-partisan agreement on their playbook: endless wars no one asked for, pharma patents on plants older than civilization, subsidies for garbage that couldn’t last five minutes in a real free market. capitalism? really wish we actually had the chance to try it. what we’ve got is corporate socialism with better branding.
Not sure if I implied the Right was the antidote, but it’s at least a vote for objective reality, which is a really good place to start imo
imo both culture and politics are divorced from objective reality by default. wouldn’t first principles thinking require ignoring both sides altogether and just focusing on issues—probably local first?
And the way to focus on the issues is by… not voting?
confused what i said that led to that question. if anything, focusing local is where voting actually affects communities and, ironically, where turnout is most cataclysmic.
Sorry I think I'm just confused on what we're even discussing or disagreeing on at this point. You said politics is divorced from objective reality, but politics decides things about my real, daily life. For me, personally, knowing that men aren't women (as just one example) is something objective that I'd like to protect. So for me, that means a vote for the guys who are not trying to alter what biology says. I see that as a nationwide issue. From a first principles perspective, the Left no longer makes any sense to me on almost any level. I'm not sure what that means locally. This piece was more so just exploring the reasons I no longer consider myself to be part of the Left—because for a huge chunk of my life, I did. It's less about claiming some new identity and more about dumping a couple I used to feel pretty attached to.