I would say "Civic institutions function in ways that degrade and are likely to destroy ... civic institutions"

Cute, but that's an ineffective belittlement of his argument, not only because it's irrelevant but because he covers that even in the abstract:

> Purpose-driven institutions [...] empower individuals to take intellectual risks and challenge the status quo.

(which of course includes and is most-often the institution itself.)

▲

PaulHoule 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'll argue otherwise.

Almost the defining problem of modern institutions is sweeping problems under the rug, be it be climate change or (most important) Habermas's "Legitimation Crisis" [1] It's something I've been watching happen at my Uni ever since I've had anything to do with it. The spectacle of institutions failing to defend themselves [2] turns people against them.

Insofar as any external threat topples an institution or even threatens it seriously there was a failure of homeostasis and boundaries from the very building.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimation_Crisis_(book)

[2] ... the king is still on the throne, the pound is still worth a pound ...

▲

inanutshellus 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That's not a fair statement.

Every institution (let's say - my household) sweeps problems under the rug. It's the euphemism for problems that aren't worth dealing with.

Institutions (in the form discussed) are either reinvented from the inside out and thus are and remain institutions, or are "toppled" in which case they are not "institutions" but "failures".

Think of how the Tea Party and the Libertarian movements or affected Republican politics in years past, or how completely alien the party is compared to a decade ago. The institution of the "Republican party" persists, even though it's nothing like its former self.

Same name, same "it's all fine just keep trusting us" but meanwhile quietly burned to the ground from the inside out.

	▲	PaulHoule 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The backdrop is that centrism is failing everywhere. Macron's France is a great example but you can see it in Starmer's Britain. It might be sensible policy but it doesn't satisfy anyone emotionally whereas Trumpism does. Of course "satisfied emotionally" can leave you with one hell of a hangover the next day.