What's new
By:
Filters

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

The Thriller said:
For a crowd that claims to not care what others think about them, you sure seem sensitive.
Click to expand...
What crowd are you referring to?

The Thriller said:
There are conservatives on here who debate things fine with others like me.
Click to expand...
Which ones? I don’t see many left on this forum. No one really debates you because post and run and never respond except for calling people names and then blocking. They do debate others on the left, because they respond.

The Thriller said:
It seems like Trumpers really a struggle because they have no issues to debate, just blind defense of and for their Orange god king, Trump. Just as I said in the previous post, you’re making my point for me. Trumpers can’t debate issues, only defend and excuse the weak boy who’s angry that his parents never loved him. Sad.
Click to expand...
They can debate issues and they have. Roe v Wade, Immigration, School choice, CRT, health care, Filibuster, Voting requirements, Inflation, etc… there is a ton to debate about. You just choose to call them names and not really debate.

The Thriller said:
I know you probably hoped to end this debate since you sensed you were losing by reaching out to attack me personally. While I’m flattered that you compare my posting to a message board to the former president, it’s just not even close to the same.
Click to expand...
Didn’t attack you personally, just about your forum rhetoric. Yet you didn’t respond to any of it.
The Thriller said:
Distraction aka whataboutism is a common tactic by Trumpers. So I’ll help ya with that off-ramp, If want to debate further the inflammatory rhetoric in politics, we can continue.
Click to expand...
Sure but you actually have to respond, rather than post and run.

The Thriller said:
If we’re going to drown in pissing matches like these, you can an back onto the block list.
Click to expand...
You block everyone that pushes back on you. No difference to me.

The Thriller said:
Lastly, I’ll always stand by Trumpers being ignorant, stupid, or lacking in character. After everything he’s done and said over the past 6 years, one can only still support that man either by being woefully ignorant, incredibly stupid, or severely lacking in character. If you find that inflammatory then perhaps some introspection is necessary? *notice I said Trumpers and not conservatives.
Click to expand...
Introspection for you? Tell me, who do you consider conservatives? Anti-Trump republicans? Of all the 80+ million people who voted for Trump, which ones are independent, conservative and then Trumpers?

The Thriller said:
This is an important distinction that will probably go over your head.
Click to expand...
Is that a personal shot? Classy.
 
Bucknutz said:
What crowd are you referring to?


Which ones? I don’t see many left on this forum. No one really debates you because post and run and never respond except for calling people names and then blocking. They do debate others on the left, because they respond.


They can debate issues and they have. Roe v Wade, Immigration, School choice, CRT, health care, Filibuster, Voting requirements, Inflation, etc… there is a ton to debate about. You just choose to call them names and not really debate.


Didn’t attack you personally, just about your forum rhetoric. Yet you didn’t respond to any of it.

Sure but you actually have to respond, rather than post and run.


You block everyone that pushes back on you. No difference to me.


Introspection for you? Tell me, who do you consider conservatives? Anti-Trump republicans? Of all the 80+ million people who voted for Trump, which ones are independent, conservative and then Trumpers?


Is that a personal shot? Classy.
Click to expand...
I have never blocked anyone for disagreeing with me. I only block posters who I don’t believe add anything to the discussion other than trolling.

There are plenty of conservatives on this board. LG, Colton, fishon, and GF have traditionally held conservative views. None of them are what I’d call liberal. I don’t think any are registered as “Democrat.” But you’re right, there’s a diminishing number of conservatives who also identify as Trump supporters. Again, some introspection might be necessary.
 
This is an important read.


It’s a self perpetuating problem. On one hand, American democracy struggles to solve real problems for the majority of the population, which feeds inflammatory rhetoric and authoritarianism. However, the inflammatory rhetoric really fuels the base and makes it even harder for American democracy to function. The structure of the American government gives way too much weight to the minority, which creates even more frustration at the system failing to govern. Which just perpetually provides fertile group for partisans and populists.

All while partisan media exploits these frustrations for clicks.
 
Interesting stuff here. Shawn Rosenberg, Professor of Political Science and Psychological Science, UC Irvine:

escholarship.org

Democracy Devouring Itself: The Rise of the Incompetent Citizen and the Appeal of Right Wing Populism

Author(s): Rosenberg, Shawn | Editor(s): Hur, D; Sabucedo, Jose-Manuel | Abstract: For 60 years after the end of World War II, democratic governance has flourished and expanded its reach. Now it appears this process has stalled and is even reversing in many of the established democracies of...
escholarship.org

Abstract

For 60 years after the end of World War II, democratic governance has flourished and expanded its reach. Now it appears this process has stalled and is even reversing in many of the established democracies of Europe and North America. Momentum now appears to be with right wing populist alternatives to democratic governance. In attempting to make sense of these developments, I argue that they are not the result of fluctuating circumstances or a momentary retreat in the progress toward ever greater democratization. Adopting a broadly political psychological perspective, I instead suggest they reflect a structural weakness inherent in democratic governance, one that makes democracies always susceptible to the siren call of right wing populism. I will further argue that as practices in countries such as the United States become increasingly democratic, this structural weakness is more clearly exposed and consequential. In the process, the vulnerability of democratic governance to right wing populist alternatives becomes greater. Hence the conclusion that democracy is likely to devour itself.
————————————-

It’s a long paper. If one wants a taste of Rosenberg’s thoughts, this interview in Salon is highly recommended. Since it is a left leaning outlet, I’m including a link to Rosenberg’s academic profile. Because it’s his thoughts that are of interest, and I found him to be highly insightful, IMHO….

www.salon.com

There's a fundamental problem: Americans "do not understand democracy"

Shawn Rosenberg predicted the "inexorable decline" of democracy in 2019. But he still thinks it's not too late
www.salon.com www.salon.com

“I argued that liberal democratic politics is complicated, and populist alternatives offer a vision that is much simpler. All that populism demands is a simple story of cause and effect. All one needs to do is act: Authoritarian power is the solution.

This populist vision also has a very simple story about society and identity. In this story, social groups are natural. We think of them categorically. They don't have lots of overlap. In-groups and out-groups are distinct. Evaluative judgments are binary, a simple black-and-white story. There is good and bad. It's not a judgment in the sense of a subjective judgment. This way of thinking offers simple understandings of what is objectively true and what is not true, and is therefore deemed to be less valuable

Populist ways of thinking about the world are ultimately just a lot simpler than the complexities of thinking about action as having multiple causes and consequences, thinking about groups being inherently diverse and overlapping, and thinking of judgment as a subjective, tentative thing. All of that is way too complicated for populists. Most people, not all, naturally incline toward that simpler vision if it is offered to them.

We tend to think about groups in negative terms, and when you're making evaluative judgments about things, they tend to be dualistic, black-and-white and unequivocal. That type of populist thinking was marginalized for a long time. What were once unacceptable ways of talking about politics are now part of the global discourse, and people are attracted to them. Many people do not really understand what liberal democracy is and why it is important, so they ultimately end up choosing populist alternatives”

 
Last edited:
Red said:
Interesting stuff here. Shawn Rosenberg, Professor of Political Science and Psychological Science, UC Irvine:

escholarship.org

Democracy Devouring Itself: The Rise of the Incompetent Citizen and the Appeal of Right Wing Populism

Author(s): Rosenberg, Shawn | Editor(s): Hur, D; Sabucedo, Jose-Manuel | Abstract: For 60 years after the end of World War II, democratic governance has flourished and expanded its reach. Now it appears this process has stalled and is even reversing in many of the established democracies of...
escholarship.org

Abstract

For 60 years after the end of World War II, democratic governance has flourished and expanded its reach. Now it appears this process has stalled and is even reversing in many of the established democracies of Europe and North America. Momentum now appears to be with right wing populist alternatives to democratic governance. In attempting to make sense of these developments, I argue that they are not the result of fluctuating circumstances or a momentary retreat in the progress toward ever greater democratization. Adopting a broadly political psychological perspective, I instead suggest they reflect a structural weakness inherent in democratic governance, one that makes democracies always susceptible to the siren call of right wing populism. I will further argue that as practices in countries such as the United States become increasingly democratic, this structural weakness is more clearly exposed and consequential. In the process, the vulnerability of democratic governance to right wing populist alternatives becomes greater. Hence the conclusion that democracy is likely to devour itself.
————————————-

It’s a long paper. If one wants a taste of Rosenberg’s thoughts, this interview in Salon is highly recommended. Since it is a left leaning outlet, I’m including a link to Rosenberg’s academic profile. Because it’s his thoughts that are of interest, and I found him to be highly insightful, IMHO….

www.salon.com

There's a fundamental problem: Americans "do not understand democracy"

Shawn Rosenberg predicted the "inexorable decline" of democracy in 2019. But he still thinks it's not too late
www.salon.com www.salon.com

“I argued that liberal democratic politics is complicated, and populist alternatives offer a vision that is much simpler. All that populism demands is a simple story of cause and effect. All one needs to do is act: Authoritarian power is the solution.

This populist vision also has a very simple story about society and identity. In this story, social groups are natural. We think of them categorically. They don't have lots of overlap. In-groups and out-groups are distinct. Evaluative judgments are binary, a simple black-and-white story. There is good and bad. It's not a judgment in the sense of a subjective judgment. This way of thinking offers simple understandings of what is objectively true and what is not true, and is therefore deemed to be less valuable

Populist ways of thinking about the world are ultimately just a lot simpler than the complexities of thinking about action as having multiple causes and consequences, thinking about groups being inherently diverse and overlapping, and thinking of judgment as a subjective, tentative thing. All of that is way too complicated for populists. Most people, not all, naturally incline toward that simpler vision if it is offered to them.

We tend to think about groups in negative terms, and when you're making evaluative judgments about things, they tend to be dualistic, black-and-white and unequivocal. That type of populist thinking was marginalized for a long time. What were once unacceptable ways of talking about politics are now part of the global discourse, and people are attracted to them. Many people do not really understand what liberal democracy is and why it is important, so they ultimately end up choosing populist alternatives”

Click to expand...
I’m going to read this when I have more time. Earlier this week I was rereading one of my favorite texts, “Defying Hitler” by Sebastian Haffner. Are you familiar with his work? This was written right before he fled to the UK as WWII began. This part really stood out to me. What do you think? Chapter 4:
D67A0C1D-9CFC-4C28-8DEA-FFDE98362B65.jpeg
Unfortunately, much of what ails western democracies is that we’ve had a few generations now that haven’t known any real pain or suffering. Ukrainians are struggling for their lives while Americans whine about wearing cloth masks during a pandemic, paying a few dollars more in gas, and go ballistic if a flight attendant asks them to bring their seat and tray to the upright position. Western Europeans whine about similar things. So much prosperity and ease has made life too boring for many.

That’s why so many are looking for releases from their boring prosperous lives through election fraud and Qanon conspiracies, absurd “holy wars” against the LGBT community and black people, and by electing profane and vulgar strong men for entertainment.
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Consider this paragraph by Rosenberg, from the Salon essay:

“Many people do not really understand what liberal democracy is and why it is important, so they ultimately end up choosing populist alternatives. Ultimately, that outcome is an ironic result of the greater openness of the public sphere and the democratic arena of ideas, where more people are empowered to make choices on their own. The gatekeepers have lost control.”
——————-
Many people will reject that take because they will see it as promoting elitists(the gatekeepers). Yet, consider was has replaced human reason in a large segment of the American people. Consider the widespread rejection of authority(gatekeepers) in so many areas of human knowledge. People dismiss science, they dismiss accurate history, they reject intellectuals. They dismiss facts and embrace conspiracy theories.

Now, consider his thought further:

“Some of my peers rebutted my thesis. They said I was arguing that people are genetically incapable of democracy, I'm not saying that. My argument is that the educational system, in combination with the demands placed on citizens by the political system in Western democracies, have failed to educate the public to understand complex questions of society and politics.

Many people do not understand the importance of the rule of law or why the division of powers in government matters or why open and respectful debate is so important to a healthy democracy and society.”
——————-
What could possibly be the solution short of education? IMHO, not only should Civics be elevated to the core of the core of our education, beginning in grammar school, but that education has to include teaching people how to recognize cynical opportunists trying to use human ignorance to advance agendas, by playing on human fear and anger.

It absolutely has to include education in how to recognize demagogues, right wing populists, and the severe limitations, and dangers, of simplistic emotive-based populist arguments.

But, such an education is long term, does not happen overnight, and is needed at a time when conspiracism, not rational thought, is becoming the default thinking mode, and when anti-elitism, anti-intellectualism is cresting like never before in our history. As Issac Asimov observed:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

Sadly, it just seems to me that Rosenberg is correct in pointing out authoritarian populism is something hard to avoid. We have had our spells of such in our history, just nothing like Trumpism in its present form. And with Trump now far more openly embracing QAnon, my response is WOW, are we ever in the deepest **** imaginable where irrational nonsense overcoming rationality is concerned. I understand many Americans despise elitism now, despise the idea of establishment “gatekeepers”, but good lord, where are we heading otherwise ?! Rosenberg may be right. A popular democracy like ours, where politicians vie for our votes and allegiance, will lead to simplistic and alluring populism without a rigorous education in civics from an early age.

We are in deep, deep trouble. That’s what I think….
 
Red said:
What could possibly be the solution short of education?
Click to expand...
To this I want to add: “Know thyself”. Not only must people be educated in the dangers and oversimplifications of emotive-based populism, but they must be educated in what makes people tick. What makes themselves tick. Some fundamentals of human psychology must be a part of that education in civics, and education in responsible citizenship.

If fears and anxieties in the face of the modern world are a part of their lives, then they need to understand how that can lead to irrational responses on their part. People need to understand themselves better. It’s not a case of ignoring or dismissing fear, anxiety, and anger. It’s a case of helping those people understand what can happen when they don’t know themselves, and instead reach for simplistic populists as a solution for those anxieties.

And to be careful what you wish for when authoritarian rule appeals. Many Americans are attracted to a Strongman type. Such as Trump. It’s part and parcel of right wing populism. Yet Trump has made it clear to those whose sight and self-knowledge is not occluded, that he is here for power alone. He is taking advantage of the allure of populism for self aggrandizement. A population poorly educated in civics and human psychology/motivations, makes this outcome possible in a popular based democracy.

A dedicated goal of education, in both civics, and a much clearer understanding of the underlying dynamics of human response to societal stress is needed. But, if we believe man is not a rational animal, we acknowledge what a supremely difficult goal this really is. It is one of the most formidable challenges facing our society. What a daunting task.
 
“Many people do not really understand what liberal democracy is and why it is important, so they ultimately end up choosing populist alternatives. Ultimately, that outcome is an ironic result of the greater openness of the public sphere and the democratic arena of ideas, where more people are empowered to make choices on their own. The gatekeepers have lost control.”
——————-
Many people will reject that take because they will see it as promoting elitists(the gatekeepers). Yet, consider was has replaced human reason in a large segment of the American people. Consider the widespread rejection of authority(gatekeepers) in so many areas of human knowledge. People dismiss science, they dismiss accurate history, they reject intellectuals. They dismiss facts and embrace conspiracy theories.

Now, consider his thought further:

“Some of my peers rebutted my thesis. They said I was arguing that people are genetically incapable of democracy, I'm not saying that. My argument is that the educational system, in combination with the demands placed on citizens by the political system in Western democracies, have failed to educate the public to understand complex questions of society and politics.

Many people do not understand the importance of the rule of law or why the division of powers in government matters or why open and respectful debate is so important to a healthy democracy and society.”
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more with this. I think it's important to emphasize that America isn't the only western democracy dealing with this. The UK, France, Germany, Brazil, Hungary, Italy, Poland, etc are all dealing with right wing "populists" and illiberal authoritarians. We see no greater example of this than our own democracy in the 21st century. Without the Cold War welding people of different education levels, socio-economic levels, and religious beliefs together, they've turned to cheap entertainment and thrills for politics. "Holy Crusades" against school books and vaccines to give their lives meaning. It's why "outsider politicians" are so damn popular. There's a collective narcissism throughout the electorate where hyper-individualism and immediate self-gratification is worshipped while care and sacrifice for the collective is seen as weak.

Think about how many Americans quickly took to ******** artists Rogan and Trump for Covid solutions. Or how many Americans refused to wear masks for a few months because their "right" to spit germs at cashiers was seen as patriotic.

I think where I might slightly disagree with are his solutions. I think education has a place in this. But the lack of education isn't the cause of democratic backsliding so why should education be the silver bullet? I think it's a combination of the rise of TV media and social media, creating nations of narcissists and citizens with attention spans of goldfish AND the refusal of leaders, religions, and citizens to address systemic inequalities and refute the lies that nations tell themselves. Rather than accurately and honestly recognize, reconcile, and repair systemic inequalities in America, we've chosen to ignore them. "White innocence" and American exceptionalism lead large swaths of the American electorate vulnerable to authoritarians. It leads to the cynicism that contributes to democratic backsliding, tribalism, and eventually to illiberalism.

I really don't have the answers to all of this. However, I do think from my reading that:
  1. Serious education on civics would help. This would include a much greater focus on Reconstruction and human rights of the 20th and 21st century rather than patting ourselves on the back about that period between 1776-1787 and saying, "Cool! We finished America!" America was meant to serve the living not the dead. Unfortunately, the humanities have been de-emphasized throughout our education system in favor of STEM and some of the richest in America want education to be for profit and never teach that the government could do anything beyond protecting the property and wealthy of rich white people.
  2. Mandatory military or civic service would help teach Americans about sacrifice and communities.
  3. Strengthen political parties. I don't want backwards rubes who want a pro wrestler for president making key decisions. Restore the gatekeepers and only let serious candidates compete for leadership.
  4. Campaign finance reform would definitely help. Get rid of all the billionaire and Russian money from politics. Unfortunately, we all know what the Supreme Court thinks about this...
  5. Reform the courts. No reason why they shouldn't have term limits and there's no reason why we should always have the same 9 ruling on key issues. Expand it to 21 judges and randomly select 7, 9, 11 etc per case. The issue should be ruling on the merits of the law, not passing unpopular legislation that Republicans couldn't pass through the Leg branch.
  6. Get rid of the EC, it's a ticking time bomb that only empowers aspiring authoritarians. Force both political parties to compete in the marketplace of ideas and win votes. Get rid of gerrymandering. Blow the filibuster. Let political parties feel the reward/pain of passing popular/unpopular legislation. (again, we all know these won't happen but they'd be helpful)
  7. Force some re-examination of Big Tech. I really don't know how but Facebook really needs to be held to account. What they've done and are still doing to democracies across the world is inexcusable.
  8. Restore local news and journalism. Have no idea how to do this but nationalized news is just leading to people being angry and completely uninformed about what's happening in their own backyard.
  9. Educate and inform on the effects of TV media and social media. Life isn't all about getting what you want immediately, like Googling food on a phone. Remember when you couldn't just immediately blast someone through a screen and instead had to write a letter, find their address, and put a stamp on an envelope? In many cases, I think that helped improve the discourse since the increased time to communicate helped emotions to cool down.
  10. Religions to aid in the recognition, reconciliation, and reparation of systemic inequalities. Again, one can dream, right?
 
Red said:
be careful what you wish for when authoritarian rule appeals.
Click to expand...
Red, you just posted an appeal to authoritarian rule. You are the one authoritarian rule is appealing to. Take a step back and look at the passage you found to be so appealing.

“Many people do not really understand what liberal democracy is and why it is important, so they ultimately end up choosing populist alternatives. Ultimately, that outcome is an ironic result of the greater openness of the public sphere and the democratic arena of ideas, where more people are empowered to make choices on their own. The gatekeepers have lost control.”
Click to expand...
That passage wants to strip choice from commoners because it causes the gatekeepers (authorities) to lose control. It is advocating for the authority to have control. It is advocating for authoritarian rule. That advocacy resonates with you. You read it, agreed with it, and posted it.

The reasons given for establishing authoritarian rule don't stand up to anyone who has even the least of critical eyes. Here they are again:
consider was has replaced human reason in a large segment of the American people. Consider the widespread rejection of authority(gatekeepers) in so many areas of human knowledge. People dismiss science, they dismiss accurate history, they reject intellectuals. They dismiss facts and embrace conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
What constitutes "they"? Is it 2 people? Is it a plurality? Is it a majority? Is it everyone? There are a number of people who eat fiberglass insulation. "They" eat fiberglass insulation. People eat fiberglass insulation. The passage doesn't even try to define the size of the issue because the piece isn't giving you any information. The passage lists a string of information-free anecdotes intended to appeal to those who already agree with the premise that we must strip the ability of commoners to decide things and institute authoritarian rule.
 
str8line said:
Yay! Trump finally got his very own salute!

View attachment 13070View attachment 13071
Click to expand...
tumblr_inline_pshoebFlik1tpz9vt_500.png
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Red, you just posted an appeal to authoritarian rule. You are the one authoritarian rule is appealing to. Take a step back and look at the passage you found to be so appealing.


That passage wants to strip choice from commoners because it causes the gatekeepers (authorities) to lose control. It is advocating for the authority to have control. It is advocating for authoritarian rule. That advocacy resonates with you. You read it, agreed with it, and posted it.

The reasons given for establishing authoritarian rule don't stand up to anyone who has even the least of critical eyes. Here they are again:

What constitutes "they"? Is it 2 people? Is it a plurality? Is it a majority? Is it everyone? There are a number of people who eat fiberglass insulation. "They" eat fiberglass insulation. People eat fiberglass insulation. The passage doesn't even try to define the size of the issue because the piece isn't giving you any information. The passage lists a string of information-free anecdotes intended to appeal to those who already agree with the premise that we must strip the ability of commoners to decide things and institute authoritarian rule.
Click to expand...
No, son, it’s an argument for the education required for a people to act responsibly and rationally in a popular democracy. We don’t need authoritarians. We need education. Exactly as I described, not how you twist it.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”​


― Isaac Asimov

You are the one who has consistently argued that direct democracies are dangerous, precisely because you fear mob rule. An effective democracy depends on an educated electorate. Educated in civics, educated in what it means to live in a liberal democracy. It does not advocate to strip “commoners” at all. It simply points out what we can expect to happen when people are not educated enough to understand their own government and society. When enough people reject all sources of authority and resort to conspiracism as their default thinking mode, then yeah, everybody loses. Relying on knowledge, relying on good information, relying on truth, none of those things represent authoritarian rule!! They have not in the past, now, all of a sudden you think a call to listen to knowledge, to utilize rationality, is a call to dictatorship? Nobody is better than you at twisting things to fit your own interpretation.

But, personally, I’m not sure we’ll ever be rational enough overall to avoid emotive-based populism.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Red, you just posted an appeal to authoritarian rule. You are the one authoritarian rule is appealing to. Take a step back and look at the passage you found to be so appealing.


That passage wants to strip choice from commoners because it causes the gatekeepers (authorities) to lose control. It is advocating for the authority to have control. It is advocating for authoritarian rule. That advocacy resonates with you. You read it, agreed with it, and posted it.

The reasons given for establishing authoritarian rule don't stand up to anyone who has even the least of critical eyes. Here they are again:

What constitutes "they"? Is it 2 people? Is it a plurality? Is it a majority? Is it everyone? There are a number of people who eat fiberglass insulation. "They" eat fiberglass insulation. People eat fiberglass insulation. The passage doesn't even try to define the size of the issue because the piece isn't giving you any information. The passage lists a string of information-free anecdotes intended to appeal to those who already agree with the premise that we must strip the ability of commoners to decide things and institute authoritarian rule.
Click to expand...
Neither myself, nor Rosenberg, is arguing for authoritarian rule. Both he, and I, are arguing for a much better educational base to allow “commoners”, as you chose to call them, to actually make truly informed opinions. And that education should include both civics and an understanding of human nature. As I outlined, and as you chose to completely ignore, in your eagerness to label me a proponent of authoritarianism. What a total dishonest clown you are, sir. You’re disgustingly dishonest. As Rosenberg put it:

“I am optimistic. I believe that there are solutions to the problem. We need to fix a broken educational system. The average American has trouble having productive discussions with people they disagree with and who are different from them. They're also not very good at reflecting on their own values and beliefs. The average American is also not very good in terms of critical thinking and understanding general principles.

We need to create an educational system that prepares adults to effectively negotiate the complexities of democratic life. We also need to broaden our understanding of what democracy is, beyond just voting. For the most part, you vote for candidates, and most people end up voting for their candidate either on the basis of a single issue, or they really have no idea at all and they're just voting for the party or their group identity.

America needs more deliberative democracy, and institutions and structures from the local level on up that will empower citizens to become more active. In the end, the American people need to be more involved in their own self-government.”
 
Red said:
But, personally, I’m not sure we’ll ever be rational enough overall to avoid emotive-based populism.
Click to expand...
^^ THIS^^

The final line of your post is why the rest of everything doesn't work and why it what you posted earlier was ultimately a call to authoritarianism. It does not matter how much education there is or on what topics. Human nature makes the absence of emotive-based populism a non-reachable utopia in a system that doesn't retard it. It is exactly why democracies always fail and why a republic is more durable. The structure of a republic places limitations that ignore popularity and by extension place limits on populism. Populism is what is really dangerous and there is no limitation on populism in a democracy.
 
Red said:
Neither myself, nor Rosenberg, is arguing for authoritarian rule. Both he, and I, are arguing for a much better educational base to allow “commoners”, as you chose to call them, to actually make truly informed opinions.
Click to expand...
Like how North Korea supports the free speech rights of its people so long as the speech people are to make of their own free will is consistent with what the authorities view as the correct opinions. If the people choose to voice an opinion inconsistent with what the authorities have judged to be the informed opinion, then it means they need more "education".

If your idea can't withstand the uninformed or nonconformant, then what you are advocating for is authoritarianism regardless of whatever name you've decided to call it.
 
Red said:
Neither myself, nor Rosenberg, is arguing for authoritarian rule. Both he, and I, are arguing for a much better educational base to allow “commoners”, as you chose to call them, to actually make truly informed opinions. And that education should include both civics and an understanding of human nature. As I outlined, and as you chose to completely ignore, in your eagerness to label me a proponent of authoritarianism. What a total dishonest clown you are, sir. You’re disgustingly dishonest. As Rosenberg put it:

“I am optimistic. I believe that there are solutions to the problem. We need to fix a broken educational system. The average American has trouble having productive discussions with people they disagree with and who are different from them. They're also not very good at reflecting on their own values and beliefs. The average American is also not very good in terms of critical thinking and understanding general principles.

We need to create an educational system that prepares adults to effectively negotiate the complexities of democratic life. We also need to broaden our understanding of what democracy is, beyond just voting. For the most part, you vote for candidates, and most people end up voting for their candidate either on the basis of a single issue, or they really have no idea at all and they're just voting for the party or their group identity.

America needs more deliberative democracy, and institutions and structures from the local level on up that will empower citizens to become more active. In the end, the American people need to be more involved in their own self-government.”
Click to expand...
Here is another problem with education as outlined. I believe maybe 35% of the population would even understand what you were just saying here. Maybe 40%, certainly no higher than 50%. That means that no matter how much you try to educate people half of them or more just won't get it and just want their sound-bites. These are the ones who really cannot grasp the issues, listen for the inflammatory stuff they want to hear, and vote accordingly. Even people I know who are educated pretty much as you outlined still behave irrationally based on sound-bites and facebook posts. One of the smartest people I know, who has a JD and a Phd in Philosophy, still buys into Trump-ism. Questions whether QAnon is a real thing, and supports the notion of white male victimhood and persecution. He is, of course, a white male with an extremely lucrative career, most definiitely in the 1%, yet this is how he thinks. He is fully capable of rational discussion, and we often engage in debates, and he even acknowledges things such as Trump being the antithesis of WWJD-doctrine (my friend is a mormon, most recently in the stake presidency I believe), yet still adheres to the "ends justify the means" type of argument and will not budge. I could also loosely lump my BIL in this, as I have spoken of his attitude and education level (he is a school principal right now).

I agree we need to improve our educational system in general, and in civics specifically, but I also think it will be a very limited impact overall when protecting privilege is the unspoken sought-after end to the deplorable means.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Here is another problem with education as outlined. I believe maybe 35% of the population would even understand what you were just saying here. Maybe 40%, certainly no higher than 50%. That means that no matter how much you try to educate people half of them or more just won't get it and just want their sound-bites. These are the ones who really cannot grasp the issues, listen for the inflammatory stuff they want to hear, and vote accordingly. Even people I know who are educated pretty much as you outlined still behave irrationally based on sound-bites and facebook posts. One of the smartest people I know, who has a JD and a Phd in Philosophy, still buys into Trump-ism. Questions whether QAnon is a real thing, and supports the notion of white male victimhood and persecution. He is, of course, a white male with an extremely lucrative career, most definiitely in the 1%, yet this is how he thinks. He is fully capable of rational discussion, and we often engage in debates, and he even acknowledges things such as Trump being the antithesis of WWJD-doctrine (my friend is a mormon, most recently in the stake presidency I believe), yet still adheres to the "ends justify the means" type of argument and will not budge. I could also loosely lump my BIL in this, as I have spoken of his attitude and education level (he is a school principal right now).

I agree we need to improve our educational system in general, and in civics specifically, but I also think it will be a very limited impact overall when protecting privilege is the unspoken sought-after end to the deplorable means.
Click to expand...
I certainly concur with everything you say.

Another problem, which basically takes advantage of the very existence of the problem you describe, is the way our political leaders are marketed. Because, it really is all about marketing. Actual issues may arise for actual discussion in debate mode, but overall, the pitches are overwhelmingly emotive.

The appeal is not to reason, the appeal is to emotion. Marketing understands what makes people tick, and it’s a very cynical view of human nature that marketers adhere to in their pitches, they don’t start with a high opinion of the electorate’s overall intelligence after all, and they market the candidate accordingly. The president is another product, to be sold to the electorate. Negative ads denigrate the competing product. It’s the selling of a president, or any politician.

Maybe I should be surprised at the quality of leadership we have had, at times, in our history.
 
One Brow said:
They moved the migrants from what was effectively a homeless shelter into dormitory housing, which is very different from "bussing them off". MV residents made sure the migrants had a safe place to live, unlike DeSantis/Abbott. Do you the migrants preferred the shelter?
Click to expand...

It looks like Abbott and DeSantis did help the migrants.


View: https://twitter.com/billfoxla/status/1571943101178212354?s=46&t=19wlobFMbmOITANkW7l3mg



View: https://twitter.com/billfoxla/status/1571949614064082944?s=46&t=19wlobFMbmOITANkW7l3mg


It’s official, the boarder is not porous, it’s wide open.


View: https://twitter.com/billfoxla/status/1571974448424816641?s=46&t=19wlobFMbmOITANkW7l3mg


Now there is over 1/2 a million gotaways.


View: https://twitter.com/billfoxla/status/1571977419992563712?s=46&t=19wlobFMbmOITANkW7l3mg


50 people to MV or 2.1 million with a month left in the fiscal year.

I don’t hear from anyone on the left in this forum on what they would do.

$116 billion when we had half the amount of migrants. What could the US do with that money?

Report: Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $116 billion annually; Californians, Texans, Floridians pay the most | National | thecentersquare.com

www.thecentersquare.com
 
Last edited:
Red said:
I certainly concur with everything you say.

Another problem, which basically takes advantage of the very existence of the problem you describe, is the way our political leaders are marketed. Because, it really is all about marketing. Actual issues may arise for actual discussion in debate mode, but overall, the pitches are overwhelmingly emotive.

The appeal is not to reason, the appeal is to emotion. Marketing understands what makes people tick, and it’s a very cynical view of human nature that marketers adhere to in their pitches, they don’t start with a high opinion of the electorate’s overall intelligence after all, and they market the candidate accordingly. The president is another product, to be sold to the electorate. Negative ads denigrate the competing product. It’s the selling of a president, or any politician.

Maybe I should be surprised at the quality of leadership we have had, at times, in our history.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t always that way. TV and then social media has distorted the electorate’s views. Our nation’s best leaders would be unelectable today because of their looks, disabilities, or gaffes while the worst leaders our nation has had are hyper electable because of their ability to market themselves. Think about it, Lincoln (ugly), Teddy Roosevelt (gaffes), and FDR (crippled) all would have their asses handed to them by 21st century presidents who were tv stars and “men you could have a beer with.”

Large segments of our population don’t want leaders, they want entertainment. They don’t want policy, they want drama. They don’t want the steady competent state churning out health care policy, they want the Avengers who do whatever they want and own their enemies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top