EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2141
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22704 Posts
On February 24 2020 09:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: My wife is doing a phd on populist communication in social media (it's a project inspired by cambridge analytica). While it's an ongoing project and none of the findings so far are of such a character that what I will now post is 'publishable', one preliminary finding about populist communication, seen both with brexit, trump, PiS in poland, presumably others, is that it's a lot less fear-mongering, and far more about building enthusiasm for their project compared to what traditional media tends to portray it as. I mean yea, it is true, Trump does sometimes fear-monger about caravans of immigrants or they're gonna take your guns and stuff like that, but if you watch a trump rally, he focuses a lot on what they are going to accomplish and what they have accomplished, and they're perceived as entertaining. I've myself done some datamining of various brexit politicians' facebook posts, and I have to say, Boris Johnson comes off as jolly and enthusiastic, not scared. Farage is a bit different, much angrier and less positive, but frankly, my impression was that the remainer side was the one that was most fear-mongering. And Sanders fits this mark, too. He portrays a vision for the future, something that can be accomplished if people band together and support him - not merely an absence of bad stuff that will happen as long as we beat the opposition. Again, these are early findings, I imagine it's another year or two until I can give a source for these statements, but the notion that the populists are particularly fear-mongering, while something I myself supported earlier, is no longer something I believe - I perceive them as the ones who are the most proficient at creating enthusiasm around a project. She should get a job for Bloomberg's version of Cambridge Analytica and leak inside information about how it works to us  | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 24 2020 09:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Buttigieg isn't satisfied with Nevada's "quality control" of the reported results www.politico.com Given that as of now he is more than 7 percentage points behind Biden, I'd say his claim is most likely as flimsy as his premature assertion of a "strong second place finish" in Nevada. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 24 2020 06:03 Wegandi wrote: No, they don't. Go look at historical data on polling during primaries and compare their accuracy to the final result. It's not even remotely in the ball park. I'll be here to tell you I told you so when Trump wins something like 415+ electoral votes. So something that hasn't happened since the 80's in 2020. When voting was mostly just white people. Trump's approval rating isn't bad it's been flat but not in unelectable territory but his disapproval is unusually high. Sanders would have to be a flat out uncharismatic which given his campaign heavy use of grass roots support doesn't seem like it. Anything more than 330 would be drinking Kool aid. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23831 Posts
On February 24 2020 09:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: My wife is doing a phd on populist communication in social media (it's a project inspired by cambridge analytica). While it's an ongoing project and none of the findings so far are of such a character that what I will now post is 'publishable', one preliminary finding about populist communication, seen both with brexit, trump, PiS in poland, presumably others, is that it's a lot less fear-mongering, and far more about building enthusiasm for their project compared to what traditional media tends to portray it as. I mean yea, it is true, Trump does sometimes fear-monger about caravans of immigrants or they're gonna take your guns and stuff like that, but if you watch a trump rally, he focuses a lot on what they are going to accomplish and what they have accomplished, and they're perceived as entertaining. I've myself done some datamining of various brexit politicians' facebook posts, and I have to say, Boris Johnson comes off as jolly and enthusiastic, not scared. Farage is a bit different, much angrier and less positive, but frankly, my impression was that the remainer side was the one that was most fear-mongering. And Sanders fits this mark, too. He portrays a vision for the future, something that can be accomplished if people band together and support him - not merely an absence of bad stuff that will happen as long as we beat the opposition. Again, these are early findings, I imagine it's another year or two until I can give a source for these statements, but the notion that the populists are particularly fear-mongering, while something I myself supported earlier, is no longer something I believe - I perceive them as the ones who are the most proficient at creating enthusiasm around a project. Who needs sources anyway? :p But no I think that makes a good degree of sense. It dovetails quite well with LegalLords well put post up the page as well. Tied to that, at least in the British context it’s generally the case that the average voter, is (especially in the working class) more right-leaning on immigration and especially crime than strategists tend to account for it seems. On the other hand they are more economically left-leaning too. The Remain campaign did a pretty damn bad job at communicating anything aspirational to the particular demographics that ended up voting to leave. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On February 24 2020 06:16 Wegandi wrote: Your worldview boils down to if the Government doesn't do it, then its not being promoted. Kill the arts endowments, cut the FDA and make drug to market cheaper and faster, destroy the rent-seeking patents and IP system (that's a hard one since it's in the Constitution), and boost community / nuisance / tort courts with stricter property rights enforcement. Those I am in favor of, so to me your questions have false assumptions and equivalencies. I believe in science, education, and our individual rights, but for you that means Government, for me, that means No Government. We're incompatible. It's why I can dislike someone like Trump, yet still run to the polls to vote for him against Bernie. There are a lot of "independents" like me (maybe not so extreme, but you get the idea). I thank god everyday people like you are the minority in our country. I can appreciate your perspective in that you explain it clearly, but it amounts to nothing more than a completely irrational fear in what someone has lead you to believe is the "government." In demonizing the government you have essentially been brainwashed into voting against your own best interest. The institutions you should be wary of, which have proven themselves over the years to be true monsters, are the institutions which are profit driven, and prioritize the accumulation of money over the well-being of the people of the US. There are countless examples of profit-driven companies fucking over the people of the US, and government is the only check on people/companies with massive amounts of money/power. To your point, the government isn't perfect, they abuse power as well (Flint Michigan water crisis a primary example of governement fucking up peoples' lives), but at least government is supposed to be (and sometimes is) representative of the voting population... and it is also not profit driven. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
For your party it's an easy choice, they are so corrupt that they just force you into the one option. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/republicans-cancel-primaries-trump-challengers-1483126 | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On February 24 2020 13:48 ShambhalaWar wrote: I thank god everyday people like you are the minority in our country. I can appreciate your perspective in that you explain it clearly, but it amounts to nothing more than a completely irrational fear in what someone has lead you to believe is the "government." In demonizing the government you have essentially been brainwashed into voting against your own best interest. The institutions you should be wary of, which have proven themselves over the years to be true monsters, are the institutions which are profit driven, and prioritize the accumulation of money over the well-being of the people of the US. There are countless examples of profit-driven companies fucking over the people of the US, and government is the only check on people/companies with massive amounts of money/power. To your point, the government isn't perfect, they abuse power as well (Flint Michigan water crisis a primary example of governement fucking up peoples' lives), but at least government is supposed to be (and sometimes is) representative of the voting population... and it is also not profit driven. If you think people like me and Wegandi are a "minority" in the country, what do you think of progressives/Bernie supporters? I don't think you understand the situation. I don't know if you realize, but independents outnumber both democrats and republicans. Almost half the independent voter bloc believes the Democrats are too far left (https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/455574-nearly-half-of-independents-say-democratic-party-is-too-far-left), and this includes even the moderate Democrats. A far smaller amount of independents think that the Republicans lean too right. Personally, I think most Republicans are basically leftists in terms of economics lol. That, combined with the fact that the the third biggest party and a rapidly growing one at that is the libertarian party, should tell you all you need to know about this "minority" you speak of, and which way it leans. Meanwhile, Bernie-tier progressives have yet to prove that they can even win the popular vote of the democratic primaries. Trump was able to win the general election because he got a ton of independent voters on board. Trump ran on things like protecting the 2a, balancing budget, and increasing the federal funds rate (and then got elected and did the complete opposite). I will not be voting for Trump (I will be writing in rand paul at this point) because I will not support someone whose policies I don't agree with, but I perfectly understand why people like Wegandi would vote for Trump, or even any other moderate democrat, over Bernie. And I also understand why neoliberals would vote for Trump or some centrist democrat over Bernie. So yea - you might want to rethink who the real minority in this country is...at least hold off on thanking God until the progressives prove otherwise  . You don't know what you're dealing with if you think a self-proclaimed socialist who runs on giving steroids to the Leviathan and banning assault weapons has the support of the plurality in this country. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On February 24 2020 09:01 LegalLord wrote: It's pretty common fare among Democrats (and supporters from abroad) to make the argument of "the other side is just full of idiots" but I don't think it really is what happened. Certainly, it's a very easy argument to make, but also a really lazy and obtuse one. Trump did what won while Democrats ignored some very obvious signs that it was likely to happen, so maybe the "idiots" were on to something after all? Take the two examples you gave - "build a wall" and "ban all Muslims." Obtuse and insane on their face, but they do tap into the very real anti-immigrant sentiment that exists in the country. With the Muslim part, alluding to the very real migrant crisis across the ocean in Europe that was all over the news at that exact time. Sure, it might sound stupid, but it's definitely rhetoric that alludes to very real issues that aren't popular within the standard mediaverse, but that many people are concerned about. Some of the other arguments in favor of Trump were fairly solid. They talked about electing the right judges, and Trump has certainly been a very successful court packer. They talked about Hillary being a crook, which many "smart" people ignored until, late into the election, events managed to erase all doubt. And he talked about saving the jobs of the disappearing rural voters, which contrasted very well with Hillary boasting about putting coal miners out of business. Perhaps the lesson isn't "the voters are idiots who don't know what's good for them" because you have to take a really narrow view of 2016 to assume that that's what happened. It's hard to know what the lessons for 2020 are, though, since we don't know who's going to be in play, or how they will do. But at the very least, one of the lessons I remember from 2012 was "almost all ads are negative, because attack ads work" - which I certainly believe is not the way that 2020 has played out. The person most able to propose a rosy vision for the future is the one doing the best in the primaries, and you know, maybe that'll mean something for the general. And maybe, after the serviceable but rather status quo presidency of Obama, another lesson may be that there's a lot of people looking for uncompromising idealists over well-polished demagogues promising more of the same (that concept certainly seemed to help Trump). And maybe "stop the socialist" will spawn a powerful McCarthy-era mania that will easily propel Trump into his second term. Who knows? I suppose this was the risk of oversimplifying the way I did. I don’t think anything like “the other side is full of idiots!” I obviously have some disagreements with Republicans, but I don’t think they’re stupider on average than Democrats, and I certainly don’t think you have to be stupid to be a Republican. “Why do so many people disagree with you if you’re right” is a hard question for any ideology to answer, but I agree that “because all those people are stupid” is a lazy and bad answer to that question. But I do think most things Trump says are not just wrong, but facially idiotic - and that his success is often because of those idiotic things, not in spite of them. Part of that is a lack of specificity that allows you to map whatever you want onto what he says, and think you’re in agreement with him. Part of that is the appeal of “forbidden” opinions - by saying things that exasperate elites, the media, etc. he can come across as bold, refreshing, maybe even “honest” (even though the thing he’s saying is often demonstrably false). But I’m just scratching the surface of the large and complex set of reasons why this kind of rhetoric appeals to people. My point was only that it does, and people underestimated the effectiveness of big, dumb, and boneheaded in 2016. Republicans used to spend their time talking about the evils of statism or fiscal irresponsibility or w/e, when all they really needed to say was “I will give everyone great, cheap healthcare” or “my opponent is a criminal who should be in jail.” Imo stuff like “he’ll put in the right judges” is just how people who were always going to vote Republican justify their vote without having to defend all the other stuff. It’s a deflection, not how the election was won or lost. Anybody who sincerely regrets the institutional damage or humanitarian abuses or stupid tweets w/e else, but is willing to look the other way to get conservative judges, was never going to vote for a Democrat anyway. The moral justifications those people provide are interesting to me, but not because I think they’ll decide the election. In short, I think you’re misreading me as saying the voters were idiots. The truth is considerably more ominous, I think: the rhetoric was idiotic, but the voters weren’t and they bought it anyway. It’s got a lot in common with conspiracy theories (and many of Trump’s positions are literally that): when you hear the beliefs, you might assume the people who believe them are idiots, but in fact they’re often quite smart. I think that’s much more disturbing than if they were just a bunch of idiots believing idiotic things. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On February 24 2020 14:30 BerserkSword wrote: If you think people like me and Wegandi are a "minority" in the country, what do you think of progressives/Bernie supporters? I don't think you understand the situation. I don't know if you realize, but independents outnumber both democrats and republicans. Almost half the independent voter bloc believes the Democrats are too far left (https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/455574-nearly-half-of-independents-say-democratic-party-is-too-far-left), and this includes even the moderate Democrats. A far smaller amount of independents think that the Republicans lean too right. Personally, I think most Republicans are basically leftists in terms of economics lol. That, combined with the fact that the the third biggest party and a rapidly growing one at that is the libertarian party, should tell you all you need to know about this "minority" you speak of, and which way it leans. Meanwhile, Bernie-tier progressives have yet to prove that they can even win the popular vote of the democratic primaries. Trump was able to win the general election because he got a ton of independent voters on board. Trump ran on things like protecting the 2a, balancing budget, and increasing the federal funds rate (and then got elected and did the complete opposite). I will not be voting for Trump (I will be writing in rand paul at this point) because I will not support someone whose policies I don't agree with, but I perfectly understand why people like Wegandi would vote for Trump, or even any other moderate democrat, over Bernie. And I also understand why neoliberals would vote for Trump or some centrist democrat over Bernie. So yea - you might want to rethink who the real minority in this country is...at least hold off on thanking God until the progressives prove otherwise . You don't know what you're dealing with if you think a self-proclaimed socialist who runs on giving steroids to the Leviathan and banning assault weapons has the support of the plurality in this country. I'm purely speaking dem vs. repub. Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by nearly 3 million, which is a huge statement in itself about the political make up of the country. Also consider huge amounts of the dem party who just stayed home or voted third party in protest, and that adds more numbers to the dem make up of the country. Among the youth of the country trump (and republicans) has abysmal support, mostly because he doesn't support any of the issues that really matter for them, such as climate change. His whole presidency has been a cash give for big business and throwing red meat to people who are mostly afraid of things, by stoking fear of immigrants. As far as Sanders is concerned, I'm not sure what you're paying attention to, but he has won the popular vote of every primary thus far, and he destroyed it in Nevada. In regard to political leanings of the population and independents this article refutes basically everything you've said as of 2018, I'm sure in the last couple years it's only skewed more away from the republican party as it has completely imploded. It also says that there hasn't been much change in the past two decades, so this isn't some new change to the leanings of the country. https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/ + Show Spoiler + balance of partisan affiliation – and the combined measure of partisan identification and leaning – has not changed substantially over the past two decades. However, Democrats hold a slightly larger edge in leaned party identification over Republicans now than in 2016 or 2015. In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2017, 37% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 50% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican. The youth, as well as every racial group that isn't white is leans wayyyy more to the democratic side of politics, and keep in mind those groups are only getting bigger, as caucasians are trending toward eventually becoming the minority. trump won the election because of a perfect storm of BS, but I think mostly because the population was so sick of the status quo that they would take whoever wasn't the establishment. If Bernie had been the nominee, he would have held that mantle and won... Clinton represented the establishment, so people didn't vote... and still she got 3 million more. At the end of the day we will find out, but I don't think you understand who Sanders is, you just ride that republican brainwash BS, which says he is a socialist, and then tries to demonize him. The vast majority of policies Sanders backs are very popular nation wide, such as medicare for all... even amongst republicans good healthcare is popular, as it should be... it is a good policy. Republican students with crushing debt, might also care about student debt forgiveness... trump doesn't really have anything to offer but fear about a border wall and demonizing the word socialism... or starting a major war right before the election. You forget there was a president FDR who I believe had the highest approval rating of any president leaving office after 4 terms. Bernie Sanders is an FDR democrat, they both support the same very popular ideas. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11334 Posts
On February 24 2020 14:30 BerserkSword wrote: If you think people like me and Wegandi are a "minority" in the country, what do you think of progressives/Bernie supporters? I don't think you understand the situation. I don't know if you realize, but independents outnumber both democrats and republicans. Almost half the independent voter bloc believes the Democrats are too far left (https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/455574-nearly-half-of-independents-say-democratic-party-is-too-far-left), and this includes even the moderate Democrats. A far smaller amount of independents think that the Republicans lean too right. Personally, I think most Republicans are basically leftists in terms of economics lol. That, combined with the fact that the the third biggest party and a rapidly growing one at that is the libertarian party, should tell you all you need to know about this "minority" you speak of, and which way it leans. Meanwhile, Bernie-tier progressives have yet to prove that they can even win the popular vote of the democratic primaries. Trump was able to win the general election because he got a ton of independent voters on board. Trump ran on things like protecting the 2a, balancing budget, and increasing the federal funds rate (and then got elected and did the complete opposite). I will not be voting for Trump (I will be writing in rand paul at this point) because I will not support someone whose policies I don't agree with, but I perfectly understand why people like Wegandi would vote for Trump, or even any other moderate democrat, over Bernie. And I also understand why neoliberals would vote for Trump or some centrist democrat over Bernie. So yea - you might want to rethink who the real minority in this country is...at least hold off on thanking God until the progressives prove otherwise . You don't know what you're dealing with if you think a self-proclaimed socialist who runs on giving steroids to the Leviathan and banning assault weapons has the support of the plurality in this country. If people like you or Wegandi self-identify as "independent", then of course independents think that democrats are too far to the left. Wegandi is an Ayn-Rand style libertarian. Which is another type of far right ideology. It is not the same far right as the nationalistic authoritarians, but still fits distinctly only in the republican party in the US. In europe, it would be an extremist version of the various "liberal" parties. (Note that liberal in the EU does not mean the same as liberal in the US) I don't recall 100% where you fit in, but it was also either ayn rand style libertarianism or hard right authoritarianism. None of you two are "independents", as in, people who are in between the two big parties and change which one they vote for depending on some factors. I doubt that any of you have ever voted for anything but republicans (Or other "independents" who might as well be republicans) | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23831 Posts
On February 24 2020 19:35 Simberto wrote: If people like you or Wegandi self-identify as "independent", then of course independents think that democrats are too far to the left. Wegandi is an Ayn-Rand style libertarian. Which is another type of far right ideology. It is not the same far right as the nationalistic authoritarians, but still fits distinctly only in the republican party in the US. In europe, it would be an extremist version of the various "liberal" parties. (Note that liberal in the EU does not mean the same as liberal in the US) I don't recall 100% where you fit in, but it was also either ayn rand style libertarianism or hard right authoritarianism. None of you two are "independents", as in, people who are in between the two big parties and change which one they vote for depending on some factors. I doubt that any of you have ever voted for anything but republicans (Or other "independents" who might as well be republicans) Indeed, I think there are a lot of problems in how one self-identifies and how that is taken into account. Or indeed where ideologies fit on a curve. Or how people perceive the wings. Berserk saying they Republicans are basically leftists economically for example, only really makes sense if one is coming from somewhere Randian and wouldn’t be an assessment that many Americans and certainly the average European would make. The Libertarian party has made some hay in recent years but I imagine there’s quite some variance in who is voting for them and why. I’m sure some write essays about the Federal Reaerve as a hobby, but I imagine plenty are there for the social libertarianism alone, the legalisation of drugs and whatnot, or some find the idea of non-interventionist foreign policy appealing. If one ever wants to see the narcissism of petty differences in action Libertarian Party meets are as good a place in any. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
Relatedly, the fact that attitudes towards economics appear to be fluid political objects that are sometimes mistaken for the ground we walk on is a very important reason why MMT-inspired economics deserve increased scrutiny. Specifics aside, a cornerstone tenet of en vogue economics is that practically all model-based economic predictions make assumptions, particularly along lines of general applicability, that can be disputed or outright refuted. Nowhere is that easier seen that in use of the rational actor as a stabilizing assumption in basically all mainstream economic circles, even those that claim to be behavior-focused do so for the most part. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7122 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23831 Posts
On February 24 2020 22:36 Zambrah wrote: Wouldn’t swing voters be considered more moderates then independents? I doubt libertarians would ever vote for a democrat and I doubt communists ever vote for a republican. Aye. I can’t see many of them existing come the general, especially if Sanders is the candidate. Presumably the important battleground will be in galvanising turnout. Most non-voters may be apathetic sure, but they’ll still have some kind of preference ultimately. Trump faills to beat Clinton last time if she had come close to what Obama managed in terms of enthusiasm driving turnout. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 24 2020 22:35 ShoCkeyy wrote: Also independents in the US just means you’re not registered to a party. Nothing else. Also also, it tends to mean 1) ignorant/poorly informed and 2) people who still generally vote for the same party (when they do vote) but just don't like being labeled. Media talk about "independent" voters is highly overblown. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22704 Posts
On February 24 2020 05:58 LegalLord wrote: That's a couple really solid thoughts. I must admit that I did completely forget about that concept of electability as an issue (probably because of how stupid that argument turned out to be last time around). To be honest, once you get past the rhetoric, I don't think Bernie's major policy positions are all that far from standard Democratic fare. If we look: - Fight climate change. Very standard. - $15/hr minimum wage. They went with this as a policy point last time, so it can't be that out-of-the-norm. - Stop billionaire campaign contributions. It sounds like a pet issue, because just about no one else talks about it, but who is really going to come out against this in principle? The Democrats are at least nominally against this, even if in practice they take as many of these as the Republicans do. - Universal healthcare / M4A. And the corollary: tax everyone, rather than tax the rich, to pay for it. Yeah, that seems to step on some major entrenched interests. And everything else is very standard Democratic policy. From what I can tell, it's the healthcare policy explicitly, and the uncharacteristically principled opposition to the outsized influence of the wealthy implicitly, that makes him a "socialist" rather than your average Democrat. And frankly, I do get the sense that people are generally sympathetic to both of these "outlandish" principles. All that being so, there is still quite a lot of opposition to Sanders, so I very much wonder if anyone is around to give a voice to "Some Other Democrat 2020" - it seems like all the opposition around here is coming from a strictly Republican/right-wing camp. I don't know if Zaros was around in 2016, but he is/was supporting Buttigieg. I think you're right that Bernie is mostly running on just delivering what Democrats have promised for decades, which is similar to the (reluctant) appeal of Trump for Republicans. It is a major reason why there is a clear reluctance to Bernie winning the nomination but virtually no argument for why. Which is particularly the case here, because of your other observation, that such arguments are essentially Republican/right-wing arguments (as I've pointed out when it has happened to great consternation). "How will he pay for the same medical care every developed country on the planet has with only 2x the budget they use!?!" May not get you laughed off of cable news, the staff of the NYT, or out of the Republican party, but it will make reasonable people across the political spectrum question whether you can be trusted to represent their interests on anything else. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote: I suppose this was the risk of oversimplifying the way I did. I don’t think anything like “the other side is full of idiots!” I obviously have some disagreements with Republicans, but I don’t think they’re stupider on average than Democrats, and I certainly don’t think you have to be stupid to be a Republican. “Why do so many people disagree with you if you’re right” is a hard question for any ideology to answer, but I agree that “because all those people are stupid” is a lazy and bad answer to that question. I wouldn't say you said that either, but at least the next person to respond to you certainly got that message. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote: But I do think most things Trump says are not just wrong, but facially idiotic - and that his success is often because of those idiotic things, not in spite of them. Part of that is a lack of specificity that allows you to map whatever you want onto what he says, and think you’re in agreement with him. Part of that is the appeal of “forbidden” opinions - by saying things that exasperate elites, the media, etc. he can come across as bold, refreshing, maybe even “honest” (even though the thing he’s saying is often demonstrably false). But I’m just scratching the surface of the large and complex set of reasons why this kind of rhetoric appeals to people. My point was only that it does, and people underestimated the effectiveness of big, dumb, and boneheaded in 2016. Republicans used to spend their time talking about the evils of statism or fiscal irresponsibility or w/e, when all they really needed to say was “I will give everyone great, cheap healthcare” or “my opponent is a criminal who should be in jail.” Yes, being obtuse and over-the-top certainly does have an appeal to it. But I think the examples you gave aren't necessarily the best ones. I'd in fact go back to one you gave earlier, like "ban all Muslims" for one more worth analyzing. Keep in mind that the state of the art among Republican theorycraft was that they had lost the debate on immigration, and that they had to find a way to appeal to immigrants going forward. Then comes in Trump and spits in the face of all that in record time. What happens? You'll get the media playing on repeat, "look at this primitive idiot saying we need to ban all Muslims and build a wall!" Not only does that get the message out there, but it also gets people to stop and think, "hold on, this guy might have a point" - precisely because the opinions in opposition to the One Accepted Truth have been largely silenced. You definitely wouldn't get something like that if you tried to take a nuanced approach like saying "let's let immigrants in, but control it better" because you don't really differentiate yourself at all. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote: Imo stuff like “he’ll put in the right judges” is just how people who were always going to vote Republican justify their vote without having to defend all the other stuff. It’s a deflection, not how the election was won or lost. Anybody who sincerely regrets the institutional damage or humanitarian abuses or stupid tweets w/e else, but is willing to look the other way to get conservative judges, was never going to vote for a Democrat anyway. The moral justifications those people provide are interesting to me, but not because I think they’ll decide the election. But it's an important argument in the sense that it'll get people who hate the candidate to vote for him anyways. If Republicans who despise Trump had stayed home, he wouldn't have won in key areas where record turnout was all that saved him from the expected loss to Hillary. That, alongside the creation of a narrative that made Hillary truly unpalatable to the Repubican rank-and-file, makes a big difference. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote: In short, I think you’re misreading me as saying the voters were idiots. The truth is considerably more ominous, I think: the rhetoric was idiotic, but the voters weren’t and they bought it anyway. It’s got a lot in common with conspiracy theories (and many of Trump’s positions are literally that): when you hear the beliefs, you might assume the people who believe them are idiots, but in fact they’re often quite smart. I think that’s much more disturbing than if they were just a bunch of idiots believing idiotic things. I'm sure there are a lot of takeaways one could take from that. The one that personally strikes me is this: in truth, the consensus among "intelligent" folks (i.e. those that implicitly or explicitly pose themselves as being the candidate for smart people) has a way of having some dangerous implicit censorship, where deviation from some dangerously self-serving positions is grounds for labeling the other group as idiots and disasters waiting to happen. Trump certainly got that treatment, and though he probably warranted it, most of what he did was honestly just more of the Bush-era standard Republican fare rather than going off the rails (and sometimes when he went off the rails, like with cancelling giant terrible trade deals, that wasn't all bad). He got tons of praise heaped onto him for things like massive corporate tax cuts and bombing Syria, after all. And Bernie has also consistently gotten that same treatment in 2016 and 2020, despite the fact that, as we analyzed, he's only really got one strong socialist position (universal healthcare) that's strongly out of norm with what Democrats look for. One might start to get the impression that what is perceived in the mainstream as "smart" is really just a cover for a corporatist agenda. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xllPf8r.png)
