Upset? Who’s upset? Did someone tell you I was upset? Did you mean to use the word upset?
Meanwhile, back at the thread, I’m under the impression that many people do not understand the long established process for electing U.S. Presidents. I’m not sure what “a fully democratic process for Federal officials” would be?
(post shortened)
Just in case it hasn’t already been made obvious to you, I doubt that you’ll find many, if any, Republican voters who want to be saved by you, or by your average yellow dog Democrat. just sayin’
Maybe that’s part of the problem? You want to save people from themselves. Some of your potential rescues may find your attempts at rescue to be a bit more arrogant than useful? I’m basing that on the fact that Republicans keep winning elections in spite of the Democrats “best” efforts. Why take advice from the losing side?
Why do I need an excuse? I’ve noticed that many (most?) political debates involve people talking past each other. Or someone changing the thread to something like global warming, etc… Opposing viewpoint holders aren’t actually trying to identify and then solve issues. There is little effort being made to reach a workable compromise. “Bitter Political Enemies” has become the status quo.
Because like with an issue like Global warming we are all in the same boat?
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/epa-sheds-38-more-science-advisors
Well, that “something” has been turned into a political issue by powerful interests and the Republicans adopted it for all the money they got in to keep power, I think someone like Doctor Faustus would understand. IMHO it is clear that you do not want to see how damaging that is for the simple reason that there is really no good explanation why Republicans are doing asinine things with the environment we all share.
I would say you came across as upset in your post that some people keep bringing up the presidential election results while commenting that they were not democratic. You expressed some degree of exasperation that said people don’t seem to understand that the Framers chose a process in which the popular will of the people is subordinated to an unusual electoral process. I’m saying, the people you are criticizing understand this perfectly well, but are saying that it is not a democratic process.
I’m sure you know what it means that the Framers didn’t seek a fully democratic process for Federal officials, as they intended the popular vote to be decisive for only one set of four major Federal offices.
Some of the rejection of man-made global warming theory is simple ignorance, but there’s also a conspiracy theory element to it as well. People on the right – and even a good number of other political persuasions – believe in conspiracy theories, which makes the election of a conspiracy theory president explicable. People no longer trust the usual sources of information, including mass media, government agencies, and schools.
This inability to have faith in information and institutions is incompatible with the survival of libertarian democracy over time. Voters have to have confidence in the system of elections to function. They have to have confidence that they’re getting quality information in order to make informed voting choices. People are starting to reach the conclusion that truth can never be ascertained. And that is how authoritarian regimes are born.
I grew up in red state culture but I’ve lived my adult life in communities that are described as either moderate or liberal. What I’d say about conservatives is that they rely a lot on their instincts and their personal experiences – they value “common sense” (as they define and perceive it) more than they value information from official sources, which is why progressives end up banging their heads against the wall in frustration.
I think that they can be changed, but it’s experience that changes them, if they change at all. A lot of conservatives once supported the war on drugs and tried to keep gays in the closet. But experience has taught us the war on drugs is a failure and gays aren’t monsters. I’m already beginning to see some conservatives acknowledge that the climate is changing – they may not accept that their favorite fossil fuels are causing it, but they’re beginning to accept that there’s something not quite right with the environment, and that’s a start. It’s hard but we need to find ways to communicate with conservatives and accept the fact that we won’t change their minds for a while, perhaps not for a long while.
I don’t know. I probably wouldn’t rail against a temporary subsidy for a new industry, but I’m not sure “support” is the right word for it either. My biggest concern is that temporary programs in Washington seem to have a tendency of becoming permanent. If there were some pretty strong controls in place to make sure it didn’t just get reauthorized year after year forever, then I’d probably find better things to do than spend time / energy / money to oppose it.
It’s a democratic republic process. Duly elected representatives are elected to represent large segments of the population. The peoples reresentatives can change, or keep, the current, long-standing process for electing the POTUS.
The Framers did chose a Presidential and U.S. Senatorial process in which the popular will of the people is subordinated to an unusual electoral process. Everything about the creation of the U.S.A. was unusual. No one had ever created such a government.
Even parlimentary systems do not chose their Prime Ministers by a direct popular vote.
Since you are implying that you speak for everyone I alledgedly criticized, are you suggesting that they want federal elections? In the future, of course. Past elections have already been decided. If things were different, things would be different. According to the long standing rules, Hillary, McCain, etc. lost.
All the people you speak for have to do is get a super majority of states to surrender their state’s right to hold elections. Should be a piece of cake.
doorhinge, your posts make sense in some alternate reality where republican vs democrat is akin to chocolate vs vanilla, rather than akin to dog turd vs. vanilla. They are technically correct in the same way a person on the dog turd side explaining why they bought the dog turd ice cream for the party are technically correct.
As noted, it does not matter if a politician becomes the head of the EPA, it matters when they lie about very basic problems that they were supposed to look after that are relevant to their government office.
And about that talk about the constitution? It is clear that the conservative reprehensible fossil fuel republicans that funded Trump did it to get the sweet treatment that they are getting from people like Pruitt, and it is clear that they think that the first amendment is just a piece of paper attached to the constitution.
Besides the nonsense of the Trump induced talking point that is irrelevant, I can see several reasons why this can be expected to be tossed out of court and with force.
But I wanted to notice that it is clear that the ones driving the ship of state are so insecure that they fear what a comedian is pointing out. And the minions of Trump really do not know about what the Streisand effect is about.
The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.[1]
Official sources? Do you mean like the government? Because no government anywhere, at any time, under any party, ever tries to spin things, right?
There is spin, like saying: Due to the weather, a lot of people that wished to attend the inauguration were unable to.
And there are lies: “This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe”
Boy if this ain’t part of the problem.
It’s not just government sources. It’s scientific and academic sources. Mainstream news outlets. Basically, everything Rush Limbaugh slags off when talking about the “4 corners of deceit”, because Rush Limbaugh is a crazy person.
It used to be, when scientists spoke up and said, “Okay, guys, we need to take action on this,” the response was, “We need to take action on this, how do we best do this with our conflicting interests?” And then we worked it out and got it done. Remember DDT, the hole in the ozone layer, and acid rain? We fixed that shit. We got it done. Now, we’re divided between the people who trust our scientific institutions, and a disturbingly huge number of people who just… don’t.
That’s what is generally meant by official sources. Sources which, in the past, have been a source of bipartisan or non-partisan agreement. Things like the CBO, or scientific developments out of Harvard, or reports by the New York Times, or the OTA (whoops, Gingrich got rid of that one because he didn’t like what it had to say about Star Wars!). The right has by and large taken to rejecting, minimizing, or outright destroying these sources whenever they don’t fit the narrative. Without these sources, we have no grounds for bipartisan consensus.
I’m kinda scatterbrained today so I might end up making multiple postings that overlap. Having gotten that disclaimer outta the way…
A lot of valid points and factors have been raised on this thread. I particularly think it’s worth focusing on something that was said up-thread, which is the fact that both sides of the spectrum are committed to their versions of reality. I forgot who wrote it at the moment but he/she’s right.
Progressives tend to make clinical, academic, and scientific arguments. Conservatives go with what their basic human instincts tell them. The scientific approach inherently has a certain level of disdain for assumptions based on instincts, and instincts are perceptions of reality that frequently override attempts to make neutral observations. Neither side really has any understanding of how to communicate with the other.
It’s probably always been this way and we just didn’t really realize it. I suspect that what has changed was that the standard of living for a substantial number of people has become worse, and that the frustrations of this trend have bubbled up to the surface. When a guy in Middle America can graduate and not have to think about borrowing tens of thousands of dollars just to get a job at an auto garage or factory that’ll pay a decent wage, allow him to buy a house, and start a family, he might still joke about how liberals are educated beyond their intelligence but every waking thought won’t obsess over how an educated bunch of coastal elites are conspiring to destroy him and others like him. But that idyllic American life, particularly the kind lived by post-WWII white America, is vanishing. There are suburbs that once thrived, which themselves are now becoming the kinds of urban wastelands that people a generation or two ago were trying to escape from.
But the problem of destroying the middle class isn’t just a phenomenon that affects the poor or the working poor exclusively; it also creates tensions that rattle the classes above at their core. Even among those who are actually making it in terms of their annual income, they (like we) are living in a world that is ever-changing and becoming more complex, which is unnerving. A professional truck driver or heavy machinery operator might actually be doing well, but that doesn’t keep him from worrying about the future, especially in an age when cars and machinery can operate themselves. There’s also the ‘problem’ of what to do with those who are struggling. A successful shop owner might be earning a comfortable salary, but he works hard and sweats every time he has a bad month of sales. And so now maybe he’s the one who’s asked to pay more taxes for things like medicare, medicaid, and the chronically unemployed. People in this situation might look good statistically, but they have very real and valid concerns about bearing the burden of paying for the growing underclass, and they fear being sucked into the undertow. There’s nothing at all irrational or uneducated about these anxieties.
Unfortunately, the right wing special interests and their propaganda machine has sent out a message that competes with the traditional sources of information. Tending to be less interested and less trusting of academic sources, they’re more receptive to explanations that just ‘make sense’. It’s the trap that ensnares people in democracies everywhere from time immemorial. More than being merely misleading, the propaganda has in recent years engendered a tone of outright hostility, encouraging those who consume this misinformation to be more than just a passive audience but to resist and confront those who try to ‘trick’ you with complicated explanations that defy ‘common sense’. The breakdown in information can be overcome as long as there is civil discourse, which is why these special interests try to incite incivility. They don’t want the conversation to happen in the first place. When one understands this, it then becomes clear how fragile not only the economic classes are, but also how fragile democracy and the rights and protections of ordinary people are as well.
And no, I’m not going to just let the Left off the hook as well, because I see progressives now starting to fall into the same trap. I don’t want to blame Bernie Sanders - he’s been a good senator and his campaign brought up many of the same issues we’ve discussed here. But I will say that I noticed the same problems of growing incivility and the thirst for simplistic solutions to complex problems during his campaign. I saw a kind of unruly mob element take hold during some of his campaign events and while it’s probably somewhat cathartic to a lot of progressives, I don’t see it being particularly helpful or successful in the long run. I understand that a lot of us are frustrated, but the concern is that the left itself is starting to splinter into groups – and that will work to the advantage of the powerful upper class much more so than it will for everyone else.
Of course governments can spin, but your response is typical of the thinking on the right. It suggests that governments can spin, therefore information from official sources should be dismissed as counter-factual, which is nonsense. Private companies and businesses interests can spin. Anyone and any agency can. I don’t see your point, really, other than to discredit official sources. The valid way to discredit a government source is to show that it’s not reporting accurately or with validity. But don’t confuse an assumption with an argument.
So that we can better understand your argument, what do you consider to be “official sources”?
Oh I don’t know, like NOAA, BLS, etc.
Obviously, yes, those official sources can be biased – if political leaders want them to be nothing more than mouthpieces. In retrospect, maybe “official sources” wasn’t really the best choice of words.
I think conservatives tend to have a strong distrust of public agencies and academia. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptical and trying to find sources that might challenge a particular agency’s or institution’s findings - in fact that’s a very academic thing to do. But there’s a difference between triangulating sources in an attempt to decide for yourself what the ‘truth’ is, and finding sources that simply reinforce what you already believe.
Because public agencies and academia keep telling conservatives that they are wrong. Conservatives are proud simple folk with a strong sense of the “way things ought to be” based on their gut and “common sense”. So when liberals and progressives tell them that they’re wrong, they get very angry and will accept any explanation that lets them save face and declare victory.
It’s the reason that liberals and progressives keep hitting their heads against the wall. They keep trying to convince conservatives with “logic and reason”. But where more progressives rely on a preponderance of evidence to decide on change, conservatives only need the slightest bit of unreasonable doubt to reject change and cling to the status quo.
And do not underestimate conservative’s resentment at being told what to do or that they are wrong. Trumps victory was just as much about pissing off dem smartypants big city liberals as it was about embracing his message of bringing back obsolete jobs and deporting brown people.
And Trump is seeing some success in all three of those areas. 