Cite, please. On second thought, you had better provide a cite or I will be pitting you.
I would suggest everyone here watch this Frontline documentary: America’s Great Divide: From Obama to Trump on PBS/Frontline. It rationally explains how we got here, placing blame on both parties’ actions, and sadly shows us how history can repeat itself.
margin****, the countdown clock is running. In 11 hours I will roast you to a stinking ugly crisp.
That too will take longer than you think.
What we’re talking about isn’t just an American problem; we’re living in an age in which individuals can have disproportionate influence, and an age in which non-living “bots” can have influence just the same.
Democracy requires that people agree on a common “truth,” or at minimum, it requires that people accept that if they can’t agree right now on what ‘the truth’ is, that they make an effort cooperate and get there, even if it requires agreeing to disagree.
Modern technology tilts the advantage away from consensus-building and toward clan-building. My fear is that people will experiment away from societies predicated on consensus, cooperation, and sharing, and toward societies governed by tribalism, competition, and removing perceived threats to scarcity.
All of the precursors to the mass slaughter of the early 20th Century are present. What’s more, the weaponry we have now makes mass murder even more efficient.
Sometimes logic and facts fail to mobilize public opinion, even when said facts are staring the public in the face. Look at who the current president is. It should not be surprising that analogies with Hitler and the Nazis are not persuasive among many when for many years Hitler himself and the actual Nazis were not perceived as anything out of the ordinary and even admired. One of the fascinating takeaways from this book about William E. Dodd, the first American ambassador to Hitler’s Germany, is that it only dawned on him gradually that Hitler’s regime was a major threat. Many American politicians at the time were either indifferent to Hitler or openly supportive. Many were also anti-Semitic. And even as Dodd was becoming aware of the Nazi threat, his own daughter, infatuated with the Nazis, was having an affair with Rudolf Diels, the first director of the Gestapo.
As for the ethics of psychoanalysis at a distance, some things are just pretty damn obvious, even if the APA happens to have enacted a rule against commenting on it. Many APA members strongly disagree with the rule and consider such commentary to be a public responsibility. Here are a few things from your own cite that you forgot to mention:
On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general.
The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), a different organization from the APA, sent a letter on June 6, 2017, that highlighted differences between the APA and APsaA ethical guidelines, stating that “The American Psychiatric Association’s ethical stance on the Goldwater Rule applies to its members only. APsaA does not consider political commentary by its individual members an ethical matter.”
Since April 2017, [Yale Medical School professor Bandy X. Lee] has been stating that while she has been an adherent to the Goldwater Rule “for over 20 years,” the APA was “violating its own rule” by modifiying it so that it would not be possible to meet its “affirmative obligation.” She formed an organization with thousands of other mental health professionals “in opposition to the American Psychiatric Association, which, with the Trump presidency, not only failed to meet the psychiatric profession’s societal responsibility but inhibited individual professionals from doing so.”
I clicked, but didn’t then know where to click again. I was presented with the opportunity to click and listen to Steve Bannon, or KellyAnn Conway or Anne Coulter, etc. If that’s where I’m supposed to click to learn why “both parties’ actions are to blame” then include me out.
I wasn’t interested in any “both parties are to blame” bullshit. One party has kept its integrity and still plays by the rules and the spirit of the law. The other has abandoned all principles in its lust for total power.
Tick-tock?
What people have to realize is that Republics can morph into empires and people can lose their freedom. Rome was a Republic as was Germany. We are not immune. The 2020 elections are a tipping point and will speak volumes about what kind of people we really are.
I used to believe Fukuyama that all nations were moving towards liberal democracy, but now I realize that whenever you introduce the smallest stress into society, people start demanding dictatorship instead.
America has always had to deal with dictatorship in a lot of ways. Jim Crow in the south was a dictatorship for black people.
I suppose the best we can do is create enough checks and balances to make sure that when the inevitable dictators come to power that they can be restricted and voted out of power.
Also there was an argument that once a nation obtains a per capita income of maybe $10,000, that it has a very low chance of transitioning from democracy to dictatorship. But with what has happened in Poland and Venezuela recently I don’t think thats true anymore.
This is a better, more honest book that doesn’t dip into enlightened centrism or ‘both parties are the same’ BS.
Whites who score high in authoritarianism have almost all become republicans, shaping the party into an authoritarian party. In 2016, around 86% of whites who scored high on authoritarianism voted Trump.
The American right has a 250-year history of championing authoritarianism and oligarchy.
You had every reason to believe that as recently as 10-15 years ago. But sweeping changes have caused dislocation, and the elites - people whom we might have regarded as “good”, “moderate” conservatives - were not moderate enough when it came down to sharing the fruits of capitalism’s successes, which is why we’re at where we are now. Even if you’re making fairly good bank, a lot of people still realize that costs of living are increasing, and the job market is uncertain. And in some places, capitalism has completely squandered opportunities. People have every right to be angry, to want to hold someone accountable. But they’re badly misinformed and blaming the wrong targets.
Jim Crow in the South, just like the industrialists power grab in the North, was rooted in a deep love of economic and social inequality. The difference was that Southern society’s class differences were defined greatly by the issue of race, which isn’t to suggest that racism didn’t exist in the North - it clearly did and it had horrific race riots to show for it. The problem with America isn’t just the GOP or Trump or Fox News; it’s this naive belief that there’s equal opportunity under the law, and that our results (our outcomes) are indicative of merit. People with money are increasingly putting their thumbs on the scales so that the average person who’s born into poverty will have far less of a chance of gaining entry into the middle class than someone in the same position a generation or two before. America needs to embrace a new set of values.
We need to embrace not just “equal opportunity” under the law but real equal opportunity, and to provide opportunities for those who manage to fall on hard times, as opposed to falling into a virtual state of indentured servitude to America’s creditors and financial institutions. And for that reason, I don’t know if our constitution, our society can survive, or that it even should in its current form. On the flip side, I honestly don’t know how in God’s name we could ever assemble a group of people partial enough, intellectual sophisticated enough to produce an enduring framework of principles such as the kind we’ve had since 1787, flaws aside.
Agreed, but don’t believe that an ascendant left couldn’t also flirt with authoritarianism. This is one serious problem I have with Bernie Sanders - maybe not so much the individual but some of those who embrace him. Sanders would never have been taken seriously even 10 years ago, but he’s a credible now in the same way Trump is because everyone’s angry. People, whether we’re individuals or a group, don’t generally make constructive decisions when we’re angry. Anger is necessary for self-defense and survival. We need to have our empty stomachs and bloated bladders when dealing with the likes of a Trump and his ilk, but once it comes to putting it all back together again, I don’t want Bernie Sanders, who basically promises to impose his will on markets, leading that effort. I want someone who governs through consensus and coalition building, not just vowing to shove a radical new system down corporate America’s throats.
The two-part series can be found on youtube (search on “Frontline”). It does not necessarily blame anyone (that was a poor phrase choice on my part). It just explains what was going on in the country during Obama’s presidency, and how the Republicans oriented around the Tea Party (or got thrown out of government) and collectively stymied Obama’s every attempt at compromising. As well as how Donald Trump emerged on the political scene and rode a populist wave to the presidency.
True, it does present characters on both sides of the aisle, including the likes of David Axelrod, Steve Bannon, and Anne Coulter, (and yes, I had to stifle the gag reflex, too) but their interviews are selectively more informational than political (surprisingly). Basically, the show just tries to explain how we got here (without pointing fingers).
Of course, depending on your world view, you can ascribe “blame” in any direction you are inclined. I learned more about the conservative fear fervor to oppose Obama at any cost and what the thinking was there (as misguided as I believe it is). It also highlights the changing dynamics of social media and it’s influence. I would really recommend you reconsider and try to watch.
The senate and GOP are not afraid of him. This is a party-driven power play using Trump as the means to an end. They are most afraid of losing the money/power gravy train to riches that full absolution from accountability of a fascist state can bring them.
The Republicans have exposed the dangers of political obstruction as a political tactic. Gradually, the Republicans have managed to erode confidence in our institutions, in the government itself, through the use of misinformation and obstruction.
“Nothing ever gets done.”
“We keep voting for change, and change never happens.”
“They say they’re gonna produce a healthcare bill, but all we got was Obamacare.”
“All they do is fight and argue.”
These are exactly the conclusions that pro-oligarch, pro-kleptocrat Republicans want checked-out voters to come to, and they want more voters to check out so that only the ones who are most motivated, the ones who make direct and explicit connections between their votes and their self-interest, will show up to vote.
For far too long, there was a tendency among mainstream media to try to report neutrally, regardless of what the Republican party did. We even see it now, even as Republicans are gas lighting us. There are times to report just the facts, but there are times to interpret facts without reservation and even editorialize, and a lot of the mainstream media missed out on that opportunity as the storm clouds were gathering. Once Trump entered power, the outrageous became the typical. Our senses have been overwhelmed.
…
You don’t say.