In both cases, there’s no proposal, just protest. Kind of begs the OP.
My favorite line from that Cracked article was “To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. “Are you assholes listening now?””
Here is 538’s take from today.
So you’re basically asking what can be done about social media trolls? Maybe we could ask the UN to shut down 4chan?
Rather than trying to “stop the voices” (which is a frighteningly authoritarian anti-free-speech idea in its own right), why not get on with the business of making sure that government isn’t actually the problem? If Obamacare wasn’t falling apart, and the VA wasn’t killing vets, and the EPA wasn’t polluting the Colorado river, and terrorists weren’t shooting up office parties and malls and blowing up charity 5Ks and marathons, it’d be a lot easier for people to dismiss those voices that say “government is the problem”.
Except these things aren’t what the trumpites want to stop, as far as I can tell. They want to make it harder for black people, hispanics, more-recent-than-them immigrants, and sexual minorities. Terrorists in the country are more often home-grown white than anything else, in fact, most hail from this very group. Surprise.
Not that I don’t think our government is in dire need of improvement.
Now this is a wise post.
Cite? I’m genuinely curious about the timeframe and documentation behind this.
If we are talking strictly fatalities, Wikipedia says I am currently wrong:
(from Right Wing Terrorism (post-2001))
“in June 2015, data collected by the New America Foundation showed that since the September 11 attacks (9/11), attacks in the United States committed by far-right extremists had claimed more lives (48) than attacks committed by jihadists (26).[37] Subsequently, however, a number of jihadist terrorist attacks (the 2015 San Bernardino shooting and the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting) resulted in the number of deaths caused by jihadists to outpace the number of deaths caused by far-right extremists; as of July 2016, the New America Foundation placed the number killed in jihadist attacks in the U.S. (since 9/11) at 94, and the number killed in far-right attacks in the U.S. as 48.[38]”
“Like” (and many other comments following on from this are good, particularly on trying to understand people even when you feel like you’re holding your nose)
The problem we’ve come to is sides pushing each other away and saying they’re monsters, creating this escalating polarisation and extremism that could end up going some very bad places when the horseshoe meets. Frankly, on the definition of bigotry, there’s plenty from both sides towards each other. (Also it sucks to be alluding to “two sides” so much nowadays)
Those who for simplicity I’ll call “the left” have a terrible habit of dismissing people as lost causes, massive racists, misogynists etc. All this does is make them angrier and make them listen less and go further towards the extremes. Sure, that’s exactly their appearance and you may want them to be aware, but once upon a time there were “tact and diplomacy”.
I’d also avoid basically calling them stupid/uneducated, however tempting it may be and however true it may or may not seem.
They need to simmer down too and to stop labeling everyone with a slight left leaning thought as an SJW, but someone has to make the first move - maybe once we can have proper grown-up conversations again (like we typically have here) instead of the playground stuff we can at least get people away from the extremes.
Honestly… I say just ignore them. I’m not an expert on them, but my social circle is heavily infested with them. My impression of them is they are easily distracted and lack any serious political conviction or motivation. They’re Obama-haters who temporarily have a figure to rally behind. When Trump is gone, they’ll become Hillary-haters. They will certainly always be with us, but the best strategy imo is not to legitimize them with our attention.
That sounds good. I hope it’s true. But ultimately didn’t legislation have to be passed to achieve the civil rights act? Were tact and diplomacy what achieved success? To some degree, maybe. But making that sort of discourse less acceptable in public helped. Diplomacy is good, to a degree, but not when it means giving way and not fighting for basic rights (marriage, etc.) for people. I’m just saying this sounds awful close to “not tolerating their intolerance is intolerant.”
shiftless has a point.
Concessions, & an effort to bridge the gaps must be made.
I’m not really referring to basic rights and understand and agree there, but the kind of conversations we have now. One of the biggest turn-offs for the ‘alt right’, from what I’ve seen, is modern day feminism - telling people a bit too enthusiastically that they’re doing “microagressions” and such like. These may well be true in an academic sort of way but it’s effectively telling people they’re constantly being microassholes and makes them defensive, leading to the effect I was talking about.
Just an example I was thinking of, anyway - contentious I know.
Unless you have a way of shutting down or countering the conservative media with better memes I don’t see any reason to be optimistic. If you haven’t done so I advise all liberals to listen to talk radio, visit right wing blogs including so called alt right blogs, red pill/manopshere, and dark enlightenment communities, or regularly visit /pol/ for a couple weeks. That’s what you’re dealing with.
The Dems have passed everything from the New Deal to CHIP to the ACA and the white working class still hates them and wants to reverse it all and drown big government in a bathtub. Why would this dynamic change with more programs?
You mean like exposing liberals to conservatives?
It’s a controversial topic with no clean cut answers, but I’ve seen some interesting studies and articles about increased diversity leading to lowered social trust and increased competition. Everything is a tradeoff.
It’s important to maintain the narrative that conservatives are hillbillies living in shacks. The idea that they’re professionals living in suburbia is too frightening to contemplate.
Definitely, though the well off have the political means to protect their interests. Robots will do everything eventually anyway.
There’s been some excellent academic work, particularly by Karen Stenner, on authoritarianism within the last decade. I’m currently busy reading her seminal work, “The Authoritarian Dynamic”, and assuming I’m parsing its contents correctly, her work suggests that while authoritarianism is a trait the individual is sui generis more or less predisposed towards, its manifestation in the form of intolerant behaviour is controlled by a set of common factors, chief among them being lack of faith in leadership, and a factor Stenner refers to as “normative threat”, which is essentially a quantification of the degree to which the opinions of society are inhomogenous.
The real takeaway from her work, to me, is that people aren’t either “authoritarian” or “not authoritarian”. Rather, predisposition towards authoritarianism is a spectrum, and whether or not it actually manifests itself as intolerant behaviour is controlled by external factors, of which surprisingly few are cultural ones.
(For those interested, a TL;DR of Stenner’s work, written by Stenner herself, can be found at http://ussc.edu.au/ussc/assets/media/docs/publications/1006_Inequality_Stenner.pdf )
You do realize, don’t you, that the media play to their audiences, right? The media will not show reasonable folks because that is boring. Outrage = ratings so the outrageous people get the attention.
[QUOTE=Ulfreida]
But the people I know personally, who probably are voting for Trump (or perhaps, staying home out of hatred and disgust for both candidates), aren’t like that. They are fairly ordinary people who are culturally if not economically blue collar white. They don’t seem to have much ability to reason politically, but I don’t think I’m talking about them.
[/QUOTE]
So your personal experience is different than what you see in the media, and you believe the media?
Also, I suspect the folks you know personally would love to know you believe they cannot reason. I suspect that they can, you just don’t like the conclusions and therefore it is because they are po’ backwards blue collar folk!
[QUOTE=Ulfreida]
So that’s a disconnect for me. The people I was referring to in my OP were really the former group – they seem to be the drivers of these movements. I know they were always around, but how did they get so much power?
And then, the original question, what can a civilized society fairly do with such people?
[/QUOTE]
How about trying to understand instead of calling them stupid and trying to fix them? Understand why they are pissed. Understand that calling them stupid doesn’t help. Understand that they do have problems and believe that the government isn’t even trying to address their problems.
[QUOTE=Ulfreida]
In some ways, I guess it’s the same question as how does a civilized society deal with addicts, those who won’t work even if given a job, and the other non-contributing adults. These trumppersons really do despise science and education. You can’t fight willful ignorance, can you?
Sorry I’m so vague, and so clearly arrogant and out of touch. But the truth is, as a leftist who grew up and stayed in a milieu of intelligentsia and white collar professionals, I feel at a great loss. I doubt I’m the only one.
[/QUOTE]
Aha! So, your superior upbringing is the reason you can’t understand those poor dumb folks!
Cut the condensation. There are plenty of people who are smart who disagree with you. Some of those people are smarter than you. You may not believe it, but it is true.
[QUOTE=Ulfreida]
It’s ironic perhaps, but when Fischer describes the Borderers’ history in the US, it is one of being shoved bodily into the frontier, and wherever they washed up, they always ended up being the lowest white class. From the minute they arrived, none of the existing cultures could bear them. Even the welcoming and tolerant Quakers couldn’t wait to see the last of them. So no one had an answer then either.
[/QUOTE]
So the poor dumb folks have been around for a while and no one can save them. Oh MY!
Slee
One of the two major Parties has deliberately fostered hatred of government for the past 35 years. Indeed, faith in the incompetence and evil of government, especially liberal government, has been the central guiding principle of the modern Republican Party.
[QUOTE=Ronald Wilson Reagan, in his First Inaugural Address]
Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
[/QUOTE]
In Trumpism, the GOP has reaped with vengeance what it has sowed.
To be fair, killing everybody is an effective (and final) solution. As long as it’s actually everybody.
Who’s saying they “deserve” to be left behind? If anything, it’s the conservatives who tend to take the “Lost your job? Clearly it’s your fault for making poor life choices” approach. And by and large it’s not “liberals” who are trying to cling to old business models (particularly in the energy sector) to wring the last few bucks out of them even when doing so hurts the workers in the long-term.
The problem isn’t “globalization”; it’s “change”. You can fight globalization (although the alternative may hurt you more), but change rolls over us all, blue collar and white collar alike, and you can’t fight that [insert Danny DeVito’s speech about buggy whip manufacturers from Other People’s Money here]. The question is how we manage change.
Top tip: “ordinary people” is not defined as “people who agree with me” (see also: “real/decent/hardworking [citizens of country]”). “Ordinary people” don’t all share the same views.
At the time of the Brexit vote 48% of the population wanted to Remain, which is not “a tiny minority of elitists out of touch with the views of real Brits” as some are keen to imply <cough>Theresa May<cough>- and now those who want to remain may not even be a minority anymore.
Some “ordinary people” are voting for Trump as a protest vote. I suspect a goodly number of them will come to regret this if Trump wins, much like there were a few idiots interviewed post-Brexit unaware that a vote cast “ironically” still counts. Voting Trump as a protest is like deciding you* don’t like the décor in your living room and thinking the best way to deal with it is to burn down the house. It certainly sends a message, but the message is that you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand the consequences of your actions.
And the “ordinary people” will still get screwed.
- generic “you”
I agree, and a sort of… excusable(?) ignorance is in play as well. It’s really easy for say… a West Virginia coal miner, whose family has mined coal in that town for 4 generations, to not really understand the idea of global warming, air pollution, or any of that stuff. That guy (and his peers) are likely to see the loss of their jobs as the result of some external force that caused their company to close up shop in their town and force them into unemployment.
When the reason is stuff like legislation that incentivizes cleaner technology like natural gas turbines for electrical generation, or energy efficiency, they see that as a net negative- the government caused them to lose their jobs and ability to support their families so someone somewhere else can have cleaner air.
Same thing with people whose primarily livelihood is some kind of manufacturing facility that’s the only game in whatever small town they live in. The government signs NAFTA, and suddenly their job wafted off to Mexico, where they pay that guy $2/hr rather than the $9/hr he was getting. They don’t see the overall economic benefits that the free trade brings, or don’t connect cheaper prices at the Wal-Mart with it. They just see the fact that they went from a relatively lucrative manufacturing job to something much diminished, and that it’s the government that did it in most cases. There’s a strong feeling of betrayal with this crowd.
In a sense, a lot of this middle-america blue collar angst is due to their economic applecarts being upset, and them seeing it as due to external factors- higher taxes= more welfare being paid to “those people”. Job loss = government sanctioned free trade agreements/clean air acts/etc… I suspect if things were going well, it wouldn’t be an issue- this angst wasn’t really there in the 1990s or earlier for a lot of people.
So they get angry with the government and current power structure, and cling to the candidates/people who promise to shake things up, no matter how absurd these candidates are.
I don’t know what to do with them; in some sense, the problem will resolve itself eventually given enough time as these people die off and/or move.
Authoritarianism is about maintaining existing beliefs and structures. In post soviet states where communism was the existing belief system, authoritarians supported that.
The 15-20% of people, I forget where I read that. I think it was Bob Altemeyer, but he claims it is actually 20-25%.