Why did the world go crazy in 2016?

Why did it go crazy in 1914?

How about 1517?

It’s been my contention for about 20+ years now that the 2nd decade of this century would see vast political shifts which possibly won’t sort themselves out for up to a century. And it’s a historical pattern we’ve seen before in the West:

Change the way people communicate and the world explodes sixty-odd years later.

60 years prior to the Protestant Reformation, which destroyed any hope of Christendom, the Printing Press was invented. The Reformation could not have happened without the press - Luther was, in many ways, the worlds first media sensation.

60 years prior to the madness which led to WW1, which destroyed any hope European Monarchs might have had of continuing in importance (and eventually destroyed the European’s control of the globe), the high speed rotary press was invented (as well as the telegraph and, in 1876, the telephone, but I think the rotary press is the big player in this one). The impact of the rotary press in 1847 allowed newspapers to become the dominant form of information for hundreds of millions. However, diffused ownership of multiple properties pushed individual agendas onto their readers, creating “bubbles” (even though they didn’t think of them this way) who were then primed… ala Fox News… to act on the burgeoning nationalist impulses. Here in America, Pulitzer and Hearst performed the same function that Murdoch (or Ailes) did at Fox: Put their spin on what happened, fuck the societal consequences. Do the same in Europe, and by 1914, we’re all ready to kick some nationalist ass.

60 years ago? DARPANET was founded. I doubt I need to go further into explaining how the internet… like the printing press, like the newspaper explosion of the 19th-century… has changed how people communicate, who they communicate with, and who they associate with.

Obviously, there are other forces which come into play, but the one thing that is common among the two biggest civilization-defining challenges the West has faced over the past half-millennium is the fact that the way people interacted with each other profoundly changed in the 60 years prior.

And that’s, imho, what you’re seeing today. The internet is rending society apart and will continue to do so until we, again, come to terms with the impact caused by this shift in communications and develop means and attitudes to handle this.

It won’t be easy: Europe went to war with itself from 1517-1648, then Europe involved the entire world in their 20th-century “civil war” of 1914-1945.

My guess is that, big picture historically-wise, we’re looking at the first stages of the ascendency of the East and the beginning of a slow, relative decline for the West. Future historians may date the beginning of this process back in 1991-92, when the USSR collapsed, but 2016 is a good guess too.

My biggest worry: We didn’t have nukes during the Reformation or WW1.

Your post implied the jump in white working class Trump support was about economics/jobs/finances. The polling data, as I understand it, does not support this, and in fact indicates that this change was mostly about race and culture.

You can do poll shopping and find what you want. IIRC, Trumps numbers by race were very similar to those or Romney four years previously. I didn’t hear that support for Romney was based on culture or race, but I might have missed that.

I’m in no way a supporter for Trump, and I hope the Dems can find someone who can beat him, but painting the 63 million Americans as folks that couldn’t think past Fox news isn’t correct (or helpful).

From my perspective Democrats were and still are talking to them, they just didn’t like what they were and still are hearing. The whole episode with Clinton and what she said about coal is a good example of that.

As for why it happened, my best guess is that the oligarchs who care only about themselves (Putin chief among them, but many others like Rupert Murdoch ad well) upped their game between 2008 and 2016. If the nationalists think CNN is propaganda that just demonstrates how successful the actual propagandists have been. This led to not just Trump, but things like Brexit, Orban in Hungary, Duterte in the Philippines, and all the other nationalists and fascists that have come to power recently.

It’s fitting that the two most stunning political earthquakes occurred in the US and UK, the two countries which are mostly responsible for the post-WWII economic and political world order. It is the perceived failure of that world order to provide domestic security and economic stability that undermined the faith and confidence in democratic institutions that had stabilized our politics up to that point. By failures I don’t mean just the financial crisis; I also mean the collapse of stability and security in the Middle East. It took a while for the Iraq war and the financial crisis of 2008 to be visible politically, but 8-13 years later, the chickens finally came home to roost. And I think this may be just the beginning.

Actually for reasons that may be familiar to us in 2019. Attitudes began to sour on global trade and immigration. Countries went from operating more cooperative to taking a posture that was more competitive. Liberal ideals of tolerance gave way to fears about perceived scarcity.

For decades there’s been a message coming out of the right wing that cities are at war with the countryside, that (liberal) elites are at war with the common salt, and that the various topics of anything-but-christianity, abortions, environmentalism, and health care are all sides of the same multifaceted notion which I’ll call “liberals are satan”. When the plant closes they don’t accept that it’s an economic reality; they look for somebody to blame and conservatives give it to them. Admittedly sometimes the non-conservatives make this easy - lose one job to a spotted owl and you’ll hate environmentalists forever. But the situation is exacerbated by the way working together and compromise have been completely thrown out of the political lexicon, which is reflected in republican news media and trickles down to the public consciousness.

The truth of the matter is that nobody, neither liberal nor conservative nor Trump, can make your cousin’s manufacturing job reappear. Liberals can claim that they’ll try to support welfare, which can maybe help but is different and distasteful, and republicans as best I can tell never promised jack regarding helping the common man except for blatant lies about trickledown. Trump also told lots of even more blatant lies, but also grabbed them by the burgeoning rage and promised to crush their enemies and let them hear the lamenting of their enemies’ women. This is an appealing notion to unhappy people, even if they’re not the sort of people who immediately envision those theorized enemies as having dark skin.

There’s been pain and anger and heartache in the heartland ever since Reagan started globalization, a policy that’s been continued by ever President since. Either they completely blown off hard working Americans that are now thrown out of work (Obama, The Bushes, or they’re actively making the problem even worse (Reagan, Clinton). The bill for this was going to come due at some point, I’m surprised as anyone that it happened as soon as the last election

When you just want to work hard and make an honest living, but are suddenly out of work because your job at Carrier or Ford is now in Mexico, who are you going to vote for:

A) The politicians that completely blow you off, and call you a bitter, gun clinging deplorable racist?
B) The politicians that completely blow you off, and give tax breaks and encouragement to the companies that moved your job overseas?
C) The politician that doesn’t blow you off and in fact promises to get you your job back and make America great again?

I watched some of the debates. All I heard from Trump was “I’ll give you your job back and make America great agin” and all I heard from Hillary was “I’m not Trump”

Do the working class people in the midwest really believe this, and if so why? If the problem is globalization, I doubt that any US president could have stopped it, and even if they could have, the cure would be worse than the disease. Turning into an isolationist country that shuns the outside world is a recipe for ending up like North Korea, not for fixing the problems of the working class people in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or anywhere else. The only two presidents on this list who actually did the things claimed in the bolded statement would be Reagan and Bush Jr., both via their support of trickle down tax cuts. Bush Sr. infamously raised taxes, which actually hit rich folks harder than the working class, and he was voted out of office for his efforts in this direction. I’m not sure what Obama or Clinton did to make the problem worse (although I assume you’re referring to NAFTA and other trade treaties), since globalization was coming one way or another. The only way I think it could have been avoided is in a negative way, i.e. what Trump is trying to do with things like tariffs, pulling out of trade treaties, etc. As mentioned by other posters this isn’t going to make the steel mills of Pittsburgh or the car factories in Ohio and Michigan magically open back up. The solution is to work on modernizing the economy and helping the displaced workers train in new areas. What’s happened, though, is that those workers have chosen to believe a lie that we can be dragged back to the old days rather than accept the difficult truth that the old days are gone and we need to work on making the new days as good as possible rather than making things even worse.

My read of the situation is:
A) The politicians that completely blow you off?
B) The politicians that completely blow you off, and give tax breaks and encouragement to the companies that moved your job overseas?
C) The odious politician that doesn’t blow you off and in fact promises to get you your job back and make America great again (every word of which was blatant lies)?
I don’t think that most democratic politicians made a habit of dissing the heartland before the heartland decided to throw itself wholeheartedly behind Trump-the-racist-paragon. And I definitely don’t think that any other politician was selling a better-sounding line than Trump - even the most Republican of them were still constrained by at least a passing relation to reality back then. Trump’s lies were definitely appealing. Also transparent, and inextricably surrounded by multiple flavors of odiousness, which the faithful had to ignore…or embrace.

I don’t think so, the ‘magical east’ will have the same problems, if not worse, than the US in the years to come. I really hate this myth.

I’d expand on that and also include nobody going to jail for massive fraud during the financial crisis.

Someone has cited the decline of religion, but other homogenizing factors have taken a hit as well. Military service, whatever you say about it, can see the son of a banker having to take orders from the son of a bricklayer. Used to be that the CEO and the janitor might attend the same church, send their kids to the same schools, watch the same TV shows, etc. etc.

No more. The E Pluribus no longer Unums.

I feel that Mark Blyth has one of the better coherent explanations of the market forces and economic policies that are helping fuel the rising extremism worldwide. TLDR Austirity=bad. Its an hour long but worth playing in the background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM

From what I’ve seen, after you adjust for inflation the wages of the working class has effectively been stagnant since the 1970 despite increased productivity and education. To make matters worse the cost of housing, college, and healthcare has sky rocketed. People are working harder for less reward and that is fueling resentment.

Cite? I despise both Brexit and Trump, but neither the UK nor the USA were in recession in 2016.

In Spain we’ve had that going, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker, since the second time Napoleon Bonaparte lost a war. I hear similar stories from France, Italy, the UK… and suspect it may actually have been going on since we started having towns where you had neighbors you weren’t related to. It was a vast oversimplification in the 10th century BC and it’s a vast oversimplification now, but “othering” strategies are popular with propagandists precisely because they work so well.

That part makes as much sense as the notion that Louis XIV of France invented absolutism. Or less: Reagan isn’t a symbol of globalization.

That was a great post JohnT, thanks.

The question would be : which “East” ? China ? Russia ? An Islamic Caliphate ? Perhaps India ? All very different civilizations with various likelihood of dominance and very different implications in terms of balance of powers.

I also note that you mention a “slow, relative decline for the West”, which happens to coincide with a recent analysis I read in Le Monde : the West is not going anywhere soon, due to its massive dominance in the economic, military, scientific and to some extent cultural fields, no matter what alarmist media would have us believe.

I don’t think it has anything to do with “magic” :rolleyes: but maps like this do exist and tells of the reversal of a thousand-year trend.

Regardless, you did bring up an excellent point which, quite frankly, I am quite embarrassed to have completely overlooked: That this communications fracturing won’t be limited to (or mostly impact) “the West” as it was in 1452, 1847, 1876, etc, but will be the first time this impacts the entire globe, regardless of culture or originating civilization. :o Ugh. How provincial of me. :o

Which, frankly, just makes me more worried. Thanks. :stuck_out_tongue:

Yeah, tbh, I just kinda threw in that last line and while I don’t want to derail this conversation, when I wrote that I wasn’t really thinking “East” as in “China/Japan”, I was more thinking of it in terms of “Non-West”, including Africa, Asia, etc. Sloppy wording on my part, frankly.

Anyway, the rise of the West was the story of global civilization for the past 1,000 years, the relative decline of the West will be the story for the next few hundred. This will be assisted by this fracturing caused by the shift in communications and the creation of new factions due to this shift.

If “the East” is rising, it’s partly simply because of superior population. A continent with 4 billion people is going to have double the total GDP of North America and Europe that combine for only 1 billion even if each person in Asia has only half the per capita GDP of an American, Canadian or European. Not that high population always guarantees supremacy but it only helps. India and China are well on their way to being solidly middle-class societies; another decade or two and the vast majority of Indians and Chinese likely will be middle-class.

Again, to clarify, saying “East” was sloppy wording on my part - I was more thinking “Non-West” which also includes “non-East” regions like Africa and the Middle East, as well as China/India/Japan/SE Asia.