masterpeastheater
Junior Member
Specifically, is the putsch(Trump, Brexit, etc.) being driven by impending resource scarcity and or climate change? I’ll spare my thoughts on why/ how and wait for yours, I wonder if I’m crazy for thinking this.
-
Features
What is driving it all?
- Thread starter masterpeastheater
- Start date
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,024
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Lots of things are contributing. But it's nothing new. Society is victim to cyclic fashions in political attitudes, just as it is victim to cyclic fashions in skirt length and trouser bottom widths.
Good times lead to bad times that lead to good times.
One of the few constants is that people always love them a good conspiracy theory.
Good times lead to bad times that lead to good times.
One of the few constants is that people always love them a good conspiracy theory.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
First off, I wouldn't call Trump's election or Brexit a violent overthrow of a government. Both Trump and Brexit won their elections in their countries. And there is no way that far right wingers are motivated by climate change!! No change in a million years. Most of them don't believe in science, let alone climate change. I think that it's more a pushback against modernism. They are afraid of immigrants, afraid of trade, afraid of change, afraid of Jihadism, and etc. The world is flattening. They are afraid and they vote. I'm sorry to say but if younger urban people won't vote, they will suffer. Brexit will cost millions of good jobs in England...
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,173
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
This is a bit new. Fascism in Europe came about the Great Depression. How often do plagues like this appear during relatively peaceful periods? A lot of people are angry over almost nothing at all.
untermensche
Contributor
Trump is a meaningless gnat in history. He has a time limit that anybody has to listen to his lunacy. His appointments have changed the Court.
But the threat of nuclear confrontation and the alteration of the climate are ongoing.
Trump represents a large enough fraction of the population that did not like a black man as president for eight years and voted reflexively.
Trump used very coded messaging to attract these people.
Talking about a wall to keep Mexicans out pleases these people.
America first is a coded message for supremacy of so-called "American" ideals. Something different to everyone.
Those ideals can be "whites first" to some.
Trump gladly accepts their support.
But the threat of nuclear confrontation and the alteration of the climate are ongoing.
Trump represents a large enough fraction of the population that did not like a black man as president for eight years and voted reflexively.
Trump used very coded messaging to attract these people.
Talking about a wall to keep Mexicans out pleases these people.
America first is a coded message for supremacy of so-called "American" ideals. Something different to everyone.
Those ideals can be "whites first" to some.
Trump gladly accepts their support.
phands
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 1,976
- Location
- New York, Manhattan, Upper West Side
- Basic Beliefs
- Hardcore Atheist
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
One of the stupidest things we do as a species is to not teach our kids history, and the warnings it contains...and those who don't know and understand their history are doomed to repeat it.
Add religion/tribalism, arguably the worst forms of bigotry, to stupidity, add in a few megalomaniacal despots like trumpo and putin, and...bingo! Lather, rinse, repeat, all through history.
One of the stupidest things we do as a species is to not teach our kids history, and the warnings it contains...and those who don't know and understand their history are doomed to repeat it.
Add religion/tribalism, arguably the worst forms of bigotry, to stupidity, add in a few megalomaniacal despots like trumpo and putin, and...bingo! Lather, rinse, repeat, all through history.
It's anti-globalism, and a return to populism, caused by economic insecurity, income imbalance (we are the 99%) and a resurgence of tribalism IMHO. In Trump's case add a lot of identity politics (both pushing it on the right and backlash against it on the left).
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
It is all about the need for a group identity. What we consider a good western leader is one who manipulates the urge for betterment.
A demagogue like Trump uses it for personal glorification and power. Mussolini.
Everybody wants a unique identity. Kurds in Iraq and Turkey. Basques in Spain. Serbians and Creations. Tiny Estonia. Native Americans. Persians, Jews, and Arabs. And now the rise of white nationalism being exploited in Europe and USA.. Brits vs a perceived intrusion into British culture by the EU.
Jordan Peterson's theory is that it is becoming all about fractured group identities fighting one another for power. I think he is into something with that. It is ironic that a reduction of focus on the individual leads to a fracturing of global society into smaller groups.
Opoponax
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,384
- Location
- California Central Coast
- Basic Beliefs
- Apathetic Atheist
First, I have to quibble about Trump winning.
There, I've done that.
It seems you've hit the nail on the head. America has a large number of shockingly ignorant people when it comes to science. It has dog-shit educational systems, and is plagued by intellectual laziness. And all of that is anchored by a relatively small, but unyielding bedrock of religious fundamentalism, which makes them susceptible being made to feel afraid of ... hell, name it and they can be rapidly heated into a boiling cauldron of idiot fright.
I think an interesting question is over the past 20 years how much has each the right and the left oberal changed and in what ways. I find myself shifting away from what is now being called the left despite holding the same positions for the most part then as now.
SLD
Contributor
Income inequality is the primary driver. The problems started with a sea change in corporate attitudes in the 70’s. Blame Milton Friedman more than anything. Before that, corporations viewed themselves as part of the citizenry of this nation, and with a stake in its success instead of merely a vehicle to maximize shareholder value.
But also look at such jurists at Lewis Powell and his views in using the judiciary to effectuate a corporate takeover of our political institutions, primarily through an expanded interpretation of the First Amendment.
Since the late 70’s and really getting started in the Reagan years, income inequality has grown precipitously. This has historically fueled economic anxiety and corresponding populists and fascists tendencies in virtually all nations. Obama’s big failure was to inadequately address this. It will likely get worse until something breaks. And that will happen. Hopefully while Trump and the Republicans are in charge.
SLD
But also look at such jurists at Lewis Powell and his views in using the judiciary to effectuate a corporate takeover of our political institutions, primarily through an expanded interpretation of the First Amendment.
Since the late 70’s and really getting started in the Reagan years, income inequality has grown precipitously. This has historically fueled economic anxiety and corresponding populists and fascists tendencies in virtually all nations. Obama’s big failure was to inadequately address this. It will likely get worse until something breaks. And that will happen. Hopefully while Trump and the Republicans are in charge.
SLD
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Neither. It has been entirely orchestrated by Putin in his bid for global domination. Which he has nearly succeeded in accomplishing. He has destroyed America's standing thanks to his puppet Trump; he has destroyed the EU's standing thanks to Brexit (which they played just as significant a role in accomplishing as they did our election); he has partnered with China on trade (and everything else); and he has subjugated Saudi Arabia and will soon surpass it as the world's oil supplier.
In Chess, he has already achieved mate, it's just a matter of formality that the pieces still need to be moved and the rest of the endgame played out.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,024
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
The fact is that both votes were aberrant. If the 2016 presidential election were run five times, Hillary would win four - the margins were very tight, and even some tiny variation in turnout or distribution of voters would have made a huge difference.
The same apples to Brexit (only more so); The winning margin was minuscule, and if it hadn't rained in London on the day of the vote, the result would likely have gone the other way. Add to that the fact that it was a non-binding plebiscite, so the government is not and was not bound by any result; And that previous referenda in the UK (such as the referendum on joining the then EEC in 1974) required a supermajority (67%) in order to change the status quo ante, and it is clear that the people's resounding 'We don't fucking know' in answer to a question that lacked any detail of what Brexit might entail should have simply been ignored - although to be honest, the question should never have even been asked, as its sole purpose was to protect the then PM, David Cameron, from internal dissent in his political party.
So not only was neither a violent overthrow of government; Both were incredibly close results that could easily have gone the other way with almost no change in the starting conditions. There really is no need to seek any explanation, beyond simple bad luck.
But if we really need an explanation, I think it's simple rebellion against rapid change.
There seems to be a general backlash against technology, that has extended from technology to science, from science to knowledge and expertise, and from there to facts themselves.
The rate of change has outstripped most people's ability to understand or even cope with it. And their response is to kick back against the very foundation of the information revolution - facts.
Trump, Brexit, the rise of nationalism and racism generally, the increase in partisan and in-group thinking and the widening of the gaps between in-groups and out-groups are all part of this general backlash.
It has happened every time we have had a revolutionary step forward in society. The Luddites smashed the new fangled looms; The Anarchists rebelled against the industrial revolution; The Hippies wanted to get back to nature, in rebellion against the suburbanization of the late '40s and '50s; And now the information age is being challenged by Fake News, satire that is barely distinguishable from reality, and the bizarre but hugely popular idea that facts are a kind of opinion, and that everyones opinions therefore have the same value as facts.
The world is, increasingly, a place that can only be navigated effectively by experts. The response of a part of the population to this has been to reject expertise, and pretend that the problem doesn't exist. This is not a new phenomenon.
Last edited:
ronburgundy
Contributor
If you find yourself disagreeing with increasingly illiberal elements of the left, then that is one thing. But if you find yourself thinking that the current Democrats are not much better then the current GOP, then you either never were close to being liberal or have changed drastically. The Dems are pretty close to what they were 30 years ago, while the GOP has shifted as far to the right as possible without actually wearing swastikas. In fact, many of those illiberal leftists are the one's not voting Democrat because it has failed to follow the radical left down the rabbit hole of left-wing authoritarianism, marxism, and anti/pseudo-intellectualism. Meanwhile the GOP has not merely followed but helped lead the right further down the authoritarian, anti-intellectual, religious racism that has always tainted conservative ideology.
My theory is that it's complex but one major factor is technology. Most of the world is now virtually in each other's faces, and fearful people respond to exposure to outside ideas and lifestyles to be threatening.
How many people understand that their brains react to thoughts about threatening things and exposure to messages and images about scary things in much the same way as they would if the threat were real in the immediate environment?
So millions, or maybe billions, of people in this information age have animal brains that are reacting as if they are being bombarded with actual threats rather than words and images of threats.
It's a contest between fear-based world views and humane, principled world views. And I'm not talking so much about the ideologies we claim or speak about. I'm really talking about human brains and subconscious responses and cognitive tendencies. Are there enough of us with an open, inclusive attitude toward others and the world and with humane values and principles? The closed, us versus them, authoritarian mentality is driven by some of the most powerful instincts and reactions in human behavior.
I feel like it's ignorance versus knowledge, and fear/hatred versus empathy/tolerance. The rest is mostly people talking about the narrative they prefer than it is people reflecting and looking beyond the end of their own scared, stupid, and/or apathetic noses.
How many people understand that their brains react to thoughts about threatening things and exposure to messages and images about scary things in much the same way as they would if the threat were real in the immediate environment?
So millions, or maybe billions, of people in this information age have animal brains that are reacting as if they are being bombarded with actual threats rather than words and images of threats.
It's a contest between fear-based world views and humane, principled world views. And I'm not talking so much about the ideologies we claim or speak about. I'm really talking about human brains and subconscious responses and cognitive tendencies. Are there enough of us with an open, inclusive attitude toward others and the world and with humane values and principles? The closed, us versus them, authoritarian mentality is driven by some of the most powerful instincts and reactions in human behavior.
I feel like it's ignorance versus knowledge, and fear/hatred versus empathy/tolerance. The rest is mostly people talking about the narrative they prefer than it is people reflecting and looking beyond the end of their own scared, stupid, and/or apathetic noses.
The right has always seemed authoritarian, controlling, and prejudiced to me. For the most part, they still do. But I do now see a few people on the right arguing for free speech authoritarian control. Meanwhile more and more on the left have become more and more authoritarian, controlling, and prejudiced. I don't have a good name for the second mentality. Regressive? Illiberal Left? I'll use whatever term. The word isn't important to me. And no, this isn't only in academia and it being less prominent than on the right doesn't neuter it for me.
It leaves me politically confused. With the corporate left continuing to rise and go along with the right on economic matters, and with more and more of these "illiberal leftists" coming out, those on the left who are for free speech, individualism, anti-prejudice, are becoming fewer and more silent. Where are the George Carlins of today?
I agree that the illiberal left remains less powerful and extreme in this than the right generally does, especially with Trump now as President of the USA. But I am realizing that I had joined the concepts of liberal and left in my mind, and now I am seeing them divide, and I am realizing that they are not necessarily connected. I find myself standing against both the general "right" and the "illiberal left" for often the exact same reasons. The one empowers and feeds the other and looks very similar to me.
It leaves me wondering what political label I should use as a shorthand for that I support social programs for people who need them, as we all stand together and lift each other up as society, am for universal single payer health care, strict gun control, pro-choice (for the most part), universal basic income, legalized pot and hookers, free speech, and I am anti-authoritarian and anti-prejudice. Should I stop using "liberal"? Should I stop using "left"?
Meanwhile, I am starting to understand and side with some who consider themselves on the right, as they stand against the illiberal left. It feels very odd to me to see such people on the right supporting free speech and anti-prejudice against such people on the left.
I don't think we have as many what I would call actual liberals anymore, and I think that this contributes to the downfall of both the left and society in general. When both the left and the right push tribalism and give up civil conversation, stop listening to each other, etc, I don't see a way out. I've always seen the left/liberals as the Jedis and the right as the Sith, , and I feel like they are going now falling to the dark side.
/rant
Last edited:
Read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. It's about research, not opinions. Free ebook, link is in my signature.
I worked with Bruce Hunsberger at Laurier (Yes, the same Laurier that a long time afterwards had the infamous Lindsay Shepherd incident), in collaboration with Bob Altemeyer. Bruce was my undergraduate thesis advisor. I am very familiar with Altemeyer's work. I helped run some of the research he has quoted. Authoritarianism scared me then from the right, and it now also scares me from the left. It isn't exclusively right wing.
I don't believe you. I don't think you are familiar with this research at all if you think you see the traits of right wing authoritarianism among liberals.
We are not submissive to authority. We don't want conformity or to punish non-conformists. We're not afraid of change. We don't look for powerful bullies to protect us from all the most vulnerable people in our society, or support inhumane treatment of them. We're not afraid to look around the world for ourselves rather than remain as ignorant as possible and letting authority figures tell us what to think.
We tend to be open, inclusive, and not scared of every fucking thing that's not familiar to us no matter what some public figure or ideological mouthpiece says. We are not bound by rigid traditions. We seek to help and share and build, not take and deny and punish.
I could go on, but I'd rather you just get familiar with the research if you're going to talk about it at all.