Melania loves Dr. Oz too. I’d bet a dollar she had a hand in convincing TFG to endorse him. Although TFG loves television above all else, especially if he’s on it himself.
I think people are turning to authoritarian leaders because they don't want or can't think and reason from point A to B to C. All they know is there are too many ideas to many life choices and too many things they hate because they don't understand and they feel threatened. If someone comes along and says I can fix the country, Everything that is wrong is because of those people. I will take care of everything, You're right to hate those people. Don't think, just follow. The more educated people who aim for authoritarianism is because they believe they will be in charge, they can control the country and make sure only people like them will be heard.
Yes! I just finished that piece. I’m going to read it again. I wish I could keep it handy in my brain, but “maturity” and Covid brain make that unlikely.
It's definitely a bit of a long read, so you certainly shouldn't feel bad if you can't recall all the details. Most people need to read something like that a couple times before they're ready for a pop quiz. 🙂
I love the Bulwark. I really do. I love the writing, topic choice, etc. I know we're looking at the writing and philosophy of right-centrists tired of the radicalization of their party. What bothers me about it, though, and the national conversation in general, is that centrism doesn't really excite voters, especially Democrat voters, who want the government to move in a different direction. Centrists are commonly thought to be more "electable," but that strikes me as ten-year-old thinking.
This debate came up a lot in in the 2016 primary (and 2020, as well). If you go with Bernie, do you get a bunch of millennials off the couch vs do you get more with a centrist candidate (and pick up independents, etc.).
It's an interesting question, but a problem is that the situation is not symmetric. For the most part, the right lined up behind Trump, even after witnessing his behavior for 4 years. Sure, you've got some Bulwarky NTs here and there, but just look at the numbers. OTOH, something like 12% of Bernie supporters pouted and voted for Trump in 2016. Further, can you imagine someone as awful as Trump (a) getting the Dem nom, (b) getting the kind of turn out in the general that Trump did? I sure can't.
The funny thing is that each side thinks that of the other. If you peruse right-wing sites, you'll fairly often find whining about how the left moves in lockstep (usually at the direction of AOC, etc.), the left tolerates everything within their borders (sorry Al Franken, you don't exist), etc. It's rather surreal to read it, especially when fairly articulate folks are stating it as a matter of fact.
Well said. But the reason the loony right wing is sort of running the table is that, like them or hate them, they get everyone--fans and detractors alike--very fired up.
That Ethan Schmidt video gives me the chills. And reminds me of my friend telling me that in the late phase of the Khmer Rouge, even wearing glasses was enough of a sign to mark a person as an elitist who should be killed. The Ethan Schmidts of the world who believe they are smarter than the Dr. Faucis and are angry that the world does not see it that way, if given enough rope & encouragement, eventually want to do something about it. So thanks for that, TFG, GOP, and Fox.
We often see the Trump voter is a poor, red-neck hick who can't find his ass from a hole in the ground. We take education level as a proxy for income level and assume the less education you have the poorer you must be and since Clinton and Biden support went up as education went up then that means Trump was killing it with the poors.
However, Hillary and Biden both won the majority of those making less than $50k a year. Biden actually improved on Hillary's numbers with poor voters.
So the Trump phenomenon is not driven by some sort of worker revolution of poor people having had enough of the Demorat's crap and pushing to take their country back. It is a backlash from middle to upper income whites. And you know them as soon as you see them. The loudmouth small business owner with overly red cheeks who is perpetually pissed off about anything those minority and foreign folk are getting up to.
Jonathan Haidt has a very interesting piece in May’s issue of The Atlantic, dissecting our political polarization. It’s long, but worthwhile. I’m going to re-read it.
Thanks, I'll check it out. If you're into that sort of thing, have you read Ezra Klein's book on polarization? It's quite good and gets into the clinical psych aspect of it.
And thanks for your tip. I often listen to Ezra Klein’s podcast, and I like his traditional end-of-interview request for three book suggestions from the guest. “So many books, so little time” is definitely my lament. Right now I’m plowing through Marie Yovanovich’s memoir. It’s interesting, but slow going (for me). I’ve learned a lot about the Foreign Service, and about diplomacy in general, which is often driven more by strategic interests, sometimes many layers removed, than basic morality. I guess one could say the same about politics and governing.
Indeed, it's a big mistake to think all Trump supporters are ignorant dumbasses. To be sure, the deplorables are a big chunk, but there are plenty of other segments. Single issue voters make up another big chunk (guns, abortion, Jaaaay-sus). Then there are the Trump-reluctants. They are somewhat cognizant of Trump's flaws, but have convinced themselves that the Dems are (actual) Marxists. So for them, it's a choice between a buffoon and an evil cabal that will steal their precious bodily fluids.
As you should have two armies there already two navies. At least when it comes to the USA. You have your surface Navy shlubs, as we affectionately called "targets", and then you have your submarine fleet. Those sailors with such pluck that they do the impossible with less. 36 hour work days the norm. And the elite of the elite are our nuclear trained submarine enlistedmen. Never has so much been done by so few. I had the privilege to serve in this capacity early in my adult life and it made me an industry leader in my 38 year civilian career. Because the Navy educated me that with teamwork the impossible is possible. Rule 1? Never give up! Icing on the cake? Instead of being saddled with student loans I was able bank funds while I served matched by the Navy for my post service education. Double win. More importantly every job I had it didn't take more than a month or two for management to figure out I was the guy they wanted in charge of things. Spent a long career in civil engineering and surveying. Nothing prepares you better for participating in large projects like being part of a submarine shipyard overhaul.
Fetterman has crossover appeal, IMO, because he has solid working class credibility. And he seems authentic. He definitely “tells it like it is”, without the contrived, lying, self aggrandizement of Trump.
I agree. Although on paper Fetterman is too liberal for Pennsylvania, he overcomes that with charisma that transcends ideology. Fetterman is going to win the primary easily and is also going to win the general election.
Theodore Johnson's article today is well worth reading.
Again, it all circles back to narrative and identity--even to the extent of exactly what words mean (though this often falls more into the realm of connotation rather than denotation).
People, particularly people who do not really pay attention the the nuances of language), see a variety of people using the same words and make the assumption that this word means the same thing to all involved, that it has the same connotation to all those involved.
Thus they wonder why the people that are using this word in (what is to the listener) an obviously wrong way do not suffer from some sort of cognitive dissonance.
This plasticity in language has always existed--but it is largely invisible to most people. The expansion of media that provides "outsiders" access to particular narratives through the internet has increased awareness of this (but not enough).
The story (narrative) informs the meaning, which turns around and reinforces the narrative. This results in something that LOOKS like dialog or communication, but isn't... as anyone who has been awake and semi-aware for the last decade or so should no doubt be aware of by now.
Elliot Rodger recorded a series of videos before he shot and killed a number of people in Santa Barbara 8 years ago. They are very similar in tone & style to Ethan's. Not saying this guy will go the same route, but it's not a laughing matter when narcissists get feedback from the real world that they're actually losers. Resolving that cognitive dissonance can end very badly.
I will say it again….. far too many people are not capable of critically thinking. Understanding a Trump supporter (not the grifting sycophants, they are a class above the drooling fools that go to rallies) is quite easy. Just strip away all the reason, logic, and scientific method you were ever exposed to and simply go with “Yay, something shiny that makes me feel better about myself.”
When people on the left were warning of the danger they were called alarmists. When Schiff said at the first impeachment trial that Trump would do it again he was vilified by the right. What the majority of Republican voters did not want to admit (until maybe now, and probably too late) was that they were conned by a WELL KNOWN con artist and it was visible to anyone with a brain that functioned above the 4th grade level.
They are theoretically capable of it, they just can't be bothered. Thinking about things gives rise to questions, which gives rise to doubts. That makes people uncomfortable. Better and safer to be a lemming.
It is the tallest grass that gets cut, the nail that sticks out that gets hammered. People instinctively know that there are a lot of things/places where it is best not to be too tall or to stick out.
Theoretically yes. But to me a brain not used for thinking is kinda just something that keeps one from bumping into furniture, trees, and all manner of stationary objects. Keeps one putting food in their mouth, drinking, sleeping etc…..I made the WNY girls allstar b-ball team in 1976, so, theoretically I can say the same about myself playing point guard for the Bucks…. except that I am female, and 63 years old and NEVER had the necessary skill. I see Trump voters like that 😉
A very large number of people don't think more than they absolutely have to. They find it painful and uncomfortable to do so... at least, that is my experience in pretty much every place I have worked and through most of my life (and this includes graduate school).
They are glad and quick to accept an answer that conforms to their prejudices or that comes from a suitable figure of authority.
I think that a lot of GOP'ers subcontract out their thinking to Fox and other conservative media sources. It's easier that way...and yep....they can feel "good" about it because millions of others do the same thing.
Very few of them ever actually read the Mueller report, for example, they just adopted the Fox/GOP/Trump narrative on it.
Isn't it incredible that I can put Fox/GOP/Trump together like a team and we hardly bat an eye about it nowadays?
It only seems that way, back in the days of print media, there were similar groupings. Certain papers were essentially "house" organs for particular parties or groups.
This was due largely to their local nature and private ownership (and editorial policy).
National broadcast media changed that somewhat, largely because of the wider exposure and things like the "fairness' doctrine. It was in the interest of large scale media to seem more neutral.
The internet has created a lot of niche media (despite the fact that they have a large relative number of consumers). So its back to very narrow narratives strongly controlled and influenced by the owners/editors.
Most people have always subcontracted their thinking out. if you look.
I would have to admit that you're right...people haven't changed that much, but their access to information is much better. Unfortunately, their access to BOTH good and bad information is better so it can go from good news to bad news really quickly.
If I could be more accurate about my original post is that I was really thinking Fox viewers instead of GOP for my opening point. Saying GOP was too generic for my point...because if the GOP person is watching Fox but mixing it up with their news sources...I think they are better than the "Fox only" crowd.
Sykes, you'll be no closer to the true Q-MAGA opinions on Dr. Oz unless and until you get a quote from Ginny Thomas. These washed-up rightwing opinionists you quote aren't active duty like Ginny is
Melania loves Dr. Oz too. I’d bet a dollar she had a hand in convincing TFG to endorse him. Although TFG loves television above all else, especially if he’s on it himself.
I think people are turning to authoritarian leaders because they don't want or can't think and reason from point A to B to C. All they know is there are too many ideas to many life choices and too many things they hate because they don't understand and they feel threatened. If someone comes along and says I can fix the country, Everything that is wrong is because of those people. I will take care of everything, You're right to hate those people. Don't think, just follow. The more educated people who aim for authoritarianism is because they believe they will be in charge, they can control the country and make sure only people like them will be heard.
Required reading for all who support the Bulwark's mission:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/
Yes! I just finished that piece. I’m going to read it again. I wish I could keep it handy in my brain, but “maturity” and Covid brain make that unlikely.
It's definitely a bit of a long read, so you certainly shouldn't feel bad if you can't recall all the details. Most people need to read something like that a couple times before they're ready for a pop quiz. 🙂
Thank you.
I love the Bulwark. I really do. I love the writing, topic choice, etc. I know we're looking at the writing and philosophy of right-centrists tired of the radicalization of their party. What bothers me about it, though, and the national conversation in general, is that centrism doesn't really excite voters, especially Democrat voters, who want the government to move in a different direction. Centrists are commonly thought to be more "electable," but that strikes me as ten-year-old thinking.
This debate came up a lot in in the 2016 primary (and 2020, as well). If you go with Bernie, do you get a bunch of millennials off the couch vs do you get more with a centrist candidate (and pick up independents, etc.).
It's an interesting question, but a problem is that the situation is not symmetric. For the most part, the right lined up behind Trump, even after witnessing his behavior for 4 years. Sure, you've got some Bulwarky NTs here and there, but just look at the numbers. OTOH, something like 12% of Bernie supporters pouted and voted for Trump in 2016. Further, can you imagine someone as awful as Trump (a) getting the Dem nom, (b) getting the kind of turn out in the general that Trump did? I sure can't.
I think cohesion comes easier for the right, because they are more homogeneous compared to the messy, brawling Big Tent of the left. Just my opinion.
"They are a cult, you are a coalition." - Tom Nichols
Love Tom Nichols!
The funny thing is that each side thinks that of the other. If you peruse right-wing sites, you'll fairly often find whining about how the left moves in lockstep (usually at the direction of AOC, etc.), the left tolerates everything within their borders (sorry Al Franken, you don't exist), etc. It's rather surreal to read it, especially when fairly articulate folks are stating it as a matter of fact.
I happen to agree with you, but there it is.
Sort of reminds me of the Churchill saying “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."
The corollary to that is that "centrist politics is the worst form of political beliefs, except for the fringe ones."
Well said. But the reason the loony right wing is sort of running the table is that, like them or hate them, they get everyone--fans and detractors alike--very fired up.
Social media keeps everyone fired up; it favors emotional intensity.
Today's column is worth it for Gen. Hertling's essay alone. Everything else is gravy.
That Ethan Schmidt video gives me the chills. And reminds me of my friend telling me that in the late phase of the Khmer Rouge, even wearing glasses was enough of a sign to mark a person as an elitist who should be killed. The Ethan Schmidts of the world who believe they are smarter than the Dr. Faucis and are angry that the world does not see it that way, if given enough rope & encouragement, eventually want to do something about it. So thanks for that, TFG, GOP, and Fox.
Isn't Connor Lamb the guy who on 1/6 was advising his colleagues that they should prepare to defend themselves with pens and pencils? Badass.
Are Trump's staff now Deep State too? Pretty soon one half of his brain will be accusing the other half of being Deep State and RINO.
Does he even have half a brain?
Whatever he's got, it can be halved--like the tortoise and the hare.
True
Great piece by Gen. Mark Hertler. We must support the Ukrainian army--they are us.
We often see the Trump voter is a poor, red-neck hick who can't find his ass from a hole in the ground. We take education level as a proxy for income level and assume the less education you have the poorer you must be and since Clinton and Biden support went up as education went up then that means Trump was killing it with the poors.
However, Hillary and Biden both won the majority of those making less than $50k a year. Biden actually improved on Hillary's numbers with poor voters.
Here's the beef:
Hillary Clinton: https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/
Joe Biden: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184428/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-income-us/
So the Trump phenomenon is not driven by some sort of worker revolution of poor people having had enough of the Demorat's crap and pushing to take their country back. It is a backlash from middle to upper income whites. And you know them as soon as you see them. The loudmouth small business owner with overly red cheeks who is perpetually pissed off about anything those minority and foreign folk are getting up to.
Jonathan Haidt has a very interesting piece in May’s issue of The Atlantic, dissecting our political polarization. It’s long, but worthwhile. I’m going to re-read it.
Thanks, I'll check it out. If you're into that sort of thing, have you read Ezra Klein's book on polarization? It's quite good and gets into the clinical psych aspect of it.
And thanks for your tip. I often listen to Ezra Klein’s podcast, and I like his traditional end-of-interview request for three book suggestions from the guest. “So many books, so little time” is definitely my lament. Right now I’m plowing through Marie Yovanovich’s memoir. It’s interesting, but slow going (for me). I’ve learned a lot about the Foreign Service, and about diplomacy in general, which is often driven more by strategic interests, sometimes many layers removed, than basic morality. I guess one could say the same about politics and governing.
Indeed, it's a big mistake to think all Trump supporters are ignorant dumbasses. To be sure, the deplorables are a big chunk, but there are plenty of other segments. Single issue voters make up another big chunk (guns, abortion, Jaaaay-sus). Then there are the Trump-reluctants. They are somewhat cognizant of Trump's flaws, but have convinced themselves that the Dems are (actual) Marxists. So for them, it's a choice between a buffoon and an evil cabal that will steal their precious bodily fluids.
I agree. Small business owners liked the trump tax cut.
As you should have two armies there already two navies. At least when it comes to the USA. You have your surface Navy shlubs, as we affectionately called "targets", and then you have your submarine fleet. Those sailors with such pluck that they do the impossible with less. 36 hour work days the norm. And the elite of the elite are our nuclear trained submarine enlistedmen. Never has so much been done by so few. I had the privilege to serve in this capacity early in my adult life and it made me an industry leader in my 38 year civilian career. Because the Navy educated me that with teamwork the impossible is possible. Rule 1? Never give up! Icing on the cake? Instead of being saddled with student loans I was able bank funds while I served matched by the Navy for my post service education. Double win. More importantly every job I had it didn't take more than a month or two for management to figure out I was the guy they wanted in charge of things. Spent a long career in civil engineering and surveying. Nothing prepares you better for participating in large projects like being part of a submarine shipyard overhaul.
Fetterman is at plus 18 over at RCP. Lamb is not winning this primary no matter how much you wishcast.
Fetterman will be the next senator from PA.
Fetterman will then have a good chance to be the face of Anti-Trumpism. And it is one we need if you are worried about Democrats being too soft.
Fetterman has crossover appeal, IMO, because he has solid working class credibility. And he seems authentic. He definitely “tells it like it is”, without the contrived, lying, self aggrandizement of Trump.
I agree. Although on paper Fetterman is too liberal for Pennsylvania, he overcomes that with charisma that transcends ideology. Fetterman is going to win the primary easily and is also going to win the general election.
Theodore Johnson's article today is well worth reading.
Again, it all circles back to narrative and identity--even to the extent of exactly what words mean (though this often falls more into the realm of connotation rather than denotation).
People, particularly people who do not really pay attention the the nuances of language), see a variety of people using the same words and make the assumption that this word means the same thing to all involved, that it has the same connotation to all those involved.
Thus they wonder why the people that are using this word in (what is to the listener) an obviously wrong way do not suffer from some sort of cognitive dissonance.
This plasticity in language has always existed--but it is largely invisible to most people. The expansion of media that provides "outsiders" access to particular narratives through the internet has increased awareness of this (but not enough).
The story (narrative) informs the meaning, which turns around and reinforces the narrative. This results in something that LOOKS like dialog or communication, but isn't... as anyone who has been awake and semi-aware for the last decade or so should no doubt be aware of by now.
Elliot Rodger recorded a series of videos before he shot and killed a number of people in Santa Barbara 8 years ago. They are very similar in tone & style to Ethan's. Not saying this guy will go the same route, but it's not a laughing matter when narcissists get feedback from the real world that they're actually losers. Resolving that cognitive dissonance can end very badly.
I will say it again….. far too many people are not capable of critically thinking. Understanding a Trump supporter (not the grifting sycophants, they are a class above the drooling fools that go to rallies) is quite easy. Just strip away all the reason, logic, and scientific method you were ever exposed to and simply go with “Yay, something shiny that makes me feel better about myself.”
When people on the left were warning of the danger they were called alarmists. When Schiff said at the first impeachment trial that Trump would do it again he was vilified by the right. What the majority of Republican voters did not want to admit (until maybe now, and probably too late) was that they were conned by a WELL KNOWN con artist and it was visible to anyone with a brain that functioned above the 4th grade level.
They are theoretically capable of it, they just can't be bothered. Thinking about things gives rise to questions, which gives rise to doubts. That makes people uncomfortable. Better and safer to be a lemming.
It is the tallest grass that gets cut, the nail that sticks out that gets hammered. People instinctively know that there are a lot of things/places where it is best not to be too tall or to stick out.
Theoretically yes. But to me a brain not used for thinking is kinda just something that keeps one from bumping into furniture, trees, and all manner of stationary objects. Keeps one putting food in their mouth, drinking, sleeping etc…..I made the WNY girls allstar b-ball team in 1976, so, theoretically I can say the same about myself playing point guard for the Bucks…. except that I am female, and 63 years old and NEVER had the necessary skill. I see Trump voters like that 😉
A very large number of people don't think more than they absolutely have to. They find it painful and uncomfortable to do so... at least, that is my experience in pretty much every place I have worked and through most of my life (and this includes graduate school).
They are glad and quick to accept an answer that conforms to their prejudices or that comes from a suitable figure of authority.
No argument. I am just not one of them and I am fine with that.
I think that a lot of GOP'ers subcontract out their thinking to Fox and other conservative media sources. It's easier that way...and yep....they can feel "good" about it because millions of others do the same thing.
Very few of them ever actually read the Mueller report, for example, they just adopted the Fox/GOP/Trump narrative on it.
Isn't it incredible that I can put Fox/GOP/Trump together like a team and we hardly bat an eye about it nowadays?
It only seems that way, back in the days of print media, there were similar groupings. Certain papers were essentially "house" organs for particular parties or groups.
This was due largely to their local nature and private ownership (and editorial policy).
National broadcast media changed that somewhat, largely because of the wider exposure and things like the "fairness' doctrine. It was in the interest of large scale media to seem more neutral.
The internet has created a lot of niche media (despite the fact that they have a large relative number of consumers). So its back to very narrow narratives strongly controlled and influenced by the owners/editors.
Most people have always subcontracted their thinking out. if you look.
I would have to admit that you're right...people haven't changed that much, but their access to information is much better. Unfortunately, their access to BOTH good and bad information is better so it can go from good news to bad news really quickly.
If I could be more accurate about my original post is that I was really thinking Fox viewers instead of GOP for my opening point. Saying GOP was too generic for my point...because if the GOP person is watching Fox but mixing it up with their news sources...I think they are better than the "Fox only" crowd.
Sykes, you'll be no closer to the true Q-MAGA opinions on Dr. Oz unless and until you get a quote from Ginny Thomas. These washed-up rightwing opinionists you quote aren't active duty like Ginny is