Trump - Clown Genius

[IlliniDave]

Well, we can at least thank him for taking a crazy process with limited respectability and making it worse, that's for sure.

It would be okay if they could keep a bit of a sense of humor about it th way the British do.

http://www.msn.com/en-in/video/watch/as ... vp-BBpYAbI

[Dragline]

If Trump does win the presidency, it will be very interesting to compare his record after four years to the plethora of articles denouncing the second coming of Hitler.

I'm not sure "The Art of the Deal" or "The America We Deserve" are up to the standards of "Mein Kampf".

But I thought this review of the latter was interesting: http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-revie ... JF6HJP729H

As an aside, the predictions of experts or pundits about "what will happen" if so-and-so gets elected are almost always laughably wrong. None of their doom-and-gloom scenarios usually come true while other calamities that they did not predict do occur. (I am still holding my breath waiting for Obama to impose martial law, seize all privately held weapons and declare that he will be serving a third term.)

One of the best things about the internet is that its pretty easy to go back and look at them, though -- which you should do whenever you read an opinion piece.

[BRUTE]

so ffj is saying that every president is the worst president we ever had?

[Chad]

This is funny and sad at the same time, and basically all anyone really needs to know about Trump (The video of Oliver, not the article).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... to-be.html

[Papers of Indenture]

I listen to NPR news everyday because it is easily accessible in my car and I find it to be less stupid than any other source. However....they have their hobby horses that get extremely irritating. It's extra annoying that they tend to do a good job covering multiple perspectives on most issues but their hobby horses get the white glove treatment.

[jacob]

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/tr ... itarianism

More on the authoritarian phase transition.

[cmonkey]

That piece makes me not sure what would make me more nervous...a Trump presidency or the reaction from a Trump loss.

[Dragline]

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/tr ... itarianism

More on the authoritarian phase transition.

That's interesting, but I think the time scope of the author is a bit myopic and there is an implicit assumption that a non-authoritarian society is the default position. In fact, for most of human history in most places, authoritarian rule is accepted because order is prized over individual freedom in most societies.

This is the old Locke/Hobbes debate (which is even older that they are).

If you go back to Plutarch's Lives, particularly the history of the Roman dictator Sulla, you will find that even "more free" societies (rule was always restricted to select groups), which were the exception, would sometimes appoint dictators to restore order for the good and preservation of their societies. Now whether you got a Sulla (pretty much the model for all the bad dictators you can name) or a Solon (the "benevolent dictator") was kind of a crap shoot, but they both in fact did restore both economic and civil order in their respective societies.

The idea that individuals have worth outside their roles in society came a little later, first in religious contexts and in the more recent past adopted by secular humanists, with Locke forming the bridge between the two.

[jennypenny]

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/tr ... itarianism

More on the authoritarian phase transition.

Hm, I understand the point they are trying to make, but it comes across (to me) as an elegant attempt to corroborate the Trump-supporters-are-dumb meme. From the article: "In other words, what might look on the surface like bigotry was really much closer to Stenner's theory of "activation": that authoritarians are unusually susceptible to messages about the ways outsiders and social changes threaten America, and so lash out at groups that are identified as objects of concern at that given moment. ... That's not to say that such an attitude is in some way better than simple racism or xenophobia — it is still dangerous and damaging, especially if it empowers frightening demagogues like Donald Trump." Why use the word "susceptible' unless you were trying to show it as a deficiency, as in Trump supporters aren't smart enough to resist being fooled by him. And as they show later in the article, there's nothing unusual about it. Also, wouldn't Haidt say that this is just a difference in what people value? (I can't recall exactly how Haidt put it, but he said that liberals and conservatives valued different things.)

What they all (both parties) miss is the importance of the non-recovery for average middle class people. The author mentions it but then suggests that it's not a significant factor. If people had secure jobs and pensions/SSI they could count on, they wouldn't care who came here. All of these articles assume that fears of terrorism and immigrants are the main triggers. Those worries don't keep people up at night. Financial worries do.

------

I don't get Romney's comments over the last couple of days. Where was he (and others like him) six months ago? Talk about a day late and a dollar short. They were waiting to make sure they didn't endorse a 'loser' and now they probably have to choose between endorsing Trump to keep the party intact or letting the party split. If Trump continues as he is and they manage to steal the nomination away from him at the convention, the party will definitely split unless Trump endorses the new candidate. It's a lose-lose now for the Republican establishment -- they either have to embrace Trump if they want a chance at winning in November, or they nominate someone else who'll get no support from Trump's constituency (even with his endorsement) and lose to Clinton in the general election.

[Dragline]

I don't get Romney's comments over the last couple of days. Where was he (and others like him) six months ago? Talk about a day late and a dollar short. They were waiting to make sure they didn't endorse a 'loser' and now they probably have to choose between endorsing Trump to keep the party intact or letting the party split. If Trump continues as he is and they manage to steal the nomination away from him at the convention, the party will definitely split unless Trump endorses the new candidate. It's a lose-lose now for the Republican establishment -- they either have to embrace Trump if they want a chance at winning in November, or they nominate someone else who'll get no support from Trump's constituency (even with his endorsement) and lose to Clinton in the general election.

I agree that Romney's speech represented a critical breaking point -- in complexity theory terms, a grain of sand that starts an avalanche (or the straw that breaks the camel's back). This passage of Romney's speech is critical:

"I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.

Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants. He calls for the use of torture. He calls for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit First Amendment freedom of the press.

This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss."

This passage reveals two problems: First, the reliance on anger as the primary motivating force instead of a plan or a platform. This essentially is an acknowledgement that they have been playing with gasoline and that now it is beginning to burn out of control -- in effect, its a tail risk event with a positive feedback loop.

Second, and actually more fundamental to unity, Romney questions Trump's choice of scapegoats and, even worse for unity, actually calls them "scapegoats". To maintain unity, a party (or any organization on a mission) must agree on who its enemies are and that they are guilty, suspect, incompetent or corrupt in some way, such that it is proper and good to take action against them. They can only be innocent scapegoats to someone outside the party structure, or in cynical conversations to which only insiders are privy.

Cleveland may bear a strong resemblance to Chicago 1968 this year.

[IlliniDave]

What they all (both parties) miss is the importance of the non-recovery for average middle class people. The author mentions it but then suggests that it's not a significant factor. If people had secure jobs and pensions/SSI they could count on, they wouldn't care who came here. All of these articles assume that fears of terrorism and immigrants are the main triggers. Those worries don't keep people up at night. Financial worries do.

I have zero respect for Romney now, after he all but drooled over Trump in 2012 when Trump endorsed him (I don't have a link, but theirs a video of that moment in time floating around) ... and he probably put Clinton in the White House. All the Dems have to say is "Look at what they did to their own frontrunner--why in the world would you trust them with your vote." Maybe that's the deal he made, not with the establishment but with the Clintons. Clinton means 4-8 more years of the status quo, which is fine for me even though she's pledging to fight for everyone except me, but not so good for my children and grandchildren.

You are right that the party establishments are completely out of touch and just won't acknowledge that a lot of people are really sick and tired of how things have been going and don't want to be ruled by them. I don't see why pitting Americans against non-Americans on economic and security issues is considered xenophobic and authoritarian, but pitting groups of Americans against each other based on race/ethnicity, religion, orientation, social class, and gender (i.e., the traditional far left play book) is somehow "progressive". Most Americans just want to have someone who will at least say they will look to the interests of all Americans. Trump strikes that chord and so gets away with a lot of crass things.

[Ego]

Why use the word "susceptible' unless you were trying to show it as a deficiency, as in Trump supporters aren't smart enough to resist being fooled by him. And as they show later in the article, there's nothing unusual about it. Also, wouldn't Haidt say that this is just a difference in what people value? (I can't recall exactly how Haidt put it, but he said that liberals and conservatives valued different things.)

Meh, you're arguing for politically-correct semantics from an article about a guy whose supporters love him because he speaks bluntly and purposely disregards political-correctness.

What they all (both parties) miss is the importance of the non-recovery for average middle class people. The author mentions it but then suggests that it's not a significant factor. If people had secure jobs and pensions/SSI they could count on, they wouldn't care who came here. All of these articles assume that fears of terrorism and immigrants are the main triggers. Those worries don't keep people up at night. Financial worries do.

I wonder if Trump taps into the hive-mind version of this...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ev ... t-and-fear

[jacob]

@jp - All humans are stupid along some vector, but some vectors are more important than others. See Cippolas rules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._ ... ous_essays (all five rules seem pertinent). This actually goes to ID's point: If this was an election for a petty dictator of a banana republic, I don't think people would be that concerned about playing/choosing a zero sum game strategy (ala leveraged business strategies with a bankruptcy stop gap frame of mind) ... but we're talking about an imperial power and not situations where mistakes can be contained (e.g. filing for bankruptcy). Imperial mistakes have global impacts.

In any case, I'm trying to understand this more as a human genome imperative or Isaac Asimovish psychohistory sense. Things to ponder:

1) Was democracy, human rights, respect for the individual, some aberration that held only between years 1875 and 2025 (depending on how you count?) See @Draglines response.
2) Is the historic cycle ultimately predictable---e.g. based on phenotypic value preferences---even if we're too dumb/lack the insight to predict well enough to steer it? E.g. did anyone predict that the war on terror would lead to the election of demogouges in Europe and possibly the US?
3) Could the human species be said to be comprised by various subspecies, e.g. authoritarians, cosmopolitans, explorers, ...
4) Can stupidity (e.g. actions that hurt the person/nation as well as the other person/other nations) be prevented by organizational means or otherwise? On the individual level stupidity is best handled by avoiding it(!?!) but what happens when it extends to world government?

Also something that really concerns me ... are we still on the right side of history here?

[jennypenny]

They're going to try and steal it from Trump. Watch Hannity put the question to Priebus at CPAC, and watch Priebus's non-answer. You'd think Priebus would know the question was coming and have a better answer prepared. https://youtu.be/PDAnCRegrSA?t=7m3s (@7:00)

@jacob -- I'm not sure about your last question. What I'm trying to decide is whether I'm more concerned with the means or the end. Is it better to preserve and protect the process regardless of the outcome, or are the stakes too great? I suppose that would also answer your question about whether this is the beginning of the end of an experiment in democracy. OTOH, I also ask myself if this is really that big a deal. Will historians look back on this election cycle as just difficult chapter in the history of the Republican party like 1968 was for the Democrats?

[apocryphal]

@Jacob "Was democracy, human rights, respect for the individual, some aberration that held only between years 1875 and 2025 (depending on how you count?) "

I hope not and think Gwynne Dyer's got it about right:

"The default mode for human beings is equality. Every pre-civilized society we know about operated on the assumption that its members were equals. Nobody had the right to give orders to anybody else.

What drove this was not idealism but pragmatism. In hunting-and-gathering groups, nobody can own more than they can carry, so there is no way to accumulate wealth. If you want meat, then you’ll have to cooperate in the hunt. These were societies where nobody could control anybody else, and so they had to make their decisions democratically.

They were all very little societies: rarely more than 50 adults (who had all known one another all their lives). On the rare occasions when they had to make a major decision, they would actually sit around and debate it until they reached a consensus. Direct democracy, if you like.

People have been running their affairs that way ever since we developed language, which was almost certainly before we were even anatomically modern human beings. So 99.9 percent of our history, say. That is who we are, and how we prefer to behave unless some enormous obstacle gets in our way.

The enormous obstacle was civilization. All hunting-and-gathering societies were essentially egalitarian. The mass societies that we call civilizations arose less than 10,000 years ago, thanks to the invention of agriculture. Until very recently all of them, without exception, were tyrannies, pyramids of power and privilege in which the few decided and the many obeyed. What happened?

A mass society, thousands, then millions strong, confers immense advantages on its members. Within a few thousand years the little hunting-and-gathering groups were pushed out of the good lands everywhere. By the time the first anthropologists appeared to study them, they were on their last legs, and none now survive in their original form. But we know why the societies that replaced them were all tyrannies.

The mass societies had many more decisions to make, and no way of making them in the old, egalitarian way. Their huge numbers made any attempt at discussing the question as equals impossible, so the only ones that survived and flourished were the ones that became brutal hierarchies. Tyranny was the solution to what was essentially a communications problem.

Fast forward 10,000 years, and give these societies mass communications. You don’t have to wait for Facebook; just invent the printing press. Wait a couple of hundred years while literacy spreads, and presto! We can all talk to one another again, after a fashion, and the democratic revolutions begin. We didn’t invent the principle of equality among human beings; we just reclaimed it.

Modern democracy first appeared in the West only because the West was the first part of the world to develop mass communications. It was a technological advantage, not a cultural one—and as literacy and the technology of mass communications have spread around the world, all the other mass societies have begun to reclaim their heritage too."

Gwynne Dyer - http://www.straight.com/article-377078/ ... cracy-west

[Ego]

I saw that 75% of South Carolinian Trump voters said they were in favor of banning Muslims from entering the US.

And I saw this....



Has anyone seen a good poll specifically asking people why they voted for Trump?

[Dragline]

@Jacob "Was democracy, human rights, respect for the individual, some aberration that held only between years 1875 and 2025 (depending on how you count?) "

I hope not and think Gwynne Dyer's got it about right:

I think this is wishful thinking and unsupported. The evidence of what paleo hunter gather man was really like is recorded in the drawings that these people actually made, not the tropes of moderns.

Watch this video -- made by one of our most popular athiest humanists -- beginning at 0:50 to show you what successful early human societies were really like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCTzbc76WXY

And then see if you can really justify an "egalitarian hunter-gatherer society" meme that explains what these people recorded.

I'd also cite to Yuval Harari's Sapiens where he notes that humans were so successful with violence that they wiped out all other large mammals and hominids like the neanderthals.

Besides violence, what humans excel at is copying each other, both in cooperative ways and in envious ones involving mimicking each others desires for the same things -- that again lead to violence.

The Mimetic Theory of Stanford emeritus Rene Girard (a favorite of Peter Thiel) is probably the best available explanation for the development of human societies, because it relies on only these two predicates -- habitual genetic mimicking and organized violence. It survives Occam's razor much better than the Rouseauian romanticism of primitive man,egalitarian tropes or the memes from nowhere posited by Richard Dawkins. Violence was controlled in groups by the creation of hierarchies and rituals that offered official violence, usually involving sacrifice, human and otherwise, orf designated scapegoats. Cannibalism was optional.

Societies through the Greeks and Romans were no different. If you are up on your Homer, you would know that in celebration of defeating Hector, Achilles ordered a funeral pyre for his fallen friend and then personally slit the throats of 12 Trojan captives. The Romans slaughtered all kinds of people and animals for all kinds of reasons. Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus", horrific as it is, was not far from Tiberius, Caligula and Nero's Rome, let alone the earlier proscriptions meted out by Sulla.

You only get to start talking about non-violence and valuing individuals when you get to Gautama Buddha (India), Mozi (China) and Jesus (Mediterranean and the West -- and yes, Isa ibn Maryam is a key figure in Islam). Modern secularist egalitarian notions are built upon these philosophies, even though they would prefer to exercise their right to cognitive dissonance by making up fairy tales about paleolithic man to avoid touching what they now find distasteful.

[Dragline]

In any case, I'm trying to understand this more as a human genome imperative or Isaac Asimovish psychohistory sense. Things to ponder:

1) Was democracy, human rights, respect for the individual, some aberration that held only between years 1875 and 2025 (depending on how you count?) See @Draglines response.
2) Is the historic cycle ultimately predictable---e.g. based on phenotypic value preferences---even if we're too dumb/lack the insight to predict well enough to steer it? E.g. did anyone predict that the war on terror would lead to the election of demogouges in Europe and possibly the US?
3) Could the human species be said to be comprised by various subspecies, e.g. authoritarians, cosmopolitans, explorers, ...
4) Can stupidity (e.g. actions that hurt the person/nation as well as the other person/other nations) be prevented by organizational means or otherwise? On the individual level stupidity is best handled by avoiding it(!?!) but what happens when it extends to world government?

Also something that really concerns me ... are we still on the right side of history here?

(1) I think we flip back and forth between societies that value individual rights and authoritarian regimes. (The US is a complete outlier -- no other country has an equivalent of the First Amendment and enforces it.) The trend is toward more of the former such that we deny that the latter is actually our historical backdrop. I agree in significant by not all part of what Rene Girard says in "Evolution and Conversion: Dialogues about the Origins of Culture" (2007).

(2) No. But the sporadic escalation of violence like a cancer that keeps reappearing is superficially predictable in that it will happen. When and how is really not very predictable. This is a tail risk issue with a power law distribution of episodes and consequences, like earthquakes.

(3) No. But there are mutable individual preferences and cultural preferences.

(4) Well, maybe, if you can convince people to use more of what Kahneman calls System 2 slow, reasoned thinking and less of System 1 fast heuristics (rules of thumb). Some "nudging", as R. Thaler puts it, is possible. But desires for fame, power, riches and generally "things that other people have that I want" (mimetic desire) tend to trump (har, har) more reasoned efforts.

BTW, ERE is essentially System 2 -- that's why there is no danger of "everybody doing it".

[Dragline]

This analysis of a popular TV (or is it internet?) show (I've actually never watched it) relates our modern politics to the ancient perspective. It has nothing to do with egalitarian values, which is probably why it, like Shakespeare, is popular and eternal as to the human condition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2de3LhPxpZU

"Democracy is so overrated" says the main character.

[theanimal]

@Dragline- Where is the supporting evidence from that video? It seems more to follow the fallacy that we are continually progressing on an upward trend from the beginning of our existence as humans. If you look around, I think you'll find more than enough evidence that points to early human societies being egalitarian. That doesn't mean that they weren't without war or skirmishes with rival groups. Competition is an innate part of our being, just like all other biological creatures. Yet, individual societies were non-hierarchical and matriarchal in nature. And sure, there will be plenty of exceptions to the rule, as with all things.

And with regard to the idea that humans wiped out all mega fauna, there doesn't necessarily seem to be a consensus. Although, I know that you and I have debated this elsewhere before, so we'll just agree to disagree.

Anyways, sorry for continuing OT.

Edit: As an aside, most cave paintings were of or relating to hunting animals (not humans). Especially considering paleolithic groups (which most people are referring to when talking about egalitarian hunter-gatherers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting