Lacewing wrote:
Trump -- as a life-long narcissist, pathological liar, and wanna-be dictator, who openly cheats and doesn't pay his workers -- is as responsible for the erosion of values as much as anyone. But even worse, he is a buffoon... and this is who this group of people rallies behind to support their cause? He has essentially turned his followers into extremist mindless zombies... and you think other people should take that seriously? He doesn't even represent them! How about if they showed they have some clarity by rejecting him and what he stands for? Instead of doubling-down on the insanity to follow him over the cliff and destroy their own credibility.
Trump, almost by any measure, cannot be seen as "presidential material" and in a very real sense his advent was, at least in one sense, a sort of bad sign. His personality and some of his practices can certainly be critiqued. At the same time it can also be said that he *rose to the occasion*; or that the nature of the time called him forth; or also that he was the man who appeared on the American historical stage and there was no other. Steve Bannon referred to him as "an armor-piercing shell" and though you might not be able to see it, or do not wish to see it, Trump's advent -- though it is very inconclusive how it will turn out -- created a movement within American society. So there are some who notice this and, say, welcome it. Others believe he is the worst thing to ever happen. But one thing we do know: there are consequential internal battles going on within the halls of American power about what Trump represents and what has been set in motion through his advent (which extends beyond his person of course).
The people who rally behind him, I think you will find, do so for a host of reasons. Some of them are quite articulate (Victor Davis Hanson and people like him for example) and some of them -- as everyone knows -- are people with strange reasoning capacities (the Q-Anon types). What shall we say about them? They are often not very articulate and sometimes *simple-minded* and inclined to paranoia. Their perceptions seem distorted or excessively exaggerated. But others among them are more articulate and as I said before seem to represent a class of people who had been marginalized through economic events and general social engineering processes of the last 60 years. All f this is stuff that can be examined and talked about. It is sociological and quite interesting.
Mindless zombies and other of your terms like narcissist, wannabe dictator, pathological liar, buffoon -- these are terms that have at least some relationship to the man. I would not dismiss any of these as
tendencies, but they are tendencies that are shared culture-wide. Narcissism is common among political figures. Many recent presidents have had all sorts of *issues* and it could come with the territory. I think that *dictatorial tendencies* could also be examined. I am not at all uncertain that a figure like Obama did not have similar tendencies. But of course you are referring to the fact that Trump believes that the election results were messed with, right? And his contestation of the results is a sign that he wants a dictatorial power, right? Such has been said but I am not myself convinced this is the case.
How about if they showed they have some clarity by rejecting him and what he stands for?
Well, there are a few things to say here. One is that the *class* that is generally understood to be Trump supporting is by nature inarticulate. They are said to be the class mostly without university education, right? So perhaps there is a general unsophistication and also lack of familiarity with the terms of discourse required for a more depth analysis?
What you say Trump stands for, however, and what they believe he stands for, or what they hope that he could stand for, or what a larger MAGA movement (transcending Trump) could stand for in America now and in the future -- all that is stuff about which you have no knowledge at all, not even in a remote sense. You
correspond I would say to the same class of ignorants. Processes of politicization tend to educate people through the process itself. So I could also say that the sector I refer to (of the American society and perhaps of a demographic) is 'waking up'. But it is drwsy and uncertain. And as you know I tend to see people as *guessing* at macro-interpretations when, in truth, they do not understand the machinations of power.
Are you aware that human evolution is not meant to stand still? What do you think needs to stay the same? Why isn't it possible (in your view) to expand and move forward while retaining the values that don't limit our expansion and forward movement? You complain about your view being undermined... yet you undermine the views of others.
So what you wish to explain is that the gender dysphoria movement -- sort of like a social pathology or a dance-craze, something sweeping through culture -- is what you feel is evolving from the boring and old-fashioned normality of the male-female identifications?
I am being facetious to a degree but not altogether. As is usual for you you refer to evolution, to *possibilities*, and an open horizon but you never talk about what you are actually referring to. So, other people do have defined value-sets, and good reasons why they define and defend them.
But in some sense I do see the MAGA movement as being
reactionary against all sorts of changes that were not wanted. Reactionary movements require the establishment, or the reestablishment, of structures of definition. So some might, say, turn to religion, but someone else could turn to structured Platonic thinking. You see what I mean? You have to define a base of values. And I can say with some certainly that a large part of what is going on today has to do with defining and articulating
values.
When you say "expansion and forward movement" you are (to use a common phrase of mine)
talking our of your butt-end. You will have to enter into a prolonged conversation with other citizens about what expansion and forward movement
mean. As you gather I very much doubt your capability of defining this or anything else. It is all vague!
How do we find a middle-ground that honors multiple perspectives? First-off, get some good representatives that ACTUALLY represent the values of the group of people they are affiliated with, while also making it clear that the leader of the country represents ALL people! The extremist divisive poison is at the root of the problem.
We do not, not necessarily, find middle-ground. All negotiations with those, like you, of Left or Progressive bent when given an inch take a full foot or yards. All negotiations end up in ever-continuing *evolution*. It
never works the other way. You have to understand how
radicalism functions.
However, I do agree with you that any 'representative', and especially from the moneyed class, tend always to serve their own interests. And over a number of decades the interests of the American middle-class -- and the American demographic -- has not been served well. But that is part of the social reaction that swells up from deep-seated anger, frustration and resentment.
All things that can be talked about.
What can you imagine that would be a less divisive attitude -- and would honor a broader range of perspectives? Is that possible? Or do you see anything other than your viewpoint as deficient and as straying from some optimal model we must preserve... as if it were the pinnacle of human creation?
I do not believe in diminution of divisiveness. You are asking me personally, right? I believe in accentuation of the differences but an articulation of what those differences really are. And definitely how *all this* has come about. And that, my dear, is a complex and contentious conversation. Those who control historical narrative can control the attitudes, perspectives and perceptions. And I (personally) believe that many accepted narratives are false. But this is another territory.
Can you agree that there is nothing wrong with people having different perspectives for how they want to live... and that these should not be imposed on other people? Is it reasonable that I do not want religious beliefs limiting my life in this current day and age of more diverse thinking?
Certainly. And I can also conceive of conflicts moving to a point where political compromises become impossible.
Laws that are passed are, by your definition, impositions. I may always want to jaywalk but there may also be a very good reason why there is a law against it.
But I think what you are getting at is the aversion you might feel to a theocracy developing. For example among a hyper-religious class of people or a sector of society?
All of this needs to be throught about and talked about, in my view.
