Seattle Sports Insider

Konspiracy Korner: Populism vs Elitism

Brexits, Walls, and Faith in Joe Mainstreet

Posted by

10/7/16

From Hey Bill, back in June. Underlines are my own. See first comment for my own little followon.

...

Hey, Bill, you wrote about the decision in Britain to leave the UK "but you might note that this decision was not made by bureaucrats, but by the people." I don't think anyone has suggested that bureaucrats did or should make such a decision, but to me the interesting question is whether elected representatives rather than the people should make such a decision. To me, the idea of electing a representative is to find someone whose worldview I like and whose integrity I trust and say please, go figure this out and leave me to teach or repair plumbing or cure patients or deliver bread or whatever it is I do. For me to take the time to learn what I need to know to make all those decisions wouldn't leave me enough time to do my day job, so I elect someone. My questions to you are whether you agree in principle with this idea of electing representatives, and whether you feel that it would have (or would still) make more sense for UK reps rather than the people to decide on Brexit.

Asked by: flyingfish

Answered: 6/29/2016

No, I don't. Representative Democracy, over time, becomes less and less Representative. And representatives should never be tasked with dealing with basic issues of liberty and sovereignty.

This issue is fairly critical to my political philosophy, for the following reasons. Over time, all societies tend to divide into privileged and underprivileged camps. I grew up deep in poverty, living among people who were somewhat better off than us, but still far, far removed from the centers of wealth and privilege—but I have lived almost all of my adult life in comfort and relative privilege, and among others of comfort and privilege. I got to ring the closing bell at the New York stock exchange, but most of my relatives still live at or below the poverty line, and I am still close to those people. This shapes my view of the world.

So over time, all societies tend to divide into privileged and underprivileged camps, and these two camps see the world differently. In a representative democracy, representatives inevitably come to represent the worldview of those who have power and privilege—and, more significantly, to represent the interests of those who have power and privilege.

On many, many issues, I agree that the policy favored by what we might call the elites is the wiser policy—but nonetheless I would prefer to see us adopt the policy favored by the people. Why? Because the issues of power are much, much more central to a well-functioning democracy than the issues of policy. Policy comes and policy goes. In a well-functioning democracy—which unfortunately we no longer have, because the gap between the privileged and underprivileged has grown so large—but in a well-functioning democracy, you can change policy easily enough. You can’t easily change the power structure. An unwise policy will soon enough show itself to be unwise, but when the system stops working there is never an easy repair.

Well, let us suppose that rapid immigration from poorer countries imposes some costs on the society in terms of crime, the school system, and the degradation of social programs by overloading; not saying whether this is true or not true, but let us suppose. Who do you suppose bears the weight of those social costs: the privileged, or the underprivileged? But who is it who gets the benefit of this immigration, by some indirect pathway rooted in cheap labor? Is that the privileged or the underprivileged?

I am not in any way suggesting that the elites are selfish or driven by self-interest. They are almost universally driven by what they see as the best interests of society, with a heavy weight given to the best interests of the poor. They simply do not SEE clearly or accurately what is in the interests of the poor. They never do, they never can, and they never will. In a representative democracy, elected representatives will always vote for the policies favored by the rich and powerful.

Of course there are complicated, technical issues which have to be dealt with elected professionals; of course there are many, many such issues. This is not such an issue. - Bill James

Blog:

Tags:

Bill James

Comments

First! (Comment 1)

Normally we'd format this with "excerpt" and Dr. D's commentary, but James' position paper is SO interesting that we felt compelled to let it stand alone, using this as my own part of the body text.

Also, that will allow Dr. D to comment on this one on an exactly-equal footing with anyone else interested. What possible applications do you draw from James' analysis? About half of the major issues in Sunday's debate will relate to this basic philosophy as stated - and you could feasibly support either candidate, at times, if you agreed with the principles.

James, as usual, goes with finesse and tact and flexibility. He's got to use very soft punches, almost gentle shoves to the shoulder, in today's hot-button environment. Especially at BJOL where the readership is skewed far to one side, and the readers are as intelligent as they are, ahhh ... strident about their positions.

....

This is exactly the question raised by my favorite columnist, who shall remain unnamed and who you probably wouldn't guess. :- )

Consider a large donor to either party, or even consider the NYT reporter who hangs around that donor's periphery. The first-gen immigrants that this donor INTERFACES with. Isn't it likely that such a relationship is going to be -- so to speak -- the gardener, who after doing the gardening drives home to a different neighborhood?

The party apparatchik, the superdelegate, the banker, whoever, isn't going to drive home to live on the same street as the first-gen immigrant. The apparatchik simply isn't going to be in the hot zones of the Blue Lives Matter / Black Lives Matter fight, is not going to be one of the people killed in the quasi-Civil War.

Me myself, I'm also one of the privileged. My station is life is that of the RNC or DNC party apparatchik. I'm privileged, I live in an upper-middle-class neighborhood, I'm not going to feel unsafe driving out to the local mini-mart for a 1 a.m. snack.

My 25-year-old daughter, however, just attempted to live in Hilltop Tacoma as the only white girl in a ghetto-like apartment complex. That lasted a week, with her calling home and whispering through her smartphone so the people wouldn't hear her through the walls and break her door down.

My brother was an Ivy League professor who was a kind man, and he believed with all his heart that he and his friends were the people intelligent and compassionate enough to decide policy that affects Hilltop and Watts and San Diego, for that matter.

I'm pretty well the opposite of him. The Founding Fathers had the idea of a government by the people, of it, and for it; they felt that the popular vote was the ultimate CHECK AND BALANCE on a government's inherent lust for fascist control.

....

We're teetering on the brink of quasi- if not semi-Civil War, and it would be nice to see more voice for the common person -- as reflected in a poll on immigration policy, for example -- and less voice for the media elites. This means listening harder to border patrol agents, to poor black folks in Chicago, to police in Chicago, to Mexican families living on the border and to those non-Mexicans living in the same. To listen to both sides carefully as to what THEY say about immigration policy, when uncoached by RNC/DNC talking points.

And to listen to the people who are in the fight, on any issue, to the people on the scene.

Other opinions welcome as always.

Warmly,

Jeff

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Did I

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Did I say agreed? Agreed.

James' analysis is spot on, as is your example.

The well off have ALWAYS been out of touch with the average person's daily existence. It would take a supreme and conscious effort on their part for it to be otherwise, and even those efforts would only be partially successful. It's very hard to understand a world you do not live in.

We see this divide all the time with talking heads on the news. They pontificate, and some of them have even pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, but at this point in their life they are relatively immune from the precarious financial situation faced by the average guy these days. They think, "If you cut out one of your two vacations, and only go to restaurants once a week, and get only the middling model of that new car, and spend $1,000 less at Christmas, etc., etc., you can ride this out." But this is the world lived in by most in government, academia, media, and the upper echelons of business who interact with them.

When people feel their voice is hopelessly unheeded because of this disconnect, populism soars. We are in such an era. Populism may not come up with the best policies, but it is a way for major segments of the population to make their voice heard.

One problem with populism from the representative's point of view is just that-- it's voice is usually only a SEGMENT of the population. And that segment may be so frustrated that it's cacaphony becomes strident, it's point of view irreconcilable with the overall population. This is true of Black Lives Matter, and it is true of Trump-ism. Even an altruistic representative has to make compromises that in his/her view bring the best possible outcome for the most possible people, some of whom are diametrically opposed to the strident populist voices. How do you reconcile Black Lives Matter with the Trump crowd?

This election is The Elites versus a strange hybrid, an Elite Populist. Elections are the best alternative we have to civil war. They are not perfect, but so long as people feel the government is retrievable, as long as they have hope that before too long their voice will be heard, they can tolerate an opposition government. This is why prolonged control of the government by one party is unhealthy for a representative democracy.

"If we get only the middling model of that new car"

Powerful application, that paragraph, and that's exactly where my wife and I are. (SSI helps with the restaurants part of that scenario!) But my mom was the one who bought the potted liver three times a week; now that I'm in one world I realize that I could NEVER have understood my mom's world, if hadn't been there.

Strange hybrid... just last week I finally looked up this "alt-right" label that refers to your hybrid Daddy-O. It *is* strange. Bizarro world. I don't understand a thing about this election except James' comment below about the math of the split. This comment also from June ($3 per month to gain access to these archives!):

..................

HeyBill: I like the filtered, reasoned discussion of Brexit/politics/etc. Thank you for filtering and by all means, filter me if I get irrational. You are a little older than me and remember the Viet Nam era better ( I graduated HS in '74). In your opinion is the country more divided and people more angry now than in the '60s? We don't have huge riots nor National Guard shooting students nor campus radicals bombing stuff. But I have never heard so many people I know that are so angry/frustrated as now ....... I don't want to start a thread about the '60s ...... just a thoughtful comparison. Note the Europe was way wilder in the '60s than now, look at France and the riots, etc. Another question: is the prevalence of media everywhere: instant news, everybody can communicate with everybody; a cause of our current edginess????

Asked by: FrankD

Answered: 6/30/2016

The disaffected people of the 1960s--the Kids and black people, basically--were clearly a minority of the population, a fairly small slice. We were no more than 20% of the population, since we did not have unanimous support even among young people or even among black people. The violence (rioting and extreme protests) were a reaction to the fact that we were, in the end, powerless to effect real change.

What we have now is a much deeper and more significant split in the population, in which it is unclear WHERE the majority stands.

Well. . .back to the sixties. In the sixties we had a cleavage of values and life style. One side felt you would go to hell for wearing your hair long, using drugs and having sex outside of marriage; the other was doing a lot of that stuff. I don't believe that the separation in values now is as wide as the separation of values that we had then; rather, we have very profound differences in political philosophy, often among people who base their life decisions on values that seem almost indistinguishable.

...........

It's not clear to me (Jeff) what he means by his Postscript paragraph, though? Maybe one of you guys could rephrase it for me.

I thought the cleavage in values was wider now. James must be thinking something, though I don't know what it is. Maybe he's talking about the fact that Christians have mostly surrendered like Gen. Lee on long hair, drugs and premarital sex, but what is it now? Whether the earth is doomed by climate ... or, on whether partial birth abortion is okay ... on socialism ... censorship of speech in college ... Islamic terrorism ... whether corruption in government is tolerable, if your candidate is doing it ... these issues and values are less oppositional?

Enlighten me :- )

Brexit

I was a big fan of the Brexit. The British common folk simply reclaimed Brit sovereignty. As they should have. The doom-sayers were wrong. The sun came up the next morning and the Euro didn't collapse.

But I think James whiffed on this point (and it's a subtle difference): He said "over time, all societies tend to divide into privileged and underprivileged camps." I think it is much more that there is no way a society can have it any other way. There will be privileged and underprivileged classes, you aren't escaping that. The bigger question is how much of that "underpriilege" is due to poorly made choices, either by the current generation or the previous one.

An example: My dad (now 88) came to the US in 1948 (the same day Truman whooped Dewey), 20 years old, with a 6th grade education and a only logger's skill set. He also brought a hard-working mentality (I still can't get him to stop mowing his yard), a vision of what might be and a nose for opportunity. When heat shut down one logging operation, he was on the Greyhound looking for another job. Time and again, those three qualities impacted his life is positive ways.

Now he's socked away a retirement pile large enough to raise more than a few eyeballs and enough significant success to make him decently known state-wide.

He wasn't privileged (except for his morals and ethics), but my brother and I certainly were in many ways.

I would ask Mr. James how that could or should be avoided. I would argue it is the better nature of things. But then, I'm the beneficiary of that process.

Certainly there were some loggers in 1948 who never got ahead, as my father did. Did they work hard? Probably. Did they have a total skill set like my father? That I don't know. Did he luck into his financial and professional success? Not at all. Did I luck into being his son? You bet. But from there I think I've translated his lessons into my own life and (hopefully) imparted them to my daughters, as well.

Does that make us the privileged class? It probably does. But for the most part, that privilege has been well earned.

Such is the nature of things.

And now I'm off to pick up my youngest daughter in Corvallis; she's coming home for the first time since her college career started. If I've done my job right, then my grandkids sometime down the line will have a better shot than many to be in the privileged class. That has been something I've strived for, just as my dad did.

Not all privilege comes that way. But I do believe that most does so, based on old-fashioned values/ethics and morals. But then I am a bit of a dinosaur.

Bronto-Moe-asaurus.

Great example Keith

It is a truism that in a healthy society, one generation to the next will afford OPPORTUNITY to move from poverty to upper middle class. Mine did that in one generation, as did yours.

But I think James is referring to the "privileged" here as the media elite and superwealthy, softening his words so as not to alienate the BJOL clientele. He sees (I think) the divide as between the guys with the microphones -- media, big bankers, superdelegates, college profs, Hollywood -- and the deplorables in the flyover states.

If so, the tendency for this gap to widen OVER TIME seems inexorable to me. History seems to teach it. But! you would know better than I would.

Could be wrong. Can you follow on Yr. Honorable Mayer?

Violent agreement with James

It's not that the people will be well informed...or make the right decision. But all the alternatives are the opposite of democracy.

In reference to knowing the "underpriveleged camp"--I also fully agree with Doc's suggestion to "listen to people on the scene." (Remember when Obama first ran and got so much grief from much of the GOP for being a "community organizer"? Wasn't that being "on the scene?")

But I'm not trying to be partisan on this. My feeling is that the checks and balances built into the three branches were a wonderful thing, but have degraded over time. Presidents never have to be "on the scene". Evern moreso for Senators--six guaranteed years of a distinct kind of privelege and power. But there's nothing new in this.

What has changed for the worse is the position of people in the House. These are the people who can and do mingle with their constituents (at least most of them) on a regular basis. So they should have a sense for the common man. But their main full time occupation is raising money for the next election, which is always less than two years away. Do you get fund raising letters...or emails...from your Congressman? I don't, and I'm guessing that's true for most of the 435 districts. And the reason is there's more than enough money available from special interests to fund their campaigns. Whether you think the 'bad guy' in this is a corporation or a union or a special interest group, it muffles whatever voices are heard "on the scene."

If you accept the fact that everyone acts in his own best interest, and in no branch of government is self interest aligned with the public interest, what choice do we have but to let the people decide?

Gerrymandering

Yeah - gerrymandering complicates this dynamic mightily, doesn't it? Politicians and political parties have a vested interest in creating non-competitive districts where everyone kind of thinks, looks and acts the same. We, the people, would be better served if EVERY district was competitive and diverse. How many congress critters (Republican or Democrat) have ever actually talked to people that aren't already predisposed to vote for them? How many have had to stump for votes in neighborhoods and communities that aren't full of registered voters of their party?

How many of our current congressmen and women could win an election in a truly competitive district, with roughly equal numbers of registered Democrats, Republicans and Independents? 10%? Less?

Amen to that, Griz

And I don't know why this pops into my head, but as much as I support the idea of a member of Congress going out and talking to real people...I think of Gabby Giffords.

Sparkling post Diderot

And yes, I would stipulate for the court :- ) that Pres. Obama's background had huge advantages. Seeing you and raising the pot, I'd say that in a vacuum, it was tremendous that a person of his specific background came to be President.

That's the "general resume" point. Whether a specific employee works out is another question :- ) But leaving that ...

.....

Fascinating point about the House of Representatives. I think that one has legs.

I just read an interview with the 90-year-old Jimmy Carter who said he could never participate in today's government. The specific reason: "When you spend $100,000's of dollars attacking your opponent viciously, you can't repair those relationships when the race is over."

"It takes a quarter of a billion dollars these days." In his view, the massive $$$ committed --- > force uncompromisingly vicious attacks --- > force the ossified polarization we see.

+2 and as you know, you can be as partisan left as you care to be. It's only that we're obligated to show respects to each other as friends, but pull no punches in your defense of your beliefs bro'.

The RNC's opposition of Trump

When we talk about ossification of the political system ... would be curious to know your thoughts Diderot on the RNC's hatred of Trump. The Bushes and Romney, for example, treating him as a pariah.

I mark this down to the idea that 90% of Republicans would be happy to lose the election, if they could hold on to their own personal seats of power and privilege. Your thoughts?

Well, I think you hit on the answer right in your headline

In our PC world, are we about to abolish use of the 'e-word'--elites?

It seems like that's the underpinning of everything that's going on. And it predates this election.

The Tea Partiers came to power within their own party (if you assume they are not a distinct third party) by lambasting their own leadership. First Eric Cantor...and eventually Boehner...had to go because they were tainted by elitism. If they were in power, by definition they had to be corrupted.

Donald Trump is a lot of things, but I wouldn't call him stupid. He saw how the wind was blowing and decided he would be anti-elite, too. (Oh, the irony.) That meant making sure every one of the other 16 people running against him in the primaries was part of the 'elitist' problem. Along with, of course, the media and scientists and educators, etc. His followers know thay've been lied to and short changed by who they perceive as the elitists at every turn in their lifetimes, so why would you not support the guy who's yelling what you feel?

Of course, the Bernie Bros had the same feelings. Too much college debt, not enough jobs. Hillary is definitively part of the political elite, and for them, too, there had to be a better way.

Both sides saying they want a revolution. As the Beatles noted, "we all want to change the world."

My feeling is, on balance, I LIKE elites. I want the people I pay to educate my kids or advise me on finances or fix my plumbing to be just as elite as they can be. Not to mention people charged with hunting down terrorists or boosting the economy or figuring out climate change.

So to your question on the 90% of Republicans, I think this is what's at play. The old timers no longer running for office (the Bushes, et al) can directly or by inference support Hillary because she's part of the same elite they are. The same group that's been in charge in anyone's living memory--even FDR wasn't exactly the son of an itinerant handyman. The situation is different for current GOP Congressmen. They've got to decide whether they want to risk going down with Trump. Some are happy to be on that ship. But those with 'elite' credentials have to feel like they've boarded the Titanic.

If I were a Democrat running for a House seat I'd say to voters, "why would you vote for a person whose party nominated Trump?" Tie them all together in Trump's image. But I don't know that much of that is going on.

So where does that leave us? Back to the Beatles:

if you want money for people with minds that hate

all I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait...

I think the common ground is in there somewhere. How do we get civility back?

You're having a 3-hit night in my book ;- )

And I too *like* elites. My brother was one; many of my favorite authors and people are elites. ... all I object to, is the idea that Joe Mainstreet should know his place and not argue with them.

....

The irony of Trump being a non-elite ... point very well taken. Not only the way he lives, but the people he has influenced, and the way he's influenced them.

One asterisk to it: those around him characterize him as having a lot of Brooklyn in his blood; he supposedly gets along very well with the plumbers on his worksites. Whereas I think of an "elitist" person, a Vanity Fair editor, needing to wash his hands after shaking them with a high school dropout.

That's probably my imagination in many spots, but when we got the "Deplorables and Irredeemables" speech, I saw dozens of major articles claiming that "half" didn't go far enough. My brother, an Ivy League professor, would have called it 80% or more. And he was VERY uncomfortable in the presence of the lower-middle-class.

......

Yes, and when you add up the Trump and Bernie supporters ... there are a lot, a lot, a lot, of people in this country who are tired of being told how to think.

.......

How do we get civility back? I haven't a clue. It would start with a President who spoke more like Mike Pence or Sam Nunn, than have a lot of the recent people in bully pulpits.

Or not. :: shrug ::

Will go here

I think the reason for the opposition to Trump from GOP insiders is that they never saw him as a Republican. Trump's history is of being classically Machiavellian in the political affiliation realm. The tune he whistled was the tune of whoever was standing next to him at a fund raiser. He was apolitical in the sense that he had no real political platform other than Team Trump. He was on every side of every issue and every campaign as long as it most benefitted the Trump Brand.

I am convinced (and some Trump insiders have hinted at) that Trump's entry into the GOP Primary race was not with the intention of winning, but with the intention of the great publicity that would come with it.

And he fluked into a winning position: Does anybody think ".....and Mexico will pay for it!!!" was a scripted, hashed out and developed stance? Not a chance. It was off the cuff and it got a roar. He's no dummy, so he stuck it in his playbook and called that play over and over. Later he even complicated it by adding "....and it just got 40 ft higher!" Hey, he does have some nuanced positions!! :)

In the past 6 weeks or so, he has sounded at times like a Republican but the fatal damage may have been already done. If Bernie Sanders starting advocating E-Verify, more Scalias on the Supreme Court and federal legislation to end college "safe zone" hooey, would a bunch of GOP types suddenly jump on the bandwagon?

Unlikely. And so it was with Trump. He's a populist who has a message that resonates more with Republicans than Democrats, but that doesn't make him a Republican in terms of platform. Well, he's trying to be one now, knowing he needs some of those "Blue Dog" Independents and doubtful Republicans to come his way, if he's going to win.

But some GOP Insider concern about his true political philosophy is to be understood, as is any consideration if he can be "steered" down a traditional Republican path once in office.

Republicans who do not support Trump have not bailed out on the party, they've simply identified concerns that he has brought out, himself. They've deemed those concerns as significant enough to move them in another direction. I am one of them.

Have Democrats who can not support Hillary "bailed out" on their party, or have they simply found ample good reason to deny her their vote? How is that any different?

As to the question if we're more divided now than at any point since the Civil War, I would offer that it only appears that way to such believers, because they are standing in the middle of it and the news cycle tells us all about it, 24/7. If your standing in the middle of a flood it usually seems bigger than the one ten years ago.

But let us consider the late 19th century split between the midwestern states and the east coast, the one highlighted by William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold Speech in 1896. Many westerners saw this as an existential struggle. Bryan, their redeemer, was offering salvation to a sinning nation. This was religious stuff, and held that dearly.

In 1940, with the world already aflame, the US presidential race revolved around the question of Isolationism and feelings ran red hot. 45% of the electorate voted for a political neophyte because he wasn't FDR. Willkie, according to one biographer, “presented himself not just as a successful businessman but as a man who had no taste for power but was willing to accept the people’s call to serve.”

Who does that sound like? Willkie, btw, was a great patriot, who after being defeated offered FDR all the help he needed in moving the nation toward the war footing that both knew was necessary.

But in 1940 you had German-American Bunds saluting the American flag AND the swastika. Charles Lindberg, unbelievably admired by a generation of Americans, openly sympathized with German views and admired German accomplishment.

How about 1953? Is America more divided today than it was when Joe McCarthy stomped through Washington D.C?

And '68? RFK, MLK Jr., multi-day riots in Chicago, Baltimore, D'C, Louisville and Cleveland. Armed Black Panther patrols in cities across the nation? Even Walter Cronkite, the rock of the nation, seemed to participate in the national discord when he questioned the results of the Tet Offensive, a military disaster for North Vietnam (but a political grand slam). In '69 you had the Stonewall Riots, the Manson murders, then the Kent State killings in '70. America was (seemingly?) coming apart at the seams. "This is the end" sang Jim Morrison.

Every generation or so, we become convinced that the nation teeters on the edge of the chasm of self destruction. Like clockwork.

And then a nation incredibly divided holds a peaceful, lawful presidential election, a sort of unique national celebration, and (for a bit) we move forwrd as one again.

So it will soon be.

My wish, as alwasy, is that the American voter insist that the big problems facing us (debt, deficit spending, entitlement reform) be actually solved---or even dealt with---rather than being kicked down the road. The fact that it isn't falls more on the voter than the senator/representative/president. We continue to vote for sound bites (and Mexico will pay for it, free college, deplorables) and not solutions. Nostrums make us feel better for a bit. They don't fix the problem.

Sigh....I've rambled. Sorry...

Moe

You're not even capable of rambling Keith

Personally, I still look forward to your wisdom as much as I ever did :- )

Particularly had to stop short on this:

If Bernie Sanders starting advocating E-Verify, more Scalias on the Supreme Court and federal legislation to end college "safe zone" hooey, would a bunch of GOP types suddenly jump on the bandwagon?

No, none of them would. And I'm glad to be reminded that many "Never Trump" type voters are doing so based on sincere principle.

.....

Are we more divided than we were? Point taken also on the flood we're standing in.

But would be interested in your thoughts about these: (1) Carter's remark that the money and demonizations have changed politics beyond where HE recognized it, and

(2) in the 1980's I felt like I could state my opinion and merely make people angry. These days I feel like I need a plexiglas police shield to say anything the Left deems "hateful," which is to say, any criticism of them they are not comfortable with. (SSI is a major exception, of course, which I'm very thankful for.) To ME the tone of the debate feels vastly different.

My imagination? or ?

My recollection

The 60's were much worse than today.

The foundations of society seemed to be threatened. Young people rising. Black people rising. Women rising. Violence and disrespect. Free love, free sex and free speech in a way the founding fathers never imagined--or maybe EXACTLY as they imagined?

Today, yes, the elites are under fire, as is the status quo they represent.

But back then, it seemed like instead of the system being challenged (as now) it ws ready to be replaced.

The tone

I will give you that, I think; it feels different. But 30 years of passing time may dull our memories, too. I think it is some of both. The "feel difference" today may be the presence of a 24/7 news media that has changed the rhythm of election coverage. Back in the ancient 80's we still were waiting for the evening news and the morning paper to see/hear/read the debate. It is more difficult to escape the deluge, even for a bit. And I think that makes us all a bit hypersensitive.

And I will add this, and I'm not trying to whine, but to some degree the liberal strategy isn't even to debate the merits of a particular political argument. Their's is (often) a great willingness to leap to "racist/sexist bigot." It isn't the fallback strategy anymore......they lead with it. Arguments for/against "Stop and Frisk" shouldn't be debated on the data because the other side is nothing but a clutch of racist/bigoted/segregationist/neo-Wallaces. Ergo, no debate necessary. Cut right to the "You're stupid" and you win the day.

But I think that smash-mouth tone isn't limited to politics. When did you last see an original movie with nuance? TV? Can't stand it. To tell you the truth, sport has moved in that direction, too.

I wonder if the whole "safe zone"/"trigger warning" thing on college campuses is partly due to that. A cleverly nuanced argument was at one time a thing to be admired, even in college. I wonder if we've lost the ability to recognize the nuanced thing so we just cut to evil/good. And we should all be protected from evil things (thoughts), shouldn't we?

In a sense, the new Puritans are on the other side of the room, not on the right but way on the left. John Proctor is now a college officer who calls for a little sanity about Halloween costumes. He must be driven from our community. Reverend Parris is the Director of Diversity.

I'm not sure I see the same strategy from even the alt-right. I think they are dying to debate. In their mind I think they want to stuff the grapefruit, via debate, in the face of those "smarmy" Sander-ites. "I'll show you!" If they've read their history, pretty soon "pinko" is going to be used. "C'mon you pinko, let's rumble in debate." I suppose the name-calling destroys the spirit of the debate, doesn't it.

Well, some of the Trump rallies seemed to indicate a need to rumble in any fashion.

Nuance. I think I'll go watch Kurosawa. I need some. Or Hitchcock.

That's my new MacGuffin in politics. A nuanced argument.

I miss 'em.

(But to tell you the truth, I suspect that behind the scenes, Washington DC politics is filled with them. I think it happens all the time up there, in the halls of Congress....we just don't see it. And when a nuanced argument comes out in public.......that guy/gal become a leper in the eyes of the voters looking for the perfect political virgin, swathed in white and the flag. Few escape it. Paul Ryan has, so far...because I think he's so respected on the hill. But sooner or later, he'll be piled onto....by both sides)

Sigh. x2

"Stop here, read no further"

Katie Couric challenged Ann Coulter, "What lie has anybody ever told about you?"

Coulter's response: "It's all ONE BIG lie. That conservatives are stupid or crazy or both, so no need to debate. Stop here. Read no further."

......

*I'll grant you, a lot of people DID listen carefully to Donald Trump in the debate for 90 minutes, and independently formed their own impression that he's stupid or crazy or both. LOL :- ) But most people who think Coulter is stupid or crazy, have never read a single column; the same is true with respect to Limbaugh and others. People hate them passionately, without reading them. I highly recommend reading them.

And it happens on both sides. The right wing does indeed make false assumptions about what reasonable people on the left believe, and works itself into a left-hatin' frenzy. Based on fantasies about what the left is.

.....

I'd like to think that there is only a very small minority that does this, but they seem to be the people with the microphones. That to me is the biggest difference between 1986 and 2016 -- that the media "leads with" the scorn and dismissiveness, as you put it.

Diderot asked, How do we restore civility. My OWN thing would be to rephrase that: how do we get the media to treat these arguments seriously?

But I recognize that's considered "whining," as you put it, and is considered a right-wing interpretation of the problem.

.....

Nuanced arguments as Maguffins? Agreed. But we seem to have found a couple. :- )

Civility

Decades ago, I heard a guy on a talk show say to someone else, "I don't dislike you. I just disagree with you."

Haven't we just mixed the two together these days?

Outside of SSI

The next time I hear somebody say that, will be the first time I remember hearing it, lately. Didn't Bilbo say something like that at his birthday party? :- )

Personally, I like you Diderot, and like disagreeing with you. How's that fer square.

Populism vs Elitism

Perhaps we should look at system of government driven by elites versus populists and see on balance which has done better for an individual nation? Of course, we'd need to define "better".

Some considerations: number people lifted out of poverty, life span, quality of life (health, food, water,etc), risk of death by war, power to bend world/national/local action to your will, etc. Or is individual individual freedoms? Or is it longevity of nation? Longevtiy of a culture? Is it "whose system is still around".

Once you decide what metrics, then evaluate and decide which system is best. As it currently is, who really knows which is best? It might be that a nation led by a few elites actually is better? It might be that a nation ruled by common man is better?

All of the great historical cultures were built by elites, empries all across the world that lasted for centuries longer than any we have today. Even today, we have competing systems in the USA and China - China's lifted 700 million people from abject poverty exclusively through the "elites" tight control of the nation. Austensibly, the USA is led by the common man choosing (voting) and we've done well for ourselves here. Do I want the common man voting on important decisions for our nation? Actually, probably not - majority rules can be a terrible life for anyone not in that power majority (ethnic minorities, women, anyone from the next generation). But do I want to be told what to think by an almight ruling class, no.

It'd be interesting to see a dispassionate study. I imagine we might find a nation that has a mechanism to slide back and forth between the two might work best. Sometimes we need a nation run by elites, who then need to be checked by the common man, who then need to be checked by the elites - and the cycle continues.

In regards to today's seemingly extra angry culture - I'm of the opinion that our national entitlement has ballooned to unstable proportions. And yes, so'called "baby boomers" are right in there. Unhealthy entitlement is running rampant on the left and the right, elites and common people. I wish we could send everyone in America to live in Syria for a month, or a bush hut in rural Nigeria, or a slum in drug controlled El Salvador, etc. A month there would give us all of little more "civility" wich eachother and sense of gratititude when we got back.

The home of the free

Superb post amigo.

How about freedom? Would we stipulate it as self-evident that Americans ca. 1776-2000 had more choice about their lives than did citizens in Saudia Arabia?

Perhaps we should pick a baseline country with which to compare ... say, India.

.....

Seems simple to me to ask, "Do Mexicans wish to move to the U.S., or vice-versa?" I don't mean it disrespectfully. The Middle Eastern refugees are not seeing their systems work out well, correct?

.....

I have friends in the Philippines which we support, and their greatest fantasy would be to move to the U.S. Of course, there's little chance it would ever occur

.....

Here's an interesting article in which a person from India walks into the U.S. and thinks he's walked in to Disneyland. LINK

Let's assume that the largest amount of people WANT to move to the United States (probably similar numbers to the EU if looked at as a whole) - so the USA is the most desired system for individuals to live in.

1st: If we go just by raw numbers, more people stay put in whatever system they live in than move to a new system. For many reasons of course.

2nd: Assuming the largest amount WANT to live in the USA, great. Now which system is the USA operated under? Populism or Elitism? If you were to listen to the cultral conversation (and the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump), the USA is runs by a closed circle of powerful/rich elites. So are we Americans living in an elitist regime with a system rigged against the common man?

Now, let's look at a few "populist" regimes:

1. French Revolution - super violent, perhaps worked out well for the commoners for awhile. (Until the Napolean put himself in charge.) Long term seems OK. Generally have a lot of choice about their lives, roughly the same as Americans?
2. Berlesconi in Italy - He shouted out populism to stay in power. Is Italy better of or worse off? Or just about the same as before? Relatively the same amount of choice as the French/American?
3. How about much of central/south America? Hugo Chavez preached a populist message - People loved him while they got cheap food and gas. Then is stopped and the country is in turmoil. Can't speak to person choice over there. Guessing economics limits personal choice.
4. Philipines - since you mentioned them, they elected a populist messanger in Duerte. Rough first few months for many over there. Remains to be seen if the experiment will work. Don't know enough about personal choice there, but certainly don't dare speak bad about Duerte.
5. UK post-Brexit - TBD. Lots of personal choice, similar to USA.

Moving on to some "elitist" regimes:

1. China - people moving up the economic ladder and quality of life ladder more rapidly than in any time in history. Limits on personal freedom though, American's have more personal choice.
2. Russia - entirely run by elites. Personal choice swings both ways - can get away with a lot of stuff you coudn't do in the States, but the reverse is true to.
3. American (according to Trump/Sanders) - elites make deals to the benefit of themselves. We have great lives (on balance) and lots of personal choice.
4. UK pre-Brexit (according to Leave campaigners) - elites running the UK to the benefit of themselves and large corporations, over multiple centuries, proved to be highly successful as a nation. Lot's of personal choice (including moving to/about any EU country).
5. Middle Eastern regimes - chaos, corruption, mess. Severe limits on personal choice and economic health.

On India as a baseline, I really have no idea about the populism/elitism status of the India.

Given the above, if your nation is run by populist or elitist, does it make a difference for personal choice and/or economic health? So what is it really that makes the USA such a great place to live? We should all give thanks for the Bill of Rights et al - the belief in it might be the thing that helps Americans survive swings of populism/elitism

Side note: enjoyed the link. Not a huge fan of D'Souza, but I thought this passage was salient:

Work and trade are respectable in America. Historically most cultures have despised the merchant and the laborer, regarding the former as vile and corrupt and the latter as degraded and vulgar. Some cultures, such as that of ancient Greece and medieval Islam, even held that it is better to acquire things through plunder than through trade or contract labor. But the American founders altered this moral hierarchy. They established a society in which the life of the businessman, and of the people who worked for him, would be a noble calling. In the American view, there is nothing vile or degraded about serving your customers either as a CEO or as a waiter. The ordinary life of production and supporting a family is more highly valued in the United States than in any other country. America is the only country in the world where we call the waiter “sir,” as if he were a knight.