Can Our Democracy Survive This?

[_beastie]

So I'm sure you've seen the recent polling indicating that Republican polling of favorability towards Putin has drastically increased, right Beastie? I'm sure the first thing that strikes anyone about seeing that is that merely having the head of the party appear pro-Putin is sufficient to cause a radical change in opinion among the average Republican which in turn means that can be made to support nearly anything if the leader does.

But once you get passed that observation (which is also true in a less extreme form on the Democratic side), there's a more troubling one lurking underneath the surface. Read Republican approval ratings of any Democratic figure. It's rare to see it go above 10%. In other words, Republicans have a much, much more favorable view of Vladimir Putin than they do Democrats. That's, um, not good.

Yes, I have been troubled by those polls. It's so insane I'm left speechless.

[_subgenius]

Every week the world is ending because of some new reason that is because of Trump.
Are there any adults posting on this board ?

More to the point. Are there any responsible journalists reporting the news?

"Dog bites man" doesn't sell.
And
"Don't believe the hype" still applies.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of other types of stories to read and from plenty of other sources.

The real problem is that it appears to be the inclination of many people to draw their own conclusions about other tribes, and for that matter, that these tribes even exist.
The reality, and genius, of our American system is that in spite of the cult of presidency that formed around Obama, we will all continue with our lives, and the former cult members will adjust accordingly.

[_beastie]

The thing is Trump is still quite unpopular. Incoming presidents usually have a halo effect around them that leaves them starting out relatively popular. Trump's halo effect has put him in the range of a fairly unpopular president rather than the most disliked candidate ever he was during the campaign.

Trump isn't doing this on the back of a ton of support. The thing you have to adjust to is the fact that this doesn't matter. Public support is nice, but it isn't required. Institutional power matters more, and Republicans have strategistized and lucked into dominating that. It doesn't matter all that much if Trump is unpopular which means that Trump can do unpopular things and not worry about consequences. This is especially true if Republicans go ahead with the federal voter suppression policies that basically everyone paying attention is anticipating.

Democrats were asleep at the wheel, no doubt. The republican party has been working at this for a long time. They deliberately REDMAPPED the country, while democrats just figured the changing population demographics would support them.

So what can we expect? A democracy in name only, while our country actually becomes an oligarchy? Of course some argue that we already are just that.

[_EAllusion]

Can I assume (at least from my background I gather from you) that it is 100 percent funded from the govt? If not, who funds your paycheck?

If it is a private venture - what is its name, venture or equity sponsors (and if you can't say - I accept).

But you seem to have this doom and gloom for a Trump admin. If your employer/organization is not dependent upon taxpayer dollars, provides quality services - why you animosity towards Trump?

I'm obviously not going to discuss where I work in detail. Generally speaking, funding comes from a mixture of private and public sources, but government-provided health care to the profoundly disabled makes up the largest revenue source. It's actually quite hard to predict where that is going to go. If you believe in any kind of social safety net at all, then funding for what I do should exist becuase I work with the people who are at the very top of the needs list. Cuts to Medicaid doesn't necessarily mean cuts to the kind of work I do. Maybe, but not necessarily.

My views on Trump have nothing to do with the prospects for my company. Nothing at all. I don't vote or hold political views based on my personal economic self-interest, and the concerns I (and others) have for Trump were not present for any other Republican candidate in my lifetime.

[_honorentheos]

The question asked in the OP takes me to a follow-on question: How do we go about defending democracy?

That is something I've grappled with since the election a lot. On the one hand, I'm not shy about admitting I have serious concerns about things Trump said during the election becoming realized. The potential they could even be said was sufficient then for me to completely reject considering voting for him. And also in making it clear his election represented a threat to our values as he didn't seem to share them or even pretend they mattered.

But here we are and Trump is the winner of the election. And the media is showing up throwing up crap storms about anything and everything. But are they doing anything different now or is it just a different version of, "John Podesta eats babies while fornicating with demons!!!!"? Are we predisposed to the anti-Trump headlines no matter how sensational for reasons that fake anti-Hillary news was so effective during the election in creating disinterest in voting for her or creating an illusion that she and Trump were equivalent in any manner?

Journalism is screwed in many ways but it's not a perfect instrument and never has been. It's not helping democracy to argue we aren't responsible to prepare ourselves to engage it, and the tools that it used to ass-fuck dumb wannabe conservatives are being used today. We have to guard against our own biases just as we need to point out the blind spots in others.

So, I don't think democracy is being well defended by our going into the media vortex when it seems like they are saying things we also believe are true.

The antidote to this is, in my opinion, critical thinking and seeking out people who we expect will bring a balanced view and engage facts rather than just feed one another's biases. I think there are posters here who are valuable for this very reason.

How else do we defend democracy? If polarized, polemic politics are weapons used against it, then perhaps what we need most is to combat the urge to demonize and contribute to the polemic environment. Along those lines, I can't recommend enough the talk between Haidt and Bill Moyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4

Perhaps there will come a time when democracy can't be defending using the ideals of democracy, and I hope that never comes. I don't think we're there. Democracy is defended by our commitment to democracy. It's defended by our investing in understanding what it really is, what it really means, what it really requires of us to have a civilized society where it is possible.

My 2 cents, anyway.

[_MeDotOrg]

The old adage my enemy's enemy is my friend seems to be taking hold in the Republican Party:

There's been similar movement on the Putin question. In the summer of 2014, both Democrats and Republicans held negative views of the Russian president. His net negative rating with Democrats was 54 points; with Republicans, it was 66 points. At the time, the mainstream Republican foreign policy opinion was that a wily, aggressive Putin was rolling over U.S. interests in Europe. There was some punditry about Putin as a greater leader than President Obama, but it did not shift views of Putin himself.

Trump's campaign did so. There's been a 56-point positive shift among Republicans in their views of Putin; his net negative rating is now just 10 points. While Clinton voters view Putin negatively by 72 points, Trump voters do so by a slim 16-point margin.

[_honorentheos]

Watched this TED talk this morning after posting the above and can't recommend it enough:
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... erica_heal

Outcome: Empathy is critical, takes effort, but is worth it.

[_Mayan Elephant]

The old adage my enemy's enemy is my friend seems to be taking hold in the Republican Party:

There's been similar movement on the Putin question. In the summer of 2014, both Democrats and Republicans held negative views of the Russian president. His net negative rating with Democrats was 54 points; with Republicans, it was 66 points. At the time, the mainstream Republican foreign policy opinion was that a wily, aggressive Putin was rolling over U.S. interests in Europe. There was some punditry about Putin as a greater leader than President Obama, but it did not shift views of Putin himself.

Trump's campaign did so. There's been a 56-point positive shift among Republicans in their views of Putin; his net negative rating is now just 10 points. While Clinton voters view Putin negatively by 72 points, Trump voters do so by a slim 16-point margin.

Sweet. Another poll that says "people like me are smart/right and people not like me are dumb/wrong."

This polling on subjective stuff is a great hobby for someone. But I also think it is the CORE of fake news or crap people say that's not actually news. I have a hard time taking the Washington Post seriously when they post a poll result that is the intellectual equivalent of "13 Celebrities you Never Knew Had a Scrotum Removed from Their Goiter."

[_honorentheos]

The old adage my enemy's enemy is my friend seems to be taking hold in the Republican Party:

There's been similar movement on the Putin question. In the summer of 2014, both Democrats and Republicans held negative views of the Russian president. His net negative rating with Democrats was 54 points; with Republicans, it was 66 points. At the time, the mainstream Republican foreign policy opinion was that a wily, aggressive Putin was rolling over U.S. interests in Europe. There was some punditry about Putin as a greater leader than President Obama, but it did not shift views of Putin himself.

Trump's campaign did so. There's been a 56-point positive shift among Republicans in their views of Putin; his net negative rating is now just 10 points. While Clinton voters view Putin negatively by 72 points, Trump voters do so by a slim 16-point margin.

Our tribalism is inherently biological and we expand our circles to defend against threats from the other. It's not positive that some in the US may be more willing to include Putin in order to exclude political opponents in the US.

But to engage using the same paradigm is a recipe for failure. Regardless of what others think or the media tells us, we Americans have more in common, more to gain, and far more at stake collectively that demands we embrace one another. If that needs to be demonstrated by one side before it can be by the other, so be it. Let us begin with us.

[_Mayan Elephant]

The reality, and genius, of our American system is that in spite of the cult of presidency that formed around Obama, we will all continue with our lives, and the former cult members will adjust accordingly.

Cult of the Presidency is a great term. There are also cults of the political parties..

I think the cult of Clinton was so goddamn insulting that even Obama supporters had to take a step back.