Can Our Democracy Survive This?

[_The CCC]

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

Your friend Putin just called.

[_EAllusion]

Expecting the public to magically transform into solid critical thinkers isn't going to save anything. That's not a realistic solution to any kind of problem. Alternatively, may I suggest a push to increase civics education in public schooling? Inculcating democratic values seems more realistic than trying to get people to be better critical thinkers.

Since the most tribalistic, politically backwards subset of our population is also the oldest, the best ray of hope I can offer is that maybe they'll die off before they do too much more damage. I wouldn't hold my breath on that either, though.

[_The CCC]

Expecting the public to magically transform into solid critical thinkers isn't going to save anything. That's not a realistic solution to any kind of problem. Alternatively, may I suggest a push to increase civics education in public schooling? Inculcating democratic values seems more realistic than trying to get people to be better critical thinkers.

Since the most tribalistic, politically backwards subset of our population is also the oldest, the best ray of hope I can offer is that maybe they'll die off before they do too much more damage. I wouldn't hold my breath on that either, though.

I've pushing that idea for many years, and in those many years I've become an old fart.

[_Bach]

Most of what is happening in North Carolina is legal, though, so I'm not sure how the courts would block it unless process was violating in passing the changes. The problem is that this sort of extreme partisanship breaks down democratic representation and our constitutional system(s) isn't cleverly written enough to prevent it. It's as though a modern variant of the Jim Crow south has become a nationalized party.

The one thing that strikes me as an equal protection issue in North Carolina, which not coincidentally is also the most dastardly action, is creating election boards have equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, but allowing Republicans to control the board in even years and Democrats in odd years. That, of course, means they've made the law such that Republicans always control election boards in the years of any significant election. If that's not a Constitutional issue, then that's a major blindspot.

Perhaps the backlash of Harry Reid when he forced the nuclear option down the pallets of Republicans. Perhaps the backlash of Obama's "pen and phone" bipartisan leadership. Only now do we hear liberals complain when they get what they initiated.

And EA, going back to my inquire of yesterday, can I assume being correct that the source of your employ and paycheck is a taxpayer spending?

[_EAllusion]

The nuclear option is an example of hyper-partisanship taking over, but it was a necessary reaction to Republicans filibustering everything rather than using it judiciously. The filibuster system just wasn't designed to handle a party willing and able to engage in principled obstruction of everything. You got the direction wrong, but the issue right. Obstructionism had been ramping up since the 1980's, but something broke in the last decade. I'm inclined to view congressional Republicans as a symptom of the problem rather than its underlying cause, but they're the thin edge of the wedge.

Obama reacting to partisan obstructionism by increasing unilateral executive action is the sort of stuff that is troubling. This is one way how you eventually get a leader who goes full authoritarian on you with a complicit public.

The delegitimizing of Democrats/liberals, radicalization of the American right, and increasing comfort with doing anything for power's sake seems to be driven by cultural changes in the Republican base that in turn are heavily influenced by propagandistic right-wing media. Not sure how you solve that while also protecting free speech. Infotainment's business model is too robust. Turns out you can undermine American democracy by having leggy blondes read crude agitprop. Pretty terrible way to lose the cold war, if you ask me.

[_EAllusion]

I think it's worth pointing out that the idea that criticism of Trump for his authoritarian threat to liberal democracy is a liberal or Democratic position is both wrong and annoyingly ignorant. This position is widely, and rather stridently held, by most libertarian intellectuals. You can find it on Twitter right now if you'd like from a large range of libertarian reporters such as Julian Sanchez, Nick Gillipse, Peter Suderman, Walter Olson, Radley Balko, etc.

Likewise, neo-con intellectuals are also quite alarmed at the moment. Check out David Frum's Twitter right now. His face is currently melting like the Nazi at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you haven't caught up on what Evan McMullin has been saying post-election, check it out sometime. It's pure fire. It's representative of neo-con opinion. Accurate too, unfortunately.

There is a broad spectrum of people who are worried about this and what they most have in common is not party affiliation or ideological bent. The real question is who are the political actors who don't think this. The answer is not comforting, as it is mostly hardcore partisans and reactionaries.

[_honorentheos]

Expecting the public to magically transform into solid critical thinkers isn't going to save anything. That's not a realistic solution to any kind of problem. Alternatively, may I suggest a push to increase civics education in public schooling? Inculcating democratic values seems more realistic than trying to get people to be better critical thinkers.

Since the most tribalistic, politically backwards subset of our population is also the oldest, the best ray of hope I can offer is that maybe they'll die off before they do too much more damage. I wouldn't hold my breath on that either, though.

I certainly won't disagree with the need for getting both civics and critical thinking back into the formal education system. But I do think we need to be aware that the forces that are straining democracy pull in multiple directions and not just from one side. Trump's behavior deserves intense scrutiny and his cabinet choices real critique. But there is a line one crosses when one engages in non-critical assessment of the reporting that seems to support one's biases that is away from democratic values and the type of responsible citizenship we espouse in contrast to the values we oppose. We shouldn't confuse lateral position away from that of the worst elements of Trump's supporters and his own potential downside with vertical positioning towards something better.

We need to be focused, clear where our opposition is located, to what we are opposed. More importantly, we need to be clear in our own minds what it is we are FOR, and why it matters. The world may be post-factual, but the facts have a way of reasserting themselves. I think our loyalty has to be there, and in that loyalty a real discipline towards our own commitments against bias, against emotional outrage, against demonizing of the other where there is real, thoughtful disagreement only.

I'd go so far as to argue that to be overwhelmed with fear should lead to some introspection. The law-and-order candidate came to power in part by inculcating and taking advantage of fear. As Edward R. Murrow, in speaking against another tyrannical threat to our democracy reminded us, "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular." It was a different kind of fear he opposed, that of silence in face of injustice. But the fear motive not just silence is where we ought to look to root out the stumbling block to democracy. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves."

I'd encourage anyone to go back and reread or listen to Murrow's See It Now report that is quoted above as the times feel like they have some similarity -
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/murrowmccarthy.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtCGlqA2rrk

[_Some Schmo]

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.

This seems to be the thing post-election that I am most obsessed with; how do I accept and forgive Drumpf voters?

I seem to be a long way off figuring that out. It's like trying to forgive the murderer of a loved one. Actually, it's exactly that, because the best of our country was just laid to rest. And of course, it doesn't help that you have Drumpf supporters who are obnoxiously telling us we should just get over it when we haven't even seen yet the damage Drumpf is about to do, but have a pretty good idea given his cabinet picks and business reputation.

[_The CCC]

People can voluntarily change, but older people have a much harder time of it. Drumpf's strategy worked so there is little to no incentive for him to change now.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’m not talking about surviving a Trump presidency, which, of course, has threats specific to that in particular. I’m talking about surviving the disease of which Trump is lately the most visible and frightening symptom.

To me, simplistically, the disease boils down to two main elements:

1. Radical tribalization as a reaction to globalization
2. Erosion of trust

/snip/

Ms. Beastie,

I didn't respond initially because I've thought about this for a bit, and I think, for me, I've got this figured out.

I read a book once called Global Paradox by John Naisbitt. It was written in 1998 and was very prescient for its time. I believe this review sums it up well (it's just a page, but worth it):

http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/naisbitt.html

Bottom line is the more connected we become globally the more we'll break up into smaller and smaller echo chambers and isolate ourselves. Hence the inherent paradox of our Internet, commerce, governments, etc... It's a natural reaction to seek refuge with others who share your views on things because everything else is overwhelming.

So. To your post and what's going on I think our interconnectivity is lending itself to tribalism and groupthink. People need to 1) feel like others are among the like-minded to relieve themselves from the reality that the world primarily is dysfunctional and doesn't share their values, and 2) digest information quickly that reaffirms that belief. One could say it's an idiocracy, but I think it's more than that.

Responsible citizens will often communicate with thoughts that are of moderate length and are relatively insightful. What most people require, to stay in line with my points above, are glib and banal snippets. Thoughts need to be consumed at two sentences or less. I'm not joking, especially when your audience starts to get large (politics).

This is why I generally choose to be laconic simply because the faster people can read something, the more likely they'll consume it because it's easily digestible. Thoughts and ideas don't have to be considered to any degree, only recognized. This is the age we live in because there is an ocean of information being thrown at us every hour of every day. Discussion is less important than recognition of a default position.

This is political ideology and news circa 2010 and now moving forward.

By the time anything political hits the news services, social media, cable, or whatever the only thing recognizable will be generic, banal thoughts that make the original issue grist for recycling already-well-aired views. When people like you, for example (and who is someone I've always thought to be grounded, thoughtful, and clear) who have actual insight to add to a news article, a Reddit thread, this forum, a Facebook page, who takes the time to write a post longer than a few dozen words, you generally have to respond to a comment that's generating interest (usually a top comment).

However, here is the problem with top comments: Even if you have something smart, informed or insightful to say most of the comment real estate has been claimed by circlejerking, glib generalizations, and snarking. All discussion in this day and age starts a fractal tree of discussion, and only the top trees get attention. So, people like ldsfaqs, who isn't well-versed in politics or critical thinking, but are but are good at reactionary circlejerking carves out his real estate that doesn't discuss the content of the article, but rather succeeds at posting content that is only position-recognizable rather than grounded in fact, truth, or any combination thereof.

So. While your points are valid, I think you're missing the bigger picture. The bigger picture isn't positional, but rather finding a way to make democracy work in a day and age where communication is instantaneous and people consume media through their paradoxical tribalization. How does a big political organization win and move forward? How does a political party communicate through recognition patterns now, rather than discourse? Trump figured it out, inadvertently, but the Democrats, because they have better ideas, just need to harness the power of a fracturing populace and communicate quickly, constantly, with imagery that conveys recognition rather than through dialogue.

- Doc