A Matter of Trust

[_honorentheos]

Read this interesting article on Reason.com regarding the political tension we certainly all swim in, with a notable twist to the discussion:

https://reason.com/archives/2018/11/23/ ... or-america

After highlighting an incident around a libertarian Fox contributer it lays out this scene:

Let's be clear: I am not asking you to feel sorry for Kat Timpf.


Yes, the 30-year-old television commentator and National Review writer was chased out of a Brooklyn bar a few weeks ago by a shouty woman enraged that Timpf works for Fox News Channel. Must have been unpleasant, especially considering it wasn't her first time being physically confronted by angry strangers.

But you know what else is unpleasant? Being separated from your toddler at the U.S.-Mexico border. Watching your entire community burn to the ground. Living a life less luxe than a New York gal about town whose birthday parties make Page Six.

Oh yeah, preach it. Oh...

So let's not talk about Kat, let's talk about you. You who pivoted before I did to the whataboutism in the paragraph above. You who were already irritated at reading yet again about a non-Democrat being inconvenienced in public. You who are saying to yourself, "Fox News is toxic. It's poisoning my dad's brain. All collaborators are fair game to be shunned."

Here's the question for you: Do you think this ends well? Because it doesn't.

As it happens, Timpf is one of very few Trump-skeptical libertarians working at 1211 Avenue of the Americas. When we were both on the libertarian-leaning "Kennedy" program on Fox Business recently, she said stuff like, "Oh, I'm personally not scared of the [immigrant] caravan. I think that Trump's done an excellent job of making people scared." Hound her from the building, and that's one less non-#MAGA commentator on dad's TV.

Not that Timpf's views actually matter to her antagonists.

OK. Things aren't so black and white. Not exactly front page news so why waste time bringing it up? Because what followed is very interesting to me as a comment on the rot of eroding trust in society that is not limited to one side or the other.

We are careening dangerously from a high-trust to a low-trust society. We trust one another less; we trust government and other mediating institutions less. This trend, which like many of our pathologies predates and arguably helped give rise to the Trump presidency, has ominous consequences.

High-trust societies have lower transaction costs, lower crime rates and less corruption. People are nicer and better behaved when they're reasonably confident that the local grocer won't steal their credit card information and the IRS won't audit them based on their politics.

Low-trust countries are clannish, unable to develop the civil institutions of a free society, and those in power tend to use government authority like a club to punish political enemies. The resulting disorder builds demand for strongmen, for more centralized state power. None of this is good.

When President Trump accuses Democrats, without evidence, of "electoral corruption" in the Arizona Senate race (even as the local Republican candidate handles her loss with dignity), he is behaving like a caudillo from a low-trust country. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) says Republicans "can't win elections fairly; they win elections by redistricting and reapportionment and voter suppression," he too is contributing to the very dysfunction he claims to resist .

It's damnably difficult to break out of this cycle, at least politically: As trust declines between the two main parties, untrustworthy behavior spikes. There are villains among us in politics, though thankfully some — such as the odious voter-fraud fabulist Kris Kobach in Kansas — get fired by voters.

But we can start closer to home with the recognition that our friends and family aren't evil just because some of them have different ideologies or political affiliations. In a country of pluralities and coalitions and minority rights instead of heavy-handed majoritarian rule, we are cursed — and also blessed — to live with one another. We might as well learn how to peaceably share a drink.

[_canpakes]

When President Trump accuses Democrats, without evidence, of "electoral corruption" in the Arizona Senate race (even as the local Republican candidate handles her loss with dignity), he is behaving like a caudillo from a low-trust country. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) says Republicans "can't win elections fairly; they win elections by redistricting and reapportionment and voter suppression," he too is contributing to the very dysfunction he claims to resist.

I perceive a small difference between these two statements.

While I understand the general point that the article is making, where does one start to draw a line - in today's post-fact environment - between rhetoric that is designed to merely foster 'low trust', and factual observations that a particular ideological or political 'side' either does not like, or does not want examined?

Isn't the purposeful push of 'low trust'-inspiring rhetoric designed to eliminate the impact of fact-based observation and discussion?

Just how do we climb out of this situation, besides learning how to peaceably share a drink with folks - perhaps even family members - who insist on believing sometimes foolish or demonstrably untrue things and then voting based on those beliefs? This just sounds like surrendering to the folks who have purposefully pushed us to this point as a method that serves only their own interests.

[_subgenius]

When President Trump accuses Democrats, without evidence, of "electoral corruption" in the Arizona Senate race (even as the local Republican candidate handles her loss with dignity), he is behaving like a caudillo from a low-trust country. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) says Republicans "can't win elections fairly; they win elections by redistricting and reapportionment and voter suppression," he too is contributing to the very dysfunction he claims to resist.

I perceive a small difference between these two statements.

While I understand the general point that the article is making, where does one start to draw a line - in today's post-fact environment - between rhetoric that is designed to merely foster 'low trust', and factual observations that a particular ideological or political 'side' either does not like, or does not want examined?

Isn't the purposeful push of 'low trust'-inspiring rhetoric designed to eliminate the impact of fact-based observation and discussion?

Just how do we climb out of this situation, besides learning how to peaceably share a drink with folks - perhaps even family members - who insist on believing sometimes foolish or demonstrably untrue things and then voting based on those beliefs? This just sounds like surrendering to the folks who have purposefully pushed us to this point as a method that serves only their own interests.

You type the word "rhetoric" and appear to recognize that the context is politics but then suddenly feign ignorance for both.

spolier alert: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

see also election of 1828 and so on throughout history where "adulting" wasn't such a challenge.

[_EAllusion]

When President Trump accuses Democrats, without evidence, of "electoral corruption" in the Arizona Senate race (even as the local Republican candidate handles her loss with dignity), he is behaving like a caudillo from a low-trust country. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) says Republicans "can't win elections fairly; they win elections by redistricting and reapportionment and voter suppression," he too is contributing to the very dysfunction he claims to resist.

I perceive a small difference between these two statements.

While I understand the general point that the article is making, where does one start to draw a line - in today's post-fact environment - between rhetoric that is designed to merely foster 'low trust', and factual observations that a particular ideological or political 'side' either does not like, or does not want examined?

Isn't the purposeful push of 'low trust'-inspiring rhetoric designed to eliminate the impact of fact-based observation and discussion?

Just how do we climb out of this situation, besides learning how to peaceably share a drink with folks - perhaps even family members - who insist on believing sometimes foolish or demonstrably untrue things and then voting based on those beliefs? This just sounds like surrendering to the folks who have purposefully pushed us to this point as a method that serves only their own interests.

I was with the article until the false equivalence between wild conspiracy theories with no basis in fact that are used to justify voter suppression is equated with the reality of voter suppression as a tool to help Republicans maintain power on a national scale. At first, the temptation is to see this as a minor flaw in an otherwise fine argument about maintaining civic norms. But it really goes to the heart of the argument Welch wants to make. One of the principle factors fostering low trust isn't some vague he-said, she-said rhetorical battle between equally opposed fairy-tales about political legitimacy. It's liars putting up a wall of disinformation to put their lies on the same footing as other people's truth so people don't know what to trust and either just believe what they prefer to or tune out.

[_honorentheos]

The article points out that as individuals we have mechanisms for change through voting and political involvement, and the ability to fight the time contributing to the decay of trust by resisting the urge to view the opposing side with contempt as "other". In that sense, I don't view his point as Trump's blatant disinformation campaign is exactly the same as Brown's accusation that Republicans cheat and can't win if they play fair. They are examples at different points on that spectrum that are corrosive if not even close to being equally so. It isn't a binary either-or, but a spectrum. The point he made that it's damnably difficult to reverse the momentum of this corrosion of trust is absolutely on display because we can justly claim our actions are necessary to counter the supposed evils of the worst of the worst. But I don't read Welch as arguing we should roll over and watch authoritarian regime change destroy western liberal democracy. Rather, I read him as saying if we want liberal western democracy to stand a chance we need to resist the corruption of the values that make it possible not just seek to remove those actively damaging it from power. Things like seeking and acknowledging common ground, willing oneself to reject contempt, forgiving a wrong.

[_canpakes]

You type the word "rhetoric" and appear to recognize that the context is politics but then suddenly feign ignorance for both.

spolier alert: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

see also election of 1828 and so on throughout history where "adulting" wasn't such a challenge.

That’s nice. I like oranges, too.

[_canpakes]

But I don't read Welch as arguing we should roll over and watch authoritarian regime change destroy western liberal democracy. Rather, I read him as saying if we want liberal western democracy to stand a chance we need to resist the corruption of the values that make it possible not just seek to remove those actively damaging it from power. Things like seeking and acknowledging common ground, willing oneself to reject contempt, forgiving a wrong.

Yes, that’s the sticky wicket here. Resisting the corruption of the values that make it possible. But when bad actors are actively corrupting those values, what does ‘resisting’ entail when “seeking and acknowledging common ground, willing oneself to reject contempt, forgiving a wrong” seem to make no difference at those at the lowest levels of the rhetorical pyramid you’re describing, given their mental conditioning from the top down, and the media environment that they envelop themselves within?

[_EAllusion]

Rather, I read him as saying if we want liberal western democracy to stand a chance we need to resist the corruption of the values that make it possible not just seek to remove those actively damaging it from power. Things like seeking and acknowledging common ground, willing oneself to reject contempt, forgiving a wrong.

The problem we have is that there is a sizeable political contingent who consistently acts in bad faith and uses good civic norms as a weakness to be exploited rather than a value to be emulated. Authoritarians use the values of liberal democracy to undermine it if you let them. That's their MO in every democratic country they have taken power in. On the less extreme end, overtures towards bipartisan cooperation and forgiveness are used to defeat or slow down those that would use them and are cast aside the second they are no longer needed. In fact, we watched this play out in real time over the past 10 years.

How do you defeat that? I'm not sure the answer is as simple as more of the same. I don't know what the answer is. I don't think anyone does, which is a source of despair from at least some quarters of elite commentary on the health of our country. The only answer I got is that it doesn't work without their propagandistic media propping them up and the key is cripple that, but I have no idea how. I do know that some people, like the person his article is about, think the answer is unrelenting shame towards anyone who props up that media. I'm not so convinced, but their actions make more sense once you see the problem.

[_Dr Exiled]

Maybe breaking up the media and cable monopolies is the answer? If more voices are heard, perhaps it would be less of us v. them, Fox v. MSNBC/CNN and less propaganda?

[_subgenius]

You type the word "rhetoric" and appear to recognize that the context is politics but then suddenly feign ignorance for both.

spolier alert: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

see also election of 1828 and so on throughout history where "adulting" wasn't such a challenge.

That’s nice. I like oranges, too.

you established that with your earlier post, any other likes you want to share?