Does character still matter in politics?

[Some Schmo]

It's been my experience that when people talk about racism, they're talking about people who actually engage in racism. It would be quite mysterious to imply racist behavior on people who aren't engaged in racism, and people who aren't racist aren't offended by racist behavior being criticized.

I believe the same could be said for "Republicans who don't care about character any more."

[Some Schmo]

Thought I'd share this video since it may be of interest to some folks here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnXmmTbWICQ

The presenter, Jared Bauer, is one of the founders of Wisecrack which was one of the many companies that arose in the era when folks with english and philosophy degrees found through digital media such as YouTube they could scrape a few pennies together applying critical analysis to pop culture and whatever else was in the zeitgeist to middlebrow delight.

The video explores the legacy of the movie Idiocracy through the lens of 2024. Not exactly novel or creative, right? But what makes it stand out is the exploration of the ideas of French psychiatrist Jacques Lacan regarding the relationship between person and an authority to whom the presumption of knowledge is transferred so the person themselves is not obligated to actually understand the information themselves. The subject's authority is used to then assert the truth of the information assumed to be so. The "subject presumed to know" becomes the Pokémon card that gets played in discussion rather than the person themselves being able to explore their own position in relation to that of a challenge, be it a problem that conflicts with their assumed reality or a person whose views are opposed to their own.

There is a certain hypocrisy in sharing the video because of that. How does one share media without falling prey oneself to relying on the subject presumed to know? Good question. I believe that depends on what happens when the information is shared. If a person drops a quote or refers to a sujet supposé savoir, then behaves as if the case is closed, that person probably lacks understanding and is relying on the sujet supposé savoir to carry all of the water for them. On the otherhand, if the source is used to inform further debate, then fair play, carry on.

I'm sure there are a few folks who quickly come to mind when considering the subject. Folks who show up with a new source of information - a book, a podcast, an article - that they present and expect folks to engage with as best they can. But the person themselves views any attempt to get them to engage, to use the information in discussion and debate, as almost an afront.

I support this message.

[Gadianton]

presumption of knowledge is transferred so the person themselves is not obligated to actually understand the information themselves

I checked Netflix and not available, otherwise it would have made a great record-heat movie to watch. I've seen the movie referenced a few times and I always think "I've got to see that." I have say to Morley that it portrays the President as a former wrestling champion. However, he's a "good guy" positive energy hero with good intentions. The creators hit some broad strokes on the head but wrongly predicted good stupid rather than evil stupid.

The commentary on electrolytes and plants was pretty accurate, at least on a basic level. I mean, read Kish's collection of Trump statements from the debate and a lot of it is "Trump makes plants grow" end of story.

The model may be too simple though. Take my right-wing friend, for example, as his real life persona could be a character in that movie. How accurate would it be to say that his fundamental problem is that he outsources his understanding of information to other parties? There are all kinds of problems with such a claim, especially when considering how multi-faceted life is when compared to the plot of a movie.

He obsessively works on his own cars. Even though he's worth a few mil, he's the cheapest and most paranoid person I've ever met in terms of thinking he's getting ripped off. He's by no means a gifted mechanic. He'll spend days watching videos, reading documentation, and making phone calls trying to fix the problem himself or at worst, making sure it gets to somebody who isn't going to BS him. What were you thinking during the OJ Simpson trial? He became obsessed with one minor detail about OJ's finances that led him hiring these cutting edge tax people and it ended up saving his hide during the 2008 crises -- the banks couldn't get the money he rightfully owed them back. As a former home builder, there are all kinds of practical things he does know.

Another miss would be that he's big on thinking for himself when it comes to science. His problem isn't getting suckered by pseudoscience, but he has his own ideas about things. Really nonsense stuff, and he'll qualify it by saying, "this is just little ole me talking", but that's just playing the anti-authority card and it should be no surprise that a simple commonsense person like him has the answer. He wouldn't use circular reasoning to explain the power of that sports drink, he'd think really hard and come up with his own idea.

There would be some superficial hits. For instance, he lost a huge amount of money to a Christian stock-trading guru. But that's tricky, because he's not necessarily wrong for not trusting his own abilities to beat the market. He's had some other issues doing business with fellow Christians also, but really, these failings seem to be driven by prejudice rather than outsourcing his knowledge.

But I think there's more. A critical problem may be assuming that a person is outsourcing their knowledge, when really they are doing something else. When you see someone who is smart personally but dumb politically, it may be a deep skepticism that there exists knowledge in the political realm. Take inflation. If a person believes deep down that something either won't ever affect them or that nobody has any control over it, then it's a great candidate for politicizing. Once you get into messaging and identity, your shifting into a world beyond the concerns of knowledge, rather than a world where knowledge is outsourced. Yes, my friend is hopping mad about inflation just like when his steak isn't done right at a restaurant. He'll quit going to a restaurant or spend a half hour on the phone with the manager over a bad steak. After triumphantly "voting out" all the House Democrats and ushering in a red wave, is he complaining about the Republican House failing to lower inflation? He told me the house should do away with the gas tax, and that would be a big step toward solving inflation, as team red took over. Has the House put forward such a bill? He's all over the messaging that Republicans will fix all these problems and democrats are the cause, but he's helpless to make heads or tails out of what happens in reality.

If he were consistent with his behavior in other contexts, he would hold his party accountable when they don't live up to the hype, but he would never do that. So something else is going on there.

[Morley]

There is a powerful scene in the Odyssey...

Nice. Thank you for this.

[yellowstone123]

"Trump, naturally, answered the question by saying he had just won two club championships, and "not even the senior ones." He then made mention of the fact that Biden "can't hit the ball 50 yards." Biden responded by saying he had gotten his handicap down to six back when he was vice president, and that he'd be happy to have a driving contest with Trump."

"Of course, knowing what we know about Trump, those two club championships were likely won by him going out and playing by himself and then putting his name up on a board as the winner. Seeing what we've seen from Biden, Trump's assessment that he can't drive it 50 yards is probably correct."

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/donald ... op-podcast

[Kishkumen]

It's been my experience that when people talk about racism, they're talking about people who actually engage in racism. It would be quite mysterious imply racist behavior on people who aren't engaged in racism, and people who aren't racist aren't offended by racist behavior being criticized.

I believe the same could be said for "Republicans who don't care about character any more."

Yeah. Good point. I meant something more specific, so I should have been more specific. They don’t seem to place a high priority on the character of their leaders. Socrates once opined, at least according to Plato, that no one would nurse a viper, because the viper would inevitably bite the person nursing it. He was wrong about that. DJT and his cronies are the vipers, and the support of decent people for vipers will result in a lot of suffering for most everyone.

[Gadianton]

He's a circus barker but the war machine needs to be stopped. The war in Ukraine needs to stop. Russia has nuclear weapons (you may have forgotten that) and resolving Ukraine needs to be top of the list, regardless of what Wall Street/Blackrock wants.

I assume you mean stop funding Ukraine and let Putin keep a certain amount of territory. How would that stop the war? Sounds like a ceasefire that allows Putin to recover and plan his next phase. His nukes aren't going away, and if nuke threats serve him well this round, why stop here? You can't stop the war; you can kick the can down the road.

The market caps of the top 5 military-industrial stocks, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin etc., about equal the .4 of Apple's 3.4 trillion market cap. I don't think they have all the say.

Why do you think America First Mike Johnson changed his mind? Do you think he was paid off?

[honorentheos]

Hi Gadianton -

presumption of knowledge is transferred so the person themselves is not obligated to actually understand the information themselves

The model may be too simple though. Take my right-wing friend, for example, as his real life persona could be a character in that movie. How accurate would it be to say that his fundamental problem is that he outsources his understanding of information to other parties? There are all kinds of problems with such a claim, especially when considering how multi-faceted life is when compared to the plot of a movie.

He obsessively works on his own cars. Even though he's worth a few mil, he's the cheapest and most paranoid person I've ever met in terms of thinking he's getting ripped off. He's by no means a gifted mechanic. He'll spend days watching videos, reading documentation, and making phone calls trying to fix the problem himself or at worst, making sure it gets to somebody who isn't going to BS him. What were you thinking during the OJ Simpson trial? He became obsessed with one minor detail about OJ's finances that led him hiring these cutting edge tax people and it ended up saving his hide during the 2008 crises -- the banks couldn't get the money he rightfully owed them back. As a former home builder, there are all kinds of practical things he does know.

Another miss would be that he's big on thinking for himself when it comes to science. His problem isn't getting suckered by pseudoscience, but he has his own ideas about things. Really nonsense stuff, and he'll qualify it by saying, "this is just little ole me talking", but that's just playing the anti-authority card and it should be no surprise that a simple commonsense person like him has the answer. He wouldn't use circular reasoning to explain the power of that sports drink, he'd think really hard and come up with his own idea.

There would be some superficial hits. For instance, he lost a huge amount of money to a Christian stock-trading guru. But that's tricky, because he's not necessarily wrong for not trusting his own abilities to beat the market. He's had some other issues doing business with fellow Christians also, but really, these failings seem to be driven by prejudice rather than outsourcing his knowledge.

But I think there's more. A critical problem may be assuming that a person is outsourcing their knowledge, when really they are doing something else. When you see someone who is smart personally but dumb politically, it may be a deep skepticism that there exists knowledge in the political realm. Take inflation. If a person believes deep down that something either won't ever affect them or that nobody has any control over it, then it's a great candidate for politicizing. Once you get into messaging and identity, your shifting into a world beyond the concerns of knowledge, rather than a world where knowledge is outsourced. Yes, my friend is hopping mad about inflation just like when his steak isn't done right at a restaurant. He'll quit going to a restaurant or spend a half hour on the phone with the manager over a bad steak. After triumphantly "voting out" all the House Democrats and ushering in a red wave, is he complaining about the Republican House failing to lower inflation? He told me the house should do away with the gas tax, and that would be a big step toward solving inflation, as team red took over. Has the House put forward such a bill? He's all over the messaging that Republicans will fix all these problems and democrats are the cause, but he's helpless to make heads or tails out of what happens in reality.

If he were consistent with his behavior in other contexts, he would hold his party accountable when they don't live up to the hype, but he would never do that. So something else is going on there.

Good observations. Bauer's commentary focuses more on the relationship of the masses with consumerism which is also a major focus of the movie (oddly, sharing this insightful social commentary with the hard-hitting Wall-E). And in that context the criticism would have spotty application to any individual. Your friend sounds like someone I'd guess has outsourced a rationalization more than knowledge in the form of grievance politics. And I think that is where many otherwise intelligent folks tend to exhibit the traits of relying on the subject presumed to know because in many ways the subject presumed to know is not telling them something they didn't already believe. They are instead providing rationalization and justifications for how they feel. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, social media outlets all may toy with various explanations for it, but the central problem they manipulate is the individual's sense of something somewhere causing headwinds that are behind them not fulfilling their main character backstory narrative they internally hold. Or rationalizing the sense of entitlement and resentment they feel towards any attempt to ask them to pay forward the fruits of the social structures have made available they've benefited from.

That said, I also think this podcast about the politically disengaged makes a few interesting points about how even the most disillusioned, cynical and politically disinterested persons are being informed about political views from fragmented sources:

https://youtu.be/J4ym3nH3JFw?si=wmljW2UJAARehUbJ

Relevant discussion takes place around minute 15:40 or so.

And that raises the question using your friend's inflation ignorance as an example: Isn't the fact he has views at all evidence he is passively accepting a source as the subject presumed to know?

Is the misplaced trust of the ignorant that different from the cynical mistrust of the overconfident? I'd argue not really. While the ignorant person may be happy to rely on the assumption someone somewhere knows, and they are smart, so that's good enough for them, the cynical belief no one really knows anything so everyone should just stop doing anything has a hidden assumption: the cynic asserts in the end by doing so they actually know more than most folks; they embody the classic XKCD comic:



Insert mainstream media, duopoly, and whatever other coded terms one can think of for sheeple as one sees fit, of course.

ETA: Also, I should note I dislike the movie Idiocracy. I watched it sometime around 2007ish and couldn't escape the feeling I had better things I could have been doing than watching it. It was kinda funny and the tropes it creates are remarkably applicable to our politics. But it also is not a good movie as film, making me think that watching it was turning me into the sort of person it was critiquing. I think the mean-spiritedness of it makes it appealing to folks who enjoy Ouch My Balls but in a different context, to be honest. I'd say you could pass as the summary in the clip is basically the movie with a good summary of the tropes. You've got an hour+ back by not finding it, in my opinion.

[Markk]

To say that Gingrich, Rove or any one in modern times are pioneers of corruption and bad behavior is just delusional. Hamilton was busted and his mistress wanted $1000 in hush money. One pro slavery member of congress beat the crap out of another one on the senate floor and almost killed them.

Markk, nice to see you.

No one has said what you are claiming. This has more to do with certain methods, increasingly deployed by groups and not just single actors, that have been honed since the ‘90s. Of course, there has been corruption, immorality, and the lot before. What we are talking about is a concerted effort to walk back civil rights and the social safety net the only way the GOP can now: by crippling democracy.

Track the activities of Gingrich up to now. Look at all the Heritage Foundation has managed to accomplish by filling the court with its picks and now the 2025 project. Study the unitary executive idea that Bill Barr was big into.

You see, this is not just corruption. This is a planned overhaul of our country with no methods, no matter how criminal or corrupt, out of bounds.

Thanks, but come on. Do you really think that Biden is running our country and not "actors" behind the scene? He needs instructions on just about everything he does.

Say what you like about Trump, yes he is an A-hole, but he leads and he is not being lead by anyone but himself...right or wrong.

If Gingrich is pushing a movement, it isn't working.

The Democrats had 51 high level intelligence folks sign...sign, a document that the LT was not Hunter's but Russian by origin. Not a few, not even a dozen...but 51. Is that by chance or an as you wrote...a planned movement, maybe not a overhaul but a movement to keep the club blue. 51 Kish, and no retractions.

Courts are chosen by the winners, not by any foundation...I just google the appeal court appointments majorities, the Democrats have 7, the Republicans 6.

The Republicans have appointed 91, while the Democrats 86...seems pretty even to me.

It is truly a mess.

[honorentheos]

The Democrats had 51 high level intelligence folks sign...sign, a document that the LT was not Hunter's but Russian by origin. Not a few, not even a dozen...but 51. Is that by chance or an as you wrote...a planned movement, maybe not an overhaul but a movement to keep the club blue. 51 Kish, and no retractions.

The actual statement:

It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.

If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175 ... 9f9b330000

And as shown to you multiple, multiple times the concern around it included the lack of transparency by Rudy and Co. in not sharing the actual files.

That there turned out to be a laptop likely owned by Hunter Biden with pictures of his dick and emails that support him being a sleazy dude isn't relevant to the intended aim of its release as an attempted October surprise. The sources you totally get your information from being apparently fed by Russian propaganda, I get why you are all in on their butthurt over it not working the way their leak of the DNC emails did in 2016.