Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Cyberyeti]

Try a simple experiment. Place a 12 inch wide 20 ft long plank on the ground. Now walk the length back and forth. No problem, right. Now place that same plank 100 ft in the air. Now try to walk that plank back and forth. Rationally there is no difference, right? Then why does almost everyone experience fear in the second case?

 

Because there's no consequence of failure in the first case, also there is always the chance of a gust of wind in the second.

 

My experience is that fear is always irrational. Once a threat is perceived by the body/mind rational thought seems possible only to the highly trained. Do you have a different experience?

 

I help run a guild in a MMORG. We had an incident where one of our members said some Islamophobic stuff. Turns out he's an Aussie who lost one or more family member in the Bali bombings and it's screwed him up ever since. To him, the fear/loathing is all too rational.

[Al_U_Card]

I think you misunderstand ldrews' way of life. He chose to live in Mexico, and he thinks Trump's greatest achievement is keeping more Mexicans out of the USA. The guy presumably despises and distrusts everyone he meets. (I always thought "misanthropic" is a theoretical over-the-top construct, but obviously ldrews fits the description perfectly, and there is no other single word describing him better.)

Channeling Hrothgar is not the way to improve the discourse. Alternate views, as right or wrong as they may appear to be, provide context and perspective. We can teach by what we learn and not by what (we think) we know. That is how science advances human knowledge, not by dictat or by obligation.

[Al_U_Card]

I guess I am unlike you in that I do not enounter "Muslims" but people, some good, some bad.

 

On that point, I just got back from a trip to Lisbon where we stayed in an airbnb apartment that we had to walk up to and down from every day, passing, on a very narrow street, a Muslim restaurant and many street sellers from North Africa. I never once felt concerned for my safety.

 

People are people. There are crazies, sure. Most people, though, are just trying to live their lives and get by.

I also just got back from a month on the Costa-del-sol where the locals were about 20% muslim and the "mix" of ideologies did not clash. A rich tapestry of diversity. Each individual a part of the whole, to be taken as they present themselves, for better or for worse. (btw, our Airbnb place was fantastic).

[Trinidad]

Try a simple experiment. Place a 12 inch wide 20 ft long plank on the ground. Now walk the length back and forth. No problem, right. Now place that same plank 100 ft in the air. Now try to walk that plank back and forth. Rationally there is no difference, right? Then why does almost everyone experience fear in the second case?

If you mean that suddenly the consequences of a mistake are graver then you don't understand me at all.

 

The comparison is not between facing a potential Muslim terrorist and taking a finesse at the bridge table. That question was to see if you understand something about probabilities. The comparison is between the probability that the Muslim you meet will blow himself up and the probability that the fishing boat you rented will sink.

 

In both cases you risk serious injury, so for both going fishing and facing a Muslim your "plank" ia already 100 ft in the air. Yet, you don't seem to have any problems to go fishing "100 ft in the air", but facing a Muslim "100 ft in the air" scares the bejeebers out of you.

 

To complete your comparison, in both cases the probability that something goes wrong is extremely small (but not zero). This translates in a properly constructed, solid "plank" of about 100 ft wide with handrails. We call those things "bridges".

 

So, given your background in bridge, why are you scared to walk the bridge called "Muslim", but have no problem walking the bridge called "fishing"?

 

Rik

[cherdano]

In general I agree with you. But just like there are sections of Chicago that I avoid because the risk/reward ratio is not good, there are now classes of people/culture I would avoid for the same reason.

 

 

I was taught from an early age that trust is earned. If I do business with you I start small to see if you are, indeed, a trustworthy person. So initially I assume you are, but verify. I used to be naive, like you, and assume everyone is trustworthy. Having been burned several times, I no longer do.

Please tell us more from your rich life experience, grandpa!

 

However, unlike you, I grew up in a town that had maybe 25% Muslims, including a similar percentage of my high-school classmates. I have lived for altogether 35 years in countries with a percentage of Muslims about five times that of the US (Germany, UK). Yet, somehow, miraculously I have survived all that, despite my naivety!

 

Oh, and yes I don't trust everyone. In my experience, the least trust-worthy group of people are cranky guys with a bigoted aversions against some "other" group, regardless of whether I belong to that "other" group - ignorant sexist guys, anyone with a phobia against some group of immigrants, anyone antisemitic, etc.

[barmar]

I help run a guild in a MMORG. We had an incident where one of our members said some Islamophobic stuff. Turns out he's an Aussie who lost one or more family member in the Bali bombings and it's screwed him up ever since. To him, the fear/loathing is all too rational.

Except it isn't. "Once bitten, twice shy" is not good logic, because the one bite will often be an outlier.

 

If there's no other evidence, the best you can do is generalize from what has happened to you. But in this case, all you have to do is notice that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, but maybe a few thousand of them are terrorists, to realize that his family's experience is an exception, not the rule.

 

It's like someone whose family member was killed in the WTC being afraid to go into a skyscraper.

[awm]

As long as we're talking about being scared of particular types of people, I'm most afraid of people who:

 

1. Are white. As a white person living in America, I am much more likely to be murdered by a white person than a black or brown person.

2. Own guns. Most murders in the US are with guns.

3. Believe crazy conspiracy-theory stuff. This seems to be a common factor in people who shoot up schools, movie theaters, etc. While most people are murdered by people they know, I have a pretty "safe" set of friends (I think, maybe everyone thinks this). Most mass-shootings are by "crazies" as far as I can tell.

4. Are anti-semitic or anti-technology/globalization. This is maybe more personal, as a (non-practicing) Jew working in tech.

 

The interesting thing is, when you put these together the profile looks an awful lot like a typical Trump supporter!

[barmar]

The interesting thing is, when you put these together the profile looks an awful lot like a typical Trump supporter!

It also looks like it includes a large majority of Americans. Maybe ldrews had the right idea leaving the country. Mexico should be safe, since according to Trump they're sending their rapists and murderers over here.

[Cyberyeti]

Except it isn't. "Once bitten, twice shy" is not good logic, because the one bite will often be an outlier.

 

If there's no other evidence, the best you can do is generalize from what has happened to you. But in this case, all you have to do is notice that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, but maybe a few thousand of them are terrorists, to realize that his family's experience is an exception, not the rule.

 

It's like someone whose family member was killed in the WTC being afraid to go into a skyscraper.

 

Islamophobia covers 2 things, while the fear may not be totally rational, the loathing absolutely is.

 

Stuff like this happens, the one serious crime ever committed against me was done by members of a particular ethnic group, and moreover, the police basically knew who'd done it within seconds of being told what had happened and caught the culprits red handed 15 minutes later, they were expecting it before it happened, just didn't know where. Is it irrational to have a measure of prejudice against that group of people ?

[Winstonm]

My experience is that fear is always irrational. Once a threat is perceived by the body/mind rational thought seems possible only to the highly trained. Do you have a different experience?

 

My experience is that fear is an expression of anger. As with most emotions, the time to deal with fear/anger is prior to the emotive rise.

[Winstonm]

Islamophobia covers 2 things, while the fear may not be totally rational, the loathing absolutely is.

 

Stuff like this happens, the one serious crime ever committed against me was done by members of a particular ethnic group, and moreover, the police basically knew who'd done it within seconds of being told what had happened and caught the culprits red handed 15 minutes later, they were expecting it before it happened, just didn't know where. Is it irrational to have a measure of prejudice against that group of people ?

 

IMO, the problem we all have is that we can't recognize the enemy. During WWII, the enemy was pretty clear-cut. The line began to blur in Vietnam. There is now a group of people who have declared a type of guerrilla war on the rest of the world. There is really no way to distinguish who those people are - we like to "place" a uniform on "the enemy" (Muslim garb) to make us feel more secure when none are around. But that is a false security. The 9-11 hijackers did not advertise with religious garb - the guys driving vehicles into pedestrians don't seem to be advertising, either.

 

As for religious affiliation, it seems to me the terrorists have about the same connection to Islam as Jim Jones or David Koresh had to Protestanism. Crazies always find a reason - for some it is religion - others, a religious-like belief system.

[barmar]

Islamophobia covers 2 things, while the fear may not be totally rational, the loathing absolutely is.

 

Stuff like this happens, the one serious crime ever committed against me was done by members of a particular ethnic group, and moreover, the police basically knew who'd done it within seconds of being told what had happened and caught the culprits red handed 15 minutes later, they were expecting it before it happened, just didn't know where. Is it irrational to have a measure of prejudice against that group of people ?

There's a big difference between a fear of a specific group of people who are known to have a history of violence, and fear of an enormous group because of the actions of a small faction within them.

 

Anyone who lives in or near a big city knows that there are dangerous neighborhoods that they should avoid (assuming they don't actually live in these neighborhoods). This isn't irrational fear, there's a history of problems. It's also quite likely that most of the residents there are ethnic minorities -- that doesn't make this fear racist.

 

But being afraid of all black men, not just those in Roxbury (one of the dangerous sections of Boston) is an irrational, racist generalzation.

[nige1]

We mustn't rush blindfold into WW3.

The least we can do is start a transparent independent investigation of the chemical-attack, discounting predictable propaganda from both sides.

Or perhaps Cherdano can tell us:

• What was the chemical? Was it a gas? Sarin (consistent with rebel descriptions)? or Chlorine (more consistent with rescue-workers in short-sleeves)? or something else?.
• Was there a rebel weapons-facility near the town? Did it make or store chemical-weapons? Did it suffer air-attack?
• It's unlikely that the Russians would undermine their credibility by colluding in a chemical-attack after volunteering to supervise the destruction of Syrian chemical-weapons. But it might have been a terrible mistake or the act of a rogue commander.

 

With less posturing and brinkmanship, we could have avoided WW1 and saved millions of lives.

Now, the stakes are higher.

[blackshoe]

Anyone who lives in or near a big city knows that there are dangerous neighborhoods that they should avoid (assuming they don't actually live in these neighborhoods). This isn't irrational fear, there's a history of problems. It's also quite likely that most of the residents there are ethnic minorities -- that doesn't make this fear racist.

 

But being afraid of all black men, not just those in Roxbury (one of the dangerous sections of Boston) is an irrational, racist generalzation.

Agree with that, though I should point out that likely most of the people who do live in those neighborhoods would like to avoid them.

[Al_U_Card]

We mustn't rush blindfold into WW3.

The least we can do is start a transparent independent investigation of the chemical-attack, discounting the completely predictable propaganda from both sides.

Or perhaps Cherdano can tell us:

• What was the chemical? Was it a gas? Sarin (consistent with rebel descriptions)? or Chlorine (more consistent with rescue-workers in short-sleeves)? or something else?.
• Was there a rebel weapons-facility near the town? Did it make or store chemical-weapons? Did it suffer air-attack?
• It's unlikely that the Russians would undermine their credibility by colluding in a chemical-attack after volunteering to supervise the destruction of Syrian chemical-weapons. But it might have been a terrible mistake or the act of a rogue commander.

 

With less posturing and brinkmanship, we could have avoided WW1 and saved millions of lives.

Now, the stakes are higher.

https://t.co/cIOJPKQYsh

 

Yet another eye-witness account. Read to the end, as this source is fully recognisant of media vs. reality

..

[barmar]

Agree with that, though I should point out that likely most of the people who do live in those neighborhoods would like to avoid them.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, and debated whether I would include that parenthetical. But despite what they would like, they don't have much choice.

[nige1]

https://t.co/cIOJPKQYsh

Yet another eye-witness account. Read to the end, as this source is fully recognisant of media vs. reality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LKsn4ZutxQ&list=PLS3XGZxi7cBW

[kenberg]

My extremely negative take on where we are:

 

I see no reason to believe what Donald Trumps says about anything.

 

I see no reason to think Trump knows more about foreign policy, either diplomatic or military, than he does about health care, and that's zero.

 

I don't think the Syrian rebels gassed themselves.

 

To put it another way, I think we have an irresponsible moron in the White House at a time of significant national challenge.

 

I usually try to keep an open mind but sometimes we have to, in the immortal words of W. C. Fields, take the bull by the tail and face the situation.

 

I am not going to try to defend my views on Trump. We all, at some point, consider some issues settled beyond the point of further discussion. That's where I am on Trump. So I have not been saying much lately, just take this as a summary of what I think.

[Al_U_Card]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LKsn4ZutxQ&list=PLS3XGZxi7cBW

Exactly. We have been led around by a compliant media that has a history of being used by the intelligence services (guess who they are serving...) to ensure profits for the MIC and fear in the populace.

 

Trump is the least of our problems.

[jogs]

My extremely negative take on where we are:

 

I see no reason to believe what Donald Trumps says about anything.

 

I see no reason to think Trump knows more about foreign policy, either diplomatic or military, than he does about health care, and that's zero.

 

 

That's exactly the same way I feel about the progressive left.

 

At least Trump is willing to have meetings with those who are experienced about foreign policy.

 

Collectively all politicians from both sides of the aisle know nothing about healthcare. Until the politicians and their families are required to use the same healthcare system as the common folks, healthcare will never be solved.

[y66]

From When Do Democracies Die? by Max Fisher and Amanda Raub

 

There’s a question gripping political scientists that we’re exploring ourselves: How and why do democracies die?

 

The study of democratic backsliding, though around for years, is becoming increasingly urgent. In the mid-2000s, the global spread of democracy, after 200 years of expansion, stalled. But the real change came just in the past year, with the rise of populist movements in the part of the world considered the most solidly democratic: the West.

The new Western populism bears more than a passing resemblance to, say, Latin American populist waves that turned quickly authoritarian, as we discussed in a recent column on Venezuela. The warning signs for Western democracy, Amanda has written, are flashing red.

 

Over the next few months, we’ll be looking more at the health of Western democracy, but we also want to understand broadly how democracies die. So we wanted to show you a fascinating chart from Jay Ulfelder, a political scientist who specializes in forecasting, illustrating the age at which democracies die:

 

 

The chart shows democracies that collapsed into authoritarianism between 1955 and 2010, arranged by their age at the time of collapse. For example, Zimbabwe had been a democracy for seven years when, in 1987, it reverted to one-party rule.

 

You can see one lesson right away: Democracies tend to decline when they’re young. The median age is six. A lot of these cases are countries emerging from colonialism, which tends to leave them with weak institutions and small groups of powerful elites.

 

This gets to an interesting thread of the debate over Western democracies: They tend to be pretty old. And old democracies, as this chart shows, rarely collapse.

 

But we don’t know whether this is because there’s something special about older democracies or it just looks that way because we’re working from such a small data set. There aren’t that many older democracies in the world — only nine have been around since 1940, according to data from a data set called Polity IV. Nine! What conclusions can we really draw based on just nine cases?

 

It does happen. That one case on the far right of Mr. Ulfelder’s chart is Venezuela, whose democracy lasted 46 years before Hugo Chávez ended that run in 2005.

 

Mr. Ulfelder has published the full dataset here. You can read his analysis in this 2010 research paper and in his book, which looks fascinating. We also enjoyed this 2011 paper on the relationship between economic growth and political stability.

[jogs]

The Obama administration is the least transparent and most corrupt administration in the post war era.

The main stream media loves to claim that they will be a check on the current administration. Well during the Obama years the media abdicated that role. They don't get to take it back.

 

Susan Rice only seems to make the news when she is lying.

Rice told the American people that Sgt Bergdahl was an American hero. Now we learn Pvt Bergdahl abandoned his post and deserted. The military promoted Bergdahl while he was in captivity.

Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi once. Then Hillary claimed to be sick. Susan Rice then took the role of the Obama administration's head liar on Benghazi.

Susan Rice reports that all chemical weapons in Syria has been destroyed.

Susan Rice says there is no surveillance on the Trump team.

 

Even the Washington Post was forced to give Susan Rice four Pinocchios.

[barmar]

So now Sean Spicer is in hot water over an insensitive remark he made about the holocaust, and many are calling for him to resign.

 

But does anyone think that Trump himself might not have made a similar comment (although probably in a tweet)?

[Winstonm]

A question I have been pondering lately is how did we get into a position where radical minorities wield power incommensurate with their numbers? At least in Congress, a better method than partisan rancor would be for moderates from both sides of the aisle to work to restore statesmanship and eliminate the radical influences that now hold us all hostage.

 

It appears the heart of this problem lies in the House, created by gerrymandering where you can end up with districts that are 55% radical right voters. It now appears that there has been creep into the Senate, as well.

 

We need moderate statesmen to regain control of our government; and we need a clear separation of church and state.

[kenberg]

A question I have been pondering lately is how did we get into a position where radical minorities wield power incommensurate with their numbers? At least in Congress, a better method than partisan rancor would be for moderates from both sides of the aisle to work to restore statesmanship and eliminate the radical influences that now hold us all hostage.

 

It appears the heart of this problem lies in the House, created by gerrymandering where you can end up with districts that are 55% radical right voters. It now appears that there has been creep into the Senate, as well.

 

We need moderate statesmen to regain control of our government; and we need a clear separation of church and state.

 

You probably are not surprised that I very much agree with this.

 

In the 1950s we had the John Birch Society, and claims that fluoridation of water was a government plot. Although I grew up in what I think could fairly be called an unsophisticated political environment, and people would have taken that description as a compliment not an insult, I did not know anyone who paid any attention to those nuts. Later I knew a guy who ran for governor on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. He wanted an investigation because he could not believe he got so few votes. I had no trouble believing it at all.

 

Eisenhower ran against Stevenson. Whatever you might think of either of them, nobody I knew thought either was a nut. McCarthy, of course, claimed Stevenson was a Communist but again nobody I knew paid any attention to this.

 

Ok, enough with the nostalgia. But it would really be nice if someone, preferably several someones of varying views, were capable of working together to get something done.