Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

You have to know that you're somewhat exceptional in achieving all those lifestyle improvements. Most people know that they should do these things, but it's difficult to put it into practice. Smokers mostly say they know it's a nasty habit, but it's an addiction and difficult to stop. Everyone knows they should eat healthy and exercise, but they have busy lives and it's hard to fit these in.

 

If we give these people additional help and incentives, they're more likely to make these improvements. This will cut costs for whoever is paying for health care (insurance companies here, national health services in other developed countries), and these savings get passed on to rate-payers and taxpayers. This is a win-win situation.

 

Talking with a friend, I forget the topic, I began "I know I am unusual but" and I was immediately interrupted with emphatic agreement. Well, yes and no. We are all unusual. But in many ways I think I am not. Resisting those who have decided what is best for us and then try to impose it on us is, I think, very widespread. We see it in books, movies, songs, and in real life. Help is useful. Help is very useful. I favor help.

 

But we have all heard the story, I have probably referred to it before, of the boy who showed up at the Boy Scout meeting with bruises. He had tried to help an old lady across the street and she didn't want to go.

[Zelandakh]

Resisting those who have decided what is best for us and then try to impose it on us is, I think, very widespread.

Where the person concerned notices it yes. But most people seem to be fairly unaware of the social games that go on all of the time and therefore go along with those around them without thinking too much about it. Peer pressure was the term I heard all of the time when I was a child. That is one form of this. I have a book recommendation for you here Ken - Games People Play is widely regarded as one of the definitive works in this field and might open your eyes to some of the manipulation going on around you that you are missing. The fact is that everyone is "imposed on" every day; we just do not notice it the majority of the time.

[kenberg]

Where the person concerned notices it yes. But most people seem to be fairly unaware of the social games that go on all of the time and therefore go along with those around them without thinking too much about it. Peer pressure was the term I heard all of the time when I was a child. That is one form of this. I have a book recommendation for you here Ken - Games People Play is widely regarded as one of the definitive works in this field and might open your eyes to some of the manipulation going on around you that you are missing. The fact is that everyone is "imposed on" every day; we just do not notice it the majority of the time.

 

Published 1964. I think I bought it, I recall it being often cited. Of course we do get manipulated. I put a lot of trust in my instincts but sometimes they go wrong. Sometime in the mid 1970s I was visiting the Berkeley campus for a bout a week. One day on campus a young woman suggested I join her for dinner at her place. Yes she was attractive but she was also interesting. I was not married at the time. I accepted. It was a group house and after not long I decided something was weird. I abruptly announced that I was leaving and I left. The next morning there was an article in the SF Chronicle identifying the house as a Mooney recruitment center. There have been many such things in my life and, I assume, in everyone's.

 

Yes people get suckered. I have been suckered. But we must develop our instincts to identify and avoid it.

 

Of course I am straying a bit. Paying people to go to the gym is different from getting them into the Moonies. But the instincts that keep you out of the Moonies are closely related to the instincts that produce rebellion at this sort of care managing.

[awm]

There are already plenty of incentives to do the wrong thing -- sitting on the couch is cheaper than going to the gym, unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food, gas guzzling cars are cheaper than hybrids, etc.

 

I don't think trying to reverse those incentives is really a bad thing. In particular here it's being done by making the "better" thing cheaper (pay people to go to the gym) rather than making the "worse" thing more expensive (taxes on extra large soft drinks).

 

Of course there are some people who just like to be contrary...

[PassedOut]

American novelist Stephen King has a piece about Trump in the Guardian today: ‘How do such men rise? First as a joke’

 

I started thinking Donald Trump might win the presidency in September of 2016. By the end of October, I was almost sure. Thus, when the election night upset happened, I was dismayed, but not particularly surprised. I didn’t even think it was much of an upset, in spite of the Huffington Post aggregate poll, which gave Hillary Clinton a 98% chance of winning – an example of wishful thinking if ever there were one.

 

Some of my belief arose from the signage I was seeing. I’m from northern New England, and in the run-up to the election I saw hundreds of Trump-Pence signs and bumper stickers, but almost none for Clinton-Kaine. To me this didn’t mean there were no Clinton supporters in the houses I passed or the cars ahead of me on Route 302; what it did seem to mean was that the Clinton supporters weren’t particularly invested. This was not the case with the Trump people, who tended to have billboard-sized signage in their yards and sometimes two stickers on their cars (TRUMP-PENCE on the left; HILLARY IS A CRIMINAL on the right).

 

Brexit also troubled me. Most of the commentators brushed its importance aside, saying that the issue of whether or not Britain should leave the EU was very different from that of who should become the American president, and besides, British and American voters were very different animals. I agreed with neither assessment, because there was a vibe in the air during most of 2016, a feeling that people were both frightened of the status quo and sick of it. Voters saw a vast and overloaded apple cart lumbering past them. They wanted to upset the mother*****er, and would worry about picking up those spilled apples later. Or just leave them to rot.

I was seriously worried about a Trump victory, expecting that Nate Silver had it about right, but I supposed that Hillary would win in the end. Wrong.

 

But, as Ken has pointed out several times, it's important to know the concerns of folks who voted for Trump. King's characters are fictional, but I know a couple of them anyway -- and I expect that I'm not alone in that.

[cherdano]

Jared Kushner must be a true genius. He

• is in charge of peace in the middle east (Haaretz),
  
• will solve the opioid crisis (Vox),
  
• headsthe White House Office of Business Innovation, which aims to reform the US government to make it "run like a company", (AOL), and
  
• is leading the preparation for the first Trump-Xi Jinping meeting (Financial Times).
  

Since surely Trump wouldn't give a 36-year old such responsibility unless he was capable of mastering all these tasks in a truly outstanding manner, I am sure he is the most brilliant man alive. So we will soon see peace in the middle east, drug problems in the US as an issue of the past, a US government that works efficiently for everyone, and China will be a cooperative and suddenly fully democratic partner.

 

There is just one piece of bad news - Kushner quietly transferred peace in the middle east to next week's to-do list. Hard to believe this is the only Onion link in my list.

 

ldrews - still expecting lots of positive change from this administration? Just checking.

[kenberg]

There are already plenty of incentives to do the wrong thing -- sitting on the couch is cheaper than going to the gym, unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food, gas guzzling cars are cheaper than hybrids, etc.

 

I don't think trying to reverse those incentives is really a bad thing. In particular here it's being done by making the "better" thing cheaper (pay people to go to the gym) rather than making the "worse" thing more expensive (taxes on extra large soft drinks).

 

Of course there are some people who just like to be contrary...

 

Contrary perhaps. I would describe it as a lifelong aversion to being monitored. Becky got back from a walk a couple of hours ago, she and a group of women usually meet on Saturdays and walk somewhere. I asker where she went and whether she enjoyed it. She had, and she told me a couple of amusing things about it. It would never cross my mind to ask her how far she walked, how long ot took whether she had recorded this in a notebook, etc. She recently finishe a maybe 12 week program at the Y. I did not sign up . I had done one previously They give you a pedometer to wear. You record the weights you lift. Other things that I don't recall. No. I don wear a pedometer. I go for various walks, I know about how long they are, I know roughly my pace. That's enough for me, and I cannot imagine why anyone else would care. I recently had some problems and stopped lifting weights, but I plan to get back to it. Does anyone really care how much and how often?

 

This takes many forms. I was coming to a party bringing two bottles of wine.Someone asked me what wine I was bringing. One white and one red, I said,. I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck, that was just the first thing that came into my head. I can tell one red wine from another but I was not focused on just what I was bringing and didn't care to. He can drink what I bring or not.

 

People are now talking of paying kids to do their homework. Maybe some schools are already doing this. It repels me. And it would not have worked for me. I got paid for doing work. I often did not do my homework, but unless the pay was too large to resist, I would have laughed it off. If they paid enough I suppose I would do it. And maybe someone else's also, we could split the pay. But who is the idiot that would be paying me to prove a trig identity?

 

I'm not exactly Greta Garbo, as in "I want to be left alone". But I do think we are going way overboard in monitoring. If a guy wants to go to the gym, let him. It's a simple act. Or it should be..

[ldrews]

 

ldrews - still expecting lots of positive change from this administration? Just checking.

 

Yep, I pretty much like the way things are going. Attempts to reduce size of government, reduce amount of regulation, doing cost/benefit analysis on regulations, starting to bring immigration and borders under control, reducing tensions with Russia, renegotiating adverse trade agreements, changing direction in the Middle East. Pretty much what Trump promised during the campaign.

 

How about you? Still focusing on the theatrical goings on? Not enough holding hands and singing "Kumbaya"?

 

I am loving the circus surrounding the Russia Connection/Wiretapping/Incidental Surveillance/Unmasking, aren't you?

[Al_U_Card]

Yep, I pretty much like the way things are going. Attempts to reduce size of government, reduce amount of regulation, doing cost/benefit analysis on regulations, starting to bring immigration and borders under control, reducing tensions with Russia, renegotiating adverse trade agreements, changing direction in the Middle East. Pretty much what Trump promised during the campaign.

 

How about you? Still focusing on the theatrical goings on? Not enough holding hands and singing "Kumbaya"?

 

I am loving the circus surrounding the Russia Connection/Wiretapping/Incidental Surveillance/Unmasking, aren't you?

I just watched LBJ's last interview (with Cronkite) and the man certainly knew how to deal with congress. (His having run the place for almost a decade surely helped....) Trump has no such bona fides so he appears to be treating them like a business associate and his advisors as subordinates. So few "swamp-dwellers" is causing a disconnect with Congress and they may never have seen such an approach and it might just shake them up enough to get some stuff done.

Will we like what that is? Plus ca change......

[ldrews]

I just watched LBJ's last interview (with Cronkite) and the man certainly knew how to deal with congress. (His having run the place for almost a decade surely helped....) Trump has no such bona fides so he appears to be treating them like a business associate and his advisors as subordinates. So few "swamp-dwellers" is causing a disconnect with Congress and they may never have seen such an approach and it might just shake them up enough to get some stuff done.

Will we like what that is? Plus ca change......

 

Trump is a political neophyte and it shows. Also, Trump is not really a Republican, but rather a populist who hijacked the Republican nomination by going directly to the voters. So Trump has almost no traditional political capital. We will see if his direct appeal to the voting base is sufficient to accomplish anything legislatively.

[barmar]

We will see if his direct appeal to the voting base is sufficient to accomplish anything legislatively.

So are you expecting him to accomplish everything through Executive Orders? Didn't he accuse Obama of abusing that power?

 

But he also complained that Obama spent too many weekends on the golf course. Maybe it doesn't count if you own the course.

[ldrews]

So are you expecting him to accomplish everything through Executive Orders? Didn't he accuse Obama of abusing that power?

 

But he also complained that Obama spent too many weekends on the golf course. Maybe it doesn't count if you own the course.

 

Since I see Trump as having little clout with Congress, yes I expect him to use Executive Orders. The problem is that, as we have seen, Executive Orders can be reversed by the next Administration. To me, the upside is that most of things that I would like to see happen can probably be accomplished via Executive Orders.

 

Focusing on golf course usage is again getting distracted from the essential operations. I really don't care how often he plays golf, I care that he initiates actions to reduce government, reduce regulations, etc., etc.

 

Don't watch the hands, don't listen to the chatter, focus on what cup is the pea under! Otherwise you will lose.

[cherdano]

Yep, I pretty much like the way things are going. Attempts to reduce size of government, reduce amount of regulation, doing cost/benefit analysis on regulations, starting to bring immigration and borders under control, reducing tensions with Russia, renegotiating adverse trade agreements, changing direction in the Middle East. Pretty much what Trump promised during the campaign.

I see, ldrews already needs to coddle snowflake Trump and award him participation trophies for attempting to fix things...

 

Oh, and if the Russia scandal is so ridiculous, why did the White House lie about it so many times? Ah, sure, brilliant strategy to distract the media!!! Trumps is playing 5D chess again!!!!!

[kenberg]

Trump is a political neophyte and it shows. Also, Trump is not really a Republican, but rather a populist who hijacked the Republican nomination by going directly to the voters. So Trump has almost no traditional political capital. We will see if his direct appeal to the voting base is sufficient to accomplish anything legislatively.

 

I think you are understating the issue. Here is a thought experiment. Imagine Trump, after shedding his political neophytism (probably not a word), is able to push through exactly the healthcare bill that he thinks is best. What would be in it? I have no idea, and I doubt anyone else has. Maybe Ivanka knows, or Jared knows, but I don't. Trump likes to win. Everyone understands that. But beyond winning, what does he wish to accomplish?

 

Some people pay more attention to politics than I do, some less, place me maybe in the seventieth percentile. Everyone notices something eventually. I think if the plan is to appeal to a voting base, after a while the base will ask just what the hell he really has in mind. If it is simply that he likes winning, never mind at what as long as it is winning, the appeal will fade away.

[jogs]

So are you expecting him to accomplish everything through Executive Orders? Didn't he accuse Obama of abusing that power?

 

 

Obama used executive orders to legislate from the oval office. Trump has used executive orders to overturn Obama's executive orders and to facilitate the enforcing of current law.

 

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

 

Where is the judicial branch given any authority on immigration?

 

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

 

This judicial overreach started with the Warren Court. Where in the constitution are low level circuit judges given the authority to stay an order by the president of the United States?

[jogs]

Richard Dreyfess accused Donald Trump of being an idiot for his treatment of fellow republicans while campaigning for president. Trump won the nomination and won the presidency. Trump is brilliant and Dreyfess is the idiot for not recognizing this.

Donald Trump speaks like an uncouth trash talking 18-year-old enlisted man from the hicks.

The self-righteous progressive left has taken a page out of the Mao playbook. Mao did not allow criticism of his policies. With PC the left does not allow criticism of its views. Critics will be called racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, bigots, etc. Well, I happen to be a proud shariaphobe. How can anyone be in favor of a morality system from the 7th century?

One can't be for both political correctness and free speech. That would be an oxymoron. Donald Trump is the first national figure to speak against political correctness. The first amendment protects people who are uncouth and unrefined. The first amendment allows everyone to offend. The left needs to develop thicker skin.

 

There is no question that DT is going down. Only concern-how much serious damage before the mentally unstable fool is gone.

 

Sorry Rob, American voters prefer Archie to Meathead.

[kenberg]

Sorry Rob, American voters prefer Archie to Meathead.

 

Some of us would like a third choice But you have a point.

[Al_U_Card]

Trump is a political neophyte and it shows. Also, Trump is not really a Republican, but rather a populist who hijacked the Republican nomination by going directly to the voters. So Trump has almost no traditional political capital. We will see if his direct appeal to the voting base is sufficient to accomplish anything legislatively.

One thing has not changed, the 0.1% (Rockefeller, Harriman etc.) are still calling the shots (sometimes rifle shots...) from behind the scenes and only popular sentiment and action will effect any kind of significant change. Thus far, the sleight of hand and shiny object distractions are working so nothing is likely to happen in the short term

[Zelandakh]

Where is the judicial branch given any authority on immigration?

In Section 2 of Article 3? Any time an EO is against existing law or treaties, a judge (of any level) is duty-bound to hear the case and make a ruling. It is precisely the point of the American constitution that the judicial branch puts a limit on the executive branch in this way.

 

 

One can't be for both political correctness and free speech. That would be an oxymoron.

Why? It is perfectly consistent to want a society that ostracises those who use offensive terms but protects that choose to do so despite the social stigma involved.

[PassedOut]

In Section 2 of Article 3? Any time an EO is against existing law or treaties, a judge (of any level) is duty-bound to hear the case and make a ruling. It is precisely the point of the American constitution that the judicial branch puts a limit on the executive branch in this way.

 

Why? It is perfectly consistent to want a society that ostracises those who use offensive terms but protects that choose to do so despite the social stigma involved.

Yes. The ACLU has defended both Nazi marches through Jewish neighborhoods and Klan marches through black neighborhoods, even though those who support and donate to the ACLU (including me) loathe what both those despicable groups say and stand for. And we all know that the ACLU has often come under fire from those who oppose the civil liberties guaranteed by the US constitution, so it's not always easy to stand up for free speech.

[Zelandakh]

Yes. The ACLU has defended both Nazi marches through Jewish neighborhoods and Klan marches through black neighborhoods, even though those who support and donate to the ACLU (including me) loathe what both those despicable groups say and stand for. And we all know that the ACLU has often come under fire from those who oppose the civil liberties guaranteed by the US constitution, so it's not always easy to stand up for free speech.

I am not sure I agree with them here. These groups have a right to free expression but not necessarily to do that anywhere they like without consequences. In the same way that I cannot get 100 of my mates to march along Pennsylvania Avenue and block it without being arrested, I do not see any reason why the respective neighbourhoods should be subject to the disruption that such marches entail. As always, free expression does not trump every other right and here the issue is not exactly clean cut.

[PassedOut]

I am not sure I agree with them here. These groups have a right to free expression but not necessarily to do that anywhere they like without consequences. In the same way that I cannot get 100 of my mates to march along Pennsylvania Avenue and block it without being arrested, I do not see any reason why the respective neighbourhoods should be subject to the disruption that such marches entail. As always, free expression does not trump every other right and here the issue is not exactly clean cut.

No, it is not clean cut for sure.

 

Here is an interview touching on a more recent free-speech controversy: The ACLU Explains Why They're Supporting The Rights Of Milo Yiannopoulos

 

The American Civil Liberties Union defends free speech, even if it's hateful. That has some of their supporters upset. Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks to Lee Rowland, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU.

 

LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST:

 

Now we're going to turn to another issue on a lot of people's minds, free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union has raised a lot of money, $24 million in donations in just one weekend in fact, after President Trump announced his executive order on immigration. Hundreds of thousands of people were motivated by the organization's work to defend people who were detained at airports. And then this week, the ACLU expressed support for a free speech case. This one involves Milo Yiannopoulos. He's the divisive editor of the far-right website Breitbart News, and he's said things like feminism is a cancer.

 

He was recently supposed to speak at UC Berkeley, but intense protests led the school to cancel the event last minute. The ACLU says no matter how much you might dislike what he has to say, it's protected free speech, and that makes some of its newest supporters upset. Joining me now to talk about this is Lee Rowland. She's a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

 

Welcome to the program.

 

LEE ROWLAND: Hi. Thanks for having me.

 

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So what's the case for defending Mr. Yiannopoulos in your view?

 

ROWLAND: Well, the case for Mr. Yiannopoulos is the same as it would be for any speaker, no matter how despicable or offensive we might find them, which is the First Amendment protects our right to speak out on matters of public concern, to talk about things that are as offensive as the things that Mr. Yiannopoulos says without censorship by the government. And ideally, as in his case, without people physically preventing him from speaking at a place where he had every right to speak.

 

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So the ACLU and you specifically, actually, have received criticism on social media about this. Does the ACLU need to do a better job explaining why it's defending him and other cases like this, where someone is committing what some would consider hate speech?

 

ROWLAND: Well, look, I certainly understand that, especially for many of our new members, they may be surprised by the ACLU's robust First Amendment positions, but it's certainly not new. Indeed, one of our most high-profile and controversial moments in the ACLU's history was defending the rights of literal self-proclaimed Nazis to march through the streets of Skokie, a town made up largely of Holocaust survivors. What's amazing about the First Amendment is it protects us, regardless of our viewpoints, regardless of the causes we hold dear.

 

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But isn't hate speech different?

 

ROWLAND: There's no question that the things that Mr. Yiannopoulos says are unbelievably hateful in nature. But the phrase hate speech is a form of free speech. Again, in defending the rights of others to speak, whether or not we agree with them, we must all reach out and protect the speech that we most disagree with or else the First Amendment is just reduced to a popularity contest and has no meaning.

 

GARCIA-NAVARRO: At a time like this, when the country's so divided, many see the ACLU as a check on the Trump administration. You've been at the forefront of several important battles. Are you worried that taking controversial positions like this will erode your support, especially among new members?

 

ROWLAND: Well, I certainly hope not. I mean, as our - as my colleagues' incredible work as of late has shown, we at the ACLU consider ourselves the first responders for the Constitution. That's a core part of our identity here at the ACLU. And look, we often say - if you disagree with us 20 percent of the time, it means you're a thinking person. If you disagree with us 50 percent of the time, you should consider coming to work for us.

 

So we respect diversity. No one has to fall in line with all of the ACLU's positions. But I do believe that our defense of the First Amendment is an integral part of our fight for civil rights, for equality and liberty for all.

It's definitely okay to disagree with the ACLU -- it's encouraged!

:)

 

Another take on the ACLU's proclivities: ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters

:D

[barmar]

I am not sure I agree with them here. These groups have a right to free expression but not necessarily to do that anywhere they like without consequences. In the same way that I cannot get 100 of my mates to march along Pennsylvania Avenue and block it without being arrested, I do not see any reason why the respective neighbourhoods should be subject to the disruption that such marches entail. As always, free expression does not trump every other right and here the issue is not exactly clean cut.

The point is that there should be consistent rules regarding getting permits for a parade, and the political stance of the organization should not be part of it.

 

However, that doesn't mean their politics is irrelevant. I expect that most permitting regulations require that potential violence to be addressed. An organization whose politics are very controversial, especially if they're directly opposite to the area where they plan on holding their rally (neo-Nazis in a Jewish neighborhood, KKK in Harlem), is likely to incite violence, so they'll need to pay for additional police protection.

 

They can't simply prohibit the KKK and Nazi groups from holding rallies.

[kenberg]

I also regard the issue as a little tricky. I support the right of an individual to say something stupid, or bigoted or whatever. But some gatherings, marches, and so on are not really expressions of opinion, they are intimidation.

 

Take an extreme example. A young woman is out walking. Make it after dark, and deserted. Deserted except for the three guys walking twenty yards behind her discussing in crude terms what they would like to do with her. The do not carry out any actions, they just walk and discuss. I would expect her to be intimidated. For that matter, a guy would be intimidated, it's just the situation is more likely with a woman. Intimidation is the intention, intimidation is the result.

 

Back to Nazis and Jews. Or whites and blacks. Or Irish and Poles, I don't care. At some point we have a crossover from speaking one's mind to intimidation. I think a Nazi march through a Jewish area carrying signs celebrating death camps has made that crossover.

 

I do regard it as tricky, but I also do think at some point we are no longer just seeing the free expression of opinion.

[gwnn]

Which president said this?

 

a. JFK

b. Clinton

c. Obama

d. Donald J Trump