Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

I don't think the disaffected are stupid people but are angry at the wrong people. If you can get past the anger, they are teachable.

 

"they are teachable" means, to me, that you have no intention of listening to them, you will teach them. I believe there will be little success until, and if, the leadership is willing to listen.

That's what I was/am getting at.

[Winstonm]

"they are teachable" means, to me, that you have no intention of listening to them, you will teach them. I believe there will be little success until, and if, the leadership is willing to listen.

That's what I was/am getting at.

 

I mean teachable in the sense that they should be starving for facts, not begging for more biased narrative.

[Winstonm]

"they are teachable" means, to me, that you have no intention of listening to them, you will teach them. I believe there will be little success until, and if, the leadership is willing to listen.

That's what I was/am getting at.

 

 

I also thought we (the wc group) were talking among ourselves about an outside group. I do think that group needs to learn - but I would not start the conversation with them that way.

[kenberg]

I also thought we (the wc group) were talking among ourselves about an outside group. I do think that group needs to learn - but I would not start the conversation with them that way.

 

Yes. We are talking among ourselves. Well, no doubt the NSA is monitoring our every thought, but that can't be helped.

 

But, among ourselves or otherwise, I am saying that if the Democratic Party wants to win over some of the disaffected, they should talk less and listen more. They might learn something.

[kenberg]

On a different note, I watched a bit of MSNBC tonight, something I rarely do. Something called The Last Word. They talked a bit about Brexit. Then they said that they would present how Trump and Clinton were reacting to all of this. Then we saw maybe ten minutes or so of Trump in Scotland, until I turned it off, during which there were a couple of brief tidbits about what Hillary had to say. Or what Hillary had to say about what Donald had to say. These tidbits were up in writing, with the visual background being more of Trump in Scotland. Well, it was not always showing Trump in Scotland, some of it was the MSNBC folks, correspondents or whatever, talking bout Trump in Scotland. Their comments were somewhere between banal and stupid.

 

 

I don't much watch television news shows anymore. It seems I am not missing much.

 

Maybe I an just getting old and cranky, it can happen, but a lot of what is going on repels me..

 

But, looking further, I add the link which supposedly speaks of Clinton's views. Unfortunately much of it is Clinton's views about Trump.

 

 

I suggest an exercise for reporters: Write three paragraphs about US politics without making any reference, explicit or implicit, about Trump. Then yo can do twenty more paragraphs about Trump if for some reason you feel you have to.But three Trump-free paragraphs, that's your assignment.

[akwoo]

I agree that Trump voters are disaffected Republicans. That doesn't mean that the Democratic Party can get them.

 

Let's take a hypothetical 55 year old male former autoworker scraping by working occasional part-time odd jobs, IQ 90, in Flint. Name me any policy proposed by the Democratic Party that will help him. Any. Keep in mind that retraining a 55 year old with an IQ of 90 is basically impossible, or at least he'll think so.

 

Okay, there is raising the minimum wage, but it's really not clear if that will help him or not. A lot of the stuff he buys will get more expensive, and he might be less able to get work (that's not paying under minimum under the table).

 

It's true the Republicans also don't have any policies that will help him.

 

Trump has implied a policy that will help him, which is to take stuff from people who aren't WASPs and give it to him (although it's phrased as "take what he deserves back from the Mexicans"). Obviously that's a non-starter for the Democratic Party (or any non-desperate person who is rightly worried such a policy is very close to a slippery slope ending in deeding the world to the cockroaches).

[hrothgar]

 

Let's take a hypothetical 55 year old male former autoworker scraping by working occasional part-time odd jobs, IQ 90, in Flint. Name me any policy proposed by the Democratic Party that will help him. Any. Keep in mind that retraining a 55 year old with an IQ of 90 is basically impossible, or at least he'll think so.

 

 

Health insurance that doesn't take pre-existing conditions into account...

[cherdano]

Let's take a hypothetical 55 year old male former autoworker scraping by working occasional part-time odd jobs, IQ 90, in Flint. Name me any policy proposed by the Democratic Party that will help him.

Fiduciary role for pension advisers.

Obama proposes expansion of social security.

[kenberg]

Health insurance and social security are big issues. Let me give the latter a starting shot. I don't know what "fiduciary role for policy advisers" means, and I suspect my ignorance is widely shared, even among those with an IQ above 90. Which could mean I am ideally placed to discuss this, since the Dems, I hope, will be seeking the support of others without this knowledge.

 

Robert Samuelson writes a column for the Washington Post and it seems like at least once a month, although probably it is slightly less often, he writes about how we old people are getting far more than we deserve and are bankrupting the system. On the other side, we hear about how tough we all have it and how payments should be increased.

 

To cut to the chase, if someone wants to give me more money I will take it, but I am not in any danger at all of losing my house or having to eat cat food.

 

But for others? I have a comparison.

 

My father:

He was born in 1900 and was on his own when he was 13, parents both dead. Social Security wasn't until 193?, maybe 33, details don't matter. He also was self-employed much of his life, and I believe it was only after some years that the self-employed could make SocSec payments and thus be eligible for benefits. He also had a stroke in his early fifties and while he partially recovered and returned to work, it was only partial. Bottom line, retirement living required very careful money management.

 

Me:

I also started working when I was 13 but there is no comparison. I was secure. Yes, secure. Despite my father's stroke we were not going to be on the street. When I retired at 65 I had a lifetime of payments into SocSec, I had a pension, I had savings, I get Medicare, and I have subsidized health insurance through my former employer.

 

The difference is almost beyond description. For someone such as myself, I regard it as completely reasonable to say that anything that I wish to have beyond the benefits above are my own responsibility. I would like these benefits not to be cut. I do not need more. For people whose circumstances resemble my father's, more would be useful. Note I said "useful", probably an understatement, it should be "very useful", but I did not say "desperately needed". People learn, at least some do, to live within their means. I no doubt would enjoy driving a Jaguar, I drive a nice sensible Honda. My father coped.

 

 

I think women of my age are in something of the same spot my father was. Many were not working in their early years and so they were, like my father, not paying into SocSec. Different reason, same result. I don't know exactly how this plays out, but my impression is that it is dealt with only partially. Growing up I knew women who worked, and even a few who worked full time, but mostly they didn't. Women should not be short-changed in their seventies for fulfilling the role that was, by society, assigned to them in their thirties.

 

This comment about women is just an example of fixes that should be addressed. As mentioned, I don't know how large the problem is. So I would like sensible steps to be taken., And, as I say, if someone wants to give me more money I'll take it. But Hillary can get my vote without making any such promises.

[Winstonm]

Yes. We are talking among ourselves. Well, no doubt the NSA is monitoring our every thought, but that can't be helped.

 

But, among ourselves or otherwise, I am saying that if the Democratic Party wants to win over some of the disaffected, they should talk less and listen more. They might learn something.

 

I agree.

[Winstonm]

I agree that Trump voters are disaffected Republicans. That doesn't mean that the Democratic Party can get them.

 

Let's take a hypothetical 55 year old male former autoworker scraping by working occasional part-time odd jobs, IQ 90, in Flint. Name me any policy proposed by the Democratic Party that will help him. Any. Keep in mind that retraining a 55 year old with an IQ of 90 is basically impossible, or at least he'll think so.

 

Okay, there is raising the minimum wage, but it's really not clear if that will help him or not. A lot of the stuff he buys will get more expensive, and he might be less able to get work (that's not paying under minimum under the table).

 

It's true the Republicans also don't have any policies that will help him.

 

Trump has implied a policy that will help him, which is to take stuff from people who aren't WASPs and give it to him (although it's phrased as "take what he deserves back from the Mexicans"). Obviously that's a non-starter for the Democratic Party (or any non-desperate person who is rightly worried such a policy is very close to a slippery slope ending in deeding the world to the cockroaches).

 

 

I agree that the Democratic party may not win back these voters - they may turn into non-voters, non-affiliated. That is quite likely, IMO.

 

People above already gave examples of policy that helped - I might add that having a Democrat in the WH the past 3+ years has also prevented right-wing policy from being adopted, i.e., eliminating the ACA, privatizing SS, etc.

 

I don't see why you repeat the ideologically based claim that higher minimum wages create inflation. I know of no supporting data for that notion, but I hear it a lot. I also hear that raising the minimum wage kills jobs (see Seattle results for some data).

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't blame you. I feel that the ideologically based supply-side/Reaganomics spin machine has so successfully passed off their ideas as facts - repeated by media - that as a nation we no longer challenge its validity - we seem to think that if it "sounds" plausible, it must be, but research has shown us that we cannot count on our intuitive beliefs because they are wrong more often than not.

[Winstonm]

On a different note, I watched a bit of MSNBC tonight, something I rarely do. Something called The Last Word. They talked a bit about Brexit. Then they said that they would present how Trump and Clinton were reacting to all of this. Then we saw maybe ten minutes or so of Trump in Scotland, until I turned it off, during which there were a couple of brief tidbits about what Hillary had to say. Or what Hillary had to say about what Donald had to say. These tidbits were up in writing, with the visual background being more of Trump in Scotland. Well, it was not always showing Trump in Scotland, some of it was the MSNBC folks, correspondents or whatever, talking bout Trump in Scotland. Their comments were somewhere between banal and stupid.

 

 

I don't much watch television news shows anymore. It seems I am not missing much.

 

Maybe I an just getting old and cranky, it can happen, but a lot of what is going on repels me..

 

But, looking further, I add the link which supposedly speaks of Clinton's views. Unfortunately much of it is Clinton's views about Trump.

 

 

I suggest an exercise for reporters: Write three paragraphs about US politics without making any reference, explicit or implicit, about Trump. Then yo can do twenty more paragraphs about Trump if for some reason you feel you have to.But three Trump-free paragraphs, that's your assignment.

 

Glenn Greenwald, an attorney who now works as a reporter, pointed out a few years back how our institutional news media have failed us by becoming stenographers rather than reporters, now in many cases untrue news is created by repetition without question of a published story.

[akwoo]

I agree that the Democratic party may not win back these voters - they may turn into non-voters, non-affiliated. That is quite likely, IMO.

 

People above already gave examples of policy that helped - I might add that having a Democrat in the WH the past 3+ years has also prevented right-wing policy from being adopted, i.e., eliminating the ACA, privatizing SS, etc.

 

I don't see why you repeat the ideologically based claim that higher minimum wages create inflation. I know of no supporting data for that notion, but I hear it a lot. I also hear that raising the minimum wage kills jobs (see Seattle results for some data).

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't blame you. I feel that the ideologically based supply-side/Reaganomics spin machine has so successfully passed off their ideas as facts - repeated by media - that as a nation we no longer challenge its validity - we seem to think that if it "sounds" plausible, it must be, but research has shown us that we cannot count on our intuitive beliefs because they are wrong more often than not.

 

First of all, now that I think about it, it's reasonably likely that my hypothetical 55 year old former autoworker is on "disability". Quite a few folks in this situation are. What this means is that they're not really physically unable to work, but given that there are very few reasonable jobs given their skills (and age) and the rest of their situation, magnifying some relatively minor injury to collect a disability check is probably the best they can do. So he isn't getting over the table employment anyway, so a higher minimum isn't helping him on the earning side.

 

Second, it's true that a higher minimum wage isn't going to cause more unemployment in Seattle. Then again, most of the consumers in Seattle are making more than the minimum, and they and the businesses they patronize can absorb the increase in wages. Things can be very different in Flint or Gilbert, WV, where just about everyone is making the minimum wage and most of the few customers there are on small fixed incomes.

 

Third, the inflation rate is a very blunt measure, because the prices of different types of goods go up and down independently of each other. The inflation rate is calculated based on what a middle-class family buys. That's not the same as what a struggling person buys.

 

Fourth, when you're talking about things like health insurance, for a struggling but reasonably healthy person, it's not really anywhere near the top of their mind. They're just trying to get by, and getting seriously ill will be a big disaster for them. It really doesn't matter (at least until it happens) whether it's a huge disaster (bankruptcy) or a small one (losing all their meager savings on the deductible and having to beg for heat and food because they can't do under the table work for a while). If anything, having to pay a small amount (since it's mostly but not fully subsidized) in insurance premiums in the meantime makes their life worse.

 

Here's what has to be understood here. We have whole entire communities where everyone is living a life of quiet desperation. They neither need nor care about a few small gains that leave life basically as desperate as before. They want policies that have a chance of changing their lives and their communities.

[PassedOut]

Here's what has to be understood here. We have whole entire communities where everyone is living a life of quiet desperation. They neither need nor care about a few small gains that leave life basically as desperate as before. They want policies that have a chance of changing their lives and their communities.

Have you any suggestions as to what those policies should be?

[hrothgar]

Health insurance and social security are big issues. Let me give the latter a starting shot. I don't know what "fiduciary role for policy advisers" means, and I suspect my ignorance is widely shared, even among those with an IQ above 90.

 

A financial advisor who has fiduciary responsibility is required to act in the best interest of his client and is subject to liability it he does not do so.

 

A financial advisor who does not have fiduciary responsibility might chose to use other considerations (for example, how much of a bonus he might get for recommending a share or what type of commission he might get for churning the portfolio)

[kenberg]

Glenn Greenwald, an attorney who now works as a reporter, pointed out a few years back how our institutional news media have failed us by becoming stenographers rather than reporters, now in many cases untrue news is created by repetition without question of a published story.

 

It's worse. Sounds impossible to be worse, but it is worse. On the show I was watching, they first showed Donald trump talking about the golf course. When asked about Brexit, DT had nothing to say. Then they had their guests talking about how Donald had nothing to say. Then the put up a couple of clips from HC on the fact that DT had nothing to say. Then they talked more about how awful it was that DT had nothing to say. Then I turned it off.

 

At least biased news has something to say. Biased maybe. Wrong maybe. But something.

 

When I was ten or so I used to go to the store and buy a box of marshmallows and eat them all. This was nourishment compared to what I was watching.

 

PS Before you say harsh things about mothers who let their sons eat marshmallows by the box, I walked along the train tracks, collected soft drink bottles and turned them in for the deposit to finance my habit. What mothers don't know won't hurt them.

[kenberg]

Y66 put up a guest post from Tony Blair in the Brexit thread. I couldn't figure out how to link to that from here, so I decided to just copy it and comment.

Added: It, in fact the full article, is now linked below. I think that it is good to have it on this thread. It has applications for the US, and I did not want to put a lot of US oriented comments into the Brexit thread.

 

 

The political center has lost its power to persuade and its essential means of connection to the people it seeks to represent. Instead, we are seeing a convergence of the far left and far right. The right attacks immigrants while the left rails at bankers, but the spirit of insurgency, the venting of anger at those in power and the addiction to simple, demagogic answers to complex problems are the same for both extremes. Underlying it all is a shared hostility to globalization.

 

Britain and Europe now face a protracted period of economic and political uncertainty, as the British government tries to negotiate a future outside the single market where half of Britain's goods and services are traded. These new arrangements — to be clear about the scale of the challenge — must be negotiated with all the other 27 countries, their individual parliaments and the European Parliament. Some governments may be cooperative; others won't want to make leaving easy for Britain, in order to discourage similar movements.

 

Britain is a strong country, with a resilient people and energy and creativity in abundance. I don't doubt Britons' capacity to come through, whatever the cost. But the stress on the United Kingdom is already apparent.

 

Voters in Scotland chose by a large margin to remain in Europe, with the result that there are renewed calls for another referendum on Scottish independence. Northern Ireland has benefited from virtually open borders with the Republic of Ireland. That freedom is at risk because the North's border with the South now becomes the European Union's border, a potential threat to the Northern Ireland peace process.

 

If the people — usually a repository of common sense and practicality — do something that appears neither sensible nor practical, then it forces a period of long and hard reflection. My own politics is waking to this new political landscape. The same dangerous impulses are visible, too, in American politics, but the challenges of globalization cannot be met by isolationism or shutting borders.

 

The center must regain its political traction, rediscover its capacity to analyze the problems we all face and find solutions that rise above the populist anger. If we do not succeed in beating back the far left and far right before they take the nations of Europe on this reckless experiment, it will end the way such rash action always does in history: at best, in disillusion; at worst, in rancorous division. The center must hold.

 

Just as a side item, the first majr political figure that I can recall emphasizing the importance of the center was Richard Nixon back in 1968 or so.

 

But regardless of the source, I see the idea as sound.

 

I copy the Blair sheet here because I think it has very broad importance.

 

Of particular interest to me is

 

"If the people — usually a repository of common sense and practicality — do something that appears neither sensible nor practical, then it forces a period of long and hard reflection."

 

Yes Yes and more Yes. Here is my argument:

 

If people are really too stupid for self-government then we are doomed. It follows that we had then better hope that this is not so. What follows from that? I think the leadership might give at least some thought to the possibility that some of the fault lies with themselves. Not just their opponent du jour, themselves. If people are pissed off, there is usually a reason for it. True, some people are always in a state of turmoil. But most of us like stability. When large numbers of people who presumably like stability move in directions that will greatly destabilize things, there is a reason. I hope our political leaders can think more deeply about causes, something beyond writing it all off as the people being too stupid to understand the brilliant slogans someone wrote for them.

[PassedOut]

Tony Blair: Brexit’s Stunning Coup

[helene_t]

Maybe not acceptable for the water cooler, but: Research shows that Trump has influenced bridge playing strategies: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/06/a_new_mediocre_science_study_suggests_how_donald_trump_s_candidacy_could.html

[PassedOut]

Maybe not acceptable for the water cooler, but: Research shows that Trump has influenced bridge playing strategies: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/06/a_new_mediocre_science_study_suggests_how_donald_trump_s_candidacy_could.html

LOL :P

[kenberg]

Maybe not acceptable for the water cooler, but: Research shows that Trump has influenced bridge playing strategies: http://www.slate.com...dacy_could.html

 

The authors of the paper are Jonathan Falk and Andrew Gelman. I am terrible at this who is who stuff but I seem to recall a youngster named Andy Gelman playing bridge some years back. Quite some years back.

[Winstonm]

Barry Ritholtz once again has found an interesting take on a subject - this time with the help of Wired:

 

Agnotology

January 21, 2009 2:30pm by Barry Ritholtz

 

Fascinating discussion via Wired‘s Clive Thompson, and Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor, on Agnotology:

 

“When it comes to many contentious subjects, our usual relationship to information is reversed: Ignorance increases.

 

[Proctor] has developed a word inspired by this trend: agnotology. Derived from the Greek root agnosis, it is “the study of culturally constructed ignorance.”

 

As Proctor argues, when society doesn’t know something, it’s often because special interests work hard to create confusion. Anti-Obama groups likely spent millions insisting he’s a Muslim; church groups have shelled out even more pushing creationism. The oil and auto industries carefully seed doubt about the causes of global warming. And when the dust settles, society knows less than it did before.

 

“People always assume that if someone doesn’t know something, it’s because they haven’t paid attention or haven’t yet figured it out,” Proctor says. “But ignorance also comes from people literally suppressing truth—or drowning it out—or trying to make it so confusing that people stop caring about what’s true and what’s not.” (emphasis added)

Fairly amazing, and when it comes to certain issues, its dead on.

 

What an awesome definition:

 

Agnotology: Culturally constructed ignorance, purposefully created by special interest groups working hard to create confusion and suppress the truth.

 

http://www.wired.com/2009/01/st-thompson-14/

[barmar]

I like it -- it probably works well with Stephen Colbert's "truthiness".

[kenberg]

Following the links, I got to Proctor's homepage

http://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/proctor.html

Many of his interests seem interesting. The history of expert witnessing, for example.

 

As to agnotology, I'll keep an open mind. Without a doubt, people get hoodwinked. I believe this applies across the ideological spectrum, so I would hope any study of this phenomenon studies all weed growth in the garden of knowledge. And knowledge changes. I forget: Are eggs good for us or bad for us? I know scientists are certain of the answer, but the answer keeps changing. I started smoking in 1954 or thereabouts. I knew it was bad for me, I did it anyway. I started drinking coffee in 1947. I was 8 and people were shocked. Now we read about all the good things coffee does for people. It made me what I am today. Well, it helped.

 

"What is Truth?" Someone asked that a while back. Yes I went to Sunday School so I know the source. But I am far from positive Pilate really said it. Anyway, it's a tough question.

[Winstonm]

Following the links, I got to Proctor's homepage

http://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/proctor.html

Many of his interests seem interesting. The history of expert witnessing, for example.

 

As to agnotology, I'll keep an open mind. Without a doubt, people get hoodwinked. I believe this applies across the ideological spectrum, so I would hope any study of this phenomenon studies all weed growth in the garden of knowledge. And knowledge changes. I forget: Are eggs good for us or bad for us? I know scientists are certain of the answer, but the answer keeps changing. I started smoking in 1954 or thereabouts. I knew it was bad for me, I did it anyway. I started drinking coffee in 1947. I was 8 and people were shocked. Now we read about all the good things coffee does for people. It made me what I am today. Well, it helped.

 

"What is Truth?" Someone asked that a while back. Yes I went to Sunday School so I know the source. But I am far from positive Pilate really said it. Anyway, it's a tough question.

 

I believe it shows a lot of intelligence that the good Ph.D. figured out a way to make a living doing something so interesting.