Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[hrothgar]

If the things that upset me also upset others and if this upsets enough people enough to swing some elections, it could be a mistake to think of these matters as irrelevant minutia. The 2016 election should have been won by HC. It wasn't. If the only explanation Dems can find for this is that they did everything right but people were just too stupid, too lazy, too whatever, then they might want to think again.

 

Just understand, the way to deal with this is to treat you - and the rest of the voting public - in the same way that Fox News does

 

Dumb down the conversation

Ramp up the culture wars even more

Substitute meaningless slogans for policy

Distract people with bread and circuses

 

If this is what you want, it can most certainly happen

 

Democracy requires some degree of responsibility on the part of the public

 

Much of the country seems to have forgotten about this.

[kenberg]

Just understand, the way to deal with this is to treat you - and the rest of the voting public - in the same way that Fox News does

 

Dumb down the conversation

Ramp up the culture wars even more

Substitute meaningless slogans for policy

Distract people with bread and circuses

 

If this is what you want, it can most certainly happen

 

Democracy requires some degree of responsibility on the part of the public

 

Much of the country seems to have forgotten about this.

 

Added: Much to my surprise I find this got posted. I spent some time thinking about it, clicked to post it, I got some spinning dots and then a note that it had timed out. While doing some errands I figured the robot disagreed with me and anyway a short version would be better, here it is:

I disagree with your description of me.

 

But now that my post has appeared, I will leave it here. But the short version above might be best.

 

 

Of the four listed topics, dumb down, and so on, I support none of them. I understand that you think I do, but I do not.

 

I am saying that Many voters have only limited time, and yes also only limited interest, for a detailed discussion of policy. And it is not hard to find places where that applies to me. On the PBS Newshour they have been advertising an upcoming series on gun violence. I forget the name of the show and I don't plan to watch it. I have some thoughts about gun violence, some personal, some more theoretical, I have expressed some of them, I have discussed some of them with family and friends, but I don't plan to watch the show. I don't think of that expressing my views without first watching the PBS as dumbing down the conversation. I would be very surprised if it contained important information I was not already aware of, at least in general terms.

 

My fundamental point in my recent posts is this: Dems should be doing better in races than they have been. Of course there are many reasons. But one reason is that the leadership seems to be very poor at understanding the effect of some of their positions and how these positions are presented. When things go wrong in my own life I can always find someone to blame, but I find it far more useful to search for mistakes that I have made. I am recommending that the Democratic leadership give some thought to that approach.

 

When I was 16, in the summer I drove over to the university to sit in on a college course in physics. No credit or anything, I just did it. I would not have sat in on an econ class or a poly sci class. when I was ten I loved fishing, when I was 20 I loved water skiing. People have interests and not everyone is going to listen to the hearings of the Jan 6 committee. For example, I didn't. In 2016 I thought Trump was by far the worst choice either major party had ever nominated, at least during my lifetime, and my opinion of him has only become more intense. So I should spend more time hearing that he is a scumbag? I got that long ago. I feel I spent way too much time watching the Nixon hearings back before he resigned. At some point we know all that we need to.

 

I gather you feel I lack the proper degree of responsibility. I disagree, and I very much think that people who know me would also disagree with this assessment of me. I will have to live with that being your view of me, but I want to make it clear that I disagree.

 

I am not promising to drop this discussion, but it's hard to see how I can be any clearer than I already have been. We will probably go on disagreeing about my sense of responsibility and why things are in such a mess right now.

[akwoo]

I agree with hrothgar that democracy requires some responsibility on the part of the public.

 

The evidence tells me that humans do not have that amount of responsibility, and it would be better for us to nuke ourselves into oblivion so that God can start over.

[y66]

There is a wide range of opinion in the water cooler on what it means to be a responsible citizen? Please say it isn't f^cking so.

[kenberg]

There is a wide range of opinion in the water cooler on what it means to be a responsible citizen? Please say it isn't f^cking so.

 

Relax. I suppose we could take a poll, but let's not.

[Chas_P]

There are quite a few of us who long for a return to sanity on all sides.

 

To paraphrase Sam Goldwyn, "Gentlemen, include me in."

[Winstonm]

Added: Much to my surprise I find this got posted. I spent some time thinking about it, clicked to post it, I got some spinning dots and then a note that it had timed out. While doing some errands I figured the robot disagreed with me and anyway a short version would be better, here it is:

I disagree with your description of me.

 

But now that my post has appeared, I will leave it here. But the short version above might be best.

 

 

Of the four listed topics, dumb down, and so on, I support none of them. I understand that you think I do, but I do not.

 

I am saying that Many voters have only limited time, and yes also only limited interest, for a detailed discussion of policy. And it is not hard to find places where that applies to me. On the PBS Newshour they have been advertising an upcoming series on gun violence. I forget the name of the show and I don't plan to watch it. I have some thoughts about gun violence, some personal, some more theoretical, I have expressed some of them, I have discussed some of them with family and friends, but I don't plan to watch the show. I don't think of that expressing my views without first watching the PBS as dumbing down the conversation. I would be very surprised if it contained important information I was not already aware of, at least in general terms.

 

My fundamental point in my recent posts is this: Dems should be doing better in races than they have been. Of course there are many reasons. But one reason is that the leadership seems to be very poor at understanding the effect of some of their positions and how these positions are presented. When things go wrong in my own life I can always find someone to blame, but I find it far more useful to search for mistakes that I have made. I am recommending that the Democratic leadership give some thought to that approach.

 

When I was 16, in the summer I drove over to the university to sit in on a college course in physics. No credit or anything, I just did it. I would not have sat in on an econ class or a poly sci class. when I was ten I loved fishing, when I was 20 I loved water skiing. People have interests and not everyone is going to listen to the hearings of the Jan 6 committee. For example, I didn't. In 2016 I thought Trump was by far the worst choice either major party had ever nominated, at least during my lifetime, and my opinion of him has only become more intense. So I should spend more time hearing that he is a scumbag? I got that long ago. I feel I spent way too much time watching the Nixon hearings back before he resigned. At some point we know all that we need to.

 

I gather you feel I lack the proper degree of responsibility. I disagree, and I very much think that people who know me would also disagree with this assessment of me. I will have to live with that being your view of me, but I want to make it clear that I disagree.

 

I am not promising to drop this discussion, but it's hard to see how I can be any clearer than I already have been. We will probably go on disagreeing about my sense of responsibility and why things are in such a mess right now.

 

I know you are right that many - probably most people do not dig deeply into candidates or policies. Here, then, is are my question for you: 1) How do these people decide for whom to vote? 2) What could the Democrats do to coerce these people to vote for Democrats?

 

Note, I am not interested in what you think the Democrats are doing wrong. What steps are required to win over people who don't really care and who only hear A) Republicans will cut your taxes and B) Democrats will raise your taxes?

[kenberg]

I know you are right that many - probably most people do not dig deeply into candidates or policies. Here, then, is are my question for you: 1) How do these people decide for whom to vote? 2) What could the Democrats do to coerce these people to vote for Democrats?

 

Note, I am not interested in what you think the Democrats are doing wrong. What steps are required to win over people who don't really care and who only hear A) Republicans will cut your taxes and B) Democrats will raise your taxes?

 

I am shortly going for a walk with friends so this answer will be brief and a bit off the top.

 

A couple of technical points. You can't coerce people to vote at all, and it is tough to explain what I think is right w/o at least implying what I think is wrong.

 

But here is something WaPo did a long time ago that I think was right. They decided that when they were reporting on a crime they would not mention the race of either the perpetrator or the victim unless it had some relevance to the story. So if they wanted assistance in finding the perp they could say he was about six feet tall, about 200 pounds and, let's say, spoke with a Norwegian accent. But otherwise skip his height and skip his Norwegian accent. It's a matter of what we are to focus on.

 

Here is a recent example of something from PBS Newshour that aggravated me (so, yep, it will be something I think was not done well). They were discussing new inflation numbers and noted that inflation was tough on Latinos and Blacks They then had a guest, who well into his talk explained that this was because Latinos and Blacks are disproportionately lower income groups. Think of the focus. A white guy listening to this can easily conclude that the people doing this story have no interest in him. They could have started with noting the serious effect the sharp inflation rate is having on people of limited means and then, if they wish, go on and mention that this group is disproportionately Black and Latino. The fact that the limited means group is disproportionately Black in Latino is relevant, but in a story about inflation it affects everyone in the limited means group so make the initial focus on that.

 

 

The general principle might be this: People are apt to vote for Candidate X if they think Candidate X has an interest in their well-being. If Candidate X has no interest in their well-being then that's tough. But Candidate X should not phrase things so that he unintentionally leads the voter to believe he has no interest in them unless they are in some minority group.

 

More later.

[kenberg]

I know you are right that many - probably most people do not dig deeply into candidates or policies. Here, then, is are my question for you: 1) How do these people decide for whom to vote? 2) What could the Democrats do to coerce these people to vote for Democrats?

 

Note, I am not interested in what you think the Democrats are doing wrong. What steps are required to win over people who don't really care and who only hear A) Republicans will cut your taxes and B) Democrats will raise your taxes?

 

OK, it was a nice walk. Here is another thought.

 

Accept that people are on a continuum. There are people who do not read Paul Krugman regularly but still are more attentive than simply thinking of Dems that Dems raise taxes and Reps cut taxes. That's where the votes are. For example. I was chatting last night with a friend from my childhood days who still lives in Minnesota. We spoke a little about politics. He mentioned that as he thinks through his past he figures that if he looked through all of his votes over the years about half would be for Dems, about half for Reps. And no, it was not Ds when he was young, and now Rs. So Dems need to not write him off, and not act as if they have written him off.

 

Overall, my thinking is that somehow we used to be better at this. We were not so quick to pigeonhole people.

[Winstonm]

OK, it was a nice walk. Here is another thought.

 

Accept that people are on a continuum. There are people who do not read Paul Krugman regularly but still are more attentive than simply thinking of Dems that Dems raise taxes and Reps cut taxes. That's where the votes are. For example. I was chatting last night with a friend from my childhood days who still lives in Minnesota. We spoke a little about politics. He mentioned that as he thinks through his past he figures that if he looked through all of his votes over the years about half would be for Dems, about half for Reps. And no, it was not Ds when he was young, and now Rs. So Dems need to not write him off, and not act as if they have written him off.

 

Overall, my thinking is that somehow we used to be better at this. We were not so quick to pigeonhole people.

 

Haven't they pigeon-holed themselves?

 

Do you sincerely believe any of the votes for Trump in 2016 would have swung to Hilary if she had not made her comment about "deplorables"? I do not think so. The people who latched onto that idea wanted to be cast as outlaws, and they weren't voting for Hilary anyway. But it did probably rile up people to vote.

 

I watched a show probably in 2019 where they were interviewing Trump voters who had previously voted Obama. One man said he voted for Trump to give him a chance as in four years he could be voted out. I think this man was misguided. I don't think he voted Trump but un-voted Hillary.

 

It used to be that the parties were responsible for weeding out candidates that were too crazed to be in office. That ship has sailed, and especially the Republican side although the only difference is super-delegates with the Dems.

 

We are now paying a price for indifference. How people receive information is critical to their belief systems. Rational Americans have to try to overcome irrationalism. I'm not sure how to do it.

[kenberg]

Haven't they pigeon-holed themselves?

 

Do you sincerely believe any of the votes for Trump in 2016 would have swung to Hilary if she had not made her comment about "deplorables"? I do not think so. The people who latched onto that idea wanted to be cast as outlaws, and they weren't voting for Hilary anyway. But it did probably rile up people to vote.

 

I watched a show probably in 2019 where they were interviewing Trump voters who had previously voted Obama. One man said he voted for Trump to give him a chance as in four years he could be voted out. I think this man was misguided. I don't think he voted Trump but un-voted Hillary.

 

It used to be that the parties were responsible for weeding out candidates that were too crazed to be in office. That ship has sailed, and especially the Republican side although the only difference is super-delegates with the Dems.

 

We are now paying a price for indifference. How people receive information is critical to their belief systems. Rational Americans have to try to overcome irrationalism. I'm not sure how to do it.

 

Maybe I could regard you as a test case. I am claiming that if you take any large group of people, say the 2016 Trump voters, there are vast differences among them. Do you reject this as a possibility? And, if there are vast differences, then some of them would have voted for Trump no matter what, but some considered voting for Clinton but in the end chose Trump. A week or so back we were having lunch with a friend and she was talking about having to vote for the least bad choice. I believe (but did not ask) she regarded Biden as not as bad as Trump.

 

Do people belong in pigeonholes? No. Some Trump voters really would vote for him if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue. Others are open for discussion. I do not think of myself as a fuzzy-headed idealist but I believe people are complex and people change.

 

As to how Clinton might have won, if she (or you) cannot think of anything that she might have done better, if the only explanation is the awfulness of voters, I regard that thinking as very incomplete.

 

When I think about people, I think Barbara Stanwyck had it right in The Lady Eve. She was speaking to Henry Fonda and it was about women, but it can apply generally: "The good ones aren't as good as you think they are, and the bad ones are not as bad, not nearly as bad." Ok, some really are as bad, or even worse, than you think they are. But not all.

 

Sorry if this all sounds too idealistic.

 

 

 

[Gilithin]

I think most experts who have analysed the 2016 election have concluded that the single largest factor in Clinton losing was the Comey announcement. Which goes to show that in modern politics, creating dirt is far more effective than any policy discussion. Those that think otherwise are generally living in a naive fantasy or optimism. People vote based on emotion, not logical thought. Generally, the easiest emotion for a politician to generate is outrage. This is at the heart of American politics for both sides but it probably represents over 90% of the talking points from the GOP. The effectiveness can be seen from one of the worst characters ever to stand for POTUS winning one election and only narrowly losing the next. The counter to this is not discussing political policy.

[kenberg]

I think most experts who have analysed the 2016 election have concluded that the single largest factor in Clinton losing was the Comey announcement. Which goes to show that in modern politics, creating dirt is far more effective than any policy discussion. Those that think otherwise are generally living in a naive fantasy or optimism. People vote based on emotion, not logical thought. Generally, the easiest emotion for a politician to generate is outrage. This is at the heart of American politics for both sides but it probably represents over 90% of the talking points from the GOP. The effectiveness can be seen from one of the worst characters ever to stand for POTUS winning one election and only narrowly losing the next. The counter to this is not discussing political policy.

 

But this still leaves us with a view of "No reason for Hillary or other Dens to ask what they might have done better, it was all due to the awfulness of opponents and the stupidity of voters". Ok, the world can be, often is, awful and voters, including myself, can make bad choices. I still recommend, when things go wrong in an election or in anything, that those who did not like the outcome reflect on what they might have done better. Of course such reflection will not always pay off, but I regard it as worthwhile. I do not regard it as naive to think that it's a good idea to do this, even if only might, not at all surely, help in the future.

Anyway, I am becoming repetitive so think of this as a response even when I don't post it again later.

[pilowsky]

Let's not forget that H. Clinton actually won the election. By millions of votes.

The already rigged electoral system in the USA is now suffering from 'white panic' as demonstrated by the resurgence of 'replacement theory'.

If the goal posts keep shifting and getting closer together so that only true MAGAhats can win, then Trump (or some other Stalin look-alike) will be elected.

 

Then New York will become a Gulag and it'll be off to the re-education camps or a one way trip out of the window of a tall building for the non-believers.

 

 

[johnu]

I think most experts who have analysed the 2016 election have concluded that the single largest factor in Clinton losing was the Comey announcement. Which goes to show that in modern politics, creating dirt is far more effective than any policy discussion.

 

A close 2nd in 2016 was the relentless (and baseless) investigations on Benghazi, and going further back, the Whitewater investigations during Bill Clinton's time as president. Basically, Trump's campaign was based on "lock her up", vague and meritless campaign pitches that Trump was the outsider non-politician that could clean house in Washington, and a racist and xenophobic appeal in his build the wall campaign. In an election that was decided by a fraction of a percent of the total vote in a handful of swing states, these were enough to change the entire election outcome.

[kenberg]

In my youth when I was the sole advocate for a dissenting viewpoint eventually someone would say "Yes, Ken, you have a point but if you comb your hair just right no one will notice it". That's when I knew it was time to stop with that particular argument. I didn't usually change my mind, I just moved on. So it is here.

If we put politics aside, surely there is something to be said for a person looking for their own mistakes when things go wrong, but I have pushed on that as much as I intend to. I'm not going anywhere, I'm just dropping that line of thought in this discussion.

[Winstonm]

In my youth when I was the sole advocate for a dissenting viewpoint eventually someone would say "Yes, Ken, you have a point but if you comb your hair just right no one will notice it". That's when I knew it was time to stop with that particular argument. I didn't usually change my mind, I just moved on. So it is here.

If we put politics aside, surely there is something to be said for a person looking for their own mistakes when things go wrong, but I have pushed on that as much as I intend to. I'm not going anywhere, I'm just dropping that line of thought in this discussion.

 

When you write this, I feel discouraged.

 

Certainly, we should look to ourselves to see if we can improve as should Democrats. I think there is much more to this though. There are certainly large swaths of voters who found their own reason to vote as they did. They are not in lock-step with each other. So what was the common denominator that brought the fractions (sic) together?

 

I doubt it was Democratic error as much as positive results from negation by opposing forces.

It takes work to understand what was meant by Defund the Police. Was it stupid to say it - Yes. Was it's message wrong; No.

But the reality is that the messaging is all that gets through to most. The issue is how to counteract propaganda, and a media too lazy to look past its own headlines.

[kenberg]

When you write this, I feel discouraged.

 

Certainly, we should look to ourselves to see if we can improve as should Democrats. I think there is much more to this though. There are certainly large swaths of voters who found their own reason to vote as they did. They are not in lock-step with each other. So what was the common denominator that brought the fractions (sic) together?

 

I doubt it was Democratic error as much as positive results from negation by opposing forces.

It takes work to understand what was meant by Defund the Police. Was it stupid to say it - Yes. Was it's message wrong; No.

But the reality is that the messaging is all that gets through to most. The issue is how to counteract propaganda, and a media too lazy to look past its own headlines.

 

Alrighty, I said I would back off on this topic but I didn't sign that in blood. Try this:

 

Suppose there is an important matter that is put to the vote of 100 people and the vote comes out "wrong" by a vote of 52-48. Suppose the supporters of the wrong side used a bunch of phony arguments. Suppose 40 of the people on the wrong side are so wrong-headed that no rational argument would ever sway them. So it was hopeless? No. Let the 40 idiots stay in their shells. We needed three more votes. If 3 of the 52 are willing to listen and capable of thinking then the good guys could have won, or at least they had a shot. So the focus should not be on the 40 unreachables, rather the focus should be on how during the campaign the needed 3 could have been held. The next time we go before these 100 people there will still be unreachables, there will still be phony claims, there will still be the same media outlets. Coyote news is not going out of business anytime soon. But what can be done to raise the vote from 48 to 51? Answer: Start by assuming that maybe 40 are unreachable, maybe even 45 are unreachable, but that leaves 7 who are reachable and we need 3. Maybe some modest improvements in messaging, and perhaps some modest changes in actual policies, would do it. Maybe not, but maybe yes.

[pilowsky]

Sometimes experiments fail.

Sometimes the result you expected to get doesn't appear.

 

There can be lots of reasons.

 

But after hundreds of years surely the rational approach is to try to change the experiment, to try something new.

Otherwise, if you keep banging your head against a brick wall your ears will start to bleed.

[Chas_P]

It takes work to understand what was meant by Defund the Police.

Obviously it does. Because if "Defund the Police" doesn't mean, "Take Money Away From Police Departments" I don't get it. Please explain exactly what it DOES mean. Semantics matter.

[Winstonm]

Alrighty, I said I would back off on this topic but I didn't sign that in blood. Try this:

 

Suppose there is an important matter that is put to the vote of 100 people and the vote comes out "wrong" by a vote of 52-48. Suppose the supporters of the wrong side used a bunch of phony arguments. Suppose 40 of the people on the wrong side are so wrong-headed that no rational argument would ever sway them. So it was hopeless? No. Let the 40 idiots stay in their shells. We needed three more votes. If 3 of the 52 are willing to listen and capable of thinking then the good guys could have won, or at least they had a shot. So the focus should not be on the 40 unreachables, rather the focus should be on how during the campaign the needed 3 could have been held. The next time we go before these 100 people there will still be unreachables, there will still be phony claims, there will still be the same media outlets. Coyote news is not going out of business anytime soon. But what can be done to raise the vote from 48 to 51? Answer: Start by assuming that maybe 40 are unreachable, maybe even 45 are unreachable, but that leaves 7 who are reachable and we need 3. Maybe some modest improvements in messaging, and perhaps some modest changes in actual policies, would do it. Maybe not, but maybe yes.

 

I get what you are saying. But are you hearing me?

 

I am saying that those 7 who are reachable are presently unreachable in essence due to our flawed media and laws regarding media.

 

Propaganda is not a word that necessarily means evil or wrong-it is advertising. When every television in every store or bar or health club or home is tuned for news to either Fox or CNN or ABC or CBS or NBC they are given a dose of both sides with no push back whatsoever.

 

I learned that a significant part of a reporter's duty is to differentiate fact from fiction and report the facts and renounce the fiction. Modern media does not do that.

 

This problem is not one of the Democrats need to be better (they do. I agree) But to win in the longer run the country needs fixed, especially the media.

[Winstonm]

Sometimes experiments fail.

Sometimes the result you expected to get doesn't appear.

 

There can be lots of reasons.

 

But after hundreds of years surely the rational approach is to try to change the experiment, to try something new.

Otherwise, if you keep banging your head against a brick wall your ears will start to bleed.

 

You are right but I do not see that possible in this environment. It will require someone with the popularity of Ronald Reagan to win massively and then have both parties too afraid of his popularity to do anything but acquiesce to his wishes, and hopefully he wants the good of the country ahead of his own self interests. I don't see him anywhere.

[PeterAlan]

Suppose there is an important matter that is put to the vote of 100 people and the vote comes out "wrong" by a vote of 52-48. Suppose the supporters of the wrong side used a bunch of phony arguments.

Suppose? That's just what happened here (UK) 6 years ago. Unfortunately, we didn't get another go 4 years later.

[kenberg]

Suppose? That's just what happened here (UK) 6 years ago. Unfortunately, we didn't get another go 4 years later.

 

Hard to know what to say. I have never found comfort in the troubles of others.

If there is agreement to be found among all our posts I guess it would be in "Good grief, what a mess".

[kenberg]

I get what you are saying. But are you hearing me?

 

I am saying that those 7 who are reachable are presently unreachable in essence due to flawed our flawed media and laws regarding media.

 

Propaganda is not a word that necessarily means evil or wrong-it is advertising. When every television in every store or bar or health club or home is tuned for news to either Fox or CNN or ABC or CBS or NBC they are given a dose of both sides with no push back whatsoever.

 

I learned that a significant part of a reporter's duty is to differentiate fact from fiction and report the facts and renounce the fiction. Modern media does not do that.

 

This problem is not one of the Democrats need to be better (they do. I agree) But to win in the longer run the country needs fixed, especially the media.

 

Yep, I hear you. And others. We have reached a stalemate, hence my decision to not comment much further on it all. I'll keep looking for those 7.