The "I" mentality of Trump

[ThomasJ79]

 

[philostam]

I know this is anachronistic, but looking trough today's lenses, virtually all societies before 20th century were "right-wing" as defined in this video. So the idea that we need to swing even more left today to solve our issues is just nonsense to me.

Nazism was right taken to its most extreme "toxic-masculinity" pole, so we put systems in place that this never happens again. Fair enough, but toxic-femininity, which we have today, is not working very well either.

Funny, Aristophanes wrote a comedy in 4th century BC where women were in charge, and the result was...something like communism.

 

[ThomasJ79]

I know this is anachronistic, but looking trough today's lenses, virtually all societies before 20th century were "right-wing" as defined in this video. So the idea that we need to swing even more left today to solve our issues is just nonsense to me.

Nazism was right taken to its most extreme "toxic-masculinity" pole, so we put systems in place that this never happens again. Fair enough, but toxic-femininity, which we have today, is not working very well either.

Funny, Aristophanes wrote a comedy in 4th century BC where women were in charge, and the result was...something like communism.

That would be true, even though it was all before our concepts of "left" and "right" politics. Prior to the democratic revolutions of the Enlightenment, most societies were against democracy as we understood it because there was very little understanding of it. The political systems were very much about maintaining the status quo, that is until the invention of the printing press. The Renaissance and Enlightenment brought with it many new ideas that shook that status quo to its core. Once people became smart enough to understand that those in power had no clothes, it all started to unravel.

Today, things are similar except the ones that have no clothes now are those with the capital. Capitalists are the new royalty with their "right to rule" because they have the money, the power, and the ability to suppress the rights of others.

This goes beyond stupid battles about toxic masculinity and femininity. Those in power would rather we argue about these petty things while they have us bend over. They don't want us to see each other as 99.9% similar to each other. They make us see each other as -100% similar, which is a ruse of course.

 

[philostam]

That would be true, even though it was all before our concepts of "left" and "right" politics. Prior to the democratic revolutions of the Enlightenment, most societies were against democracy as we understood it because there was very little understanding of it. The political systems were very much about maintaining the status quo, that is until the invention of the printing press. The Renaissance and Enlightenment brought with it many new ideas that shook that status quo to its core. Once people became smart enough to understand that those in power had no clothes, it all started to unravel.

Today, things are similar except the ones that have no clothes now are those with the capital. Capitalists are the new royalty with their "right to rule" because they have the money, the power, and the ability to suppress the rights of others.

This goes beyond stupid battles about toxic masculinity and femininity. Those in power would rather we argue about these petty things while they have us bend over. They don't want us to see each other as 99.9% similar to each other. They make us see each other as -100% similar, which is a ruse of course.

They certainly were not democracies, but as you say, democracy doesn't mean much if it's controlled by other interests. I think David Starkey makes this argument, that England under Tony Blair and New Labor, underwent a shift of power from parliament to vast array of committees that are not directly accountable to the parliament. One example of this erosion of parliamentary power is monetary policy, once a matter of Chancellor of Exchequer, which is from 1997 onwards controlled by Bank of England. Of course, critics might say that central banks should be independent, which is the case for US for a long time, but I would argue that a) central bank is often politicized anyway, and b) results of their supposed expertise aren't spectacular and have fueled many bubbles and crashes.

Democracies can work well when whoever is in power can actually enact meaningful change according to vote of the people - not just shuffle around toys in their pre-determined sandbox. Regardless of that, even if parliament was sovereign, there is no quick fix after decades of negligence and accumulated debt. No one is willing to swallow the medicine, people are financially (and otherwise) struggling and don't have the patience anymore. Like in the US it's easy to blame Trump or even Biden, but fact is most of the problems and debt-accumulation in US started way back. Again, there is no quick fix and no political savior I'm afraid, and 1950 version of the West is not coming back.

 

[John K]

It seems to me that this presentation is very unbalanced. Far left governments may not target specific minorities like the far right in power, but Mao killed up to 45 million folks with his Great Leap Forward. Stalin was little better with his Gulags, his purges and his programs of forced migration (some of which which were ethnically based, I think).

What isn't discussed very much, unless I missed it, is that both extremes detest personal freedom, and force everyone to be subservient to the collective - this is to my mind a greater evil even than the number of folks that they kill, because it destroys the spirits of all their billions of people even if their bodies stay alive. North Korea today is an obvious example, as were the right and left wing governments listed in the video.

Personally, I'm repelled equally by both extremes of this spectrum - which I find in any case to be synthetic. Conceptually, there is positive value in both the right and the left political perspectives, and there are severe downsides too. The middle ground does not have to be a weak, wishy-washy version of either of these, but could adapt the best principles of both them into the principles behind a just and humane society - this should not be seen as the middle at all, but a third pole in its own right.

 

[aeon]

Nothing wrong with being a utopian idealist until there is added certainty about being right.

Then all manner of abuses occur.

Thankfully, I am a utopian idealist filled to the gills with doubts.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[philostam]

What isn't discussed very much, unless I missed it, is that both extremes detest personal freedom, and force everyone to be subservient to the collective - this is to my mind a greater evil even than the number of folks that they kill, because it destroys the spirits of all their billions of people even if their bodies stay alive. North Korea today is an obvious example, as were the right and left wing governments listed in the video.

This is the horseshoe theory that he dismissed out of hand at the beginning of the video. The notion that far left and far right are unified in their totalitarian tendencies seems pretty accurate to me.

But then his justification was that far-left doesn't mention it in theory (it just so happens in practice, lol).

 

[John K]

This is the horseshoe theory that he dismissed out of hand at the beginning of the video. The notion that far left and far right are unified in their totalitarian tendencies seems pretty accurate to me.

But then his justification was that far-left doesn't mention it in theory (it just so happens in practice, lol).

I think Stalin justified his approach as a necessary condition for the communist paradise to come in a few generations. The trouble was it meant he became a sort of reincarnation of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. The result was Animal Farm.

It’s interesting to look at the unfolding of the French Revolution and the resulting Napoleonic empire as another example of sort-of liberal ideas leading to mass suffering, death and destruction in the hands of incompetent government, followed by autocratic tyranny.

I guess the lesson of history is that people have both good and evil tendencies and can turn any political system towards tyranny, no matter how enlightened it is in its concepts and inception.

 

[philostam]

I think Stalin justified his approach as a necessary condition for the communist paradise to come in a few generations. The trouble was it meant he became a sort of reincarnation of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. The result was Animal Farm.

It’s interesting to look at the unfolding of the French Revolution and the resulting Napoleonic empire as another example of sort-of liberal ideas leading to mass suffering, death and destruction in the hands of incompetent government, followed by autocratic tyranny.

I guess the lesson of history is that people have both good and evil tendencies and can turn any political system towards tyranny, no matter how enlightened it is in its concepts and inception.

What also irked me in the video was this simplistic characterization of right-wing as always reactionary and against progress. French revolution is a good example. Is that the progress that we should cheer on? I've been long looking to read Edmund Burke's Reflections on Revolution in France. From little bits and pieces I saw, he seemmed to analyze the situation really well. I always liked Burke's quote that society is indeed a contract, but not only of the living; also of the dead and of those not yet born.

Progress is inevitable anyway, but it's important to go about it the right way and not fall for every well sounding folly.

 

[philostam]

Some more remarkable quotes from Burke (just taken of goodreads):

“The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints.”

“A man full of warm speculative benevolence may wish his society otherwise constituted than he finds it; but a good patriot and a true politician, always considers how he shall make the most of the existing materials of his country. A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman. Every thing else is vulgar in the conception, perilous in the execution.”

“You will smile here at the consistency of those democratists who, when they are not on their guard, treat the humbler part of the community with the greatest contempt, whilst, at the same time they pretend to make them the depositories of all power.”

 

[Wyote]

Progress is inevitable anyway, but it's important to go about it the right way and not fall for every well sounding folly.

What is the "right way" to progress

 

[QuickTwist]

I don't believe morality progresses with time (except to say it gets worse over time). I think the issues we are talking about today are the same issues that have been brought up throughout history.

Technology progresses with time. Morality does not.

 

[Wyote]

I didn't watch all the way through but
The main issue is that his conclusions are just wrong
The left is just as capable of violence and we've seen that play out today
Their frame of mind and justifications are just different
Violence in the name of progress/togtherness versus violence in the name of security/otherness
Both ends get bastardized until ultimately they are doing the same actions

 

[Wyote]

I don't believe morality progresses with time (except to say it gets worse over time). I think the issues we are talking about today are the same issues that have been brought up throughout history.

Technology progresses with time. Morality does not.

I get what you are saying on an intrinsic level
Humanity's moral compass kind of ebbs and flows (as well as any individual's)
I think we build better tools for accountability, but it will always ebb and flow

 

[philostam]

What is the "right way" to progress

I don't know, but I suspect that the key may be deeply studying British history from like 16th century to WW2 which I have not done.

The way in which England managed to impose some self-regulation, so it wasn't just slashing and raping people, while also gradually usher in progress without having any major bloody revolutions is remarkable.

 

[QuickTwist]

I think we build better tools for accountability, but it will always ebb and flow

No, can't agree with this at all.

You will always have the elites who call the shots. It just takes on a different form. I think about all the lies the media told about COVID that were proven to be complete BS, and they ended up having zero consequences for it because it was those who were rich and powerful telling all the peons what to do. People got stinkin' rich off the vaccines, for example, even when there were other better ways to combat COVID that weren't expensive at all. That's just the state of healthcare today. Why tell someone to fix their diet when you can tell them this pill will do the same thing (NVM that there are many side effects, some quite severe) because you get a kickback for recommending that drug? This is all besides the idea that politicians in the US today (and for some time) have been producing 1K page bills that no one reads, and these bills pass easily because politicians are told they will make money by voting for them. This happens on both the left and the right, and I don't think, in general, it is the good guys against the bad guys. In fact, this was all predicted way back in the day when some guy said in places like Russia they would have "Hard totalitarianism" and in the West, because of our liberal values, we would have "Soft totalitarianism."

There literally are no checks and balances for the rich and powerful today. Sure, maybe they have more steps to go through, but this is pretty trivial for them when they can just check off the "legal" stuff, and then they are basically free to do whatever they want.

 

[Wyote]

No, can't agree with this at all.

We are talking about two entirely different things.

It is regrettable that you are so set on your own agenda in this realm though.
I wish you the best.

 

[philostam]

One concept from finance that I like is that volatility cannot be suppressed, it can only be transferred to something else. Kinda follows also the second law of thermodynamics. For example you can somewhat control for unemployment and keep it steady, but you'll have volatility in inflation, currency, bond market and income inequality if you do that.

It's even more so in the course of history, volatility can never be suppressed. The idea that we have or will discover a perfect solution steady state is just not feasible. And I think some leftist resist that and tend more towards magical thinking/utopia. What I also notice (even in the video attached above) is this undertone that conservatives are cartoonishly portrayed as reactionary "ST" types that prevent liberal "NF" types to implement their vision just because... they're less empathetic and more corrupt? And liberals just have to suffer and live in such a unnecessarily imperfect world.

And I know this isn't necessarily the case amongst the more mature people like in this place, but definitely creeps in in videos like the one posted.

 

[Wyote]

And I think some leftist resist that and tend more towards magical thinking/utopia. What I also notice (even in the video attached above) is this undertone that conservatives are cartoonishly portrayed as reactionary "ST" types that prevent liberal "NF" types to implement their vision just because... they're less empathetic and more corrupt? And liberals just have to suffer and live in such a unnecessarily imperfect world.

Isn't that the reality of today though

 

[John K]

There literally are no checks and balances for the rich and powerful today. Sure, maybe they have more steps to go through, but this is pretty trivial for them when they can just check off the "legal" stuff, and then they are basically free to do whatever they want.

I know it can feel like this is so, but if we look objectively over different parts of the world and over several thousand years, it looks very different to me. Pagan society in the BCE centuries was very often ruled at the whim of the overlords who did whatever they liked as long as they had military might behind them. The big civilisations such as the Roman Empire, and ancient China, were a huge step forward from this and as far as I can see both of them invented and implemented the first societies based on widespread rule of law. The major world religions that were founded in those days added codes of ethics that transcended the political structures of those days, and that was also incorporated into the formation of civil law - for example the principle of the relative primacy of the individual over any collective.

People are morally ambiguous, so of course these were not adopted in a clean sort of way. It's been a process of evolution, and a flowing and ebbing of tides over the following thousands of years. We can see the same sort of thing happening in the French Revolution I referred to earlier which started out by defining some of the great universal humanitarian principles of our times, then they blew it all. But then the American Revolution learnt from their experience and the American Constitution and State founded on principles derived from the French was much more successful and has resulted in a very stable society that has weathered storms that would have destroyed other states. And in many ways these were inheritors of the outcome of the English civil war and which changed forever the balance between monarch and Parliament.

Of course there will always be folks who try to use the institutions of state for their own gratification, in terms of power and wealth, and some of these will be evil people. But a well constituted democracy is better able to resist these that the other forms of government that we are familiar with. We only have to look at the quality of life in the major countries with governments that do not depend on the measured will of their people to see this. That doesn't mean that all's well in democracies - just that usually on the whole it's better than the alternatives. There's a good reason why half of the third world is trying hard to come and live in Europe and the USA. They don't seem to be queuing to get into Russia or China in the same way.

It seems to me that a lesson from history is that creating a government around a fundamental change to a prescribed and new constitution in one bound is almost always doomed. A society is just too complex for this to be successful - this has become an order of magnitude more complex and difficult in modern times. It seems to me to be a gross error to suggest that right wing / conservatives want only to preserve the past. There will be some who want that, but it's like wanting to go back to your childhood - I think it's much more that change needs to take place incrementally, a bit at a time. Precipitous change leads to all sorts of unanticipated problems, economic and political instability, even the chaos which destroys governments eventually and brings very great suffering to the people.