[anna]

This doesn't seem to be the case though. I agree that Trump has lost the moderates and would be unlikely to win an election should he ever run again, but to say that now people have experienced populism and seen its tragic effects, they would be wise to it now is ignoring what is going on. Trump remains the most popular candidate from the Republican base, 30% of America believe the election was a fraud WITH ZERO evidence, QAnonists still believe his predictions with a whooping none coming true and currently America is a divided nation with both sides of the political divide hating each other so much they consider them the enemy. We has seen the beginnings, it's effects and ultimately what should have been the end populism yet it still exists and perhaps it is as dangerous as ever.

The issue is that populism didn't just come from no where. People voted Trump because they are getting left behind in the "American Dream". They blame everyone except the people who they should blame (bourgeois) and instead it becomes a fight involving nationalism vs socialism. So if you do not address the wealth divide, don't invest in production or whatever the economic state/city activity is, keep on retaining a minimum wage that isn't even livable, tax the poor whilst given tax breaks to the rich, rely on the trickle down effect to stimulate growth, please your sponsors rather than your voters and keep a generally broken system, populism doesn't shrink, it grows. Trump was the ultimate false prophet. He said the right things whilst doing the opposite. He was the swampyist swamp thing in the swamp. But that didn't matter. People invested in him and as such believed his lies. And the next person who does that but isn't Trump is likely to win the presidency unless Biden addresses the things I mentioned before. Palin on a Trump ticket with four years of the status quo is perhaps a sure thing for victory because people will not give up on hope on a broken system regardless what they seen before.

I'd give you 100 likes if I could, I agree with you on all except maybe the last sentence, although the idea of a Palin comeback makes me shudder I just don't see it as likely. If (and that's a big if, because I think he only floats the idea of 2024 for attention) Trump ran in 2024 I'd see his running mate someone more like Candace Owens or Tulsi Gabbard.

[B0ycey]

One way she wouldn't is if the leftist counterparts begin to run amok.

But it's a winning card. Remember Democrats and Republicans are in reality the same party. Only perceptions are different. I suspect America won't address its ills even if Biden wanted to make a difference. Obama tried but his hands were tied and as such the conditions for Trump came about. These conditiond still exist now. And in four years time they will still exist. Which means anyone on a Trump ticket who isn't Trump stands a good chance of winning on that card. Because America first is a good slogan. Executing that is another matter all together.

[B0ycey]

...I agree with you on all except maybe the last sentence, although the idea of a Palin comeback makes me shudder I just don't see it as likely.

Palin isn't even a governor now so perhaps you are right. But then again Trump wasn't in politics either.

If it helps it would make me shudder if she came back too. There is no indication she will. But my point wasn't really about Palin but what can happen if you pick the right candidate saying the right things on a Trump ticket. Thinking we have got rid of Trump even if he doesn't run again is ignoring that many politicians who could be the GOP pick agree with all that Trump stands for whilst also being diplomatically astute.

[wat0n]

But it's a winning card. Remember Democrats and Republicans are in reality the same party. Only perceptions are different. I suspect America won't address its ills even if Biden wanted to make a difference. Obama tried but his hands were tied and as such the conditions for Trump came about. These conditiond still exist now. And in four years time they will still exist. Which means anyone on a Trump ticket who isn't Trump stands a good chance of winning on that card. Because America first is a good slogan. Executing that is another matter all together.

The conditions still exist, not only in the US but in the West in general. Yet it's not because of your explanation, it's a result of the current cultural and technological trends and here governments have little room to solve this (and arguably they shouldn't).

How can I tell that? By looking at other countries with radically different social policies from the US and seeing the same has been happening there. If anything the US wasn't even the first one, this stuff began in Europe with the rise of far-right parties and their accession to government coalitions or becoming the main opposition parties. Trump largely took that discourse, combined it with (ironically) the post-modern identity politics of the Left, and "American-Conservativized" it.

[B0ycey]

I wouldn't dispute that populism is also found in the West @wat0n. And perhaps America was behind Europe once on extremism and populism. But European nations that have adapted Socialism policies have less extreme parties vying for power than those who don't I see.

Also what I have seen is that the wider the wealth divide and lower the tax bracket in a nation, the more extreme and depressed the proletariat seem to be. And America is more polarised on the wealth divide than Europe. So it doesn't surprise me that a Trump type candidate came out of America first. And the reasons for that are the reasons I wrote and you dispute. OK. Whatever. I am only going what Americans were saying before Trump in 2016. That is 'where are my jobs?' and 'why am I getting left behind?' They were also saying that America needed a businessman to address these issues, you know, because they will know about business and creating jobs above all else. And they bought that notion despite him basically being accused as a rapist at the time he was running for presidency in 2016.

[wat0n]

@B0ycey the rise of the far right I'm talking about in Europe is the one that began the past decade as a result of the Euro crisis. The European social safety net hasn't changed much since then.

[B0ycey]

@wat0n, The "Far Right" in Europe are skeptics not really like Trump at all. But mainland Europe have a different election process to America making populism more visible perhaps but ultimately more difficult to gain absolute power. Europe are governments of coalition after all.

But that besides the point. I am not saying populism cannot rise out of Europe. It may well rise out of Europe. What I am saying is if people struggle or think the system is unfair that they start to look for blame which make them susceptible to populism. And if you don't address that, populism doesn't just disappear. It just evolves.

[wat0n]

@wat0n, The "Far Right" in Europe are skeptics not really like Trump at all. But mainland Europe have a different election process to America making populism more visible perhaps but ultimately more difficult to gain absolute power. Europe are governments of coalition after all.

But that besides the point. I am not saying populism cannot rise out of Europe. It may well rise out of Europe. What I am saying is if people struggle or think the system is unfair that they start to look for blame which make them susceptible to populism. And if you don't address that, populism doesn't just disappear. It just evolves.

I know they aren't the same (it's not like they will be American firsters) but it's not all that different. I would actually say it was Trump and Bannon who followed their example, after Americanizing their discourse.

Also, European populists seem to be split on economics with some parties being way more economically liberal than others. So even in that regard, Trump is not necessarily that special (keeping in mind that the US is way more liberal than Europe when it comes to economic policy).

The immigration and identity politics stuff are fairly similar between both, however. And I think that's the truly unusual stuff about Trump, along with his protectionism (which I think the European far-right shares), with respect to the GOP. All the other stuff is fairly standard there.

[anna]

Thinking we have got rid of Trump even if he doesn't run again is ignoring that many politicians who could be the GOP pick agree with all that Trump stands for whilst also being diplomatically astute.

It would be unwise to count him out until he's out, one big mistake was the assumption by almost everyone that he had no chance of winning in 2016. The danger is in getting another, different Trumpian candidate who's like Trump but smarter.

[anna]

what Americans were saying before Trump in 2016. That is 'where are my jobs?' and 'why am I getting left behind?'

And a significant number of them were saying 'Trump has been ordained by God to save us God-fearing white patriots! MAGA!'

[Ivan_R]

Murmurations are beautiful to behold, but scientists have yet to figure out exactly how they do it.

Hi Anna! I really appreciate your smart replies. I know that. But my ‘flock’ metaphor did not imply that knowledge What I would like to convey is that some societies (large groups) may display qualitatively new type of behavior, something we have not seen before. The murmuration seems to us something quite unusual, since it may rather look like some one living thing instead of myriads of birds we cannot even discern individually.

The idea of human ‘flocks’ is not mine, of course. It may be traced back to some early 90-s, when e.g. Yaneer Bar-Yam predicted that at a certain point some ‘networked entities’ would appear to be much more effective and adaptive than traditional ‘vertical-based' large groups. That the former might even somehow outlive the latter, etc. You may even think of it as of the ‘China brain thought experiment’ from Dennett’s perspective

So I tend to regard those networked societies as absolutely new type of entities, which might behave much smarter and in a much more complex way, than any individual within them. That is why I said they might be dealt with somewhat differently.

At the moment I see two possible ‘trends’ in this topic:
1. The post-truth era is not something we can just get rid of, so it’s not easy to even conceive some post-post-truth condition. It is part of our evolution. So instead of opposing it in any way, we should just choose some ‘right’ entity and/or ‘culture’ to be a part of. E.g. we should agree this entity/culture is nothing but a set of memes (Dennett?) or ‘narratives’. We should therefore reproduce right narratives, fight some wrong ones et cetera et cetera.
2. The post-truth condition is not part of some natural evolution and should be overcome. E.g. Bar-Yam’s arguments in favor of ‘networked communities’ had at least one major flaw. When the complexity of such new ‘entity’ becomes much higher than the complexity of any individual within it, that might actually be a bidirectional process. That is, the ‘entity’ might become more complex and effective, while the individual at the same time may become more and more simplified and dependent on the ‘entity’. So we may never achieve any kind of ‘China brain’ condition, but will rather end up as some form of Frankenstein's creature. Which will not be something new sub specie aeternitatis...

I don't know if you are American or British (or even some other nation)

Much worse, I am Russian) I hope it will not stigmatize me here. Anyway, I will try to avoid discussing any specific examples. I believe we all are suffering from the same evil.

[late]

So I tend to regard those networked societies as absolutely new type of entities, which might behave much smarter and in a much more complex way, than any individual within them. That is why I said they might be dealt with somewhat differently.


The post-truth era is not something we can just get rid of, so it’s not easy to even conceive some post-post-truth condition. It is part of our evolution. So instead of opposing it in any way, we should just choose some ‘right’ entity and/or ‘culture’ to be a part of.

That depends on the network. Science is going a lot faster thanks to scientists constantly sharing information. On the other hand, what propagandists like Putin are doing with social media is brainwashing.

Some countries in Europe are countering his propaganda with messaging of their own. In my distinctly unhumble opinion, it absolutely has to be opposed, and vigorously.

[Ivan_R]

That depends on the network. Science is going a lot faster thanks to scientists constantly sharing information. On the other hand, what propagandists like Putin are doing with social media is brainwashing.
Some countries in Europe are countering his propaganda with messaging of their own. In my distinctly unhumble opinion, it absolutely has to be opposed, and vigorously.

IMHO, any type of propaganda based on social networks is brainwashing and should be 'vigorously opposed'. Be it 'Putin's', 'Biden's', 'Trump's', etc...

[late]

IMHO, any type of propaganda based on social networks is brainwashing and should be 'vigorously opposed'. Be it 'Putin's', 'Biden's', 'Trump's', etc...

In principle, I agree.

I am not on facebook or twitter, or anything beyond a couple forums like this. Remember IM? I didn't do that, either.

But you don't always get to pick the battlefield. You have to fight them where they are.

[Ivan_R]

@late, That is what anna hinted at. Of course, we still have an opportunity to get out of any social network whatsoever. The problem is that now we cannot get rid of ‘semantically rich’ world, which is somewhat more fundamental.
What makes us believe in what we call ‘facts’, most of which are actually pre-built ‘constructs’ and ‘narratives’? IMHO, some ‘reference group(s)’, those people who we trust. Social/semantic networks are ideal environments/instruments to build such ‘reference groups’, even tailoring them for each person individually.
What might happen when you abandon any network? You will still remain a ‘zoon politikon’, you will still depend on the ‘reference group’, which may still remain mostly a pre-built construct. So nothing will change.

[late]

@late, That is what anna hinted at. Of course, we still have an opportunity to get out of any social network whatsoever. The problem is that now we cannot get rid of ‘semantically rich’ world, which is somewhat more fundamental.


What makes us believe in what we call ‘facts’, most of which are actually pre-built ‘constructs’ and ‘narratives’? IMHO, some ‘reference group(s)’, those people who we trust.

So nothing will change.

The world was semantically richer before social media.

Preferably science. The intellectual tradition of the West is analysis, and that hasn't changed. What has changed is new media that bypasses rational processes.

Everything changes.

Why do I get the feeling you are part of Putin's network? Hmmm?

[Ivan_R]

@late, you are right, the new types of media make it possible to bypass rational processes. I just offered my view of how they achieve that. What is yours?

Why do I get the feeling you are part of Putin's network? Hmmm?

Oh no, I still cannot believe I might be stigmatized just because I have ‘Ivan’ in my nickname Where is your tolerance, multiculturalism, etc?

[late]

@late, you are right, the new types of media make it possible to bypass rational processes. I just offered my view of how they achieve that. What is yours?

Oh no, I still cannot believe I might be stigmatized just because I have ‘Ivan’ in my nickname Where is your tolerance, multiculturalism, etc?

That's a long story, I might get back to it later.

We have a saying, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's prob a duck. We get all sorts of trolls here, and I am not shy about pointing out the apparent relationship.

[Ivan_R]

We have a saying, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's prob a duck

This saying is a good illustration for the lack of critical thinking we discuss here.

I might get back to it later

No, thanks(

[Pants-of-dog]

The first thing we need to look at is the causes of this acceptance of truthiness instead of actual facts.

One cause is polarised politics and the ensuing tribalism. As far as I can tell, that is not going to end in the foreseeable future.

While not a cause of post truth politics, the way US media caters to ideological markets reinforces this tribalism and also should help maintain this post truth paradigm for the foreseeable future.