As the New York Timesā coverage of the Israeli Genocide has made obvious to even the blindest most tribalist of people, the āliberalā media was and is just as hard spouting propaganda as the far-right one.
Personally I think that the decay from Journalism into āOpinion Formingā in the traditional more liberal Press long predates the Fox-News Age and their destruction of the trust in the Traditional Press for temporary political gains of ātheir sideā created the prime conditions for the rise of the made-up-outrage āPressā that so well fits the modus operandi of far-right populism and hence fed and was fed by made-up-outrage far-right populist politicians like Trump.
I meanā¦ not equally though, unless you mean in the sense that both are incorrect. Liberal media in particular always tried to at least make their BS sound like it wasnāt nonsense, as opposed to e.g. MTGās Jewish Space Laser rants. I appreciate the effort that goes into making a chart when I am lied to, rather than just some short pithy saying - itās the effort that wins my heart! :-P (/s btw)
I have heard it said that the only true way to spot a counterfeit message is to know the real thing backwards and forwards so well that nobody can pull a fast one on you when they try to sell you short (or long). e.g. we know that 1+1=2, but if Democrats tell us it is =11 whereas old-school Republicans say that it is =-100000000000000000, newer ones say that it is the sqrt of stfu, and the most modern ones of all have already shot your mom and fucked your dog, and hold everything else you hold dear hostage until you tell them that you LIKED itā¦ then who is to blame the most if you did not know the answer in the first place?
The answer, I believe, is that MOST of the blame goes to the people who did the WORST attrocity(-ies), but at least part of it falls onto us, for letting it happen.
Therefore I do not blame older liberal media, or at least not nearly so much as I do what followed that got significantly worse. Though yeah, I do put some of the blame onto it as well, ofc.
More important is what we do in response to it all?
People used to believe in the Press - it was what is called an Authoritative Source.
What the breaking of Trust in the Press - the greatest most influential of Autoritative Sources - did was create an environment were most people donāt believe in Authoritative Sources, hence were each individual - ignorant, untrained in analytical thinking, with neither the time, the access or the knowledge to trully dig down on a subject - is on his or her own to figure out what is true and is not.
This new environment didnāt just open the doors for the likes of Fox News, it openned the doors for Anti-Vaxing, Russian interference, countless Internet conspiracies and an Era were Politics is essentially professional scam artists managing scams - the damage is way vaster than merelly their some sleazy manipulative ānewsā pieces.
I absolutelly blame them for that: for the sake of momentary political gains for their team, newsmedia which for decades were trusted and respected broke the entire Trust Hierarchy and created the conditions for chaos and what looks more and more like Fascism.
The other side, that of assholes being assholes, is nothing compared to the betrayal by those you trusted.
I have likened it to an immune system: fighting bacteria is way easier than fighting cancer. The ratio of sizes of Bacterial cells to Human cells is like a football to a football stadium, and their surfaces look extremely different, nor do bacteria even so much as try to blend in to look like their host cells (though they do put out a slimy coating to obscure their origins in the more general sense). So when the human immune system sees non-human cells somewhere they shouldnāt, like inside your anatomical tissues, it goes all-out WAR on those bitches, and just obliterates everything.
In contrast, cancer cells not only look like, but they actually are YOUR CELLS - they are YOU! With just one tiny little alteration, hardly worth noticing, in that they no longer pay attention to the signals to halt, cease & desist growing anymore. They do what they fucking want, when they want, how they want, and never mind that their actions will (not offer āa chance ofā, but a 100% certainty guarantee) kill themselves, it will also kill the organism as well, essentially taking it down with it. So all that āforeign detection apparatusā, which can eliminate bacteria, mold, non-human eukaryotes like amoeba, nonliving particles like dust, also the in-between stuff like viruses, none of that helps, when fighting against cancer.
And that hasnāt even begun to get into HIV, where those immune processes are themselves subvertedā¦ when the police refuse to police the police, then how can the work of policing happen? (answer: it does not, and the body dies, far more often than not, unless some external intervention can prevent that outcome)
There is a reason why people say that the only party slightly less worse than Republicans are Democrats. Although that might have something to do with the whole ā2-partyā systemā¦:-P - but it does convey that neither party aim to be correct, so much as to just win. Also, whatever happened to just being āAmericansā? Like, regardless of what party put you into office, once you get there, donāt (or rather, shouldnāt) you belong to the citizenry at large and need to represent all of your people, even those who voted for your opponent(s)? So like a Senator would represent a single stateās interests, and a President or Supreme Court Justice would represent the entire nationās at large, etc. Enshittification is not just a term for capitalistic corporations, but applies to society at large - i.e. whatever higher functions were once meant to happen, have now been subverted by more basic lower processes like greed and corruption and such.
Which makes sense - entropy doesnāt decrease for simply no reason (although that said, an open system does have quite a bit of wiggle room to play around in), and Maslovās hierarchy of needs tends to revert to the lower, more basic ones when necessary, the higher ones only opening up when the lower ones are already met.
How all this relates to what you said: people are stupid, and more importantly short-sighted. When the people entrusted with something become no longer worthy of that trustā¦ that is the most dangerous thing of all to the survival of an organism. On the other hand, what are we going to do about it - just sit back and watch it die? For my part, I promote video sources such as Innuendo Studios, Kurzgesagt, Crash Course, etc. that have acted to step up in the wake of the demise of trust in our āofficialā media, but ofc there is no magic bullet, no one-solution-fits-all that is going to solve the enormous scope of the problem (and if there were, it would likely be taken out by an aggressive competitor or malicious actor, so would not last for long). Meh, oh well, Iāve made my peace that I cannot hold out even the remotest hope that it can all be solved, yet I still do my part b/c that is all that I can, and therefore must, do.
Well, having lived in a country with actual Proportional Vote, I would say that the ājust winā mindset is derived from the two party system you get in First Past The Post representative allocation systems like the US, probably with a pinch of the higher aggressiveness of baseline American culture.
That said, I donāt think the aggressive ājust winā posture we see reflects them being different, quite the contrary: itās Theatre for the masses because the two sides of the Power Duopoly are too similar, so lots of posturing with loud disagreements serves to both keep their own tribe (the people whose relation to politics is similar to their relation to sports: they have chosen a āteamā) inspired and acting as unthinking supporters and keeping the rest of people thinking there is true competition when there really isnāt. This is why most of the fight is happening in the Moral field (stuff like LGBT rights) rather than anything to do with Power, Wealth and Quality Of Life - in the things that matter the most for those politicians both parties think the same, leaving only the things they donāt genuinelly care about as the field in which put one a very loud, very dramatic theatrical play about how difference they are.
By the way, I liked your idea of using āenshittificationā for Society and Politics and I hope you donāt mind if I use it in my own posts.
Personally my own approach to help change things is to go around pointing the inconsitencies out to get at least some people thiking about it. Iām also a member of a small political party in the country I lived in and was also in one back when I lived in Britain (though there itās a lot like the US and, frankly, at best things will need to get a lot worse before people are pissed of enough to change them).
I understand what you are saying, and in the past I would have agreed with you, except for two more recent alterations. Nothing is ofc all entirely one way or another, everything is on a continuum, and so even those alterations are based upon the backdrop ofā¦ yes, what you said: āpolitical theaterā.
First, looking not at the words that candidates say but rather at their actions following the election, politicians from the 70s, 80s, and 90s were as you describe. e.g. George W. Bush, despite running on the āconservativeā ticket, was a progressive! And Hillary Rodham Clinton was the most pro-war, pro-big business Democrat that I have ever even so much as heard of. What you are saying used to be true, back in the day. Say whatever you need to in order to get elected, then go about the real business at hand, of getting shit done.
The first change though was the Tea Party (e.g. Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, thereās a whole list if you expand the right-hand show/hide boxes on that wikipedia page link). They got radicalized somehow, and replaced the old-guard who actually knew how to compromise, instead doing things like sending letters overseas to sabotage ongoing negotations (I am not a lawyer, but looking up the old-timey definition, the word ātreasonā literally includes exactly that scenario as part of its definition!), and ofc the imfamous āshutting down the entire governmentā trick, holding the budget hostage until and unless they get their way - not the āAmericanā way, no not that, but their way specifically b/c that is all that matters to them. Obviously prior Republicans had done all that this new breed were also looking to do, but the difference seems to be in the degree of obstinancy, and the eagerness to immediately knaw off the USAās own legs just in order to spite the head - like for them, it is not the absolute last, final choice, but rather their second choice every time. They have done more filibustering, more blocking, more obstructionism than any modern party in the history of anyone alive in the USA (I have heard), and fun fact: even the Congress that functioned during the Civil War managed to pass more bills than a Congress involved with the Tea Party (obviously due to a technicality, where the southern democrats left in a huff, leaving the northern republicans to pass whatever they wanted free of interference:-P). Thus began the major Power Creep trend of modern obstructionism & enshittification - yes please feel free to use as you like, b/c if the shoe fitsā¦:-D
But even before that trend could either snuff itself out or be subsumed by more old-guard politicians who actually want the government to be functional, the Alt-Right started to rise to power. This new breedā¦ seems less concerned with āgetting their wayā, and more about simply burning everything to the fucking ground. Donald Trump has moved beyond obstructionism, to the point where if he does not get his way, a literal (if horribly inept) coup attempt was tried, and it remains to be seen if he, or one of the other followers of that movement will start a literal, actual, physical Civil War. e.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene has literally called for this - in a not-joking manner.
This is far past theater is what I am saying, yes in the past it was that, but now, at this point, we are well past that. America could literally fall as a democratic nation - and most experts (I have read) seem to agree that some kind of āconstitutional crisis eventā is imminent in the next 5-10 years. These people are far past playing around.
Kudos for being part of the solution where you are at. Similar to the UK, where I donāt know what could possibly reverse the effects of Brexit - that damage seems irreparable and permanent, it only remains to move forward from here on out and try to avoid further harm (in that case, not the end of a nation, but metrics are already revealing that it ushered in a sharp decline of its prominence?) - in the USA I donāt know what can be done to save it from its self-inflited injuries, given how many people seem hell-bent on ending it.
At a minimum though, it seems like it would have to begin with education, since currently the major differences seem to be about alternate sets of āfactsā - e.g. does the COVID vaccine work, or does it rather harm you, making boys infertile, etc.? āTrustā in the media has been lost, in large part b/c literal pastors/priests/ministers have been promoting politics from behind their pulpits, thus mixing in the messages from religion to the point where it is becoming more of a āchristian holy jihadā war than a logically-reasoned one where both sides are attempting to āget their wayā. For that, pointing out inconsisties might help, but even then, people seem to already KNOW that they are wrong, and yet simply do not care.
Like if you look at Trump, there is simply no way to honestly call him āGodās manā (plus, if anyone who is placed in charge can be that, then why wasnāt Obama āGodās manā too?), but there seems to be a sense of āeven though thatās not fully true, still supporting him is the right thing to do regardlessā. A LOT of people seem to value āargument by authorityā over what they see literally with their own eyes. And I get it: these matters - economics, geopolitics, treaties, climate change, pandemics - they can get quite complex, and many just want daddy to take care of them. Which in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. they legit did do! B/c the interests of the wealthy happened to align with the interests of the nation overall - other countries were bombed by Germany and the USA was riding high, so its success meant their own personal success too, plus all the engineers & scientists were creating wonderful new gadgets that were fun & helpful too. However, with globalization and automation that alignment is no longer true, and they are instead taking whatever they can get, seemingly with an exit strategy in place to sit back and watch as climate change happens and the world simply burns.
It seems extremely short-sighted to me - especially if a nation such as the USA could bend its enormous might towards literally halting or even reversing the effects of climate change? But, such thinking is a remnant of past days, and now multi-national corporations such as Alphabet and Apple and Meta are more powerful than the US government itself, so it seems that they now see it as a competitor and are at least allowing, sometimes rooting, occasionally even participating in taking it down. e.g. FaceBookās sources of āalternative factsā helping to shatter the, as you pointed out, already quite brittle remaining trust that people had in the news media.
This is all a lot, but I hope it has been an interesting read? :-D
Well, I think that church pastors replacing the Press as authoritative sources is not at all unexpected, though I donāt think thatās part of the cause of loss of trust in the Press, I think itās in part a consequence and in part something that already happenned.
My home country - Portugal - was Fascist until 1974 and the Fascist Regime used the Church (which around here was 100% Catholic) through the perceive authority of priests, to tell people what to believe in matters that were social, economic and even political rather than religious, especially in the northern part of the country. This was especially easy because most people were either illiterate or close to it.
Itās funny that you mention the Tea Party: For some years now Iāve been convinced that we live in the time of the fall of Ideologies, in that the fully defined Ideologies from the early XX century that included visions for how the country should be, keen awareness of how Power works, their own specific folklore of visual elements and even specific language (say: the overuse of āproletariatā), and other such things, such as Fascism and Communist, were pretty much dead and buried in the West by the mid/late XX century and were replaced by the ālaisser faireā of neoliberalism which doesnāt really has a vision for the future, is all about The Economy never about Power or People (even though itās definitelly about Money being the one and only Power, though thatās not how it sells itself) and is sold to us very much as a hands off āque serĆ”, serĆ”ā way of managing a nation.
What weāve seen in the late XX century and onwards was the rise of Politics being done using Marketing - saying what people want to hear, moment by moment, using techniques from Marketing to determine what to say and measure impact (such as focus groups), changing whatās said if people change in what they want to hear (hence said politicians often being accused of flip-flopping), all of which to obtain powder and use it I ways that have nothing to do with what voters wanted. This is still how to this day the Democrat Party works and ditto the modern Labour Party in the UK (aka New Labour).
I think the Tea Party was a reboot of traditional ideology in the US and I actually think the Republicans are at the moment the only party with an actual ideology (not a good one, but one none the less).
Mind you this doesnāt mean itās not still theatre for the politicians involved (maybe circus would be a better word), itās just that their beast is as much theirs as it is the crowdās and theyāre forced to give the crowd what it wants, which started as something theyāve convinced the crowd they wanted but then the crowd took it, made it its own and changed it (look at the whole anti-vax movement for COVID which is pretty senseless and how things like anti-mask which is even more senseless came out of it).
I think Republican politicians are just as fake as Democrats, but theyāre ridding a bull, not controlling a donkey with the promise of carrot and at times the use of a stick like the Democrats, so you get a lot more loud circus from the former and at times they are dragged into things far beyond what they wanted.
Last but not least there is a true market of ideas within the present day Republican party and the politicians competing for attention in that market are each doing it by trying to be more loud and outrageous that the rest. Meanwhile the Democrat party has used procedural tricks internally to make sure a handful of people control who gets the top positions, so there is no markt of ideas in there hence the party keeps being led by bland politcians who use techniques from Marketimg to control public oerception and voters.
And yeah, I think that, like in Britain, things will go too far and the US will end up doing something it cannot undo. Then again I think the US has been in a post-imperial decay path since the 80s, same as inevitably happenned to all nations that were once great powers.
I very much love your whole message there of āthose who are not aware of their history are doomed to repeat itā. 100% that is true, and as I now believe, it is not ignorance that is being fought against, but obstinacy - e.g. those January 6th rioters who stormed the White House, they were not merely ignorant when they showed up ready to ādefend the Constitutionā, since they had made the full-on actual choice to not read that document first-hand, nor bother to discern what it meant.
In case you havenāt watched yet, John Oliver has a fascinating Last Week Tonight special on āAuthoritarianismā that has been steadily rising all across the globe. You already know that, but it is an interesting watch nonetheless:-).
What worries me about these movements having an āidentityā is that one, the identity seems to be defined almost solely in opposition to āthe other sideā, as in so long as the other side loses, then āwe wināā¦ except that is not true, b/c the reality is that we all lose, when America grinds to an absolute halt. A perfect example of that is the āanti-abortionā movement, ironically called āpro-lifeā, except it is killing and endangering women in many states. Even if we took for granted that abortion straight up equals murder, with no room for wiggle room in that discussion, that still does not explain things like why doctors are not allowed to remove already-necrotic tissue from a miscarriage, or those weird events like a fetus in Texas that had a giant fluid-filled sack where a brain would normally appear, or even just run-of-the-mill cancer, if it happens to be in the uterus. Not all actions of āremoving tissue from a uterusā are equivalent to āabortionsā - and does not explain how failing to provide medical care to a woman is not also a form of āmurderā? i.e., having a stance against something is not the same thing as āhaving a stanceāā¦ not really, not āfullyā - I mean, yes, youāve prevented one form of āmurderā, but at the expense of introducing another form of it, WTF!? The sheer incompetence of someone who flunked out of school as a child thinking that they know more than literal medical doctors that spent decades of their life learning that profession!?!
But as you say, that grew out of the earlier events where people had already stopped listening to the āauthoritativeā sources. At which point they became vulnerable to listening toā¦ āalternativeā sources of authoritarian-sounding sources. I LOVE your analogy of controlling the donkey with a carrot and Repubs a bull - Iāve used that myself so I wholeheartedly agree (the caveat being that often the carrot never actually arrives - just like the analogy seems to suggest too!).
What worries me most is that this is not something ānewā, since the 80s, but rather something very, VERY old, as in somewhat mathematical, predating humanity itself, and even Earth itself in the sense of representing a fundamental law of how the universe works. And if that is true, then I think this nation might be well & truly fucked? B/c if the most powerful people within it are no longer invested in its success, then they will take what they can get from it ofc, but they will no longer give back, seeing no reason to - and the loss of that incentivization seems to me to spell out a doom spiral to the ending? I am talking about e.g. Rules for Rulers by CGP Grey, where ācorruptionā isnāt a flaw in a system, but instead a feature, and we ignore that at our peril.
You see Neoliberalism is also a form of Authoritarianism, or more precisely itās a way of transforming Democracy into Oligarchy.
And itās actually quite simple if subtle:
In Capitalist Democractic countries there are two main forms of power: the State, whose leaders are elected by a vote were all citizens are the same and count the same (ideally, in practice not really) and Money which buys all kinds of things, including better treatment by the Justice System and which is an incredibly uneven power.
Neoliberalism is all about the State removing itself from the Markets, i.e. the place were Money operates and which impacts even the basic needs of people. This goes as far as the State removing itself from the provision or even regulation of the provision of life essentials: water, food, housing. Neoliberalism sells itself as Meritocratic yet strongly defends anti-meritocratic mechanisms such as private elite schools (were itās money that buys entry, not merit) and which you can see from the experience in the UK (which has been doing it thus for almost a century) just serve to entrench power in the same segments of society across generations and collapse Social Mobility to pretty much zero.
In other words, Neoliberalism wants to reduce to meaniglessness the Power within Democracy which is controlled by people elected via a system were all citizens have roughly the same power, leaving only a single Power in action, that of Money whose control is so uneven that some people have billions of times more power than others, an inballance only beaten by that of Kings vs Peasants in the deepest darkest of Middle Ageās Feudalism.
The effect is achieved via the capture, subversion and/or nullification of the mechanisms of the State within Democracy rather bloody revolution, and people are kept in their place using techniques from Modern Psychology and Marketing to prey on human cognitive weaknesses (tribalism, information overload, emotion-driven action, familiarity, halo effect and so many others) rather than force (though at times, that too: look at how Obama suppressed Occupy Wall Street) but ultimatelly it anchores itself on the same principles.
And if you look around with a different perspective you see a lot of the things from John Oliverās segment:
The institution which is the Press was not taken over by the State using force, it was simply bought with money.
The Judiciary in the US has long been subverted by the Political power nominating the Supreme Court Judges, breaking the independence between these supposedly independent pillars of Democracy
The demonised enemy has changed over time, in order: communists, middle easterns, terrorists, the other half of the US (yeah, the Identity Wars really perfectly allow both āsidesā to give their bases a perfect enemy on the bases of the other side).
The Projection of Strength is the USā hyper-nationalism and militarism (cultivated by both āsidesā), with near constant military interventions abroad, both under Republican and Democrat presidents.
From this pespective the fight in the US is not between leftwing and rightwing, not even close, itās between Oligarchy and Fascism. It is thus unsurprising how so many Americans feel powerless: they are powerless as the fight is really between two different models of Power were wealthy elites control everything and hence itās mainly a fight between two side of the elites were the rest are but pawns.
As the New York Timesā coverage of the Israeli Genocide has made obvious to even the blindest most tribalist of people, the āliberalā media was and is just as hard spouting propaganda as the far-right one.
Personally I think that the decay from Journalism into āOpinion Formingā in the traditional more liberal Press long predates the Fox-News Age and their destruction of the trust in the Traditional Press for temporary political gains of ātheir sideā created the prime conditions for the rise of the made-up-outrage āPressā that so well fits the modus operandi of far-right populism and hence fed and was fed by made-up-outrage far-right populist politicians like Trump.
I meanā¦ not equally though, unless you mean in the sense that both are incorrect. Liberal media in particular always tried to at least make their BS sound like it wasnāt nonsense, as opposed to e.g. MTGās Jewish Space Laser rants. I appreciate the effort that goes into making a chart when I am lied to, rather than just some short pithy saying - itās the effort that wins my heart! :-P (/s btw)
I have heard it said that the only true way to spot a counterfeit message is to know the real thing backwards and forwards so well that nobody can pull a fast one on you when they try to sell you short (or long). e.g. we know that 1+1=2, but if Democrats tell us it is =11 whereas old-school Republicans say that it is =-100000000000000000, newer ones say that it is the sqrt of stfu, and the most modern ones of all have already shot your mom and fucked your dog, and hold everything else you hold dear hostage until you tell them that you LIKED itā¦ then who is to blame the most if you did not know the answer in the first place?
The answer, I believe, is that MOST of the blame goes to the people who did the WORST attrocity(-ies), but at least part of it falls onto us, for letting it happen.
Therefore I do not blame older liberal media, or at least not nearly so much as I do what followed that got significantly worse. Though yeah, I do put some of the blame onto it as well, ofc.
More important is what we do in response to it all?
Itās all about Trust.
People used to believe in the Press - it was what is called an Authoritative Source.
What the breaking of Trust in the Press - the greatest most influential of Autoritative Sources - did was create an environment were most people donāt believe in Authoritative Sources, hence were each individual - ignorant, untrained in analytical thinking, with neither the time, the access or the knowledge to trully dig down on a subject - is on his or her own to figure out what is true and is not.
This new environment didnāt just open the doors for the likes of Fox News, it openned the doors for Anti-Vaxing, Russian interference, countless Internet conspiracies and an Era were Politics is essentially professional scam artists managing scams - the damage is way vaster than merelly their some sleazy manipulative ānewsā pieces.
I absolutelly blame them for that: for the sake of momentary political gains for their team, newsmedia which for decades were trusted and respected broke the entire Trust Hierarchy and created the conditions for chaos and what looks more and more like Fascism.
The other side, that of assholes being assholes, is nothing compared to the betrayal by those you trusted.
Yup.
I have likened it to an immune system: fighting bacteria is way easier than fighting cancer. The ratio of sizes of Bacterial cells to Human cells is like a football to a football stadium, and their surfaces look extremely different, nor do bacteria even so much as try to blend in to look like their host cells (though they do put out a slimy coating to obscure their origins in the more general sense). So when the human immune system sees non-human cells somewhere they shouldnāt, like inside your anatomical tissues, it goes all-out WAR on those bitches, and just obliterates everything.
In contrast, cancer cells not only look like, but they actually are YOUR CELLS - they are YOU! With just one tiny little alteration, hardly worth noticing, in that they no longer pay attention to the signals to halt, cease & desist growing anymore. They do what they fucking want, when they want, how they want, and never mind that their actions will (not offer āa chance ofā, but a 100% certainty guarantee) kill themselves, it will also kill the organism as well, essentially taking it down with it. So all that āforeign detection apparatusā, which can eliminate bacteria, mold, non-human eukaryotes like amoeba, nonliving particles like dust, also the in-between stuff like viruses, none of that helps, when fighting against cancer.
And that hasnāt even begun to get into HIV, where those immune processes are themselves subvertedā¦ when the police refuse to police the police, then how can the work of policing happen? (answer: it does not, and the body dies, far more often than not, unless some external intervention can prevent that outcome)
There is a reason why people say that the only party slightly less worse than Republicans are Democrats. Although that might have something to do with the whole ā2-partyā systemā¦:-P - but it does convey that neither party aim to be correct, so much as to just win. Also, whatever happened to just being āAmericansā? Like, regardless of what party put you into office, once you get there, donāt (or rather, shouldnāt) you belong to the citizenry at large and need to represent all of your people, even those who voted for your opponent(s)? So like a Senator would represent a single stateās interests, and a President or Supreme Court Justice would represent the entire nationās at large, etc. Enshittification is not just a term for capitalistic corporations, but applies to society at large - i.e. whatever higher functions were once meant to happen, have now been subverted by more basic lower processes like greed and corruption and such.
Which makes sense - entropy doesnāt decrease for simply no reason (although that said, an open system does have quite a bit of wiggle room to play around in), and Maslovās hierarchy of needs tends to revert to the lower, more basic ones when necessary, the higher ones only opening up when the lower ones are already met.
How all this relates to what you said: people are stupid, and more importantly short-sighted. When the people entrusted with something become no longer worthy of that trustā¦ that is the most dangerous thing of all to the survival of an organism. On the other hand, what are we going to do about it - just sit back and watch it die? For my part, I promote video sources such as Innuendo Studios, Kurzgesagt, Crash Course, etc. that have acted to step up in the wake of the demise of trust in our āofficialā media, but ofc there is no magic bullet, no one-solution-fits-all that is going to solve the enormous scope of the problem (and if there were, it would likely be taken out by an aggressive competitor or malicious actor, so would not last for long). Meh, oh well, Iāve made my peace that I cannot hold out even the remotest hope that it can all be solved, yet I still do my part b/c that is all that I can, and therefore must, do.
Well, having lived in a country with actual Proportional Vote, I would say that the ājust winā mindset is derived from the two party system you get in First Past The Post representative allocation systems like the US, probably with a pinch of the higher aggressiveness of baseline American culture.
That said, I donāt think the aggressive ājust winā posture we see reflects them being different, quite the contrary: itās Theatre for the masses because the two sides of the Power Duopoly are too similar, so lots of posturing with loud disagreements serves to both keep their own tribe (the people whose relation to politics is similar to their relation to sports: they have chosen a āteamā) inspired and acting as unthinking supporters and keeping the rest of people thinking there is true competition when there really isnāt. This is why most of the fight is happening in the Moral field (stuff like LGBT rights) rather than anything to do with Power, Wealth and Quality Of Life - in the things that matter the most for those politicians both parties think the same, leaving only the things they donāt genuinelly care about as the field in which put one a very loud, very dramatic theatrical play about how difference they are.
By the way, I liked your idea of using āenshittificationā for Society and Politics and I hope you donāt mind if I use it in my own posts.
Personally my own approach to help change things is to go around pointing the inconsitencies out to get at least some people thiking about it. Iām also a member of a small political party in the country I lived in and was also in one back when I lived in Britain (though there itās a lot like the US and, frankly, at best things will need to get a lot worse before people are pissed of enough to change them).
I understand what you are saying, and in the past I would have agreed with you, except for two more recent alterations. Nothing is ofc all entirely one way or another, everything is on a continuum, and so even those alterations are based upon the backdrop ofā¦ yes, what you said: āpolitical theaterā.
First, looking not at the words that candidates say but rather at their actions following the election, politicians from the 70s, 80s, and 90s were as you describe. e.g. George W. Bush, despite running on the āconservativeā ticket, was a progressive! And Hillary Rodham Clinton was the most pro-war, pro-big business Democrat that I have ever even so much as heard of. What you are saying used to be true, back in the day. Say whatever you need to in order to get elected, then go about the real business at hand, of getting shit done.
The first change though was the Tea Party (e.g. Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, thereās a whole list if you expand the right-hand show/hide boxes on that wikipedia page link). They got radicalized somehow, and replaced the old-guard who actually knew how to compromise, instead doing things like sending letters overseas to sabotage ongoing negotations (I am not a lawyer, but looking up the old-timey definition, the word ātreasonā literally includes exactly that scenario as part of its definition!), and ofc the imfamous āshutting down the entire governmentā trick, holding the budget hostage until and unless they get their way - not the āAmericanā way, no not that, but their way specifically b/c that is all that matters to them. Obviously prior Republicans had done all that this new breed were also looking to do, but the difference seems to be in the degree of obstinancy, and the eagerness to immediately knaw off the USAās own legs just in order to spite the head - like for them, it is not the absolute last, final choice, but rather their second choice every time. They have done more filibustering, more blocking, more obstructionism than any modern party in the history of anyone alive in the USA (I have heard), and fun fact: even the Congress that functioned during the Civil War managed to pass more bills than a Congress involved with the Tea Party (obviously due to a technicality, where the southern democrats left in a huff, leaving the northern republicans to pass whatever they wanted free of interference:-P). Thus began the major Power Creep trend of modern obstructionism & enshittification - yes please feel free to use as you like, b/c if the shoe fitsā¦:-D
But even before that trend could either snuff itself out or be subsumed by more old-guard politicians who actually want the government to be functional, the Alt-Right started to rise to power. This new breedā¦ seems less concerned with āgetting their wayā, and more about simply burning everything to the fucking ground. Donald Trump has moved beyond obstructionism, to the point where if he does not get his way, a literal (if horribly inept) coup attempt was tried, and it remains to be seen if he, or one of the other followers of that movement will start a literal, actual, physical Civil War. e.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene has literally called for this - in a not-joking manner.
This is far past theater is what I am saying, yes in the past it was that, but now, at this point, we are well past that. America could literally fall as a democratic nation - and most experts (I have read) seem to agree that some kind of āconstitutional crisis eventā is imminent in the next 5-10 years. These people are far past playing around.
Kudos for being part of the solution where you are at. Similar to the UK, where I donāt know what could possibly reverse the effects of Brexit - that damage seems irreparable and permanent, it only remains to move forward from here on out and try to avoid further harm (in that case, not the end of a nation, but metrics are already revealing that it ushered in a sharp decline of its prominence?) - in the USA I donāt know what can be done to save it from its self-inflited injuries, given how many people seem hell-bent on ending it.
At a minimum though, it seems like it would have to begin with education, since currently the major differences seem to be about alternate sets of āfactsā - e.g. does the COVID vaccine work, or does it rather harm you, making boys infertile, etc.? āTrustā in the media has been lost, in large part b/c literal pastors/priests/ministers have been promoting politics from behind their pulpits, thus mixing in the messages from religion to the point where it is becoming more of a āchristian holy jihadā war than a logically-reasoned one where both sides are attempting to āget their wayā. For that, pointing out inconsisties might help, but even then, people seem to already KNOW that they are wrong, and yet simply do not care.
Like if you look at Trump, there is simply no way to honestly call him āGodās manā (plus, if anyone who is placed in charge can be that, then why wasnāt Obama āGodās manā too?), but there seems to be a sense of āeven though thatās not fully true, still supporting him is the right thing to do regardlessā. A LOT of people seem to value āargument by authorityā over what they see literally with their own eyes. And I get it: these matters - economics, geopolitics, treaties, climate change, pandemics - they can get quite complex, and many just want daddy to take care of them. Which in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. they legit did do! B/c the interests of the wealthy happened to align with the interests of the nation overall - other countries were bombed by Germany and the USA was riding high, so its success meant their own personal success too, plus all the engineers & scientists were creating wonderful new gadgets that were fun & helpful too. However, with globalization and automation that alignment is no longer true, and they are instead taking whatever they can get, seemingly with an exit strategy in place to sit back and watch as climate change happens and the world simply burns.
It seems extremely short-sighted to me - especially if a nation such as the USA could bend its enormous might towards literally halting or even reversing the effects of climate change? But, such thinking is a remnant of past days, and now multi-national corporations such as Alphabet and Apple and Meta are more powerful than the US government itself, so it seems that they now see it as a competitor and are at least allowing, sometimes rooting, occasionally even participating in taking it down. e.g. FaceBookās sources of āalternative factsā helping to shatter the, as you pointed out, already quite brittle remaining trust that people had in the news media.
This is all a lot, but I hope it has been an interesting read? :-D
Well, I think that church pastors replacing the Press as authoritative sources is not at all unexpected, though I donāt think thatās part of the cause of loss of trust in the Press, I think itās in part a consequence and in part something that already happenned.
My home country - Portugal - was Fascist until 1974 and the Fascist Regime used the Church (which around here was 100% Catholic) through the perceive authority of priests, to tell people what to believe in matters that were social, economic and even political rather than religious, especially in the northern part of the country. This was especially easy because most people were either illiterate or close to it.
Itās funny that you mention the Tea Party: For some years now Iāve been convinced that we live in the time of the fall of Ideologies, in that the fully defined Ideologies from the early XX century that included visions for how the country should be, keen awareness of how Power works, their own specific folklore of visual elements and even specific language (say: the overuse of āproletariatā), and other such things, such as Fascism and Communist, were pretty much dead and buried in the West by the mid/late XX century and were replaced by the ālaisser faireā of neoliberalism which doesnāt really has a vision for the future, is all about The Economy never about Power or People (even though itās definitelly about Money being the one and only Power, though thatās not how it sells itself) and is sold to us very much as a hands off āque serĆ”, serĆ”ā way of managing a nation.
What weāve seen in the late XX century and onwards was the rise of Politics being done using Marketing - saying what people want to hear, moment by moment, using techniques from Marketing to determine what to say and measure impact (such as focus groups), changing whatās said if people change in what they want to hear (hence said politicians often being accused of flip-flopping), all of which to obtain powder and use it I ways that have nothing to do with what voters wanted. This is still how to this day the Democrat Party works and ditto the modern Labour Party in the UK (aka New Labour).
I think the Tea Party was a reboot of traditional ideology in the US and I actually think the Republicans are at the moment the only party with an actual ideology (not a good one, but one none the less).
Mind you this doesnāt mean itās not still theatre for the politicians involved (maybe circus would be a better word), itās just that their beast is as much theirs as it is the crowdās and theyāre forced to give the crowd what it wants, which started as something theyāve convinced the crowd they wanted but then the crowd took it, made it its own and changed it (look at the whole anti-vax movement for COVID which is pretty senseless and how things like anti-mask which is even more senseless came out of it).
I think Republican politicians are just as fake as Democrats, but theyāre ridding a bull, not controlling a donkey with the promise of carrot and at times the use of a stick like the Democrats, so you get a lot more loud circus from the former and at times they are dragged into things far beyond what they wanted.
Last but not least there is a true market of ideas within the present day Republican party and the politicians competing for attention in that market are each doing it by trying to be more loud and outrageous that the rest. Meanwhile the Democrat party has used procedural tricks internally to make sure a handful of people control who gets the top positions, so there is no markt of ideas in there hence the party keeps being led by bland politcians who use techniques from Marketimg to control public oerception and voters.
And yeah, I think that, like in Britain, things will go too far and the US will end up doing something it cannot undo. Then again I think the US has been in a post-imperial decay path since the 80s, same as inevitably happenned to all nations that were once great powers.
I very much love your whole message there of āthose who are not aware of their history are doomed to repeat itā. 100% that is true, and as I now believe, it is not ignorance that is being fought against, but obstinacy - e.g. those January 6th rioters who stormed the White House, they were not merely ignorant when they showed up ready to ādefend the Constitutionā, since they had made the full-on actual choice to not read that document first-hand, nor bother to discern what it meant.
In case you havenāt watched yet, John Oliver has a fascinating Last Week Tonight special on āAuthoritarianismā that has been steadily rising all across the globe. You already know that, but it is an interesting watch nonetheless:-).
What worries me about these movements having an āidentityā is that one, the identity seems to be defined almost solely in opposition to āthe other sideā, as in so long as the other side loses, then āwe wināā¦ except that is not true, b/c the reality is that we all lose, when America grinds to an absolute halt. A perfect example of that is the āanti-abortionā movement, ironically called āpro-lifeā, except it is killing and endangering women in many states. Even if we took for granted that abortion straight up equals murder, with no room for wiggle room in that discussion, that still does not explain things like why doctors are not allowed to remove already-necrotic tissue from a miscarriage, or those weird events like a fetus in Texas that had a giant fluid-filled sack where a brain would normally appear, or even just run-of-the-mill cancer, if it happens to be in the uterus. Not all actions of āremoving tissue from a uterusā are equivalent to āabortionsā - and does not explain how failing to provide medical care to a woman is not also a form of āmurderā? i.e., having a stance against something is not the same thing as āhaving a stanceāā¦ not really, not āfullyā - I mean, yes, youāve prevented one form of āmurderā, but at the expense of introducing another form of it, WTF!? The sheer incompetence of someone who flunked out of school as a child thinking that they know more than literal medical doctors that spent decades of their life learning that profession!?!
But as you say, that grew out of the earlier events where people had already stopped listening to the āauthoritativeā sources. At which point they became vulnerable to listening toā¦ āalternativeā sources of authoritarian-sounding sources. I LOVE your analogy of controlling the donkey with a carrot and Repubs a bull - Iāve used that myself so I wholeheartedly agree (the caveat being that often the carrot never actually arrives - just like the analogy seems to suggest too!).
What worries me most is that this is not something ānewā, since the 80s, but rather something very, VERY old, as in somewhat mathematical, predating humanity itself, and even Earth itself in the sense of representing a fundamental law of how the universe works. And if that is true, then I think this nation might be well & truly fucked? B/c if the most powerful people within it are no longer invested in its success, then they will take what they can get from it ofc, but they will no longer give back, seeing no reason to - and the loss of that incentivization seems to me to spell out a doom spiral to the ending? I am talking about e.g. Rules for Rulers by CGP Grey, where ācorruptionā isnāt a flaw in a system, but instead a feature, and we ignore that at our peril.
You see Neoliberalism is also a form of Authoritarianism, or more precisely itās a way of transforming Democracy into Oligarchy.
And itās actually quite simple if subtle:
The effect is achieved via the capture, subversion and/or nullification of the mechanisms of the State within Democracy rather bloody revolution, and people are kept in their place using techniques from Modern Psychology and Marketing to prey on human cognitive weaknesses (tribalism, information overload, emotion-driven action, familiarity, halo effect and so many others) rather than force (though at times, that too: look at how Obama suppressed Occupy Wall Street) but ultimatelly it anchores itself on the same principles.
And if you look around with a different perspective you see a lot of the things from John Oliverās segment:
From this pespective the fight in the US is not between leftwing and rightwing, not even close, itās between Oligarchy and Fascism. It is thus unsurprising how so many Americans feel powerless: they are powerless as the fight is really between two different models of Power were wealthy elites control everything and hence itās mainly a fight between two side of the elites were the rest are but pawns.