I saw on Axios today a study cited done by an MIT scientist essentially showing that informing people on the proof that job loss is more a result of automation and technology than it is trade policies or immigration, had little or no effect on their beliefs or political stance on the latter two.
In a first-of-its-kind experiment, an MIT political scientist tested whether informing people about potential job loss from automation would change their minds about immigration and trade.In three studies, MIT's Baobao Zhang got the same result — people didn't shift their beliefs. Even when presented with evidence that automation was by far the more salient risk to jobs, people continued to hold anti-immigration, anti-trade views.
These findings suggest that support for populist Trumpian policies may not be as closely linked to economic anxiety as is often argued.
The phenomenon and cultural current that elected Trump into power, is really not at all as closely linked to economic anxiety. Rather, it was more an identity election, with those identifying with the cultural current seizing a power grab. Power in this instance would obviously be the power the majority holds and wants to retain a hold over versus the counter current, that would be represented in those issues folks sprung up against, trade policy and foreigners more generally.
I just finished up 1984 again, and I noticed a passage quoting the party member as he is indoctrinating the main protagonist. In it, he balks at the idea that the authoritarian big brother led government is motivated in a utilitarian way--namely, the lesser suffer for the majority is a calculation necessary to bring the most good to the most people. Instead, he positions the goal as simply to have and hold power eternally.
But I guess, the finishing thought to wrap this up is, after reviewing the American "left" and the "right", I realized that it is now represented by two extremities of thought, represented by Bernie's form of socialism and Trump's nationalism, both of which are very much based on how the respective supporters identify themselves. In other words, it's a clear parallel to the Orwellian power grab intention in 1984.
Personally, I like Andrew Yang's platform, I think because his focus on the threat from technology, whether it should be solved with a UBI or not, to me is the the most sane line of thinking. It is the issue of our time and our future. I think the personal vindictive power grab platforms of the left and right extremities are detrimental to society, and have been for some time.
Anyways, enough of this, just wanted to share a thought and see what others think.
Tldr
Tl;dr:
I think both the DNC & RNC, especially in its current form, seized by the Bernie and Trump types, is cancerous to society. Normal democratic society should not try to function by imposing ideas on one another, to be in power for power's sake. In forums of the most informed, fervent voters, the tendency is to shout beliefs by warping any objectivity and not compromises in an exhausting, Orwellian way.
Tl; dr
What kind of power do these people actually have? I'm blissfully ignorant of current American politics. I prefer to study history. In the context of history, all of these people have tremendously little influence over a typical person's life.
I'm not saying it's right but wouldn't it make sense that if those people already believed that immigrants are making jobs less plentiful, them learning that jobs are also getting taken away by automation will make them push against what they see as further job dilution due to foreigners even harder? This doesn't at all address the basic question of what they are "afraid" of the immigrants for. Assuming the majority of it isn't sheerly due to racial differences and xenophobia (which I genuinely think is just a vocal minority, much like the triggered happy hardcore communists on the left), wouldn't this still point to these fears rooting from economic anxiety regarding competition in the workforce? Or couldn't it point towards a strong belief amid this particular group that as a developed nation the US should have some sort of illegal immigration enforcement and not just blindly allow people to economically immigrate like what's happening across the EU?
This is a good fair point that maybe economic anxiety is being caused by a marginal reduction in the number of available jobs. That if immigrants and trade policies shave the number of available jobs by a few points here and there, Americans should be worried about its effects. But the issue this study and my thinking goes on is that the ignorance towards the data showing technological advancement is a larger component to the erosion of jobs, meaning that those policies related to foreigners only affect a lesser number of jobs, which to change them does not change the ongoing structural issue. Therefore, the placement of blame on immigration and trade policies is not rational with respect to the economic problem.
Also, this post uses Trump as an example because his right leaning politics are in power, but more than Trump I take issue with the general rejection of objectivity across the board, with preference for subjective identity politics about who believes what, and the control of what others think.
Neither Trump nor Bernie are “extreme” politically speaking
As soon as Trump said "we will murder the families of terrorists" and the generals will do things like that "because he tells them to" he became extreme.
Literally every president since Bush 2 has bombed the Middle East their whole term. It’s an extreme thing to say, but it’s in line with his predecessors
Relatively speaking, they are pretty extreme. We've only had one other president attempt an overhaul of the sort Bernie dreams of. And when he did it, it was only after the worst economic decline this country has ever faced. Bernie is similar, but doesn't make it any less eccentric.
You're comparing American politics to nations that pillaged and imperialized at vast proportions for hundreds to thousands of years as a way of life. America doesn't have that history. So, extremities in American politics are far less bloody than in the history of other countries up to this point.
I don’t understand what you’re saying I’m comparing? I guess because I’m thinking of a political spectrum I’m by default making comparison, but not other nations?
Guaranteeing free healthcare for illegal immigrants is absolutely extreme. So is much of Trump's rhetoric...
On a political scale neither of them are at the extremes
There's so many political issues in which objective or empirical facts are ignored. Unfortunately it's an effect of democracy in that having so many idiots in our society and allowing them to have such a loud voice (if they so choose) leads to people voting with emotion instead of reason. This coupled with the fact that most people are desperately uninformed about politics or economics (some even being porud of their ignorance), does not make me so hopeful for the future. What you're saying is frankly ridiculous, in that, people presented with evidence contrary to their belief don't change their belief. Isn't that some form of insanity or at least extreme mental retardation? People change my mind about things all the time...it's kind of the point...these people more than likely lack education and I mean that across the political specturm, from the lefties who revere socialism to the right wingers who want to close the borders etc. When you know better, you do better. What happened to good old centrists? Socially liberal, fiscally conservative types.
America is a success story because of centrists.
America is no longer a success story, we are a waning power crippled by our cultural death. The values of hard work, determination, grit, self-responsibility, and competition in America are dying quickly due to the onslaught of new wave feminism, proliferation of handheld technology, failure of public education, rise of the welfare class, and complete lack of self-ownership/responsibility.
A dying nation is one where citizens look to government to solve their problems and better their situation in life as opposed to taking ownership of one's own life and fighting as hard as they can to better it no matter what the perceived "injustice" is in the system.
Keep in mind that the "conservative" GOP politicians of today are more progressive than the most progressive GOP politicians of the 1950's. The entire Overton window has shifted left in America due to massive demographic changes and the rise of a bloated welfare class which solely votes based on handouts.
I do think both sides are needed, just as a product/project team needs right brained and left brained thinkers to achieve the best possible outcome. However, the Overton window needs to shift back to the right to counter the rapid growth of socialism in America, which cannot work under a culturally heterogenous nation that has $124 trillion in total liabilities running an annual deficit of $1 trillion plus.
I don't think that's right. If the center shifts left because of demographic changes, that is a natural progression. The right is supposed to check the left, not cut off its knees.
A natural progression doesn't necessarily entail a positive one
The center shifts left because humans are inherently lazy and will vote for handouts. Per Plato's Republic, this is always why democracy results in tyranny. The truth is that the masses in America are too ignorant to elect proper leaders - this is why we are stuck with the horrible candidates we have today on both sides.
"...in the oligarchical State they are disqualified and driven from office, and therefore they cannot train or gather strength; whereas in a democracy they are almost the entire ruling power, and while the keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the bema and do not suffer a word to be said on the other side; hence in democracies almost everything is managed by the drones."
"See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the 'don't care' about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city --as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study --how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honour any one who professes to be the people's friend."
People are social. Social groups need uniting factors. War is a good one. America has a strong socio-cultural impact on the world, somehow both diverse (east v west coast, rich v poor, Hollywood & Wall St) and united (American exceptionalism, patriotism) at the same time.
In any given decade the US is at war with something or someone. It's an easy way for everyone in the group to look around and say, "Well at least we all agree on X". Right now, the story being pushed is American v Immigrant.
I'm surprised folks can't imagine that these narratives haven't been thought through years ago. What is the alternative, a War on Technology? It would be much harder to get people on board and it would be detrimental to the nation's power globally. Also we're humans, so it's easier to hate another person because everyone can relate to that.
We no longer have a unified culture. There is a growing group of people in America that foolishly believe we should be a border-less nation which may not enforce the law or selectively choose immigrants based on their aptitude and cultural fit. This same group of ignorant sheep wants to disarm the people and entrust an increasingly corrupt Federal government with absolute power. They believe these things because they embrace the Marxist ideas of moral subjectivity where everyone is equal in aptitude and no truth or highest value exists.
The faster these ideas spread, the faster America declines. The extreme wealth inequality, caused in large part by the GOP's catering to the elite plutocracy over the average family, has rapidly exacerbated this spread by causing hopelessness in the people.
In general, yea I agree and see where you're coming from.
re: unified culture. Eh the US still sees itself as the center of the world, thinks itself as a bastion of democracy, always the "good guys", and largely pro-military (eg. every soldier is a war hero, USA is always liberating/doing good, never commits war crimes, etc.). How much non-US music do Americans listen to? I'd wager very little. So IMO, still pretty unified.
re: ignorant sheep. You really need to delve into why they think that way to get anywhere IMO. Why do they think that a border-less nation would be better? If you wrap it in humanitarian claims I think its a weak stance and you end up masturbating about morality and what "good people should do" yada yada yada. I would argue they think that way because in their heads, that is the best strategy. And what is their case study for success? Easy, the USA. The history of the USA is dominated by stories of people immigrating and making a life for themselves.
I won't comment on the arm/disarm stuff because it's deeply engrained in US culture, and almost no where else in the world.
Anyone who thinks a Fed gov becomes increasingly corrupt is naive, there is always corruption. Also, at that level, the idea of what it means to be corrupt can become subjective. Should governments make backroom deals with gangs to keep streets more free of violence if they allow for some drug trafficking?
I haven't read Marx, but I've listened to some folks talk about moral subjectivity. It can pretty quickly devolve into reality and what the purpose of life is, which is obviously a difficult subject matter to make any progress on. If you've ever read an article about a subject matter you know very well, then you know that there can be multiple perspectives on a subject that all have a degree of truth to them. In that scenario, all perspectives are true, and math shows us that if that is the case, then we can eliminate the common theme, and boom! no more truth.
I would wager that the scale of information available is hurting many. Ignorance is bliss has never been more true in history now that you can google the top billionaires in your city, and calculate how much they make per second vs. your office job. I think most people are not seeing compelling reasons to be optimistic about the future, nor set goals to achieve, partly due to this information overload.
Government always becomes incrementally more corrupt if left unchecked by the people. This is an axiom of history. The state seeks power for the purpose of power because politics attracts those hungry for power. Why do politicians behave the way they do? To get reelected... Why do politicians want to get reelected? To stay in power... Why do politicians want to stay in power? Because they are power hungry and want to fulfill their ego..
Yea I'm saying there is no incremental corruption. There is just people optimizing their situations, and that typically happens at the expense of someone else.
I don't think your perspective on history is entirely true because its primarily hindsight.
You might say that no government is corrupt when it first comes to power (I'm talking here about whole states / systems, not individual political parties per se), but becomes corrupt over time.
I would say that some degree of corruption allowed them to come into power in the first place. Over time it just becomes more apparent as patterns start to emerge. Do you think the American government did not have any corruption / illegal deals immediately after the Civil War? 100% that happened, but hey it was the winners! The good guys! Maybe they were fixing court cases but it was against the South and we know that those guys are bad so who cares ...and over time people gain some perspective and say, "Maybe these guys aren't so good after all. Let's look at their resume. Holy shit! They've done a lot of messed up stuff. Look how corrupt they are."
They were just corrupt in your favor initially. Now they aren't
History, at the definition level, is 100% hindsight...
These politicians benefit from welfare policies through vote acquisition. Expanded welfare programs mean more people on welfare which means more loyal voters for the candidate who initiated the programs. These votes are sticky due to voter's fear of future repeal of the programs.
Power absolutely corrupts unless you have extremely principled statesmen who hold the ideologies of freedom and minimal government as sacrosanct to their governance policies. Thus, Plato's idea of the Philosopher King.
In terms of political radicalization of both major US parties, I wonder what's the opinion of the US members on this forum on different election systems that attempt to produce less radical outcomes, like the ranked choice voting system introduced in Maine in the last few years at the statewide level, and other systems like the single transferable vote system, etc.
There was an interesting article from last year about some of the immediate effects in Maine of the new system, and it appears to have produced a few less radical winners, though just 1-2 elections don't constitute a great sample so far.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/08/07/ranked-choice-voting-a…
I have a wonderful solution - only employed Americans who pay into the system should have the privilege to vote, outside of special cases such as combat veterans. Those that are parasites to the system who solely take and contribute nothing should not have the right to vote. Meanwhile, institute shorter congressional term limits and take big PAC money out of politics. More long form interviews/debates that are free for all to watch as a public broadcast, net of all biased punditry during the debates.
But wait - if this occurred, the modern leftist Democrat party could never win an election! Think of that, if only productive members of society vote they can never win a majority!
That makes a little too much sense, we need baby steps here. It's why we can't have nice things.
Autem qui officia nesciunt qui et. Dolores sit nam fugit ea exercitationem. Voluptates explicabo in omnis adipisci dolores quia tempora. Distinctio amet dolor nemo dolor excepturi est.
Hic unde itaque voluptates. Voluptatum et aut dolore nulla. Autem vel eum cumque quae.
Rerum voluptas reprehenderit iusto ea. At illo incidunt voluptate hic et porro nihil corporis. Ut cum rem voluptas quaerat. Voluptatem totam suscipit ut sequi ut debitis.
Laboriosam nihil labore et quos eum eum est. Ducimus rerum voluptates quae hic. Et impedit quo quis et cum. Aliquid doloremque et magni reprehenderit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Et alias maxime illo nulla vero pariatur exercitationem. Porro voluptates nostrum deserunt vero veritatis. Enim reiciendis necessitatibus minima dolores iste. Numquam velit consequatur sit. Cum praesentium sequi quis distinctio ducimus debitis.
Aperiam non nesciunt recusandae eius porro. Similique aut itaque dolor beatae quam nostrum saepe. Ducimus impedit id eveniet minima. Aut doloremque perspiciatis blanditiis reiciendis.
Et quis est maiores sed sunt fuga sed corporis. Animi qui unde non rem ipsum inventore aut necessitatibus. Libero rem quisquam eum facilis ut natus voluptatem.
Nihil voluptatum exercitationem error voluptatem est inventore placeat minus. Voluptatibus sint id molestiae delectus veniam at. Nostrum in aut quo. Repudiandae nemo iure est voluptates itaque consequatur.