I've been really interested in WHY so many people ignored the part about "rapist, felon, and vile insurrectionist." I don't think they are all voting in APPROVAL of those qualities, but have certainly come to disregard them. For that, I have contemplated how propaganda works and how the unspoken assumptions it relies on develop. This is …
I've been really interested in WHY so many people ignored the part about "rapist, felon, and vile insurrectionist." I don't think they are all voting in APPROVAL of those qualities, but have certainly come to disregard them. For that, I have contemplated how propaganda works and how the unspoken assumptions it relies on develop. This is one of my ruminations.
Years ago, when I was teaching The Left Hand of Darkness to college freshmen, I realized that there is a sense in which 1+1=3 is a true fact in the world. The equation, of course, is one man +one woman = man, woman, baby. (Well, it can also be 1+1 = 4 or 5 or even six, given multiple births).
To see this you have to shift perspectives, or terms, or definitions. You have to accept that "1" doesn't always have to be the simple start of the counting-line of integers and that = can mean "results in" in a way that math doesn't contemplate.
Since then I have mused on many occasions aboutthis shift, and its use in propaganda--first, Soviet,* and more recently, the twisting of "reality" of the increasingly reactionary right.
1+1 = 3 is a "truth" that can't be accepted without an overt explanation of the twist. The evil genius of propaganda aimed against "truths we hold to be self evident" is that it slides the shift on its hearers gradually, in baby steps, so that when it has fulfilled its intended mission, the shift has simply produced an unstated assumption the hearer can agree with on its face, without bothering to question the assumption.
We see this in the coopting of originally liberal terms and ideas into swear words or words appealing to an underlying prejudice that the hearer may not even recognize is such. Examples are woke, DEI, religious liberty, freedom/liberty in general, CRT, and most recently, "peace."
DEI provides us with a history of how this works. As far as I can tell, it was developed as an ALTERNATIVE to the harsher requirements of Affirmative Action in its full, gotta-fill-a-quota, form. The idea was to broaden the REACH of recruiting beyond the usual suspects (be it college applicants or job applicants) where the pool of applicants had previously been those who had already thought about college or KNEW about a job opening. Thus, broader advertising of job openings in jobs, active recruiting of what my university called "preferentially admitted" students--those who showed talent not reflected in grades or test stores, and who weren't included in whatever the max number of students for the freshman class was, so no one who was admitted was taking anyone's "place." ** It could simply be advertising job openings in Historically Black Colleges --or women's colleges, if such still exist-- or in other ways in predominantly minority communities
I gather (I retired before DEI became a "thing') that it also involved educating existing employees in the basics of "don't be an asshole." This was the first wedge, I think. People don't like to be told what to think, and if the education is hamfisted,*** hostility grows). From there, such hostility was compounded by myths that it included quotas or required hiring of people of less competence than other candidates. These myths arose from the widespread dislike of the quota aspects of Affirmative Action, dislike by even minorities who felt labeled as somehow by definition less competent. I also think that there was infection from the attempts to hold schools "accountable" by focusing on test scores as the definition of success. No one considers that of two people applying for a job with, say, pretty close to equal keyboarding skills, competence can also include things like the ability to get along with people, as opposed to a narcissistic personality. HR decisions aren't entirely guided by numbers, even "accurate words per minute."
The part of DEI that was most suspect was Diversity. I'm pretty sure that if you asked even the devotees of the idea that we are already a "colorblind society" that they would have to agree that "equity and inclusion" taken alone were pretty much part of "all men are create equal." But once the idea of Diversity was connected to Quota-land, the connotations migrated over to equity and inclusion; the unspoken assumption grew that those words mean something different in the context of DEI.
I'm not sure that everyone who opposes DEI under these conditions is (or was) a racist or sexist. Some just can't accept that a minority or woman could POSSIBLY be more competent than they themselvers are. Frankly, there are probably women who don't think a MAN could be more competent then they themselves are. From a personal belief, however, this broadens into a belief that no minority/woman/man could possibly be more competent that anyone in the group the believer belongs to--the rise of tribalism clearly boosts this. I do think that the attacks on DEI, by reinforcing such unspoken assumptions, is increasing the amount of racism and sexism in society, its existence hidden from those now agreeing with it.
And so the assumptions behind the concept of DEI have morphed into unspoken assumptions that turn the phrase itself into a swear word. And from THERE, the whole concept of Civil Rights itself falls under attack. Simply by using the term DEI to include basic, law-enshrined rights against discrimination in its purview, the latter are turned magically into discrimination. (After all, why would a company set up TWO separate departments for basically the same thing: the ideals of at the least equity and inclusion. That would be duplicative). I just saw that one agency has simply eliminated its Civil Rights division head/department because the title included DEI. Who is left to enforce basic Civil Rights?
One can do the same kind of analysis with the other "swear words" I've mentioned. At this point, I am most fascinated by the redefinition by Drump of the word Peace. He has slip-slid it into the infamous "Peace in Our Time" by equating it with "bowing to an aggressor and giving them the benefits of their aggression." I suspect that most people when they think about aggression on a smaller scale--the school yard bully--would agree that a school that said "yes, for purposes of playground peace you should just give up your lunch money" would be misusing the word peace.
But trump has also lit up the fears us older types have left over from the Cold war by accusing Ukraine of encouraging WWIII. Putin threatens nuclear arms in overcoming Ukraine, but as a practical matter taking over its resources for Russian use would be rather hampered by huge areas of long term radiation. I'm not sure what direction the prevailing winds are in various parts of Ukraine, but Putin MUST realize that even his supporters would not like fallout over their dachas. Putin is a tyrant, but he is a consistent tyrant, not the nutso one we have currently trying to blast our democracy and our very way of privileged life by non-nuclear means. Whatever bad things are involved in Putin's own personality, I rather think totally "uninformed" isn't included.
And thus we get to the real danger of building a narrative based on unspoken and illegitimate assumptions--what happens when the propagandists believe their own propaganda? What happens when the "socially constructed reality" which they so decry but use to control the masses becomes THEIR reality? What happens when the equation becomes 1+1 = 0: people (1) and government (1) becoming total anarchy.
*back in the day we actually got TAUGHT the techniques of propaganda, though the examples were always Soviet.
**(I taught English to students in one such program: it was a tremendous experience of how "brightness" doesn't equal formal education, and apparently successful in mainstreaming kids--by no means not all minorities--into a college education. I ran into one of my students much later, a kid who had no idea what a sentence was. He had just graduated in architecture and was heading to grad school).
*** Hamfisted could also involve the hiring process where some in HR also thought they were obliged to give PREFERENCE to minority/female applicants in patently unfair ways. Neither form of hamfisting is part of the INTENT of DEI.
A persistent friction exists between the order demanded by the Constitution, and the Trump branded patrimonial style of government presently operating. Like the underlying cause for earthquakes, the pressure is building.
The arbitrary, capricious, brutal, adversarial and incompetent nature of Trumpism makes its collapse inevitable.
I am not quite as pessimistic as Brock, though. There's a path by which the states can provide the necessary stability. The states have their own executives and legislatures. They are themselves republics, empires of laws not of men. They are not Donald's play things to do with as he wishes. If he is the unitary executive, it is of the federal government alone. This is yet another example of American polyarchy, and ambition to counter ambition.
Three-fourths of the states, given sufficient duress and compromise, can "reboot" the federal government without any federal government involvement. Anything three quarters of the states can agree upon is possible.
The fact the federal institutions are weak is to our benefit. We're not supposed to be looking for heroes to save us. We're supposed to be the heroes. We the people. Or perhaps hero worship is passe? Fine then. We fucked it up. And it is up to us, alone, to unfuck it.
The election of an anti-Constitution president is not consent to sweep away the constitutional republic. The law is paramount. States will persist through the chaos, and to whatever degree the federal government is in abeyance, it will be restored. No one gave consent, let alone three-quarters of us, to set aside the Constitution just because we elected Fuckface von Clownstick as POTUS again.
The propaganda of the Democratic party is that everything is normal, should remain normal. That sitting in silence, doing nothing while Al Green shows a way to resist, while Trump attacks Elizabeth Warren, while decorum is continuously breached. It's obscenely pathetic that the Democratic party engages in their own brand of normalizing this deviancy. This is also propaganda. There's nothing normal about what's going on.
I’m not sure you can make blanket statements about the Democratic party and “normalcy.” Some seem to be too timid, but not all. My Senator Patty Murray didn’t go at all. I do wish more had walked out after the expulsion of Green, perhaps returning to the back with signs that said “why didn’t Pelosi expel MTG and Boebutt.” I’m not sure that there are many DEMOCRAT, as opposed to party reps and leaders, who think any of this is normal.
WaPo, despite all the condemnation of Bezos, had a pretty telling private poll (not a very scientific ones, but still) on who exactly “approves” of trump, his diatribe, or any of his particular policies. Other sources show that the “approval” of the speech was partly because older GOP folks were the main people actually watching it. I DO wonder what the 7% of Harris voters polled who approve how Dump is handling the economy are thinking. Perhaps they just lied about who they voted for.
Not sure I see a lot of difference, in the context of a government, between chaos and anarchy. I agree about the role the states can play and that they can persist through chaos. But my own sense is that— before I can shuffle off my mortal coil, shortly before the projected inability of Social Security to PAY— that blue states will be conjoined with Canada, if not their own nation. (Geographically, conjoined makes more sense: otherwise there are Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas between Cascadia and the next over blue place.
I agree btw, with prognosticators that Forces of Musk can destroy Social Security for those still unable to take it. Just making it impossible to APPLY will do that. It will be harder to take it away from those already getting it. There IS that pesky statute that would need voiding, and neither Musk nor trump can really do that, even if Clarence and Alito think they should be able to.
I've been really interested in WHY so many people ignored the part about "rapist, felon, and vile insurrectionist." I don't think they are all voting in APPROVAL of those qualities, but have certainly come to disregard them. For that, I have contemplated how propaganda works and how the unspoken assumptions it relies on develop. This is one of my ruminations.
Years ago, when I was teaching The Left Hand of Darkness to college freshmen, I realized that there is a sense in which 1+1=3 is a true fact in the world. The equation, of course, is one man +one woman = man, woman, baby. (Well, it can also be 1+1 = 4 or 5 or even six, given multiple births).
To see this you have to shift perspectives, or terms, or definitions. You have to accept that "1" doesn't always have to be the simple start of the counting-line of integers and that = can mean "results in" in a way that math doesn't contemplate.
Since then I have mused on many occasions aboutthis shift, and its use in propaganda--first, Soviet,* and more recently, the twisting of "reality" of the increasingly reactionary right.
1+1 = 3 is a "truth" that can't be accepted without an overt explanation of the twist. The evil genius of propaganda aimed against "truths we hold to be self evident" is that it slides the shift on its hearers gradually, in baby steps, so that when it has fulfilled its intended mission, the shift has simply produced an unstated assumption the hearer can agree with on its face, without bothering to question the assumption.
We see this in the coopting of originally liberal terms and ideas into swear words or words appealing to an underlying prejudice that the hearer may not even recognize is such. Examples are woke, DEI, religious liberty, freedom/liberty in general, CRT, and most recently, "peace."
DEI provides us with a history of how this works. As far as I can tell, it was developed as an ALTERNATIVE to the harsher requirements of Affirmative Action in its full, gotta-fill-a-quota, form. The idea was to broaden the REACH of recruiting beyond the usual suspects (be it college applicants or job applicants) where the pool of applicants had previously been those who had already thought about college or KNEW about a job opening. Thus, broader advertising of job openings in jobs, active recruiting of what my university called "preferentially admitted" students--those who showed talent not reflected in grades or test stores, and who weren't included in whatever the max number of students for the freshman class was, so no one who was admitted was taking anyone's "place." ** It could simply be advertising job openings in Historically Black Colleges --or women's colleges, if such still exist-- or in other ways in predominantly minority communities
I gather (I retired before DEI became a "thing') that it also involved educating existing employees in the basics of "don't be an asshole." This was the first wedge, I think. People don't like to be told what to think, and if the education is hamfisted,*** hostility grows). From there, such hostility was compounded by myths that it included quotas or required hiring of people of less competence than other candidates. These myths arose from the widespread dislike of the quota aspects of Affirmative Action, dislike by even minorities who felt labeled as somehow by definition less competent. I also think that there was infection from the attempts to hold schools "accountable" by focusing on test scores as the definition of success. No one considers that of two people applying for a job with, say, pretty close to equal keyboarding skills, competence can also include things like the ability to get along with people, as opposed to a narcissistic personality. HR decisions aren't entirely guided by numbers, even "accurate words per minute."
The part of DEI that was most suspect was Diversity. I'm pretty sure that if you asked even the devotees of the idea that we are already a "colorblind society" that they would have to agree that "equity and inclusion" taken alone were pretty much part of "all men are create equal." But once the idea of Diversity was connected to Quota-land, the connotations migrated over to equity and inclusion; the unspoken assumption grew that those words mean something different in the context of DEI.
I'm not sure that everyone who opposes DEI under these conditions is (or was) a racist or sexist. Some just can't accept that a minority or woman could POSSIBLY be more competent than they themselvers are. Frankly, there are probably women who don't think a MAN could be more competent then they themselves are. From a personal belief, however, this broadens into a belief that no minority/woman/man could possibly be more competent that anyone in the group the believer belongs to--the rise of tribalism clearly boosts this. I do think that the attacks on DEI, by reinforcing such unspoken assumptions, is increasing the amount of racism and sexism in society, its existence hidden from those now agreeing with it.
And so the assumptions behind the concept of DEI have morphed into unspoken assumptions that turn the phrase itself into a swear word. And from THERE, the whole concept of Civil Rights itself falls under attack. Simply by using the term DEI to include basic, law-enshrined rights against discrimination in its purview, the latter are turned magically into discrimination. (After all, why would a company set up TWO separate departments for basically the same thing: the ideals of at the least equity and inclusion. That would be duplicative). I just saw that one agency has simply eliminated its Civil Rights division head/department because the title included DEI. Who is left to enforce basic Civil Rights?
One can do the same kind of analysis with the other "swear words" I've mentioned. At this point, I am most fascinated by the redefinition by Drump of the word Peace. He has slip-slid it into the infamous "Peace in Our Time" by equating it with "bowing to an aggressor and giving them the benefits of their aggression." I suspect that most people when they think about aggression on a smaller scale--the school yard bully--would agree that a school that said "yes, for purposes of playground peace you should just give up your lunch money" would be misusing the word peace.
But trump has also lit up the fears us older types have left over from the Cold war by accusing Ukraine of encouraging WWIII. Putin threatens nuclear arms in overcoming Ukraine, but as a practical matter taking over its resources for Russian use would be rather hampered by huge areas of long term radiation. I'm not sure what direction the prevailing winds are in various parts of Ukraine, but Putin MUST realize that even his supporters would not like fallout over their dachas. Putin is a tyrant, but he is a consistent tyrant, not the nutso one we have currently trying to blast our democracy and our very way of privileged life by non-nuclear means. Whatever bad things are involved in Putin's own personality, I rather think totally "uninformed" isn't included.
And thus we get to the real danger of building a narrative based on unspoken and illegitimate assumptions--what happens when the propagandists believe their own propaganda? What happens when the "socially constructed reality" which they so decry but use to control the masses becomes THEIR reality? What happens when the equation becomes 1+1 = 0: people (1) and government (1) becoming total anarchy.
We are living that question right now.
_________________________________________________________
*back in the day we actually got TAUGHT the techniques of propaganda, though the examples were always Soviet.
**(I taught English to students in one such program: it was a tremendous experience of how "brightness" doesn't equal formal education, and apparently successful in mainstreaming kids--by no means not all minorities--into a college education. I ran into one of my students much later, a kid who had no idea what a sentence was. He had just graduated in architecture and was heading to grad school).
*** Hamfisted could also involve the hiring process where some in HR also thought they were obliged to give PREFERENCE to minority/female applicants in patently unfair ways. Neither form of hamfisting is part of the INTENT of DEI.
We're heading for chaos, not anarchy.
A persistent friction exists between the order demanded by the Constitution, and the Trump branded patrimonial style of government presently operating. Like the underlying cause for earthquakes, the pressure is building.
The arbitrary, capricious, brutal, adversarial and incompetent nature of Trumpism makes its collapse inevitable.
I am not quite as pessimistic as Brock, though. There's a path by which the states can provide the necessary stability. The states have their own executives and legislatures. They are themselves republics, empires of laws not of men. They are not Donald's play things to do with as he wishes. If he is the unitary executive, it is of the federal government alone. This is yet another example of American polyarchy, and ambition to counter ambition.
Three-fourths of the states, given sufficient duress and compromise, can "reboot" the federal government without any federal government involvement. Anything three quarters of the states can agree upon is possible.
The fact the federal institutions are weak is to our benefit. We're not supposed to be looking for heroes to save us. We're supposed to be the heroes. We the people. Or perhaps hero worship is passe? Fine then. We fucked it up. And it is up to us, alone, to unfuck it.
The election of an anti-Constitution president is not consent to sweep away the constitutional republic. The law is paramount. States will persist through the chaos, and to whatever degree the federal government is in abeyance, it will be restored. No one gave consent, let alone three-quarters of us, to set aside the Constitution just because we elected Fuckface von Clownstick as POTUS again.
The propaganda of the Democratic party is that everything is normal, should remain normal. That sitting in silence, doing nothing while Al Green shows a way to resist, while Trump attacks Elizabeth Warren, while decorum is continuously breached. It's obscenely pathetic that the Democratic party engages in their own brand of normalizing this deviancy. This is also propaganda. There's nothing normal about what's going on.
I’m not sure you can make blanket statements about the Democratic party and “normalcy.” Some seem to be too timid, but not all. My Senator Patty Murray didn’t go at all. I do wish more had walked out after the expulsion of Green, perhaps returning to the back with signs that said “why didn’t Pelosi expel MTG and Boebutt.” I’m not sure that there are many DEMOCRAT, as opposed to party reps and leaders, who think any of this is normal.
WaPo, despite all the condemnation of Bezos, had a pretty telling private poll (not a very scientific ones, but still) on who exactly “approves” of trump, his diatribe, or any of his particular policies. Other sources show that the “approval” of the speech was partly because older GOP folks were the main people actually watching it. I DO wonder what the 7% of Harris voters polled who approve how Dump is handling the economy are thinking. Perhaps they just lied about who they voted for.
Not sure I see a lot of difference, in the context of a government, between chaos and anarchy. I agree about the role the states can play and that they can persist through chaos. But my own sense is that— before I can shuffle off my mortal coil, shortly before the projected inability of Social Security to PAY— that blue states will be conjoined with Canada, if not their own nation. (Geographically, conjoined makes more sense: otherwise there are Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas between Cascadia and the next over blue place.
I agree btw, with prognosticators that Forces of Musk can destroy Social Security for those still unable to take it. Just making it impossible to APPLY will do that. It will be harder to take it away from those already getting it. There IS that pesky statute that would need voiding, and neither Musk nor trump can really do that, even if Clarence and Alito think they should be able to.