Can Our Democracy Survive This?

[_Maksutov]

This really is a fascinating subject and I'm glad you raised it. It may have many facets. Is the internet ready for democracy? Is democracy ready for the internet? We have seen challenges to religion from the web, I suppose all other institutions will receive similar attention. I wonder about developing nations that are exposed to the internet before they have created any protections for its consumers, how it can be manipulated for totalitarian purposes, etc. What happens when the backfire and Dunning-Kruger effects are magnified by conscious and organized manipulators for whatever ends? And so on.

It's a new world, eh?

I think that the posters on this thread who are dismissing these concerns are not carefully considering the future ramifications. Today it was the Democrats who bore the brunt of these new demons. Tomorrow it may be the republicans. These concerns are serious and should be nonpartisan. And, as you point out, the concerns are world-wide, not limited to the US election which served the purpose of demonstrating the concerns.

I really have no idea what to expect.

Social media is "hot" media, to use McLuhan's term. Although some text is involved, it is attached to memes and graphics that serve to weaponize it for propaganda. Bypasses the cerebrum and goes straight to the reptile brain. Many folks are preconditioned by patriotic and religious rituals and popular culture, so all of those can be exploited in some form.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm curious where the charge of racist comes from. It's so out of left-field I'm not even sure which group it is I supposedly have a problem of racism with. It seems like it was just picked because I attack others for racism and therefore must be guilty of the very thing I'm criticizing someone for.

It was so obviously inflammatory for inflaming's sake, I hadn't even considered what was meant by the accusation.

I believe beastie is correct: ME is a contrarian. Sometimes you just have to chuckle.

[_honorentheos]

Glad I read that meme. Guess we can all forget the things Thatcher said about gays because she voted this one time in the '60's.

My point exactly. Truth and information, in this day and age are irrelevant. Positioning is the only thing that matters and the only thing voters care to notice because they're inundated with information.

The Alt Right figured it out. Now the Democrats better figure it out or we're getting a Reagan redux for the next 8-12 years.

- Doc

I'll bite on the underlying question here. What is it you think needs to be sold to the American people in this way? Specifically?

[_Jersey Girl]

It was so obviously inflammatory for inflaming's sake, I hadn't even considered what was meant by the accusation.

I believe beastie is correct: ME is a contrarian. Sometimes you just have to chuckle.

Stop hatin' on contrarians!

[_Gunnar]

Yup. People who find EA condescending seem to think that ignorant and prejudiced people should be treated as if they are some kind of endangered minority in need of protection. But they are the ones who now have their representative on the way to the White House ...

That's not accurate.

I find EA and Schmo very condescending and also very cultish. I don't think prejudiced people are endangered or need protection. Nor do I think that about ignorant people. I also don't think the ignorant or prejudiced all are the same and I don't think all non-ignorant or non-prejudiced people voted for Hillary.

I think your comment is stupid. It doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny.

I couldn't disagree more with your characterization of EA and Schmo. Both of them often provide valuable, important and very well though out insight to this forum, and their points of view often don't conflict with yours as much as you seem to think they do. EA, in particular, is obviously better informed and knowledgeable than average about many of the things he posts about--especially things he works with every day in his professional capacity. It is not necessarily condescending for a better informed or qualified individual to want to correct someone else's misunderstanding of something of which they have little or no first hand knowledge.

And as for them being racists, I find that completely ludicrous! Almost as ludicrous as denying that Majax is a racist!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

My point exactly. Truth and information, in this day and age are irrelevant. Positioning is the only thing that matters and the only thing voters care to notice because they're inundated with information.

The Alt Right figured it out. Now the Democrats better figure it out or we're getting a Reagan redux for the next 8-12 years.

- Doc

I'll bite on the underlying question here. What is it you think needs to be sold to the American people in this way? Specifically?

I think the Democrats need to take a two-pronged approach.

1) Don't abandon their intellectual ways. They'll still need to speak to their power base, a base that has economic and social influence. The power base requires nuance, detail, and intellectual stimulation.

Think of them as the Strategic Approach. They're the Big Picture folks and you need to speak to them in Big Picture sort of ways. They'll get it, because they're generally better thinkers than most people.

Think Scorsese. Or Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien, & Children of Men)

2) Abandon their intellectual ways. They need to compete with Right for the B, C, D, and E students of American society. These people need positioning, abstract notions, and entertainment thrown their way.

Think of them as the Tactical Approach. They're the people who enjoy bathroom humor, live amongst each other in true socio-economic diversity (with a view of an Ivory tower, far, far away), and generally reject thinking as arrogant.

Cleverness, intuition, and street smarts rule the day here and you're going to have to capture this market not by elevating the discourse with them because that's condescending, ineffectual, and to be ignored. Paternalism is sniffed out instantly and creates resentment.

Think JJ Abrams (a good example of beautiful vacuous-ness), Park (Old Boy), and the creators of Rick and Morty. Also throw in a lot of debased porn.

The point I'm making is the Alt Right has, in fact, captured the heart and minds of young people through absurdism, nihilism, and edge-level 100 behavior. It is what it is. You're going to have to work with what you got, in a reality that rewards our dopamine producing brains through social media likes, memes, and amusing jabs all provided at the touch of a screen.

Old school politics, that require hard work, study, and attention is “F” ing gone, man. Moving forward the Democrats better get more JJ Abrams and less Scorsese real quick lest Pepe the Frog keeps winning the day for <30-somethings.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Young people are overwhelmingly liberal and Democrat, though Doc. The alt-right just has a weird fringe group of young people with a much louder voice than their numbers suggest because of online presence. And among that fringe subculture, there are a lot of manosphere sympathetic nerdy types who very well might be some of the A students of the world.

One of the ways American authoritarians and Trump differ from 1930's fascists is that in the 1930's Hitler and friends were the party of youth. Trump, on the other hand, is only popular among the very old. Right-wing media such as Fox News skews very old. That's not coincidental.

[_EAllusion]

In trying to breakdown what the Democrats need to do, it's important to not lose sight of the fact that they are considerably more popular than Republicans and consistently win more votes. That's not the state of affairs that suggests the need to burn everything to the ground. Where Democrats have failed is in battles over institutional power and loss of disproportionately powerful rural voters. Their A1 strategy probably should be something to appeal to people outside of urban areas on a cultural level. They could also play hardball on the institutional end, but they either don't have the desire or talent for it. There are lots of ways to enhance Democratic power, some moral like expanding access to voting, and some dubious like making polling places less common in rural areas.

However, it's important to remember that at the presidential level elections aren't about competing ideology. That fact is a core part of why someone like Trump can win the thing. If the economy is doing well in 2020, Trump's probably gonna win no matter how corrupt and harmful his administration otherwise has been.

[_Gunnar]

But what are the chances that the economy will be doing well in 2020 despite the horrendous, widespread corruption that Trump and his new administration are brazenly and openly ushering in?

[_EAllusion]

But what are the chances that the economy will be doing well in 2020 despite the horrendous, widespread corruption that Trump and his new administration are brazenly and openly ushering in?

Hard to say. He wants to massively slash taxes and increase spending by a trillion+ at the same time. That would have a short term stimulus effect at the price of future pain.

But the fed could counteract that with tight monetary policy. And Trump also has signaled a trade war that could badly hurt the economy.

His personal corruption, while terrible, probably won't effect the economy much.