The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy

[homersapien 11,357]

Human brains aren’t built for self-rule, says Shawn Rosenberg. That’s more evident than ever.

Everything was unfolding as it usually does. The academics who gathered in Lisbon this summer for the International Society of Political Psychologists’ annual meeting had been politely listening for four days, nodding along as their peers took to the podium and delivered papers on everything from the explosion in conspiracy theories to the rise of authoritarianism.

Then, the mood changed. As one of the lions of the profession, 68-year-old Shawn Rosenberg, began delivering his paper, people in the crowd of about a hundred started shifting in their seats. They loudly whispered objections to their friends. Three women seated next to me near the back row grew so loud and heated I had difficulty hearing for a moment what Rosenberg was saying.

What caused the stir? Rosenberg, a professor at UC Irvine, was challenging a core assumption about America and the West. His theory? Democracy is devouring itself—his phrase — and it won’t last.

As much as President Donald Trump’s liberal critics might want to lay America’s ills at his door, Rosenberg says the president is not the cause of democracy’s fall—even if Trump’s successful anti-immigrant populist campaign may have been a symptom of democracy’s decline.

We’re to blame, said Rosenberg. As in “we the people.”

Democracy is hard work. And as society’s “elites”—experts and public figures who help those around them navigate the heavy responsibilities that come with self-rule—have increasingly been sidelined, citizens have proved ill equipped cognitively and emotionally to run a well-functioning democracy. As a consequence, the center has collapsed and millions of frustrated and angst-filled voters have turned in desperation to right-wing populists.

His prediction? “In well-established democracies like the United States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and will eventually fail.”

***

The last half of the 20th century was the golden age of democracy. In 1945, according to one survey, there were just 12 democracies in the entire world. By the end of the century there were 87. But then came the great reversal: In the second decade of the 21st century, the shift to democracy rather suddenly and ominously stopped—and reversed.

Right-wing populist politicians have taken power or threatened to in Poland, Hungary, France, Britain, Italy, Brazil and the United States. As Rosenberg notes, “by some metrics, the right wing populist share of the popular vote in Europe overall has more than tripled from 4% in 1998 to approximately 13% in 2018.” In Germany, the right-wing populist vote increased even after the end of the Great Recession and after an influx of immigrants entering the country subsided.

A brief three decades after some had heralded the “end of history” it’s possible that it’s democracy that’s nearing the end. And it’s not just populist rabble-rousers who are saying this. So is one of the establishment’s pioneer social scientists, who’s daring to actually predict the end of democracy as we know it.

Rosenberg, who earned degrees at Yale, Oxford and Harvard, may be the social scientist for our time if events play out as he suggests they will. His theory is that over the next few decades, the number of large Western-style democracies around the globe will continue to shrink, and those that remain will become shells of themselves. Taking democracy’s place, Rosenberg says, will be right-wing populist governments that offer voters simple answers to complicated questions.

And therein lies the core of his argument: Democracy is hard work and requires a lot from those who participate in it. It requires people to respect those with different views from theirs and people who don’t look like them. It asks citizens to be able to sift through large amounts of information and process the good from the bad, the true from the false. It requires thoughtfulness, discipline and logic.

Unfortunately, evolution did not favor the exercise of these qualities in the context of a modern mass democracy. Citing reams of psychological research, findings that by now have become more or less familiar, Rosenberg makes his case that human beings don’t think straight. Biases of various kinds skew our brains at the most fundamental level. For example, racism is easily triggered unconsciously in whites by a picture of a black man wearing a hoodie. We discount evidence when it doesn’t square up with our goals while we embrace information that confirms our biases. Sometimes hearing we’re wrong makes us double down. And so on and so forth.

Our brains, says Rosenberg, are proving fatal to modern democracy. Humans just aren’t built for it.

People have been saying for two millennia that democracy is unworkable, going back to Plato. The Founding Fathers were sufficiently worried that they left only one half of one branch of the federal government in the hands of the people. And yet for two centuries democracy in America more or less proceeded apace without blowing itself up.

So why is Rosenberg, who made his name back in the 1980s with a study that disturbingly showed that many voters select candidates on the basis of their looks, predicting the end of democracy now?

He has concluded that the reason for right-wing populists’ recent success is that “elites” are losing control of the institutions that have traditionally saved people from their most undemocratic impulses. When people are left to make political decisions on their own they drift toward the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism.

The elites, as Rosenberg defines them, are the people holding power at the top of the economic, political and intellectual pyramid who have “the motivation to support democratic culture and institutions and the power to do so effectively.” In their roles as senators, journalists, professors, judges and government administrators, to name a few, the elites have traditionally held sway over public discourse and U.S. institutions—and have in that role helped the populace understand the importance democratic values. But today that is changing. Thanks to social media and new technologies, anyone with access to the Internet can publish a blog and garner attention for their cause—even if it’s rooted in conspiracy and is based on a false claim, like the lie that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring from the basement of a Washington D.C. pizza parlor, which ended in a shooting.

While the elites formerly might have successfully squashed conspiracy theories and called out populists for their inconsistencies, today fewer and fewer citizens take the elites seriously. Now that people get their news from social media rather than from established newspapers or the old three TV news networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), fake news proliferates. It’s surmised that 10 million people saw on Facebook the false claim that Pope Francis came out in favor of Trump’s election in 2016. Living in a news bubble of their own making many undoubtedly believed it. (This was the most-shared news story on Facebook in the three months leading up to the 2016 election, researchers report.)

The irony is that more democracy—ushered in by social media and the Internet, where information flows more freely than ever before—is what has unmoored our politics, and is leading us towards authoritarianism. Rosenberg argues that the elites have traditionally prevented society from becoming a totally unfettered democracy; their “oligarchic ‘democratic’ authority” or “democratic control” has until now kept the authoritarian impulses of the populace in check.

Compared with the harsh demands made by democracy, which requires a tolerance for compromise and diversity, right-wing populism is like cotton candy. Whereas democracy requires us to accept the fact that we have to share our country with people who think and look differently than we do, right-wing populism offers a quick sugar high. Forget political correctness. You can feel exactly the way you really want about people who belong to other tribes.

Right-wing populists don’t have to make much sense. They can simultaneously blame immigrants for taking jobs away from Americans while claiming that these same people are lazy layabouts sponging off welfare. All the populist followers care is that they now have an enemy to blame for their feelings of ennui.

And unlike democracy, which makes many demands, the populists make just one. They insist that people be loyal. Loyalty entails surrendering to the populist nationalist vision. But this is less a burden than an advantage. It’s easier to pledge allegiance to an authoritarian leader than to do the hard work of thinking for yourself demanded by democracy.

“In sum, the majority of Americans are generally unable to understand or value democratic culture, institutions, practices or citizenship in the manner required,” Rosenberg has concluded. “To the degree to which they are required to do so, they will interpret what is demanded of them in distorting and inadequate ways. As a result they will interact and communicate in ways that undermine the functioning of democratic institutions and the meaning of democratic practices and values.”

I should clarify that the loud whispers in the crowd in Lisbon weren’t a response to Rosenberg’s pessimism. This was after all a meeting of political psychologists—a group who focus on flaws in voters’ thinking and the violation of democratic norms. At the conference Ariel Malka reported evidence that conservatives are increasingly open to authoritarianism. Brian Shaffer related statistics showing that since Trump’s election teachers have noted a rise in bullying. Andreas Zick observed that racist crimes shot up dramatically in Germany after a million immigrants were allowed in.

What stirred the crowd was that Rosenberg has gone beyond pessimism into outright defeatism. What riled the crowd was that he’s seemingly embraced a kind of reverence for elitism no longer fashionable in the academy. When challenged on this front, he quickly insisted he didn’t mean to exempt himself from the claim that people suffer from cognitive and emotional limitations. He conceded that the psychological research shows everybody’s irrational, professors included! But it was unclear that he convinced the members of the audience he really meant it. And they apparently found this discomforting.

There were less discomforting moments in Lisbon. The convention gave an award to George Marcus, one of the founders of the discipline, who has dedicated his career to the optimistic theory that human beings by nature readjust their ideas to match the world as it is and not as they’d like it to be—just as democracy requires.

But this isn’t a moment for optimism, is it? What is happening around the world shows that the far-right is on the march. And when it comes to the U.S., the problem might be larger than one man. Liberals have been praying for the end of the Trump presidency, but if Rosenberg is right, democracy will remain under threat no matter who is in power.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045

[Tiger Sue 325]

Hello Mr. Gorsky😀

[DKW 86 7,419]

So let me get this right:

A bunch of Elitists want us to know that we should be thankful that they rule over us, the common people, so they can take our money and tell us how to live why they see no reason for holding themselves to the same standard? That they should be allowed to hold all the power because we are too stupid to govern ourselves? 

There are 100s of examples proving just the opposite. Tyrants seldom come from the people, that they come most often from the Elites.
Stalin was part of about 50-60 people that ruled Russia before he came to power. Murdered a few Elites and Voila' assumed power.
Mao was the same, part of a small group of Elitists that held control of China post Great March. Murdered a few Elites and Voila' assumed power.
Castro was from a wealthy upper middleclass family. That same family is now almost all the wealth in Cuba. Worth $800-900M and relatives worth 10Ms to 100Ms themselves. Murdered a few Elites and Voila' assumed power.
Hitler was popularly elected but then turned into an Elite and Murdered a few Elites and Voila' assumed power.

All these people murdered about 100M of their own people. Is this the Governing ability that Elites bring to the table? The ability to Murder their own people? 

In the above piece, it is just assumed that Elites are noble of Birth and Action. That they would never turn on their own people for their own gain, I submit that the EXACT Opposite is literally what happens in almost every Democracy.
The Military-Industrio Complex is Elites folks. It is not a populist lead entity.
Wall Streeet is Elites folks. It too is not a populist lead entity.
Big Pharma is Elites folks. It too is not a populist lead entity.
Big Oil is Elites folks. It too is not a populist lead entity.
Every Big BLANKING Political Machine is made up of Elitists. They too are not populist lead entities. 
The Parties themselves are Elites folks. They too are not populist lead entities.

In the video, this WII Survivor from Austria talks about her real truth and her real experiences. She does not talk about theories, nor polls, nor interviews. She talks about how Austria Elected Hitler. Hitler, at first, because Hitler "Talked like an American Politician." And soon turned into a monster. He disarmed the people and then...became the monster. 

Dictatorship took 5 Years to happen. Hitler and his hynchmen assumed more and more power, they were not elected and re-elected and re-elected into it. The may have been elected into it once, but once in power, they became the Elite.

 

[homersapien 11,357]

"Right-wing populists don’t have to make much sense. They can simultaneously blame immigrants for taking jobs away from Americans while claiming that these same people are lazy layabouts sponging off welfare. All the populist followers care is that they now have an enemy to blame for their feelings of ennui.

And unlike democracy, which makes many demands, the populists make just one. They insist that people be loyal. Loyalty entails surrendering to the populist nationalist vision. But this is less a burden than an advantage. It’s easier to pledge allegiance to an authoritarian leader than to do the hard work of thinking for yourself demanded by democracy.

“In sum, the majority of Americans are generally unable to understand or value democratic culture, institutions, practices or citizenship in the manner required,” Rosenberg has concluded. “To the degree to which they are required to do so, they will interpret what is demanded of them in distorting and inadequate ways. As a result they will interact and communicate in ways that undermine the functioning of democratic institutions and the meaning of democratic practices and values.”.....

........."What stirred the crowd was that Rosenberg has gone beyond pessimism into outright defeatism. What riled the crowd was that he’s seemingly embraced a kind of reverence for elitism no longer fashionable in the academy. When challenged on this front, he quickly insisted he didn’t mean to exempt himself from the claim that people suffer from cognitive and emotional limitations. He conceded that the psychological research shows everybody’s irrational, professors included! But it was unclear that he convinced the members of the audience he really meant it. And they apparently found this discomforting.

There were less discomforting moments in Lisbon. The convention gave an award to George Marcus, one of the founders of the discipline, who has dedicated his career to the optimistic theory that human beings by nature readjust their ideas to match the world as it is and not as they’d like it to be—just as democracy requires.

But this isn’t a moment for optimism, is it? What is happening around the world shows that the far-right is on the march. And when it comes to the U.S., the problem might be larger than one man. Liberals have been praying for the end of the Trump presidency, but if Rosenberg is right, democracy will remain under threat no matter who is in power."

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,134]

This is an Elite Scientist who thinks because he is an Elite he knows what we should or should not do and that we are incapable of making any rational sane decisions.  Democracy has always been ugly in the United States people have been saying it was going to fail long before this Elite Scientist.  As he himself said Plato predicated its downfall.  Will the US government ever fail? Probably name one government in the History of mankind that didn't fail eventually. Monarchies have failed,  Dictatorships have failed, The Roman Empire failed, multiple Chinese Dynasties have failed, the Incan and Mayan dynasties failed.  So predicting that our Government will eventually fail is probably a no brainer, but to think it will happen in a short period of time and will fail because the Elites  no longer are in charge is egoism at the highest level.

What he doesn't take into consideration is that people have evolved.  He thinks today's Americans are racist unfeeling brutes he should compare the people of today versus the people when we had slavery or the views of people towards race 60 years ago.   Does racism still exist? Yes. Is it as virulent as in the past? No.  I go to a Catholic Church in Allen, Texas and at the beginning of Mass they invite all the little kids to come forward and they take them to a different area of the church.  It looks like the United Nations we have kids whose parents are literally from all over the world.  Allen is fast approaching not having a majority group. I attend marriages and they are mixed Marriages of every type.  My kids are Hispanic and Anglo.  I am a GodFather to kids whose family nationalities are Filipino, Salvadorian, Mexican, Mixed race, etc. 

I grant Allen is not a typical community but communities like this are becoming more common.  We are becoming one people we are truly a melting pot. Are we perfect no are we getting better yes. That is why this Grand Experiment will work. 

As an older person do I sometimes ask what is wrong with the younger generation? Yes I do but then I remember a newspaper editorial I read many years ago in the Los Angeles Times bemoaning how bad the younger generation was, As I read it I caught myself agreeing with everything the article said. Then when I got to the bottom it said it was taken from an article that was printed in a Philadelphia newspaper in the 1700's .

 In almost 68 years I have seen a lot of change, I know of the sacrifices of my Parents generation in World War II, I saw the Cold War first hand and I know how bad communism and full blown socialism is (I know we have some socialism in this country and I have no problem with limited socialism), I saw the mistakes we made in places like Vietnam and Iraq we are not perfect. I have seen the advances in Medicine, Men landing on the moon, Communications, etc.  But most importantly I have seen the evolution of us as a people. At one time calling a white man a racist might have been a compliment is some places now even some people who I consider as racist think that is an insult, No longer do we have segregated pools, water Fountains, etc. We have come a long ways and we have a long way to go but the fact that we have changed as much as we have gives me hope for the future of Democracy and this country. 

Heck at one time in this country we had a political disagreement you fought a duel. 

I feel sorry for this learned Scientist who can't see how much better we are then we were and thinks the Elites are what make Democracy and the US work.

[homersapien 11,357]

2 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

This is an Elite Scientist who thinks because he is an Elite he knows what we should or should not do and that we are incapable of making any rational sane decisions.  Democracy has always been ugly in the United States people have been saying it was going to fail long before this Elite Scientist.  As he himself said Plato predicated its downfall.  Will the US government ever fail? Probably name one government in the History of mankind that didn't fail eventually. Monarchies have failed,  Dictatorships have failed, The Roman Empire failed, multiple Chinese Dynasties have failed, the Incan and Mayan dynasties failed.  So predicting that our Government will eventually fail is probably a no brainer, but to think it will happen in a short period of time and will fail because the Elites  no longer are in charge is egoism at the highest level.

What he doesn't take into consideration is that people have evolved.  He thinks today's Americans are racist unfeeling brutes he should compare the people of today versus the people when we had slavery or the views of people towards race 60 years ago.   Does racism still exist? Yes. Is it as virulent as in the past? No.  I go to a Catholic Church in Allen, Texas and at the beginning of Mass they invite all the little kids to come forward and they take them to a different area of the church.  It looks like the United Nations we have kids whose parents are literally from all over the world.  Allen is fast approaching not having a majority group. I attend marriages and they are mixed Marriages of every type.  My kids are Hispanic and Anglo.  I am a GodFather to kids whose family nationalities are Filipino, Salvadorian, Mexican, Mixed race, etc. 

I grant Allen is not a typical community but communities like this are becoming more common.  We are becoming one people we are truly a melting pot. Are we perfect no are we getting better yes. That is why this Grand Experiment will work. 

As an older person do I sometimes ask what is wrong with the younger generation? Yes I do but then I remember a newspaper editorial I read many years ago in the Los Angeles Times bemoaning how bad the younger generation was, As I read it I caught myself agreeing with everything the article said. Then when I got to the bottom it said it was taken from an article that was printed in a Philadelphia newspaper in the 1700's .

 In almost 68 years I have seen a lot of change, I know of the sacrifices of my Parents generation in World War II, I saw the Cold War first hand and I know how bad communism and full blown socialism is (I know we have some socialism in this country and I have no problem with limited socialism), I saw the mistakes we made in places like Vietnam and Iraq we are not perfect. I have seen the advances in Medicine, Men landing on the moon, Communications, etc.  But most importantly I have seen the evolution of us as a people. At one time calling a white man a racist might have been a compliment is some places now even some people who I consider as racist think that is an insult, No longer do we have segregated pools, water Fountains, etc. We have come a long ways and we have a long way to go but the fact that we have changed as much as we have gives me hope for the future of Democracy and this country. 

Heck at one time in this country we had a political disagreement you fought a duel. 

I feel sorry for this learned Scientist who can't see how much better we are then we were and thinks the Elites are what make Democracy and the US work.

I hope you are right.

Personally, I am hoping for a swing back to liberal democratic values that will be largely fueled by our changing demographics and the real consequences of current policy mistakes becoming apparent.

I think much of the resistance he got from his paper came from fellow "elitists" who are more inherently optimistic than he is, just as you are.

But short term, it's very discouraging to witness such a large proportion of our society embracing the populist authoritarian policies of the current administration. The same can be said with a global perspective.

Hopefully, the pendulum will change direction starting in Nov. 2020.

(And to be fair, this particular "elite" was focusing more on where we are going than what we have accomplished.  Also, as he made quite plain, he was not positioning himself - or any other members of the elite class - as being immune to the natural irrationality of human behavior, so your first sentence is a little unfair.)

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,134]

Homer you and other people label people as Right wing Populists and then you decide what a right wing Populist is.  There is a difference between being against illegal immigration and being against immigrants.  I am married to an Immigrant but I am against illegal Immigrants. What makes a person an illegal Immigrant is they break the laws of the country that they come to it does not make them a bad person.  

I personally believe we should change our immigration laws and allow more people to come here legally. The definition that you espouse about Right Wing Populists is as inane as many people definitions of Left Wing Liberals. Are there a few on each side that match your caricature of Right Wing Populists or others caricature's of Left Wing Liberals sure but most have solid core values on both sides of the political spectrum.  Most of us left and right love our country and our fellow man and we want what is best for both but we have different views on how to achieve it.     

Social media and the labeling of people like you do when you talk about Right Wing Populists or others who talk about Left Wing Liberals is what causes most harm to our Society. When you label people in an unflattering manner you turn that person from a person you disagree with into a person you hate and who also hates you, now there is no room for discourse. Now it is us against them. No more compromise is possible.

[autigeremt 6,591]

I hope we can regain some "brains" and get back to a more responsible society where we don't need mother government to lead us into the furnace. 

 

 

[homersapien 11,357]

13 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Homer you and other people label people as Right wing Populists and then you decide what a right wing Populist is.  There is a difference between being against illegal immigration and being against immigrants.  I am married to an Immigrant but I am against illegal Immigrants. What makes a person an illegal Immigrant is they break the laws of the country that they come to it does not make them a bad person.  

I personally believe we should change our immigration laws and allow more people to come here legally. The definition that you espouse about Right Wing Populists is as inane as many people definitions of Left Wing Liberals. Are there a few on each side that match your caricature of Right Wing Populists or others caricature's of Left Wing Liberals sure but most have solid core values on both sides of the political spectrum.  Most of us left and right love our country and our fellow man and we want what is best for both but we have different views on how to achieve it.     

Social media and the labeling of people like you do when you talk about Right Wing Populists or others who talk about Left Wing Liberals is what causes most harm to our Society. When you label people in an unflattering manner you turn that person from a person you disagree with into a person you hate and who also hates you, now there is no room for discourse. Now it is us against them. No more compromise is possible.

If you don't consider Trumpism "right wing populism" then what would you call it?  It sure as hell ain't traditional Republicanism.

Such terms are a reflection of reality, used as shorthand for the sake of discussion.  They don't actually define reality.

(Anti-elitism is one of it's characteristics)

 

 

Nature of Right-wing populism

Supports

• Sovereignty
• Nation-states
• Constitutionalism
• Protectionism
• Immigration law

 

Rejects

• World government
• Globalization
• Multiculturalism
• Elitism
• Illegal immigration

 

Debates

• Conservatism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Right-wing_populism#Nature_of_Right-wing_populism

 

[homersapien 11,357]

8 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I hope we can regain some "brains" and get back to a more responsible society where we don't need mother government to lead us into the furnace. 

 

 

"Mother government" is an organizing principle which the people use to express their will.   To your point, it should be responsive to the will of the people, but that's on us.

The perspective of government as a sovereign organization is part of the problem IMO.  It's a way of avoiding personal responsibility for our government.

[homersapien 11,357]

And a final comment on "elitism".   The founding fathers apparently recognized the importance of societies educated thinkers - the elite.  They viewed the elite as the republican representatives who were to represent the people in lieu of a popular democracy. 

That's exactly why a disdain for the "elite" is a core part of "populism".

[AuburnNTexas 7,134]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

If you don't consider Trumpism "right wing populism" then what would you call it?  It sure as hell ain't traditional Republicanism.

Such terms are a reflection of reality, used as shorthand for the sake of discussion.  They don't actually define reality.

(Anti-elitism is one of it's characteristics)

 

 

Nature of Right-wing populism

Supports

• Sovereignty
• Nation-states
• Constitutionalism
• Protectionism
• Immigration law

 

Rejects

• World government
• Globalization
• Multiculturalism
• Elitism
• Illegal immigration

 

Debates

• Conservatism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Right-wing_populism#Nature_of_Right-wing_populism

 

Supports

• Sovereignty  - I do believe each country is Sovereign  but that there is some interaction between countries some positive some negative
• Nation-states - Each Country should have its own Nation sadly not all do like the Kurds. Ideally the nation States should work together but they don't.
• Constitutionalism - A great document that has come the closest to find the balance between individual rights, States rights and Federal Rights. 
• Protectionism - Only to protect your self against countries that dump 
• Immigration law - All countries have it. Ours needs to be improved but he basic concept is valid. 

 

Rejects

• World government - World Government and Multiculturalism are some what exclusive. Can You see Iran a country currently rules by their Religion and the US functioning under the same government. World Government is an ideal like Socialism it doesn't work because it requires homogeneous perfect people.  In the US what works in California doesn't work in rural States as an example. 
• Globalization -  There should be interaction between peoples and countries but we are to different at this time for it to work.
• Multiculturalism - The US is the closest we have merged many cultures into our current culture.
• Elitism - It was the Elites that were Slave owners who later pitted poor whites against poor blacks. Look at Tribalism in parts of Africa, the Tribe that wins sets the rules.
• Illegal immigration - Most of us understand why people in poor countries wish to come here and we have empathy for them but we also realize if we had unlimited immigration we would  destroy the business fabric of our country and the life styles we are used to.

Socialism, Communism, many of the Religions of the world are great concepts. As Christians we are supposed to love and help our fellow man, in Socialism we all share everything equally irregardless of what you do and how hard you work. The problem is that mankind is not perfect few Christians live up to our belief's and somebody who works hard is not happy when somebody who is lazy gets the same pay. 

When the US has tried to force other countries to follow our example of a Constitutional  Democratically Elected Federal Government it has failed. Cultures from area to area are different and one size does not fit all.  That is OK and is one of the reasons World Government will never work.  Should we respect other cultures usually but not necessarily all parts of a  different culture.  I won't respect a part of a culture that believes in butchering a woman's genitals. 

I see nothing wrong with loving your country, I love the fact that in the US our culture is constantly evolving as we meld parts of other cultures into our culture.

The one constant in the US has been immigration as many say we are a country of immigrants. Immigration has been ugly from the beginning of time. The original immigrants came from Asia they came in waves as they came they either merged with existing groups or they attacked existing groups and often wiped them out. Look what Mayans and Aztecs, and Incan's did to other Indian groups. Later came the Europeans in the US the English and Dutch they were not nice to the Indians and often were not nice to each other, then the Irish came there were signs no dogs or Irish allowed, the Germans, Poles,  Italians again initially treatment of the new comer was horrendous.  Over time the kids married each other we became one people who than did the same things to next immigrant group.  The one group with the most legitimate complaint were blacks who came here as slaves but even then that was the norm the world over including the countries they came from. The difference is after being freed they were segregated and mistreated for many many years. Only on the last half century have we seen that change.  It is still not where it should be but it is dramatically better and for the first you are seeing the same thing in the black community that you saw in other immigration communities inter-marriage.  Once families become mixed things get better. It is a generational thing. 

My kids are mixed Hispanic and Anglo, they have friends who are Hispanic/African,  Hispanic/Anglo like themselves or Indian (from India), etc.  They don't even think about each other as different as it is becoming the norm.  We are the only country I see this happening in with possible exception of the UK in some areas. 

 

[PUB78 1,357]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

If you don't consider Trumpism "right wing populism" then what would you call it?  It sure as hell ain't traditional Republicanism.

Such terms are a reflection of reality, used as shorthand for the sake of discussion.  They don't actually define reality.

(Anti-elitism is one of it's characteristics)

 

 

Nature of Right-wing populism

Supports

• Sovereignty
• Nation-states
• Constitutionalism
• Protectionism
• Immigration law

 

Rejects

• World government
• Globalization
• Multiculturalism
• Elitism
• Illegal immigration

 

Debates

• Conservatism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Right-wing_populism#Nature_of_Right-wing_populism

 

Well, I must be a right wing populist since I believe in America First and values this great nation was founded upon.

[Tiger Sue 325]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

Well, I must be a right wing populist since I believe in America First and values this great nation was founded upon.

Me too.

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 9/10/2019 at 12:02 PM, AuburnNTexas said:

Homer you and other people label people as Right wing Populists and then you decide what a right wing Populist is.  There is a difference between being against illegal immigration and being against immigrants.  I am married to an Immigrant but I am against illegal Immigrants. What makes a person an illegal Immigrant is they break the laws of the country that they come to it does not make them a bad person.  

I personally believe we should change our immigration laws and allow more people to come here legally. The definition that you espouse about Right Wing Populists is as inane as many people definitions of Left Wing Liberals. Are there a few on each side that match your caricature of Right Wing Populists or others caricature's of Left Wing Liberals sure but most have solid core values on both sides of the political spectrum.  Most of us left and right love our country and our fellow man and we want what is best for both but we have different views on how to achieve it.     

Social media and the labeling of people like you do when you talk about Right Wing Populists or others who talk about Left Wing Liberals is what causes most harm to our Society. When you label people in an unflattering manner you turn that person from a person you disagree with into a person you hate and who also hates you, now there is no room for discourse. Now it is us against them. No more compromise is possible.

Dude gets it.

We have allowed brainless hyperbole to hyperventilate much of our political discourse. It is literally at the point where both sides have demonized the other until there is no middle ground. That is the breeding ground for an Authoritarian Strong Man to take over. History proves it so. But Where would he come from? Whether Elected by Populism, as Hitler was at first, or by The Elitists murdering a few Elitists off and claiming power if democracy is too poisoned to work, the public or the Elites will move to put a strong man in power. The way of history is just that. Out of the Depression, the public suffered until they elected strongmen to fix things. Mussolini, Hitler, other were replacements for failed (mostly democratic) Govts that could not serve the people. Roosevelt was a strongman that replaced Hoover. That is essentially how communism in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, all started. Failed former govts to blame. 

In America, maybe we are about to turn that way as well. DC politics is nothing but the Elites Serving the Elites. The 1% get wealthier by the day and common people get worse by the day. Our wages, overall, have stagnated. As the US adjusted to a global economy, we were left to compete with Koreans, Chinese, Mexicans that work for pennies on the dollar. That meant our wages, overall stagnated. But the wages of the 1% Exploded. Their wealth exploded. Their influence exploded. The American Middle Class was left out. And now, along comes Trump, figures all this out and becomes the Big Middle Finger to the Elites in America. I dont fear DJT because i have faith in the American People to govern themselves. DJT will be gone and hopefully soon. However, the media seems to have few, if any, places where we can get a good view on Washington. 

This article is just hilarious in that the Elites are worried that if WE dont bow to them and their raping of America, that things...just may get ugly...FOR THEM. The American Elites have had their Say and Day. It is time we move on to some rational changes to eleviate the pain of the Middle Class and repair some of the damage the Elites have done on their 30-40 year Control over America. Either way, We dont need a strong man to destroy everything, What we need is that the Elites in America get ready to turn loose from the power and the control they have had for 30-40 years. (Note, after the 2016 Election Outcome, I sincerely doubt that the "Club of Moneyed Elites" can ever see themselves as an issue and certainly not as THE problem. 

I am paying attention to the the Machinations of the Democrat Party. I have financially joined Justice Democrats and  Alabama Democratic Reform Caucus. I left the Republican Party, they are 100% sold out to the Corporate Elite. I served in the Republican Party form 1980-2005. I dont recognize it any more. They same party that decried Clinton and his lack of character now cuddles up to DJT and his complete lack of character. Abortion? Nothing changed in 40 years. Balanced Budget Amendment?  Is there a bigger joke ever been played on the American People than a "balanced budget?" 

Back to my last point. The DNC is up to its old tricks again. Bernie, Tulsi, Yang, Williamson are getting slimed every day by dutiful minions in the press. They arent DNC Elites you see. Gabbard, the most googled, peace loving, candidate running cant get any good press. Why? She left the DNC when she saw what the DNC was doing to Sanders in 2016. She is now permanently Black Balled in DNC Circles. Bernie never was a DNC lacky. Etc Etc. In DC you are either in the "Club of Moneyed Elites" or you are not. They, the DNC Core and the RNC, make up the Military-Industrial minions now. They are part of it or slaves to it. Either way, we are living in interesting times. 

[autigeremt 6,591]

On 9/10/2019 at 12:27 PM, homersapien said:

"Mother government" is an organizing principle which the people use to express their will.   To your point, it should be responsive to the will of the people, but that's on us.

The perspective of government as a sovereign organization is part of the problem IMO.  It's a way of avoiding personal responsibility for our government.

How's this for clarification? "BIG FAT SLOTH OF A MOTHER GOVERNMENT". 

[homersapien 11,357]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

How's this for clarification? "BIG FAT SLOTH OF A MOTHER GOVERNMENT". 

And - to my point - exactly who's fault is that? 

 

[autigeremt 6,591]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

And - to my point - exactly who's fault is that? 

 

The people who are supposed to uphold the standard in the offices they hold...they are the gatekeepers of the republic and they have failed whether elected, appointed or hired. We the people are also complicit. 

[homersapien 11,357]

15 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The people who are supposed to uphold the standard in the offices they hold...they are the gatekeepers of the republic and they have failed whether elected, appointed or hired. We the people are also complicit. 

I agree.

Especially considering many of these "failed gatekeepers" get re-elected.