Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Trump in my opinion is clearly a horrible leader and is very unstable. But those two things won't stop a number of people from supporting him.

People don't support Trump for his flaws, just like no one supported Hillary for hers, or Obama for his, or George Bush for his.

The problem is many millennials are living in a warped reality where they discuss politics as if they were hosts on the Daily Show, repeating verbatim the vapid commentary from shows like John Oliver and Stephen Colbert. "Oh I didn't think I would ever miss Bush", the guy who spear headed illegal wars, "Trump is a fascist dictator!" meanwhile Obama oversaw the vast expansion of executive powers, including (likely illegal) military use via executive order.

I don't mind if people have coherent arguments regarding Trump's executive leadership, but what is currently on display is barely above the level of juvenile kindergarten mudslinging.

"Progressives" (like kwoldtimer) might champion this social environment now because it opportunistically aligns with a subset of their policy perspectives, but what happens when the shallow trends of the day turn towards policies that you don't agree with? A population which lost the ability to think critically about anything beyond what scores them social media points is a dangerous direction to be going in.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Ramako

I wonder what the Trump defenders in this thread think about Trump firing the FBI Director who was investigating his administration's ties to Russia. Truly America is getting greater by the minute.

It doesn't matter, really, and it's an entertaining bit of fireworks.

The DNC emails came from phishing John Podesta and their release was a public service, irrespective of the fact that I have not seen solid evidence implicating Russia (side note: I still wouldn't care if there was).

The Russia stuff is Louise Mensch-tier peanut gallery fodder, an attempt to resurrect Cold War sentiment in service to the faltering post-WW2 order.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

People don't support Trump for his flaws, just like no one supported Hillary for hers, or Obama for his, or George Bush for his.

The problem is many millennials are living in a warped reality where they discuss politics as if they were hosts on the Daily Show, repeating verbatim the vapid commentary from shows like John Oliver and Stephen Colbert. "Oh I didn't think I would ever miss Bush", the guy who spear headed illegal wars, "Trump is a fascist dictator!" meanwhile Obama oversaw the vast expansion of executive powers, including (likely illegal) military use via executive order.

I don't mind if people have coherent arguments regarding Trump's executive leadership, but what is currently on display is barely above the level of juvenile kindergarten mudslinging.

"Progressives" (like kwoldtimer) might champion this social environment now because it opportunistically aligns with a subset of their policy perspectives, but what happens when the shallow trends of the day turn towards policies that you don't agree with? A population which lost the ability to think critically about anything beyond what scores them social media points is a dangerous direction to be going in.

"You are bad people" or "your guy is a bad person" is not political analysis.

[kool maudit]

It was about 2010 or 2011 where I really started noticing adults using pedagogical phrases from early childhood in everyday speech, things like "that's not OK" or even "I think we should take a little...time out from that" (the latter was in a company meeting that had come to contain an argument).

In the years since it spread and I began to feel as if millenials might not have transitioned out of that kind of social control mechanism. The way I remember it, that was a precursor to a plainer and harder kind of chastisement that came around age 11-12.

Maybe that doesn't happen anymore.

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Facebook, that bastion of political discourse, where every single thing Trump does is viewed through a lens of either Hitler-like or Nixon-like. Apparently this thread too.

In reality, what Obama did by invoking Executive Privilege over something like Fast and the Furious was much more "Nixonian" than anything Trump has done so far, yet I bet no one here even knows the context of that. Funny how that works.

Reminds me of when Jon Steward very early in Obama's candidacy made a joke about him, and his entire studio audience fell absolutely silent. He had to literally say "It is ok to laugh". That sums up the millennial generation's approach to politics perfectly.

Instead of trying to score cheap political points by calling everything your political enemies do "Nixonian" or "Hitler-like", you can use a few brain cells and actually come to a conversation with intellectual honesty. A foreign concept for many of you.

So just so I understand where you're coming from, your contention is that none of the criticisms levied against Trump are based on anything substantial? This is all just partisan bitterness rather than legitimate alarm at his gross incompetence, lack of genuine principles and general patina of corruption?

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by Ramako

I wonder what the Trump defenders in this thread think about Trump firing the FBI Director who was investigating his administration's ties to Russia. Truly America is getting greater by the minute.

Probably not as worked up about it as the Trump haters will be.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by geotag277

"Progressives" (like kwoldtimer) might champion this social environment now because it opportunistically aligns with a subset of their policy perspectives, but what happens when the shallow trends of the day turn towards policies that you don't agree with? A population which lost the ability to think critically about anything beyond what scores them social media points is a dangerous direction to be going in.

The trouble with Donald Trump is that he is really the worst possible nightmare for thoughtful conservatives.

Trump is anathema to most people, which means that there (should) be a Democratic landslide in the midterms, and in the next presidential election. Conservatives could be in the political wilderness for decades to come, which unfortunately will mean unfettered democratic liberalism for the foreseeable future (bloated government, increased taxes, ineffective foreign policy, military neglect). This is also not a good thing.

A return to the center is what is necessary for the Republican Party. If this means kicking out the tea partiers and the freedom caucus then so be it......

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

Probably not as worked up about it as the Trump haters will be.

Seems like it's a rigidly two-sided coin: you're either a "Trump hater" and if you're not vocal enough about his Hitleresque or Satanic motivations, then you're automatically on the other side of the coin as a "rabid Trump lover/supporter" (along with everything nasty that that entails).

We're living in enlightened times...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The trouble with Donald Trump is that he is really the worst possible nightmare for thoughtful conservatives.

Trump is anathema to most people, which means that there (should) be a Democratic landslide in the midterms, and in the next presidential election. Conservatives could be in the political wilderness for decades to come, which unfortunately will mean unfettered democratic liberalism for the foreseeable future (bloated government, increased taxes, ineffective foreign policy, military neglect). This is also not a good thing.

A return to the center is what is necessary for the Republican Party. If this means kicking out the tea partiers and the freedom caucus then so be it......

And yet, those "thoughtful conservatives" seem eerily quiet right now. There doesn't seem to be a huge chorus of people in the U.S. who are voicing their regret at having voted for Trump, is there?

As I keep saying on here: it's really the other side that needs to be worried. Trump stole away a huge portion of its base and that's not coming back any time soon.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And yet, those "thoughtful conservatives" seem eerily quiet right now. There doesn't seem to be a huge chorus of people in the U.S. who are voicing their regret at having voted for Trump, is there?

As I keep saying on here: it's really the other side that needs to be worried. Trump stole away a huge portion of its base and that's not coming back any time soon.

I guess if I were to step into their shoes, the question would have to be "what choice do they have"? For better or worse, Trump is the sun around which U.S. conservatism revolves, at least for the time being. Barring something catastrophic, that could begin to shift with the 2018 elections, but not before.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Ramako

So just so I understand where you're coming from, your contention is that none of the criticisms levied against Trump are based on anything substantial? This is all just partisan bitterness rather than legitimate alarm at his gross incompetence, lack of genuine principles and general patina of corruption?

There are certainly valid areas of concern regarding Trump's administration. I myself have presented several in this very thread (for me, it's mainly climate change related).

That said, just because it is theoretically possible to have an adult conversation regarding the state of politics in the United States, and just because it is theoretically possible to have a grown up conversation about the pros and cons of the Trump administration so far, compared to the Obama, Bush, and theoretical Clinton administrations - doesn't mean it is actually happening.

No where in this 350 page thread will you find such a discussion, outside of maybe 2 or 3 posts (some of them likely from me). I would wager no where on Facebook is that discussion happening, although obviously I can't confirm that.

And the most disturbing part isn't even that most people are OK with the fact that the conversation is not happening. The worst part is most people don't even notice.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It was about 2010 or 2011 where I really started noticing adults using pedagogical phrases from early childhood in everyday speech, things like "that's not OK" or even "I think we should take a little...time out from that" (the latter was in a company meeting that had come to contain an argument).

In the years since it spread and I began to feel as if millenials might not have transitioned out of that kind of social control mechanism. The way I remember it, that was a precursor to a plainer and harder kind of chastisement that came around age 11-12.

Maybe that doesn't happen anymore.

I think it's natural to have an infantile reaction when one is confronted with too much information to process. Learning in childhood is a series of events like this, where very complex problems are reduced to Manichean rights and wrongs, because you have lack the cognitive ability and have limited prior experiences to render more measured judgments. Nuance is an adult reaction when there is insufficient information and sober judgement must come to the rescue.

The internet spoils us with information, but we still don't have the cognitive abilities to parse out this data in our own brains, so we make a judgement first, then use the information that reinforces our worldview to strengthen our decision. The sheer volume of information that we have access to means that we often build our arguments on the volume of data, rather than on the diversity of perspective.

Also, the brain just shuts down when it can't handle the volume of information so even if you are open to new ideas and were presented with a sufficient volume of oppositional viewpoints you still just make an impassioned stab in the dark based on your prior worldview.

Millennials (I'm a millennial) came of age just when the volume of information available to everyone increased exponentially, so it's not surprising that this sort of reaction carried through into adulthood.

[Acajack]

Excellent opinion piece.

https://www.ft.com/content/c7444248-...5-23ef563ecf9a

[Xelebes]

Behind a paywall.

[SpongeG]

trump is just draining the swamp, his supporters are loving it

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think it's natural to have an infantile reaction when one is confronted with too much information to process. Learning in childhood is a series of events like this, where very complex problems are reduced to Manichean rights and wrongs, because you have lack the cognitive ability and have limited prior experiences to render more measured judgments. Nuance is an adult reaction when there is insufficient information and sober judgement must come to the rescue.

The internet spoils us with information, but we still don't have the cognitive abilities to parse out this data in our own brains, so we make a judgement first, then use the information that reinforces our worldview to strengthen our decision. The sheer volume of information that we have access to means that we often build our arguments on the volume of data, rather than on the diversity of perspective.

Also, the brain just shuts down when it can't handle the volume of information so even if you are open to new ideas and were presented with a sufficient volume of oppositional viewpoints you still just make an impassioned stab in the dark based on your prior worldview.

Millennials (I'm a millennial) came of age just when the volume of information available to everyone increased exponentially, so it's not surprising that this sort of reaction carried through into adulthood.

I have a very strong suspicion that this reaction to information overload informs the apocalyptic doomsaying about the supposed decline of the West and the potential for tectonic shifts in the global alignment of power. The chattering classes are chewing their fingernails to bits in anticipation of the challenging unpleasantnesses that are invariably to come, but they seem to underestimate the power of resolve.

Then again, if perception is reality, we might not be able to convince ourselves not to drag ourselves down after all. A girl doesn't believe she's pretty if only her daddy tells her she is.

So I'm skeptical that we're living in 1914 or 1933, but then again, if enough people start to feel like we're living in 1914 or 1933, well, we might as well be, as decisions will be made based on feeling like we're living in 1914 or 1933.

Who'da thunk it would be so hard to make people want to party like it's 1999?

I understand the argument that Western capitalism requires constant growth to fuel its stability and decency, but I'm not so sure that that's axiomatic. I also think that we forget the fact that we survived the horrors of the 20th century, and that, if anything, it was 1916 and 1942 when people were more justified in making grim prognoses about the future of the West (or indeed the world).

I'm actually a pessimist cynic at heart, so as I stand back and re-read what I've written, it's kinda amazing that I come off as optimistic as this.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I have a very strong suspicion that this reaction to information overload informs the apocalyptic doomsaying about the supposed decline of the West and the potential for tectonic shifts in the global alignment of power. The chattering classes are chewing their fingernails to bits in anticipation of the challenging unpleasantnesses that are invariably to come, but they seem to underestimate the power of resolve.

Then again, if perception is reality, we might not be able to convince ourselves not to drag ourselves down after all. A girl doesn't believe she's pretty if only her daddy tells her she is.

So I'm skeptical that we're living in 1914 or 1933, but then again, if enough people start to feel like we're living in 1914 or 1933, well, we might as well be, as decisions will be made based on feeling like we're living in 1914 or 1933.

Who'da thunk it would be so hard to make people want to party like it's 1999?

I understand the argument that Western capitalism requires constant growth to fuel its stability and decency, but I'm not so sure that that's axiomatic. I also think that we forget the fact that we survived the horrors of the 20th century, and that, if anything, it was 1916 and 1942 when people were more justified in making grim prognoses about the future of the West (or indeed the world).

I'm actually a pessimist cynic at heart, so as I stand back and re-read what I've written, it's kinda amazing that I come off as optimistic as this.

This is valid. I think that one of the main traits of the current status quo "world order" is its stability. Stability was basically built into it after WW2 given that the powerful people of the time thought that unstable states were what led to the two world wars.

One thing that you're kind of hinting at is that we often don't know what kind of mess we're in until it's too late.

I mean, I am pretty sure that regardless of the tensions of the day, no one thought the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 would lead to such a huge war.

Even the rise of Hitler in the 1930s and its effects could have been limited to a fairly small geographic area if history had played out only slightly differently. (In fact, the smart money at the time would probably have been on that scenario.)

Since 1945 we've had so many false alarms about World War 3 from the Cuban Missile Crisis to Saddam Hussein as the next Hitler that I've stopped counting.

I do think we're on the verge of some type of transformation in the western world (perhaps similar to the rise of Communism - or at least Marxism-Leninism - as a viable, rival system) but I doubt that we'll see anything even remotely close to being as cataclysmic as the first or second world wars.

Of course, as I said one never knows. Until it's too late.

[geotag277]

I had to go back to 2008, to see a Daily Show clip with Jon Stewart spending a full 3 minutes lampooning Obama for his flip flopping on campaign finance reform:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/fw98oq...finance-reform

I don't recall any similar commentary from any of the usual suspects in 2016 regarding a similar 3 minute long rant about Hillary's myriad of problems as a candidate.

Something definitely changed from 2008 to 2016.

Important to point out how genuinely uncomfortable Jon's audience seems at the prospect of him making fun of Obama. He literally says "It's OK to laugh". I think he had to say that multiple times during the 2008 election period.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One thing that you're kind of hinting at is that we often don't know what kind of mess we're in until it's too late.

I often wonder if it's too late to deal with the fallout from globalization and automation. We still basically have 1960's-style economic distribution and the cultural norms that go with that but the world has changed and a lot of people are pretty much locked out of ever seeing prosperity under that system. You see it most in rural areas in the US where life is precarious and a huge percentage of the population is hooked on drugs. Canada has avoided that so far but I think that had as much to do with luck (e.g. having lots of high-paying blue collar jobs in oil and gas) as it did with anything built into our social order that prevents those problems. Partly, the standard of living has been propped up through consumer debt and through selling off domestic assets like real estate to people from other countries. Those are not viable long-term strategies.

How would Canada cope if 20-30% of the jobs disappeared during a 5-10 year period? A large number of people would need to somehow be looked after and a huge hole would develop in government budgets, because they rely so much on income tax. Capital and corporate income is relatively lightly taxed, and can easily move around the world so it might not turn out to be possible for national governments to crank up those taxes in the future.

If we do get to an "eat the rich" moment, who knows what will happen?

[kwoldtimer]

Here's one that I thought would be allowed to fade away - an executive order was issued today to establish a committee chaired by the VP to investigate, among other things, "voter fraud". One expects that opponents will have conniptions over the perceived threat to the right to vote. The naming of Kris Kobach (!) as vice-chair of the committee will probably add apoplexy to the conniptions.

The reports I've seen don't indicate when the committee is expected to report its findings.