The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
A revolution of the powerful, and the well fed. [Trumpism as Revolution in the US]
tbloxham
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So here's something I failed to get across in my random comments about this in other threads. Our current 'Trumpist' revolution in the country is a very strange one. It is a revolution against the system, by the people who have benefited the most from the system. An advocacy for the destruction of the safety net by the very people who that safety net has cradled gently their entire lives. A call for the violent casting out of a group of people who peacefully pick American fruit, wash American cars, and clean American toilets for low wages by the very people who refused to, and were insulated from, having to do those jobs.
Are there other examples in history of this sort of activity? Of the luckiest, happiest, and most comforted members of a society who are under absolutely no enhanced threat as a group deciding to destroy their own society, and deciding to destroy it at the time when they need it to support them the most?
The US is not destroyed by famine, or war. The people advocating for violent and revolutionary change are not the ones doing back breaking labor in the fields for low pay, or afraid for the lives of their children. The US could be more equal, but the inequality is focused overwhelmingly on the youngest in our society who reject 'the revolution'. Instead the heart is the revolution is the boomers, who lived, and STILL live within their generation in a more equal society where hard work led to good wages. The boomers are not being forced from the workplace, instead they sit at the heart of it, earning good money and being valued contributors (or at least told that they are)
The people advocating for the end of public funds to colleges WENT to well funded public colleges on the cheap, GOT good degrees from them, and have made good use of those degrees every day of their lives. The rural areas raging against the city and urbanites sit at the heart of the most extensive and expensive 'rural living' support network which has ever been created, designed to give them immense power. The religious folk in the movement are part of the overwhelmingly largest religion in the country, and most pay only lip service to the faith.
There is an explanation from racism, but the people who support the movement the most strongly are those who live in the most homogeneous of communities where those few minorities there are tend to be models of good behavior (otherwise they would be immediately arrested). In addition, while the US is slowly becoming more diverse, the rate of change is quite slow. It's not the case that we suddenly have an immense influx of people compared to in previous times.
There is an explanation from 'liberalism/traditional values', but the people who support the movement come from a generation with the highest rates of divorce in American history, and were raised to believe divorce was one of the greatest moral offenses. The words of the movement speak to their hatred for abortion, but their generation was the one who legalized and normalized abortion. They had them, their friends and neighbors had them. And while the only 'moral abortion' may be their own in their eyes, does that not erode their own belief? If not as individuals, then as a society.
The people who 'opposed them' up until they themselves became radicalized were effectively arguing for 'We should do things like your parents did in terms of policy', so they faced no huge and organized movement to which this could be construed as a 'counterbalance'. One side stood up and said "America is pretty great! We should learn from our history and strengthen the things which helped make your generation so great" and in response they decided to burn the world down?
One can argue that the whole thing is astroturfed by the rich and powerful, but why? Being Rich in America is already to be given the greatest power anyone in history has ever had. Noone in history has ever had the wealth and power of the Kochs and then decided to use it to destroy the society that gave them that power. The wealthy have sought personal power before, but, the wealthy already HAVE personal power in the US. That's literally what the whole country is about.
TLDR, why have the happiest, wealthiest, luckiest, most well fed generation in human history decided to destroy their own society at the time when they are about to need it the most. Why are our 'conservatives' suddenly obsessed with radical change, and why are our wealthiest leading and financing a revolution against a society which gave them everything and never even seems to imagine taking anything away from them.
It doesn't make any sense to me, and none of the economic arguments I've read are even close to holding water. Is it really just that they are so racist and sexist that they cannot stand to imagine a society where young people do not agree that minorities must be persecuted and women must be excluded? Is the fantasy that they are the ones suffering REALLY so strong that it can defy a reality where they are not? Where they never have.
And of course, the follow on from this is, when we consider a generation who has never suffered for a single day (as a group, clearly individuals have) what will happen when they actually begin suffering. They talk a good game about their 'toughness' while riding about on their boats, sipping their bud lights, and spending the weekend with their buddies at the golf course and in Vegas but how will they respond when they realize that what they are advocating to destroy in themselves?
Are there other examples in history of this sort of activity? Of the luckiest, happiest, and most comforted members of a society who are under absolutely no enhanced threat as a group deciding to destroy their own society, and deciding to destroy it at the time when they need it to support them the most?
The US is not destroyed by famine, or war. The people advocating for violent and revolutionary change are not the ones doing back breaking labor in the fields for low pay, or afraid for the lives of their children. The US could be more equal, but the inequality is focused overwhelmingly on the youngest in our society who reject 'the revolution'. Instead the heart is the revolution is the boomers, who lived, and STILL live within their generation in a more equal society where hard work led to good wages. The boomers are not being forced from the workplace, instead they sit at the heart of it, earning good money and being valued contributors (or at least told that they are)
The people advocating for the end of public funds to colleges WENT to well funded public colleges on the cheap, GOT good degrees from them, and have made good use of those degrees every day of their lives. The rural areas raging against the city and urbanites sit at the heart of the most extensive and expensive 'rural living' support network which has ever been created, designed to give them immense power. The religious folk in the movement are part of the overwhelmingly largest religion in the country, and most pay only lip service to the faith.
There is an explanation from racism, but the people who support the movement the most strongly are those who live in the most homogeneous of communities where those few minorities there are tend to be models of good behavior (otherwise they would be immediately arrested). In addition, while the US is slowly becoming more diverse, the rate of change is quite slow. It's not the case that we suddenly have an immense influx of people compared to in previous times.
There is an explanation from 'liberalism/traditional values', but the people who support the movement come from a generation with the highest rates of divorce in American history, and were raised to believe divorce was one of the greatest moral offenses. The words of the movement speak to their hatred for abortion, but their generation was the one who legalized and normalized abortion. They had them, their friends and neighbors had them. And while the only 'moral abortion' may be their own in their eyes, does that not erode their own belief? If not as individuals, then as a society.
The people who 'opposed them' up until they themselves became radicalized were effectively arguing for 'We should do things like your parents did in terms of policy', so they faced no huge and organized movement to which this could be construed as a 'counterbalance'. One side stood up and said "America is pretty great! We should learn from our history and strengthen the things which helped make your generation so great" and in response they decided to burn the world down?
One can argue that the whole thing is astroturfed by the rich and powerful, but why? Being Rich in America is already to be given the greatest power anyone in history has ever had. Noone in history has ever had the wealth and power of the Kochs and then decided to use it to destroy the society that gave them that power. The wealthy have sought personal power before, but, the wealthy already HAVE personal power in the US. That's literally what the whole country is about.
TLDR, why have the happiest, wealthiest, luckiest, most well fed generation in human history decided to destroy their own society at the time when they are about to need it the most. Why are our 'conservatives' suddenly obsessed with radical change, and why are our wealthiest leading and financing a revolution against a society which gave them everything and never even seems to imagine taking anything away from them.
It doesn't make any sense to me, and none of the economic arguments I've read are even close to holding water. Is it really just that they are so racist and sexist that they cannot stand to imagine a society where young people do not agree that minorities must be persecuted and women must be excluded? Is the fantasy that they are the ones suffering REALLY so strong that it can defy a reality where they are not? Where they never have.
And of course, the follow on from this is, when we consider a generation who has never suffered for a single day (as a group, clearly individuals have) what will happen when they actually begin suffering. They talk a good game about their 'toughness' while riding about on their boats, sipping their bud lights, and spending the weekend with their buddies at the golf course and in Vegas but how will they respond when they realize that what they are advocating to destroy in themselves?
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+2
Posts
When the only narrative they hear keeps telling them that liberals are baby molesting, satanists who are going to steal their guns, convert them to gay islam, give their jobs away to foreigners while the "negro" keeps getting all uppity asking "where the white women at" its easy to see why they think they are in danger.
They believe it, all the problems they have is not their problem its caused by the godless liberal, and they know its true because thats all their media and the president says and they can trust them.
People are not eternal souls, with external morals and standards held in a space of Platonic ideals. They are products of their environments - the ideas they hear and read.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I think this is the key issue. I was going to suggest Brexit as another example of a situation in which a "revolution" like this has occurred, and they both share a key trait in common; it didn't matter what the reality of the situation might have been, a large demographic believed that things were considerably more dire than they actually were, and that drastic action would improve the country.
A big difference between the Trumpers and the W. followers is that somehow the fanatically true believers who were being coached to hate authority of all stripes are now in charge. I'd say the transition period was the TEA party, who made it easier for the followers to ascend to congress and other high ranks within the GOP itself, and the government.
A lot of things have been brewing which has to go right before this clicked into place, Trump being POTUS being the crux. As soon as he was elected the game was changed and here we are.
Anti-intellectualism and sabotaging school systems from within, are other flash points.
If it is purely propaganda, and I can believe you when you say that it is, then it doesn't really provide an answer. Just shifts the question to a smaller group of people. If our 'Trumpist Revolution' is a purely astroturfed revolution against the status quo, then why are the rich and powerful rebelling against the status quo? When you are already the most powerful man in America, under no threat or risk, why advocate for the destruction of a system which has served you so well.
Typically the propaganda coming from the wealthiest and most powerful at the very heart of a regime is "Everything is great, you are happy, look how great everything is. Please don't have a violent revolution!". Why are the Koch brothers and Richard Murdoch (and to a greater extent , 10s of thousands of other very rich Republican elderly men) gambling everything on the destruction of society?
Edit - To be clear, propaganda is certainly a good answer for 'How'. Maybe even the complete answer. Maybe the ease and comfort in which the boomers have lived have rendered them incredibly vulnerable to propaganda which creates perceived threats which don't exist to that comfort. But that doesn't answer the question of WHY a group would do this. If the Koch's want power, why have Donald Trump be president and destroy the country. Why not just become President themselves and advocate continually on fox news to say "Everything is fine. Everything is great. Please go about your business and work harder!"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Arrogance. They didn't think Frankenstein's monster would turn on them. Self awareness, humility and introspection are not high priorities. They assume that because they are highly educated and have lots of money they know everything and everything is under their control. Which has been true for a long time. Plus, they got sloppy and weak. This was not a threat when they were in their prime in the W. years.
Because they're ideologues. They actually believe in the exaltation of individual power over that of society. They really do want to destroy the power of the state and create an age where the wealthy individual wields power proportional to his wealth.
Of course what they've actually done is usurp the power of the state for themselves and recreated the Fascist alliance between corporate power and state nationalism.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Why risk any consequences at all? Why not just maintain the status quo? And hell, even if there is a group which thinks that they can be king of shit mountain, why is there no equally sized group who think they are ALREADY king of the mountain, desperate to defend their position through equally influential propaganda?
My guess is that if you're old, rich and powerful then it's very easy to still think that you need more money and more power. If you have to set a country on fire to do it, then so be it; you're probably not going to live long enough to have to worry about the consequences.
They perceived the status quo as a threat to their wealth and power. Trust busting Liberals and Union Socialists were, to them, a stepping stone to nationalization of property and the Communist State.
You just have to read about what Libertarians, An-Caps, and Randists think about Liberals and Socialists. Its all there in the open.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
But in the USA the wealthy ALREADY wield power in proportion to their wealth. If we believe that this is entirely propaganda, and that it is so effective that the boomers can be incentivized to destroy their own society, then the rich ALREADY have absolute power through their control of that propaganda. The boomers are their puppets, who will do whatever they please. Maybe we all are. Why do anything to upset that?
hateful racists is my guess
edit: also, dems tend to tax (very slightly) higher and damned if you'll get my 178th million!
No, but your children are. Isn't "Legacy" a big deal to these types?
I think of it as two separate groups of elites going back to the New Deal era.
One group of elites saw the necessary concessions Capital would have to make to Labor to keep the Liberal Capitalist status quo viable, and the other group saw this compromise as a stepping stone towards Communism.
The Democratic elite make up the former group, the Republican elite the latter.
To the Republican elite, the current status quo is a betrayal and the "Road to Serfdom" as a rather famous book put it.
Of course, all of American society favors the policies of the New Deal when you remove partisanship from polling, so propaganda is necessary for the Republican elite to get anyone on their side.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Indeed, and again, while I can believe that SOME of our wealthiest men believe that they will become more powerful than ever after they destroy the system, and that they are using the method of highly effective propaganda to do so, I cannot believe that there aren't others who believe that their control over propaganda in a stable society is already their best path to power. Both are corrupt, and I can perhaps believe that wealth beyond a certain scale is inherantly corrupting, but where are our 'Lawful Evil' rich? Why is the propaganda dominated entirely by those who demand violent revolution?
I think it's a case of the inmates taking over the asylum. The propaganda machine was supposed to talk up social issues and nationalism to put the GOP in power, who would then mostly throw money at the rich while throwing some unimportant bones to the base on abortion and guns and shit.
But then people who believed the propaganda got on the ballot, and won. And now the GOP is off the reservation and the people making the propaganda either also believe it or know that if they turn on Trump the base will turn on them. In other words, Fox News can't suddenly be pro free trade because it's not actually that the base will listen to anything they say, not if they contradict the narrative they have had.
While I agree with this from a historical perspective, why is there no real 'George Soros' frantically running his own Fox news propaganda network advocating about how wonderful it is to go and play a round of golf, and to not have to worry about picking fruit, and why everyone should just relax and enjoy these pictures of happy times and beautiful people? I feel that we USED to have that sort of propaganda coming from the rich. Sort of a 'don't upset the apple cart' kinda thing which you can see in films and movies from the 80s, but it dried up over the last 30 years.
It's important to remember that being wealthy can fuck up your brain, this is why its important to have a support system in place to ground you or you'll end up like Kanye. This is 10x as bad with families who make Kanye look like a pauper. They have their own society, which is not the same as what we're used to.
How it effects people can vary, as well. Some do better than others, some just go crazy and they all have things in common since they all exist outside mainstream society that they don't know what it's like to be an average person.
Legacies can be a huge motivation, but they'll also torch a legacy if they think it's the better option or to spite their enemies/relatives who they don't want their money. Some are simply to stupid to notice the signs that their legacies are in jeopardy until it's too late. Being rich is not a prerequisite for either being intelligent or having wisdom. They're just as screwed up as we are, if not more so, but with differing results.
The "Lawful Evil" rich are a big reason for how we got here in the first place. Without their influence Trump wouldn't have had the necessary steps in place to become president.
The Liberal Elite are still playing by old rules. Rules that say you should let the facts stand as they are. That reason and rationalism will reveal the truth, and the people will listen to the truth.
If Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros believed in the necessity of propaganda, they would do exactly what you think they should be doing.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Maybe those wealthy trumpers also have been sampling their own propaganda and believe it as well. Maybe some of them also have bought into the narrative that "democrats, feminists, communists, athiests, SJWs etc etc etc" want to take away their money, their power and give it to the very folks who's backs they have stood on to get where they are now.
That scares them, as power and the rules had largely been in their favor, they see the winds changing and they don't want that to happen, they want there power and legacy to stay where it is or get even bigger.
The common factor is that they believe they can do a bunch of horrible things, but their everyday lives will be shielded from the results. And so far, that's been true. No new wars have actually started yet and the authoritarian boot hasn't stepped on their fingers yet. Politics is just a TV show they watch where they root for the character they like the most, and it never comes and intrudes on them while they sit on the couch an watch it. It might as well be a different universe.
I read some plausible musings last night that the white, christian identity politics of the GOP allow them to suck up a lot of voters who would otherwise vote for the liberal policies that data suggests they support. Since the Dems can't play that game, they try to avoid persecution-complex triggers and soothe them with the slightly-left policies they actually like; least the siren song of White Christendom keep them home or lure them to the other side.
Certainly doesn't seem like a winning play when the other side gets to control the narrative and just makes shit up, but it seems like a plausible "why" for what they do.
Rich and well fed? Not so much. They are poor and getting poorer.
Stories you would hear about Prince, and MJ.. and those guys don't hold a candle to the ultra ultra rich.
and this reminds me of Lucille Bluth
"I mean its one banana, what could it cost.. 10 dollars? "
I think the point of the OP is that the social safety nets set out to help the poor are being pulled away. Like rather than expanding the nutritional support program (food stamps), it is getting defunded or linked to work requirements that cannot be met in economically depressed areas.
Yes, but many of them have been poisoned by the propaganda we're talking about.
Like folks really like to think their concerns are theirs, and that everything they think is something they thought of on their own, but there's been a few decades of a really fuckin strong propaganda campaign being thrown at these folks, and it fuckin worked like a charm. They are the folks being tricked into voting against their interests.
I don't think tricked is the right word. No one tricked them into white supremacy. They got their on their own.
Indeed, while there clearly ARE parts of our revolutionary coalition who are economically distressed, they overwhelmingly tend to be those people who gain the most support (direct and indirect) from the state. If we consider the poorest 5% of our revolutionary clique, they are NOT the poorest 5% of society. Nor are they the 5% most likely to be victims of crime, or to be ignored by the government.
In many countries the response to the plight of these rural small towns is just to literally say "Screw you idiots, move to the city. Your town is now too small and we're turning off the electricity".
This is how white supremacy convinces poor white people to work against their own interests: "Look, you might be bad off, but all those colored people? They're going to be worse off than you! I mean, they aren't white after all!"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
OK then, so is this the core question at the heart of this.
Why do the liberal wealthy elite believe that propaganda is not necessary to protect their power and expand their influence, while the conservative elite believe overwhelmingly in and overwhelmingly support propaganda? Why do the liberal elite continue to think they don't need to fight back, when they hang out with the conservative elite all the time and can see how effective their propaganda is despite how unpopular their policies are?
I hope they come to realize, and very soon, that there is no other way to actually fix this mess without doing exactly that.
Oh for sure one of the means by which they are being tricked into voting against their own interests is that their racism is being leveraged against them.
What? Where are you getting any of that? The title of the thread is 'a revolution of the powerful and well fed'. Then throughout the OP it is insinuated that the wealthy are dismantling society.
They think what CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., are doing is enough. They actually believe their ideals will win in the free market of ideas. That is their ideology. They are Liberals.
The far Left and the far Right both call mainstream media Liberal propaganda. Sadly it is not.
Or maybe its a great thing that it is not.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
When you say liberal wealthy elite, who are you referring to and where do they hang out with the conservative elite all the time?
The factual statement is that if you look at the income and power distribution of Trump voters, and their security from real want, harassment and fear that it looks like no 'revolutionary coalition' in history. Yes, there are poor trump voters, but they are the variety of poor who receive the very most from the state. As such, I am wondering why this revolutionary coalition even exists, and why it is advocating for such radical change which will hurt itself so much.
Well compared with who they want to be even worse off they are
The golf course? Parents night at the fancy school? Fundraiser for the local ballet? Rich people from all schools of thought cross paths all the time
When I say 'liberal wealthy elite' I am referring to those people who (back in the 20s-50s) saw the way the wind was blowing and decided "Things are going pretty good, but, if we don't let the workers get at least some power I'm going to end up with my head on a spike. I'm going to work with the system to increase my power, rather than trying to break it"
The consensus seems to be that the rich act in their own interest, and the propaganda has overwhelming power. So I'm not thinking about the 'altruistic' rich, those who believe in the inherit moral merits of unions and democracy. Instead, I'm talking about those who see both of those things as a path to increase their own power and wealthy. And, history has shown that those rich people were smart beyond belief, as unions and democracy have made the rich so rich that it is insane.