Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3728)	12/28/2016 9:11:46 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 357795

I watched a populist leader rise in my country. That’s why I’m genuinely worried for America. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/i-watched-a-populist-leader-rise-in-my-country-and-that-is-why-i-am-genuinely-worried-for-america/2016/12/27/6b4cf632-cc65-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html By Miklos Haraszti Miklos Haraszti is a Hungarian author and director of research on human rights at the Center for European Neighborhood Studies of Central European University. Hungary, my country, has in the past half-decade morphed from an exemplary post-Cold War democracy into a populist autocracy. Here are a few eerie parallels that have made it easy for Hungarians to put Donald Trump on their political map: Prime Minister Viktor Orban has depicted migrants as rapists, job-stealers, terrorists and “poison” for the nation, and built a vast fence along Hungary’s southern border. The popularity of his nativist agitation has allowed him to easily debunk as unpatriotic or partisan any resistance to his self-styled “illiberal democracy,” which he said he modeled after “successful states” such as Russia and Turkey. No wonder Orban feted Trump’s victory as ending the era of “liberal non-democracy,” “the dictatorship of political correctness” and “democracy export.” The two consummated their political kinship in a recent phone conversation; Orban is invited to Washington, where, they agreed, both had been treated as “black sheep.” When friends encouraged me to share my views on the U.S. election, they may have looked for heartening insights from a member of the European generation that managed a successful transition from Communist autocracy to liberal constitutionalism. Alas, right now I find it hard to squeeze hope from our past experiences, because halting elected post-truthers in countries split by partisan fighting is much more difficult than achieving freedom where it is desired by virtually everyone. But based on our current humiliating condition, I may observe what governing style to expect from the incoming populist in chief and what fallacies should be avoided in countering his ravages. A first vital lesson from my Hungarian experience: Do not be distracted by a delusion of impending normalization. Do not ascribe a rectifying force to statutes, logic, necessities or fiascoes. Remember the frequently reset and always failed illusions attached to an eventual normalization of Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Orban. Call me a typical Hungarian pessimist, but I think hope can be damaging when dealing with populists. For instance, hoping that unprincipled populism is unable to govern. Hoping that Trumpism is self-deceiving, or self-revealing, or self-defeating. Hoping to find out if the president-elect will have a line or a core, or if he is driven by beliefs or by interests. Or there’s the Kremlinology-type hope that Trump’s party, swept to out-and-out power by his charms, could turn against him. Or hope extracted, oddly, from the very fact that he often disavows his previous commitments. Populists govern by swapping issues, as opposed to resolving them. Purposeful randomness, constant ambush, relentless slaloming and red herrings dropped all around are the new normal. Their favorite means of communication is provoking conflict. They do not mind being hated. Their two basic postures of “defending” and “triumphing” are impossible to perform without picking enemies. I was terrified to learn that pundits in the United States have started to elaborate on possible benefits of Trump’s stances toward Russia and China. Few developments are more frightening than the populist edition of George Orwell’s dystopia. The world is now dominated by three gigantic powers, Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, a.k.a. the United States, Russia and China, and all three are governed by promises of making their realms “great again.” Please do not forget that populists can turn into peaceniks or imperialists at any moment, depending on what they think could yield good spin that boosts their support. Remember how Putin and Erdogan had switched, within months this year, from warring to fraternity. Or how Orban in opposition had blasted any compromises with Russia, only to become Putin’s best friend upon his election. I have plenty of gloomy don’t-dos, but few proven trump cards. There is perhaps one mighty exception, the issue of corruption, which the polite American media like to describe as “conflicts of interest.” It is the public’s moral indignation over nepotism that has proved to be the nemesis of illiberal regimes. Personal and family greed, cronyism, thievery combined with hypocrisy are in the genes of illiberal autocracy; and in many countries betrayed expectations of a selfless strongman have led to a civic awakening. It probably helps to be as watchful as possible on corruption, to assist investigative journalism at any price, and to defend the institutions that enforce transparency and justice. And it also helps to have leaders in the opposition who are not only impeccably clean in pecuniary matters, but also impress as such. The world is looking at the United States now in a way that we never thought would be possible: fretting that the “deals” of its new president will make the world’s first democracy more similar to that of the others. I wish we onlookers could help the Americans in making the most out of their hard-to-change Constitution. We still are thankful for what they gave to the world, and we will be a bit envious if they can stop the fast-spreading plague of national populism.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3728)	12/28/2016 9:18:22 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 357795

My oldest daughter and husband visited the other night. Very enjoyable game night. Then until 2 AM the political discussion came out. I took a strong anti-trump stance, gave my reasons and all but nearly the whole time I felt attacked because I didn't/wouldn't support Hillary. Much of that boiled down to making comparisons between Hillary and Trump. I don't see them as comparable and never understood why I was on the receiving end of that anger. Night ended with hugs and kisses, so all's well that ends well. Is there a place for thoughtful criticism where you don't get pigeon holed as "the opposition." I don't mind opposing views and dialogue per ideas, but on SI if you oppose one you get cast as the political enemy opposition. One of the poster's around these threads keeps asking me why I love Putin (that goes in the "believe it or not" pile).

To: Lane3 who wrote (3728)	1/1/2017 3:22:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 357795

Thoughtful criticism was taken as thoughtful criticism. Even when criticism came from the opposing party, there was a presumption of loyal opposition. I think you exaggerate the extent that was true, particularly as a durable thing (but then you didn't claim it was durable, if it happened for a couple of days it would still have been something that used to happen). I think it was somewhat more true than today, if you go back a few decades, maybe WWII until Watergate or perhaps the late 60s. But it wasn't very solidly that way even then. And well before then political debate was probably even harsher. To the extent your belief about this change in politics is true (and I think its somewhat true myself) The main causes seem to me to be 1 - There is less consensus about policy, more disagreement about not just specific implementations or timing, but about the basic ideas behind policies. When two sides are close in ideas but disagree on implementation and timing there is more scope to see the other side as "loyal opposition" rather than disloyal, or stupid, or evil, or the enemy. Which is not to say that all sorts of different ideas where not out there, but both parties where more similar to each other than now, and the mainstream of US politics was a bit less diverse and opposed then it is now. 2 - That disagreement is more between parties than across parties. You have fewer liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Referring back to one above, yes there were major controversies, over things like Civil Rights, and Vietnam, but they were as much within parties as between parties so as strained as things might have been at times the conflict was less partisan. 3 - People have more outlets to get their messages and ideas out, and can do so more easily. Which results in - 3a - More diversity of and conflict between ideas and principles in terms of what people see, hear, and read. More totally different takes on the story that go beyond some partisan spin on similar basic ideas. 3b - Since people can easily get tons of ideas, information, and claims from almost any political viewpoint they are more likely to just focus on what they agree with. 3c - Since there is more out there you also get more partisan crap (and also crap that isn't particularly partisan), just by the fact that the same sized piece of a bigger pie is bigger. 3d - You also probably get a bigger percentage of crap (and so also of partisan crap) because it so much easier to get things out. One might tend to be more careful about presentation of ideas in a book or TV show then in a tweet, and also you might have editors or other forms of proofreaders or gate keepers who might keep some of the worst out. (Which is not to say that more traditional forms of communication have not also become more partisan and perhaps less careful.)