The only point I'm attacking is the only point that was explicitly offered:the hypoxic conservative analysis that we "Got Trump" because of liberals, whether it's due through the Democratic Party, or the concept of "Social Justice Warriors", or left-wing intellectual elitism, etc. [...] this is an absurdity that requires - demands - countering and correcting. — Maw

It's not conservative analysis. We as members of the far left are asking: How did we lose? What did we do wrong? Why were we on the left not capable of preventing the real threat of authoritarian from winning power? What can we do to make sure that in the future, when the next right-wing cabal with authoritarian intent and an actually smart figurehead attempts to take power, we're able to defeat them from the start? Your response appears to be to demean us as not *real* leftists by virtue of the fact that we ask these questions.

Moreover, for some reason, you put this sort of soul-searching in opposition to anti-Trump action. As though thoughtless resistance to Trump is the solution. Trump is the symptom of an intellectual-institutional nexus of practices that run very deep and there's nothing progressive about refusing a discussion right now, precisely when it's most urgent, about what we need to do to counter these practices, and how we might be surreptitiously furthering them.

And it is unequivocally not a critique in harmony with the Far Left. I know of no one on the Far Left who would claim that " the Democrats bear significant responsibility for his election", as if the Right is somehow absolved of agency. — Maw

Well, obviously you do, because you're conversing with members of the far left who make that claim. So it would seem that you are suggesting that we're not allowed to be members of the far left if we're brazen enough to actually wonder aloud why the left has so far been institutionally and intellectually weak in preventing the rise of authoritarianism. You also seem to think of responsibility as an all-or-nothing game, which strikes me as simplistic and dangerous, because it shirks all personal responsibility. It's why so many on the left continue to feel entitled to not give any reasons to vote democratic. Why bother questioning our own strategies and beliefs if others are to blame and nothing is our fault.

We as members of the far left are asking: How did we lose? What did we do wrong? — John Doe

You'd need a party to represent you to be able to have done anything wrong and you live in the wrong country for that. If you're under the illusion the US has a leftist party, then you need to travel abroad more.

thanks. Pretty nuts.

We as members of the far left are asking: How did we lose? — John Doe

Well, you lost by never running, that's the point. There's never been a single far left presidential candidate. You weren't even anywhere close to the marathon.

Shit, even the Greens have more political clout than the wsws.org nutjobs who keep calling everyone else Pseudo-Left.

You'd need a party to represent you to be able to have done anything wrong and you live in the wrong country for that. If you're under the illusion the US has a leftist party, then you need to travel abroad more. — Benkei

Well, I've been living in Europe for the past four years. But that's immaterial because the rise of right wing authoritarian thought and practice is a global problem.

Well, you lost by never running, that's the point. There's never been a single far left presidential candidate. You weren't even anywhere close to the marathon.

Shit, even the Greens have more political clout than the wsws.org nutjobs who keep calling everyone else Pseudo-Left. — Akanthinos

Huh. Interesting that Maw critiqued me for not giving Sanders near-win enough credit and you critique me for espousing beliefs that were nowhere close to the marathon.

But I am certainly misunderstood if you think that I am a nutjob who is calling everyone pseudo-left. I mean, I thought I was arguing against being accused as pseudo-left by Maw, so maybe I should just retire since it's 3:30 in the morning and this whole conversation is going in circles.

Getting rid of Trump is important, but even more important is challenging the underlying values of our American society, and increasingly the world more generally as others adopt our ways. In many ways Trump seems to be an extreme embodiment of those values: "success" equated with wealth and power; every aspect of life subordinated to economic imperatives; hedonism seen as "liberating"; etc.

I remember listening to an interview with Joni Mitchell way back during the US occupation of Iraq, where she was asked about the humiliating pictures of Iraqi prisoners stacked naked in a pyramid with US soldiers smiling and giving a thumbs up for the camera. The official military response was the standard boilerplate "these soldiers are exceptions to the overwhelming majority who conduct themselves with honor and integrity," but she wasn't buying it. How do you expect young people to act, she asked, when they've been raised in a materialistic and hedonistic world which doesn't value things like compassion and sincerity (things that don't sell)? which finds the humiliation of other human beings to be be funny?

Anyhow it's the culture that needs to be changed IMO. As far as I can see, there haven't been too many candidates on either side who've challenged the guiding assumptions at work in our society.

The day Hillary stood up on the floor of the US Senate and spoke passionately in favor of the Iraq war; the day Pelosi was briefed on torture and signed off; those are the datapoints on the road to Trump. — fishfry

That's hogshit. Ever been on a farm? Hogshit's way worst than bullshit.

Everyone was already morally suspect the second they decided to go into modern politics. You don't get to Trump by breaking the Seven Seals of Liberal Apocalypse, one at a time, like a roadmap.

You get to Trump because your educational and cultural system has failed at least 40 to 60 % of your population. There's no cathartic realizations beyond that. You just got a shitty society.

It's not conservative analysis. We as members of the far left are asking: How did we lose? What did we do wrong? Why were we on the left not capable of preventing the real threat of authoritarian from winning power? What can we do to make sure that in the future, when the next right-wing cabal with authoritarian intent and an actually smart figurehead attempts to take power, we're able to defeat them from the start? Your response appears to be to demean us as not *real* leftists by virtue of the fact that we ask these questions. — John Doe

First, no where did I say or suggest that asking such questions: how did we lose, where did we go wrong etc. are invalid or wrong questions to ask. Undoubtedly, those are vital questions, and have been asked since Sanders lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton, despite exceeding everyone's expectations. What my criticism is, however, is the asinine notion that the answer to the question: How did Trump become President? centers chiefly, or exclusively, around the Democratic party, or Black Lives Matter, or other liberal movements or concepts. Again, I don't know of many Far Left liberals who deny Republican culpability in Trump's election.

I know of no one on the Far Left who would claim that " the Democrats bear significant responsibility for his election", as if the Right is somehow absolved of agency. — Maw

Well, obviously you do, because you're conversing with members of the far left who make that claim. — John Doe

Then it's not that you are not a member of the Far Left. It's just that you are an idiot.

Then it's not that you are not a member of the Far Left. It's just that you are an idiot. — Maw

Well that's needlessly personal. I'm a graduate student in philosophy who recently joined this forum, I am largely sympathetic with your political beliefs, and am openly discussing my concerns with your position as best I can while trying to articulate my own position clearly. I have at no point directly insulted you.

I'm genuinely surprised by you, and pretty disappointed that discourse on a philosophy forum is so terribly Reddit-like. If you can't discuss matters with me before reverting to personal insults within three posts, then I truly despair for the state of politics in the US.

I am largely sympathetic with your political beliefs, and am openly discussing my concerns with your position as best I can while trying to articulate my own position clearly. I have at no point directly insulted you. I'm genuinely surprised by you, and pretty disappointed that discourse on a philosophy forum is so terribly Reddit-like. — John Doe

Because you've essentially accepted that The Right is absolved of agency, or that the preponderance of fault lies in the Democratic party, or liberals ideas including, but not limited to: Black Lives Matter, Political Correctness, Social Justice, etc. I have not claimed that the Democratic Party bares no responsibility whatsoever (recall that I denounced Clinton's mosaic message). I have stated - multiple times - that suggesting that the bulk of responsibility lies with the Left in whatever myriad manifestations is stupid and dangerous. It is a frequent Right Wing talking point. Take for example Ben Shapiro an immensely popular and influential Right-Wing pundit who in March 2016 said

“No” is a useful tool. If conservatives don’t say “no” to Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, there is no Ronald Reagan. If conservatives don’t say “no” to Gerald Ford in 1976 and George H.W. Bush in 1980, there is no Ronald Reagan. And if we don’t say “no” to Donald Trump now, we will continue drifting ever further left, diluting conservatism into the vacillating, demagogic absurdity of Trumpism. Conservatism will become the crypto-racist, pseudo-strong, quasi-tyrannical, toxic brew leftists have always accused it of being.

And we will have been complicit in that.

And who now, two years later on Twitter, rants how it's now liberal movements, no matter how innocuous, that lead to Trump.

I dislike Reddit immensely, but I call a spade a spade, and this idea that the Right has no agency in the ascendancy of Trump is ahistorical, ignores his continued support among Republicans, and is over all immensely stupid and dangerous.

@andrewk

There's something I find very intriguing about what Professor Chomsky had to say in that video that I would like to ask other members about.

He claims that the stock market does not represent the workings or true nature of the economy but of the elite and super rich.

Is that true? (This is coming from someone who studied economics at college for a brief while). Perhaps @andrewk would be able to elucidate such an important insight.

You get to Trump because your educational and cultural system has failed at least 40 to 60 % of your population. There's no cathartic realizations beyond that. You just got a shitty society. — Akanthinos

Unfortunately I think this is right*. The fact is that Trump was elected. Apparently even he was smart enough to know he wouldn't be. Apparently he promised his wife he wouldn't be. But even he overestimated the abilities of the American electorate.

Actually, you cannot fail 40 - 60%. The right figure is 100% failure. A fair number succeed in spite of 12 years of almost uniformly second rate or worse education. But most of those will never "be all they could have been" because of it.

When the wealthy want a good education for their children in America, they pay $40,000 - 50,000 per year for it, grades 7 - 12.

I have read that there's a premium on real estate closest to the stock exchanges, and also a big investment in computers with short cables. The idea being that for the big traders doing hundreds of trades a day or more, even a few infinitesimal fractions of a second can make a big difference.

At the same time, Buffett and others tell us that small traders have an edge because that by doing not-too-much work they can spot trends fast enough ot be able to get in or out faster than the behemoths: the idea being that it's not too difficult to sell a few hundred or thousand shares, whereas millions of dollars or more of holdings can be a problem to liquidate.

Because you've essentially accepted that The Right is absolved of agency, — Maw

No I have not. And I have explained why this accusation is wrong. I accept that democratic politics is about winning elections and making institutions and practices more just. The right wing authoritarians are seizing power and people are voting for them. And this all happens while a vile right wing ideology develops and feels more and more emboldened. So let me say it again. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. Human action is complex. If there are a rash of burglaries in a neighborhood, it is appropriate to ask about police procedures and the local practice of leaving the front door open, and this does not absolve the burglars of agency or culpability. Yet you continue to claim erroneously that this is my position, or what my position amounts to, while ignoring that your accusation is baseless. You have then twice now pivoted and used this baseless accusation to call me an idiot.

I dislike Reddit immensely, but I call a spade a spade, and this idea that the Right has no agency in the ascendancy of Trump is immensely stupid and dangerous. — Maw

See, this is what I do not understand. You call me an idiot. Then you double down -- calling me an idiot is like calling a spade a spade (viz. because you are an idiot) -- and you again and again come to this notion that it's because I have "accepted that The Right is absolved of agency" or you claim that I think "the Right has no agency". Yet all my claim amounts to is that those of us involved in leftist politics - in whatever intellectual and/or institutional capacity - need to understand our own responsibility for the state of politics. So, for example, when you decry --

First, no where did I say or suggest that asking such questions: how did we lose, where did we go wrong etc. are invalid or wrong questions to ask. — Maw

-- well, yes you do, because you refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for the rise of right-wing authoritarianism by purposefully misinterpreting my call to do so as "absolving the right of agency".

No I have not. — John Doe

Dude, I literally wrote:

I know of no one on the Far Left who would claim that 'the Democrats bear significant responsibility for his election', as if the Right is somehow absolved of agency.

To which you directly responded with:

Well, obviously you do, because you're conversing with members of the far left who make that claim. So it would seem that you are suggesting that we're not allowed to be members of the far left if we're brazen enough to actually wonder aloud why the left has so far been institutionally and intellectually weak in preventing the rise of authoritarianism.

You conveniently dropped off the part the continuation of my sentence, "or that the preponderance of fault lies in the Democratic party, or liberals ideas," which suggests offloading Republican responsibility.

There is nothing "baseless" about this accusation. Otherwise, you've done a terrible job of articulating your position in this matter, despite having written that I've been "conversing with members of the far left who make that claim".

So let me say it again. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. — John Doe

But it certainly is. That's quite exactly the meaning of responsibility. I doubt you could find a concept which is more of a zero sum game.

Anyhow it's the culture that needs to be changed IMO. As far as I can see, there haven't been too many candidates on either side who've challenged the guiding assumptions at work in our society. — Erik

Sanders does come to mind, though. Talk about socialism is no longer a taboo in America, I'm speaking about the newer generations arriving on the scene.

This might explain...

https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/12/12/2016/socialism-rich-capitalism-poor-interview-noam-chomsky

That's true about Sanders, at least to a certain extent, but in my experience socialists are often just as beholden to the values/ideals driving capitalism as their economic conservative opponents. They focus their attention on admirable things, like a more just distribution of goods and opportunities, but they don't always, or even typically, tie that in with the type of ontological critique I'm thinking about.

The difference, as I see it, would be like that between, say, someone who wants to socialize advanced education as a means of leveling the playing field for all people in their quest for financial security and material comfort - regardless of race or sex or current socioeconomic class - and another who rejects the very notion that acquiring knowledge and skills to make money is, or should be, the sole (or even the primary) purpose of education; between a person who says that universal healthcare is desirable because it serves the needs of the nation's economy, and another who rejects the idea that all human ends - such as taking care of the sick and poor - should be subordinated to the demands of the economy; between the outlook of a Cornel West and a Ta-Nahisi Coates; etc.

This position doesn't amount to a rejection of economic activity, but rather a massive reprioritizing of the ends for which the economy and the political system should serve. I know it sounds "hippie-ish", but that hypothetical shift in priorities, in the way we relate to our world, would lead to situation in which Donald Trump would no longer be considered a success but rather an embarrassment. So ultimately it's not Donald Trump who's the main problem, it's the "world" which significantly predated and gave rise to him. Those horizons shift historically and there's no reason to think they won't again at some point in the future.

I know the New Left of the 1960's - obviously not so new anymore - latched onto the importance of supplementing economic critiques of capitalism with criticisms of the larger cultural framework in which commercialism and consumerism and militarism hold sway; but today's Left seems to have largely fallen away from that stance in favor of one which adopts the discourse of an economic interpretation of life (for lack of a better description). Shifting money away from militaristic endeavors and towards education and other such things are positive first steps, of course, but I don't think they go far enough if they don't also include a much more significant desire to transform our collective way of being - and importantly beyond that which is envisioned by the current political Left and Right.

Well, I've been living in Europe for the past four years. But that's immaterial because the rise of right wing authoritarian thought and practice is a global problem. — John Doe

While I agree that right wing xenophobic parties have been more widely accepted in Europe, it's more of a polarisation here. Former centric parties moved to the right (mostly) to keep a voter base at the same time socialist or social democratic parties have seen explosive growth as well.

For what it's worth, I do hope the summit in Singapore will lower regional tensions.

This might explain...

https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/12/12/2016/socialism-rich-capitalism-poor-interview-noam-chomsky — Banno

Ok, read it and re-read it; but, the question remains as to how to discern the working of the real economy* (not that run by the top one tenth of one percent more or less) from that of the false illusion being propagated in the media and elsewhere that times are great because the economy is booming.

If such a picture can be presented to the general public in some coherent and plain and simple manner, then the pendulum might swing to the left again.

*When I say, "real economy" I mean that which is not presented by the very economists running it. Is that possible?

That's true about Sanders, at least to a certain extent, but in my experience socialists are often just as beholden to the values/ideals driving capitalism as their economic conservative opponents. — Erik

OK, so the issue is in regards to getting the right and accurate picture of the working of the economy then, as I understand it, which I bring up in my post towards Banno.

They focus their attention on admirable things, like a more just distribution of goods and opportunities, but they don't always, or even typically, tie that in with the type of ontological critique I'm thinking about. — Erik

Well, most people don't even know what the word "ontological" even means. So, we kind of have to dumb down the talk somewhat.

The difference, as I see it, would be like that between, say, someone who wants to socialize advanced education as a means of leveling the playing field for all people in their quest for financial security and material comfort - regardless of race or sex or current socioeconomic class - and another who rejects the very notion that acquiring knowledge and skills to make money is, or should be, the sole (or even the primary) purpose of education; between a person who says that universal healthcare is desirable because it serves the needs of the nation's economy, and another who rejects the idea that all human ends - such as taking care of the sick and poor - should be subordinated to the demands of the economy; between the outlook of a Cornel West and a Ta-Nahisi Coates; etc. — Erik

This I get and have a pretty good grasp of. Yet, most people don't understand that it would be a non-net-deadweight loss to have subsidized healthcare than the current alternative. It's a type of broken window fallacy.

This position doesn't amount to a rejection of economic activity, but rather a massive reprioritizing of the ends for which the economy and the political system should serve. I know it sounds "hippie-ish", but that hypothetical shift in priorities, in the way we relate to our world, would lead to situation in which Donald Trump would no longer be considered a success but rather an embarrassment. So ultimately it's not Donald Trump who's the main problem, it's the "world" which significantly predated and gave rise to him. Those horizons shift historically and there's no reason to think they won't again at some point in the future. — Erik

Trying to be pragmatic, here; but, this is heavily idealistic and, well, to be blunt will likely never come to pass. So, the alternative is just to appeal to voters interests as usual, which lands us back at the same starting point.

I know the New Left of the 1960's - obviously not so new anymore - latched onto the importance of supplementing economic critiques of capitalism with criticisms of the larger cultural framework in which commercialism and consumerism and militarism hold sway; but today's Left seems to have largely fallen away from that stance in favor of one which adopts the discourse of an economic interpretation of life (for lack of a better description). Shifting money away from militaristic endeavors and towards education and other such things are positive first steps, of course, but I don't think they go far enough if they don't also include a much more significant desire to transform our collective way of being - and importantly beyond that which is envisioned by the current political Left and Right. — Erik

Yes, so it essentially comes down to education and what values we instill in new generations, correct? Talk about being idealistic, on my part.

Based on the U.S. Office of Trade Representative

U.S. goods and services trade with Canada totaled an estimated $673.9 billion in 2017. Exports were $341.2 billion; imports were $332.8 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Canada was $8.4 billion in 2017.

Typical Trump cherry picked bull crap.

Yes, admittedly idealistic/unrealistic in the short-term, but there are practical steps people can take if they so desire, right here and now, to implement a different set of values into their lives. That's the primary purpose of philosophy IMO dating back to the ancients. We're not mindless automatons totally incapable of escaping from the dominant consumerist paradigm. So at the very least those with philosophical interests can lead the charge.

I would also say, however, that I think there are lots of people - even average, non-philosophically-inclined folk - who feel "deep down" that our society does not currently meet important needs, be they communal or "spiritual" or a combination of these or whatever. Something's off-balance. So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the long-term prospects for significant change in the direction I'm talking about, although it would likely take place in gradual, piecemeal fashion if it comes at all. That's actually how I'd prefer the sort of change I'm referring to anyway: at the grassroots level of people and communities instead of through top-down government enforcement (which will never happen without significant pressure from below).

Shifting public opinion "one person at a time" is key, and once a critical mass is reached there could be a proper political/institutional response. It's not that complex, either: work a bit less and spend more time with your family and friends, turn off the television and computer and read books, buy less and go for hikes, enjoy conversations, etc., etc. This proposed shift needn't get bogged down in arcane philosophical jargon.

You gotta think big picture here. By way of analogy, and as someone who's been involved in management for a bit, I've noticed that people generally want to feel like they're part of some larger endeavor, some ambitious collective goal. That's not just management BS either: employees who tie their own self-interest and long-term prospects in with the larger interests of the company they work for tend to perform much better than those who don't. Once you've established that sort of culture then the morale receives a significant boost, and work becomes less tedious and more enjoyable for everyone.

But you have to provide people with that compelling vision, and if you don't, then yeah, they'll just work for a paycheck and be ready to bail out when a better offer comes along. This ability to create a narrative in which personal and collective interests are aligned ( a "common good") is rare, unfortunately, and it requires more than paying lip service to certain values and ideals: you have to actually live them. Politicians are good at the former but not so good at the latter, and the result is an understandable cynicism.

And yes, I'd wager that it largely comes down to the aims and methods of education. Plato's Republic sort of thing. But wait, didn't I just say that I preferred these changes to happen organically? Yeah, we're fucked.

Anyhow I'll shut up now since this topic is only indirectly related to Trump, with him being presented as a manifestation of a decadent, corrupt, nihilistic society. We reject (and thereby overcome) Trump most emphatically by rejecting all that he stands for.

Thanks for sharing your sane and awesome thoughts on the matter, Erik. I would be highly interested in a thread about your thoughts and experiences with the education system in the US, if you ever care to share your thoughts about that. I figure we have a decent amount of teachers and educated people on this forum to be able to entertain a quality discussion on that topic.

My pleasure. Thanks for the encouragement.

The Trump Doctrine

The best distillation of the Trump Doctrine I heard, though, came from a senior White House official with direct access to the president and his thinking. I was talking to this person several weeks ago, and I said, by way of introduction, that I thought it might perhaps be too early to discern a definitive Trump Doctrine.

“No,” the official said. “There’s definitely a Trump Doctrine.”

“What is it?” I asked. Here is the answer I received:

“The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”

The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.

The only problem here is that at best Trump's idea of what America is - or means - is so severely impoverished as to be worse than useless. (Read: worse than useless.)

And he's gutless. Do you think he'll say that - or even dare to think that - to Putin or Xi?

I'm struck by his antagonizing Trudeau and Canada and Canadians. Especially not face to face. He had to wait until he was safe before loading up his twitter. What is the message to them and the rest of the world there?