Not really. It's going to be harder to point out specific leftist failures in the US because leftists are hardly ever influential enough to make substantial mistakes. Its only by witnessing mistakes that we can detect a failure of vision.

There are other political entities whose exploits would more clearly and specifically demonstrate how out of touch with reality a leftist can be. I dont feel like talking about it though. It has zero to do with my original point.

Nothing, apparently.

And of course there's the time honored tradition by which liberals turn on their own allies, as you have just done.

Way to go!

So then what you are saying is that all our current problems were caused by the Right.

Which problems?

None, we are totally problem free. Now back on track. . .

You are pretending your binary interpretation of the political spectrum is anything other than the subjective black and white painting it is; however, the truth is that you are very much stereotyping people based on your bias, and the reason you don't want to try and substantiate your position is because you know it does not rest on a solid foundation.

If you were an ally of mine you would have made a better attempt at substantiating the claim that you made.

Aww. The only reason I'm here is that Mr Phil O'Sophy encouraged me to hang around and invest more in my argumentation.

But he's gone and his magic is wearing off. Believe whatever you like, praxis.

Liberals believe in progress so naturally they’ll experiment and try to improve social systems. There’s abundant evidence that intentional progress is possible, and of course not just by the hands of liberals. To say that “one should have respect for what evolves naturally” implies a value system that reveres unintentional development. Not a characterization of conservatism that I think anyone would agree with.

To say that “one should have respect for what evolves naturally” implies a value system that reveres unintentional development. Not a characterization of conservatism that I think anyone would agree with. — praxis

Anyone familiar with the career of the iconic conservative Alan Greenspan would most certainly agree that "one should have respect for what evolves naturally" accurately distills much of 20th Century American conservatism.

And yet you have changed the topic for a second time.

"Evolved naturally" is a meaningless ethical standards observation beacause that's true of all actions and systems, all being human actions formed out to of the evolving natural world.

"Evolved naturally" is a meaningless ethical standards observation beacause that's true of all actions and systems, all being human actions formed out to of the evolving natural world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

To bring it into context, think about the kind of social engineering experiments that took place during the French Revolution and in Communist regimes. An extreme example of a leftist failure to respect nature is Khrushchev's attempts to grow corn in Russia. Against the advice of Russian farmers, he forced large tracts of land to be planted with corn that never bloomed. It's a side effect of leftist lust to defy conventional wisdom.

On the other hand, devotion to tradition, precedent, tried and true approaches and remedies; these are conservative values. As I said, a devotion to practicality grows out of the weight of real responsibility. Conservatives sometimes fear liberals because they seem to lack concern for the dangers of trying new things. And they are wise to fear.

That's not a failure to respect nature. It's a moral failing of failing to take into account how crops would grow in the environment, against the advice of people who knew how they worked (farmers).

The corn incident (and Castro's giant strawberry experiment) are symbolic of something pervasive.

Trump has practical skills, but with a personality that can rub people, who think they are smart and refined, the wrong way. The Liberals tend to be shallow and pretentious and lack ingenuity and common sense. PC is all about the shallow surface of people. PC has nothing to do with skills. Calling person a name only smears the makeup. It does not diminish real skills. If all one is, is make-up, a name can be devastating.

Trump does not have the correct surface features for the Liberals, while the Liberals can't appreciate his skills since this is secondary to them. He can stimulate the economy and all the left can see is he made an error in grammar. The left wades smoothly in the shallows, while Trump makes waves in the shallows, as he heads to deeper water. The left does not like the splashing since it can cause their hair to get wet and eye shadow to smear. This can diminish their image, which is their best feature.

For example, nobody expected Trump to win since he was underfunded, lacked the extensive political social network, and was considered a boar by the elites. The previous formula for success had been the proper two-face, and the most funding and the most access to political consultants; shallow and inefficient.

Trump used ingenuity and was able to break the formula. He started out by attacking the shallows, with clever names, so the pretentious in the group would blink by fearing the splash. He also used his practical skills and boundless energy to make less funding and organization go further. His followers see his capacities and excuse his rough exterior since the exterior is only useful for entertainment, but not for this difficult job.

Good point. But weren't they a group of conservative billionaires making the mistake of thinking they were buying themselves a controllable stooge?

Trump would ride his populism to get in. Then deliver the kind of tax breaks, market deregulation, small government, policies they expected once he was surrounded by solid grown-up Republican advisors.

Those like Thiel and Mercer have been expressing buyers remorse - despite getting a lot of that legislation implemented. — apokrisis

Thanks for your reply! It would be interesting to see a video of the idea being seriously pitched to Trump of being president. Or maybe it would be slightly nauseating. But one can almost imagine the talk of those floating the idea:

• :point:
  “You’ve got great recognition value Donnie because of The Apprentice. “You’re Fired!” Brilliant, baby! America loves a tough talker who puts themselves out there! Especially a tough guy from New York City. You can be The Godfather. And your family is perfect for the role of first family. Very Game of Thrones. Very photogenic... especially Ivanka. We’ll have to feature her prominently. She’ll add a little Instagram fashionista zing for the millennials... Is she really dead set on Kushner? He isn’t scoring well with our testers. She loves him? Ok, fine whatever. We can work around that... Barron is cute... gotta play that up. But Donnie, you are the man of the hour! You are the brand that America is dying to be a part of. Everyone wants to be rich like you! You are the living f***ing American dream, baby! Pardon my vulgarity, but you are going to be the next president!” <applause and exuberant handshaking, followed by expensive cigars being lit. >

But seriously... it’s probably impossible to tell for sure what Trump’s investors were thinking and wanting, and the level of disappointment or anger there is now amongst the billionaire backers. One could sarcastically tell them “welcome to the party!” In any event, if Trump burns those bridges, he might be setting his big red tie on fire too. But I imagine that he knows who butters his bread.

My argument is thus that Trump is a rational phenomenon that reflects "the wisdom of the crowd".

There are dark forces in play in that many ordinary folk have it in the back of their minds that rough and turbulent times are coming. So let's provoke the crisis that is going to bring it on ... because we know we have the power when it comes to the show-down. — apokrisis

There was and is much anger at Washington and Wall Street. (Are the two really even separate entities any more?) That’s a given across the whole political spectrum, I think. That’s the reason Bernie Sanders is as popular as he is, and it’s what pushed Trump over the top. His outsider status and image as a successful businessman were large positives. The voters’ hatred of Hillary was like having the wind at his back. I think one has to go back to the 1800’s to find an example of such a political outsider becoming the POTUS, except for Eisenhower maybe. But Ike was busy winning the war. The ball is his now, to score with or fumble away. I am definitely not a fan of his. But for the sake of the country (and the world), I want this administration to have some success. But if Pence or someone else somehow takes the reigns, so be it. (Trump doesn’t seem like the healthiest guy around, and the stress isn’t helping him. What if he had to resign because of health reasons? Not totally impossible).

The worst thing that could happen is the US is tipped into such domestic turmoil that there has to be a big social clamp-down. All the names on the watch list need to be rounded up in black SUVs and taken to the FEMA internment camps for the duration. :)

What percent of the US population coolly and rationally thinks that might not be such a bad thing? Bring it on. — apokrisis

Well, this is the nightmare scenario. The dread that most rational people of all persuasions are (hopefully) pushing against with all their might. I hope to God that I am delusional and merely dreaming this possibility up. That it is not the growing hurricane it appears to be. The round-up of undocumented residents by ICE (or as they might be called: American Revival Storm Enforcement, or ARSE) is unsettling for a lot of people, even those that believe something must be done about immigration. As the last of the survivors of WWII era Europe pass away or enter their 80th year, will the world forget what happened? Or is it too late to put on the brakes, even if we try? Will the whole World War II scenario seem almost tame by comparison? Despite the bitter differences, the Left and Right must together avoid such an abyss.

Once you label me you negate me. - Soren Kierkegaard

The goal of "Trump derangement syndrome" is to negate a reasonable voice of concern by distracting people with a caricature.

In the 50s and 60s the KKK claimed it was protecting traditional family values to recruit new members and push their views. Does that phrase sound familiar? Remember how it would then later be used to oppress the LGBTQ community? Keeping the tradition alive, right?

Claiming something is "traditional" is not a rational foundation, and if that is your excuse then you are far from practical. The practical approach is to assess things objectively and if a "tradition" is harmful then it needs to be changed. I am not sure how you can assert a practical position, while at the same time promote such sentimental subjective adherence. Personally, I think you are just regurgitating media talking points instead of facilitating your own thoughts.

Trump has managed to turn many of his supporters into mindless parrots for his talking points, and they are, with regard to him, incapable of any form of critical thought or even basic reasoning. As in, for example, when he tells hundreds of apparent lies, they'll deny any of them are actually lies. Or when he says words that mean things that are obvious in context, they'll deny that's what he actually meant because it makes him look bad. And so on. — Baden

What's the most crazy response when Trump utters incredible lies is that the supporters (with the psychosis) simply love it as it offends the people they hate: the liberals, the leftists, the Washington swamp, the "Deep State" etc. The fact that Trump told a lie doesn't matter at all. It's not just that Trump is politically incorrect, which many do like, in the psychosis stage it goes into facts and policies based on lies. And if someone says that what Trump stated was untrue, the he or she has Trump derangement syndrome.

Everything is just political rhetoric. Or everything said against Trump is just political rhetoric. That's how it goes.

devotion to tradition, precedent, tried and true approaches and remedies; these are conservative values. — frank

And this somehow relates to a reverence for “natural” evolution?

The previous formula for success had been the proper two-face — wellwisher

I suppose you believe that Trump actually holds conservative values.

And this somehow relates to a reverence for “natural” evolution? — praxis

Of course. I'm getting the impression that you know practically nothing about conservatism. And so it follows that you don't really understand liberalism either since they define one another.

"Adams says that liberals can't believe that someone like Trump could be elected "just by having policies people like" and so they're forced to contrive a narrative that includes things like rampant racism, Russian election interference, etc."
A portion of the response to Trump has been hyperbolic, but hyperbolic response is normal political reaction by a portion of both sides. For example, see this, and this

I'd rather see more analytic criticism of Trump than the emotional/hyperbolic. But it's totally off base to claim this is some new phenomenon.

.

Relax, Frank, we get what you’re saying. It’s just that your descriptions are odd and misleading, and you’re reluctant to clarify them when asked to for some unknown reason.

I'd rather see more analytic criticism of Trump than the emotional/hyperbolic. But it's totally off base to claim this is some new phenomenon. — Relativist

Not sure what you mean by this. I’m most interested in what others think of Adams application of cognitive dissonance theory to Trump derangement syndrome.

I'd rather see more analytic criticism of Trump than the emotional/hyperbolic. But it's totally off base to claim this is some new phenomenon. — Relativist

Oh, me too. But there’s something different about Trump than any other major politician of recent history. Just near impossible to pin down, and I think that is intentional. Not talking about policies, or even his level of intelligence or whatever. More about his style, his operating procedure. He is so unpredictable so often that one has to wonder if its a defensive coping mechanism. Maybe if one is a famous billionaire a protective camouflage layer of BS forms on the surface. He is almost like an octopus. (No, not that way! :wink: ). Whenever under the slightest scrutiny (which is constantly) he releases a cloud of ink and tweets. And then disappears.

you’re reluctant to clarify them when asked to for some unknown reason. — praxis

Its only unknown to you because you haven't been listening to me. We've strayed some distance from the point I made in response to the OP.

You chose to take me somewhere far from the OP to an abstract exploration of liberalism and conservatism where I'm supposed to be launching a defense for liberal blindspots.

I'd rather discuss it than fight a battle over it. You dont have the foundation necessary for a simple discussion of what liberalism is, though.

Aaaaand that's it. Hasta la vista.

you’re reluctant to clarify them [odd and misleading remarks] when asked to for some unknown reason.
— praxis

Its only unknown to you because you haven't been listening to me. — frank

Well, at least you admit to reluctance. I heared that, though I still don’t understand the reason for it.

Adiós muchachos. :smile:

Not sure what you mean by this. I’m most interested in what others think of Adams application of cognitive dissonance theory to Trump derangement syndrome.

I strongly disagree with Adams that cognitive dissonance is at play. Things only seem different because Trump makes so many problematic statements that rile people up, in evoking backlash. However the reactions are the same as always: demonize those you disagree with by assuming the most sinister of motives. For this reason, I propose a more analytical response, which includes the avoidance of hyperbole, because that just turns too many people off.

But there’s something different about Trump than any other major politician of recent history. Just near impossible to pin down, and I think that is intentional. Not talking about policies, or even his level of intelligence or whatever. More about his style, his operating procedure. He is so unpredictable so often that one has to wonder if its a defensive coping mechanism. Maybe if one is a famous billionaire a protective camouflage layer of BS forms on the surface. He is almost like an octopus. (No, not that way! :wink: ). Whenever under the slightest scrutiny (which is constantly) he releases a cloud of ink and tweets. And then disappears.

I don't know if Trump's behavior is consciously intentional. It might just be an evolved trait that sticks around because of a lifetime of positive reinforcement. Nevertheless we need to remember this is just style, and it is the substance to which we should respond, and I'd like the response to be analytical rather than emotional. As an example, it's worthwhile to continue exposing the various ways he strays from the truth (e.g. normal political spin, naivete, hyperbole, as well as bald-faced lies), and distinguish these from mere differences of political viewpoint, and show why this is not a good thing in a political leader (to his supporters: would you tolerate this behavior in a liberal?)