I have a glint of optimism. Perhaps there are enough reasonably clever folk who actually see what is going on. Isolating and ignoring the US might be the best strategy - everyone be a "grey rock", let the US sort out its own issues, then re-engage.

A nation that can produce the brilliance of Obama can get it right again.

(Y)

I have a glint of optimism. Perhaps there are enough reasonably clever folk who actually see what is going on. — Banno

Are you one of them?! :O

Notice Trump's response to the legal challenge to his Executive Order - casting doubt on the integrity of the judge in question, by calling him a 'so-called judge'. This is all from the same playbook - accuse the media of peddling 'false news', accuse the judiciary of 'interfering with national security' - so, discrediting or humiliating the democratic checks and balances in the prosecution of one's agenda. If people can't see the threat to democracy that he and Steve Bannon pose, then they're complicit.

Of course, to his followers, truth doesn't matter, as 'truth' is simply a 'liberal meme'. The Donald is above the truth, as surely as he is above the law.

Although truly I do think Trump will meet his match in the US system; here's hoping that he goes a step too far and falls into the abyss (by being impeached or removed from office for blatant abuse of power.)

In 1989, a white investment banker called Trisha Meili was horribly beaten and raped in New York’s Central Park. She had lost three-quarters of her blood and gone into a coma by the time the police found her. The authorities arrested five juveniles, four black and one Hispanic. In one of his first moves from business into politics, Trump said death was the only punishment they deserved. He took out adverts in the New York press declaring: “Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancour should be removed from our hearts. I do not think so. I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!”

Trump dealt with the accusations of racist scaremongering by rehearsing a self-pitying line that would serve him well in the future. Whites were the true underprivileged in American society, he told NBC television. “A well-educated black enjoys tremendous advantages over a well-educated white in terms of the job market. If I were starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black.”

You may oppose the death penalty. You may find Trump’s language reeked of the Munich beer hall. Cynical New Yorkers noted at the time that Trump was feuding with city bosses over tax abatements for his developments and was using the rape to attack a mayor who had damned him as “greedy”. For all that, you could think that this was still a legitimate response to a foul crime.

But mark the sequel. In 2002, a career criminal admitted to the rape and DNA evidence proved he was telling the truth. The police, it turned out, had forced confessions from their teenage suspects. The boys, now men, were released. But Trump refused to concede an inch of ground. He would not accept new evidence had put him in the wrong and the five were innocent. Even in 2014, when New York finally reached a compensation settlement with the victims of police abuse, Trump was still insisting that “settling doesn’t mean innocence” and the taxpayers of New York had been fleeced.

Trump's Lies are not the Problem. It's the Millions who Swallow Them.

Also here.

I don't think it's against the US, but the catastrophe of Trump having been elected. The President of the US has the power to literally destroy the world and that power is in the hands of a demonstrably unsuitable person.

I think in all seriousness that it's a consequence of too much television, and the inability to distinguish reality and fantasy. And it's really dangerous. — Wayfarer

But the fact is he's merely responding to the world which both 'establishment' Republicans and Democrats alike helped bring about.

They both betrayed higher notions of civic virtue and responsibility to moneyed interests; they both turned the educational system into one geared exclusively towards the creation of docile consumers; they both supported spending more money on our military than the rest of the world combined; they both supported bombing the shit out of the Middle East and destabilizing the entire region under false pretense; they both gave uncritical support to Israel as it continued to defy UN resolutions against Palestinians; they both assisted in the dismantling of unions and the scaling back of social services to those hurt most by globalization; they both allowed the extremely wealthy to become even wealthier while 'average' Americans saw their quality of life take a beating; they both created divisive narratives based upon race for the sake of (perceived) political expediency; etc.

This is a far from exhaustive list of the complete and utter failure of this country to (1) live up to its stated ideals and (2) form an inclusive and inspiring narrative which would bind us together in ways that transcend racial/ethnic identities and the narrow pursuit of material self-interest.

So as I understand it, he's a desperate response to this pretty bleak scenario for lower and middle-class Americans. And while I definitely don't think he's the answer, let's not kid ourselves about the system that he's at least temporarily replaced. Lesser of two evils, you say? Probably, but perhaps we needed some sort of destabilizing agent to shake the previous leaders of this country from their serial duplicity and complicity in a system which was not at all responsive to the legitimate concerns of normal American citizens, not to mention extremely aggressive in its military and economic aims around the globe.

And I do think he's done a couple of positive things thus far, albeit probably not on a conscious level. First and foremost, he's gotten that much-maligned 'white working class' to see that its interests are not at all aligned with the Republican oligarchs (free market fundamentalists who shamelessly combine a sham religiosity with a sham patriotism while gladly outsourcing American jobs, thus betraying their true God and only genuine loyalty: money) whom they'd uncritically supported over the past 40 or so years.

He also came out yesterday and acknowledged (ostensibly in defense of Putin's brutal tactics) that we in the US have killers working for us and that we're far from innocent in the way we've conducted our affairs around the world. Exposing the noble lie that we're morally superior to others is something you'd much sooner hear from Noam Chomsky than any respectable politician in the US. Now of course that obvious truth will be portrayed as a lie by the very people who are so adamantly opposed to his use of 'alternative facts' in this 'post-truth' world.

He may take the use of lies to a new level of ridiculousness, particularly regarding trivial matters (like how many people attended his inauguration) related to his ego, but maybe those sorts of lies are less insidious than the clever deceptions propagated by more polished political 'elites' which attempt to mask the disconnect between the way Americans have perceived their country--standing on the side of freedom and justice and democracy--and what it's really become, which is an aggressive and imperialistic oligarchy cloaked under the guise of democracy.

Anyhow, the American people have been misled and manipulated for a very long time, and we shouldn't forget that even as we rightly condemn the many absurdities of Trumpism. He fits right into this consumerist world's values of individualism and hedonism. Let's change that world--and, to re-emphasize, this is a world that politicians on both sides of the political spectrum helped create by allowing corporate interests to infiltrate the political system--and make it one where a man like Trump is no longer admired or respected.

Although truly I do think Trump will meet his match in the US system; here's hoping that he goes a step too far and falls into the abyss (by being impeached or removed from office for blatant abuse of power.) — Wayfarer

Most likely when he finds out that he can't do what he wants through legal means, he'll resort to illegal means, as his attitude seems to be that the president should be able to do whatever he wants.

Exposing the noble lie that we're morally superior to others — Erik

I don't see that as a lie, and I'm not American. But America is at least founded on moral principles, even if they're obviously compromised in practice. You can't say that about Russia. It's the fact that Trump can't recognise this which is so appalling.

Trump's comment is the remark of someone who sees America as just one country among many, all equally unprincipled. Countries deal with each other without any sense of right and wrong but solely on a transactional basis of who can extract what from whom. It's about power and advantage.

This helps explain a president who doesn't seem to see any difference between democracies and dictatorships, between allies and enemies. Last week he told Mexico's president he might order the invasion of his country, though his staff explained this as humour. At the same time he refused to criticise Moscow's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine.

Remainder here.

I am American and I do think it's a lie. Despite paying lip service to human values we will gladly do business in places like China, Saudi Arabia, etc. We're outraged that Russia tried to influence out presidential election, yet we've often meddled in the internal affairs of other nations in order to push our (who is this 'our' though?) national interest. And let's be absolutely clear: human rights--and values more generally beyond material interests--have had nothing to do with our strategic activity.

The writer of this article seemed to acknowledge this truth at the outset, albeit while lamenting the fact that the old distinction between perception and reality has been exposed. And of course his primary concern for this development is centered around issues of geopolitical expediency and, more specifically, with how the perception that the US is no different than other nations does not serve our (you guessed it!) national interests.

This is obviously the cynical but realistic view of politics. I don't condone this position, nor do I think it's absolutely necessary in some Machiavelian way. But it is what it is. I am however open to hearing counter-examples which would belie this claim. Kosovo perhaps? I just see a deep connection between major economic players and our political figures which makes me highly suspicious of any claims to moral superiority coming from professional liars.

As to the point regarding the moral principles this nation was founded upon, well, I agree with that but would also add that every nation's leader(s) claim to be acting upon moral grounds. Communist regimes claimed to be looking out for the welfare of the working classes against predatory capitalists. Authoritarian regimes claim to act in the interests of average citizens against internal and external enemies who'd reduce them to servitude. Theocracies claim to be acting according to higher principles of religion.

So my point would be that moral principles seem built into the justification for every political system. What we need to do is, first, see if those principles are indeed worthy ones, and second, are they adhered to or rather used in a manipulative way to conceal other less-elevated motivations? Again, I feel it's almost always the latter case. Outstanding human beings inspired by genuine moral concerns exist, just not in the political realm.

But I may be wrong here, and I'd like nothing more than to be proven so. I think there are a lot of really positive things about the US (despite our politicians!), and I want to seek those out and highlight them.

Communist regimes claimed to be looking out for the welfare of the working classes against predatory capitalists. — Erik

Yeah, but do you believe that? You yourself can post anything you like on this forum. OK, since Snowden, we know that much of what is said, is being monitored by intelligence. But if you were writing in China, and you started posting a lot of information about 'free Tibet', you would be more than monitored. You might expect a knock at the door. In China, over the last few years, numerous human rights lawyers, often acting for citizens who have had their land or goods confiscated by party apparatchiks, have dissappeared on been arrested on trumped-up charges (1). In Russia, opposition politicians and investigative journalists are routinely assasinated, often by poisoning (2). Say what you like, that doesn't happen in the US. You can stand on a street corner with a megaphone and denounce the government. You can rake as much muck as you like.

I find such an attitude depressing. I think that's why the country is in the predicament of having an ignorant egotist as leader - the inability to grasp these differences. That is how democracy will be lost in America (although in practice, I think democracy is striking back, and I think Trump is ultimately going to loose, big time.)

There have been assassinations in this country of political leaders and political or cultural dissidents who represented a legitimate threat to the status quo. Many people--and not confined to crackpot conspiracy theorists--even believe 9/11 was an inside job. Our 'mainstream' media has been complicit in maintaining a hegemonic narrative which largely supports the system, and this in turn has pushed these fringe figures to the margins of society by denying them a voice. This has helped maintain a sense of consensus among the American populace regarding the legitimacy of the system, at least until the likes of Trump and Bernie Sanders called the entire 'establishment' into question.

But let's see what happens now that the situation has changed. I suspect those freedoms of speech and opinion--admittedly more prevalent here than in many other nations--will be subjected to serious scrutiny moving forward in an attempt to reign in the dialogue and discredit opponents of the system. We had the luxury of allowing these things previously, but not so much these days.

And cynicism like this is only depressing if it ends there. For me, it's merely a preparation for something to take its place. A non-consumerist, civically-engaged country in which the economy is subordinated to real human needs and concerns (material, emotional, even 'spiritual') would definitely be one worth fighting for. One which reconciled the tremendous benefits of science and technology with the longing for deep connections with a home and other human beings beyond instrumental calculations. Not sure if this comes about through the democratic process or through the deliberative and authoritative elements of society somehow being taken over by philosopher-kings (I jest of course).

So my cynicism is part and parcel of my romanticism. A discredited notion in itself, it seems, that there's something more to life than slaving away at a meaningless job in order to buy shit you don't need. Trump clearly doesn't represent a departure from the commercialized civilization we're immersed in, but rather an intensification of its guiding principles. Maybe we needed someone like him to see just how utterly rotten and alienating this world is at the moment. We've been subjected to garbage escapist entertainment for so long--which has kept us distracted from other concerns-- and here we have someone who's cleverly taking advantage of the malleable human material that's been created in the process.

So to drive the point home one last time: we're focusing on the symptom rather than the cause. I happen to think this is a shortsighted mistake, and that our attention shouldn't be fixed entirely on the often ridiculous figure of Donald Trump, but also, and more importantly, on that very world he so comfortably and 'successfully' finds himself at home in. Better yet, let's do both at the same time and not become useful idiots for the previous establishment.

There have been assassinations in this country of political leaders and political or cultural dissidents who represented a legitimate threat to the status quo. — Erik

By lone wolves.

Many people--and not confined to crackpot conspiracy theorists--even believe 9/11 was an inside job. — Erik

Well I don't believe it. But I think there really was a conspiracy, to get people to believe that it was done by the US, and its been depressingly effective.

So my cynicism is part and parcel of my romanticism — Erik

A salutary warning!

Trump clearly doesn't represent a departure from the commercialized civilization we're immersed in, but rather an intensification of its guiding principles. — Erik

Right but it's like saying a near-fatal and permanently disabling car accident will teach you the value of safe driving.

Not sure what the salutary warning refers to, so maybe you can extrapolate a bit.

As I see it, without the belief in something better (even if it simply means finally adhering to professed principles) there's really no ground on which to criticize any existing state of affairs. In a certain sense, even the American founders were 'romantics'--at least in theory--who longed for a world in which the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence became a reality.

Those who fought against slavery out of moral conviction were also guided by the belief in a newer and better and more just world. Without that inspiring vision we stick with the status quo. But, as Heraclitus noted, all flows and life is constantly dying off and renewing itself. Human worlds have been born, lingered for a time, and then passed away giving way to others. The process continues and we as human beings play an active part in this historical unfolding. Of course each world tries to eternalize itself, but that's impossible.

Now its also clear that this impulse needs to be tempered with an awareness of the human tendency towards hypocrisy, violence and oppression in the name of an ideal.

I mean, from a practical perspective (irrespective of moral considerations), what exactly is the problem with Trump? Maybe Romanticism is too discredited a term. Idealism? Progressivism? There, do you find those terms more congenial?

And neither of us knows whether these were lone wolves by the way. That's obviously the official story, but one of the consequences of habitual lying is the loss of credibility. Agencies like the FBI don't sit around celebrating things like freedom of speech and the use of this right to foment public discord and eventual change. But I'll concede the point you make in lieu of lacking evidence for the notion that the government may have been involved in eliminating certain contentious figures.

Not sure what the salutary warning refers to, so maybe you can extrapolate a bit. — Erik

Virtues sometimes turn into their opposites. It's happened in plenty of religious cultures.

without the belief in something better (even if it simply means finally adhering to professed principles) there's really no ground on which to criticize any existing state of affairs. In a certain sense, even the American founders were 'romantics'--at least in theory--who longed for a world in which the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence became a reality. — Erik

Perfectly agree! America was founded on the principles of the European enlightenment, freedom of religion, and so on. As it happens, the founding values were mainly embodied in the Christian religion. I actually believe that there are institutional shortcomings with Christian orthodoxy itself, but that is well out of scope of this thread. But in any case, the US system is one of several - another being the Westminster system of the UK and Australia - which does embody humanistic principles and retains some elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition in which the concept of 'human rights' originated (which are conspicuosly absent from Chinese communism.) Obviously you could write a library of criticisms of it, but I still think, in light of that, to simply equate the US with Russia or China, is grossly unjust and innaccurate. I'm not looking at it through rose-coloured glasses - I'm aware of the history of CIA Black Ops, and US involvement in many dubiuos affairs (and I grant there's many more I don't know about). But I still have to believe that the democratic systems of US, UK and Australia are preferable to those of Russia and China, and that it's a real and important difference.

I mean, from a practical perspective (irrespective of moral considerations), what exactly is the problem with Trump? — Erik

Have you been following his campaign and his election? Do you read the news? Do you understand what he's attempting, and why it could have disastrous consequences? Remember the Great Depression? World War II? The world is on a knife-edge at this point in history, the scientists - they're not politicians - who run the Doomsday Clock moved its hands nearer to midnight last week, in response to the election of Donald Trump. Why do you think they would do that? Trump is a threat to world peace, a threat to the political and economic order of the entire planet. You need to wake up to this fact.

Perfectly agree! America was founded on the principles of the European enlightenment, freedom of religion, and so on. As it happens, the founding values were mainly embodied in the Christian religion. I actually believe that there are institutional shortcomings with Christian orthodoxy itself, but that is well out of scope of this thread. But in any case, the US system is one of several - another being the Westminster system of the UK and Australia - which does embody humanistic principles and retains some elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition in which the concept of 'human rights' originated (which are conspicuosly absent from Chinese communism.) — Wayfarer

It's an interesting debate for sure. I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the superiority of our Western values to those of the Chinese. I think they'd argue that while ours place a heavy emphasis on (theoretically) autonomous personhood, we also pass over the intimate way in which the individual is connected to the community. In other words, we overemphasize the one side over the other, and this asymmetry can manifest itself in a form of selfishness which is detrimental to the well-being of others. I think this tension is an important one, and erring too far in either direction is a big problem. But, being a Westener, I'm inclined to take the side of individual freedom as long as its not completely blind to social responsibility. Our global, international, technological world system seems too tilted towards the single-minded fixation on profits I referred to earlier. The impact this has on community, the environment, etc. is seen as less important than not infringing upon the freedom of individuals.

Have you been following his campaign and his election? Do you read the news? Do you understand what he's attempting, and why it could have disastrous consequences? Remember the Great Depression? World War II? The world is on a knife-edge at this point in history, the scientists - they're not politicians - who run the Doomsday Clock moved their hands nearer to midnight last week, in response to the election of Donald Trump. Why do you think they would do that? Trump is a threat to world peace, a threat to the political and economic order of the entire planet. You need to wake up to this fact. — Wayfarer

Take it easy, Wayfarer, I'm on your side here! My inquiry was a response to what I felt was a hasty dismissal of 'romanticism,' a term which I should probably eschew in favor of others due to its negative connotations. And that was my point: it's hard to criticize anyone or anything without some idealized notion of how it could or should be. Donald Trump lies when he should tell the truth. He doesn't seem to care about the environment when he should care about it. He doesn't value a free and independent press when he should uphold it as a necessary feature of our liberal democracy. So there's a bit of romanticism going on whenever we criticize, and cynicism too. We're cynical about Trump precisely because we have a vision of what a respectable politician should be like. The two are interrelated, and that's what I was attempting to draw attention to.

I do feel the world as it now exists is inhumane in many ways. And while the US may be less overtly barbaric than Russia or China, it is in desperate need of radical regeneration. Let's say the difference between the two types of inhumanity is roughly equivalent to those found between the dystopias outlined in Brave New World and 1984. Both inhumane, but in vastly different ways. Some people even feel the former is more sinister. But that's an interesting topic left for another time.

Take it easy, Wayfarer, I'm on your side here! — Erik

Sorry, I didn't want to be hostile but what is happening is scary, in my opinion. My social circle and friends are genuinely frightened of what Trump (or Bannon) might do, and what the consequences might be.

while the US may be less overtly barbaric than Russia or China, it is in desperate need of radical regeneration. — Erik

Have you read those quotes about Bannon, where he says he wants to 'tear down the whole established order' so that it can be re-generated? You know, there's a strain within the radical libertarian movements in the US which sees that almost in Biblical terms - as a kind of Armageddon after which 'Christ will return to reign on Earth'. If whole populations die as a consequence - so be it!

So, I quite agree there needs to be a regeneration, but I think Obama was a lot more likely to have delivered it than what we're seeing here. And if you say, it's all the same, they're all corrupt politicians, what's the difference, that's where you loose me.

Donald Trump lies when he should tell the truth. He doesn't seem to care about the environment when he should care about it. He doesn't value a free and independent press when he should uphold it as a necessary feature of our liberal democracy. So there's a bit of romanticism going on whenever we criticize, and cynicism too. — Erik

The point is, lies are lies. There are no 'alternative facts' - there's facts, and then there's falsehoods. And most powerful guy in the world doesn't acknowledge that.

As I see it, without the belief in something better (even if it simply means finally adhering to professed principles) there's really no ground on which to criticize any existing state of affairs.

...

And that was my point: it's hard to criticize anyone or anything without some idealized notion of how it could or should be. — Erik

I do not agree with this point. We can quite readily criticize, and point out what is bad, without offering an alternative, what is better. There is no need to propose a better system in order to point to the defects of the existing system. In fact, that seemed to be Trump's mo, how he got elected, by pointing to deficiencies, claiming they would be fixed, without proposing any real solutions. However, the issue is that there is a big difference between pointing to deficiencies, and actually moving to resolve the problems pointed to. The latter does require the idealized "how it should be", the "something better". Now trump may be in a position where he can actually start to dismantle systems which are seen to have deficiencies. Without the "something better", this may be a real problem. Dismantling destroys the good along with the bad.

@WayfarerWell there's defintiely something to be said for your reasoned belief that Donald Trump represents an existential threat to the very survival of Western civilization, and that even the imperfect system we had is far superior to complete destruction. I don't see it in such stark terms (I don't think he's the embodiment of complete chaos and evil that he's being made out to be by the press), but I'll be vigilantly opposed to him when necessary. The most hopeful view I can take is as I mentioned before--that's he's an agent of decomposition within a rotten system that will force us to reassess certain fundamental assumption about ourselves and our civilization. If that happens, something good could result in the long run. It is a bit of a gamble though.

Regarding Bannon, I'm getting around to watching interviews and reading anything relevant to him. I may actually harbor some sympathy for his alleged views aiming at the destruction of the state. Not going to lie, Nietzsche's condemnation of the state (The New Idol) in Thus Spoke Zarathustra resonates with me a great deal. Look beyond the state, my brothers, where a slow suicide calls itself 'life,' and towards the arrival of the overman... (to paraphrase)

I do not agree with this point. We can quite readily criticize, and point out what is bad, without offering an alternative, what is better. There is no need to propose a better system in order to point to the defects of the existing system. In fact, that seemed to be Trump's mo, how he got elected, by pointing to deficiencies, claiming they would be fixed, without proposing any real solutions. However, the issue is that there is a big difference between pointing to deficiencies, and actually moving to resolve the problems pointed to. The latter does require the idealized "how it should be", the "something better". Now trump may be in a position where he can actually start to dismantle systems which are seen to have deficiencies. Without the "something better", this may be a real problem. Dismantling destroys the good along with the bad. — Metaphysician Undercover

But what standard is being used to guide the criticism? And what's the purpose of criticizing in the first place if not to point to an alternative? People who are indifferent to politics don't engage in that sort of activity. Also, it would appear as though the very notion of defectiveness implies its opposite, just as diagnosing sickness implies an understanding of health, and criticizing what is bad does so by virtue of an understanding of what is good. To use a culinary analogy, if I say a dish you prepared is too salty, then I don't need to come out and tell you to put less salt in it next time. It's implied, and clearly so. The same goes for suggesting that (e.g.) a certain trade deal hurts American workers. The implication is that we should opt out of that arrangement.

Now, if you feel that Trump is worse than Obama (and not just different), then please tell me how you arrived at this position without employing language laden with moral--or political or economic or cultural--value judgments or preferences. Truthfulness is a value which we admire, as are things like selflessness and compassion. But if they're not 'better' than their opposites, then what's your issue with Trump? In fact, why is destroying or dismantling systems wrong? Even the use of this sort of language harbors implicit moral judgments within this context. You really don't feel as though basic moral assumptions and guiding ethical principles are at work in your negative assessment of this man, or the agenda that he's proposing?

To me this is such an obvious point that I feel I must be misunderstanding your position. I mean this sincerely--I'm not primarily concerned with winning an argument here but really want to understand how one engaging in criticism need not do so from any (implied or explicit) notion of better or worse. I'll gladly concede if you can help me gain a better understanding of my own views, especially if they're flawed. I see this as an entirely separate and general issue (having to do with guiding values and assumptions being a necessary component of human existence) than the specific ascendancy of Trump to political power. Maybe the two are being conflated a bit, and we have such a vehement hatred of the man that we're loath to admit that he too could be guided by similar considerations.

Finally, Trump did propose some solutions to what he perceives to be the nation's problems. Pulling the US out of unfair trade agreements, controlling immigration, reigning in the ability of moneyed interests to lobby politicians, etc. You and I may disagree with these solutions, obviously, but he did articulate an agenda (in rudimentary form) which deviated sharply from that of his predecessors. He outlined how he felt America could be improved, or, as he put it, made great again, and he did so by way of juxtaposition with the existing state of affairs. This was done out of an understanding of what he feels would be better, or more advantageous, for the citizens of the US, or at least a certain segment of that citizenry. So rather than serving as a counter-example to my claim, his case emphatically confirms it. That's how I see it at least.

The point is, lies are lies. There are no 'alternative facts' - there's facts, and then there's falsehoods. And most powerful guy in the world doesn't acknowledge that. — Wayfarer

Missed this earlier. This is an interesting issue which seems to have a long philosophical history going back to Plato's Sophist. Let's not forget Nietzsche's dictum that there are no facts, only interpretations.

Anyhow I think it can be a little more complex than that. Let's give Trump a charitable reading and take a quick example. It was a fact that more more people turned out for Obama's inauguration(s) than Trump's. That's a fact. But it's also a fact that the city of Washington DC is over 90% Democrat, which would seem to explain, at least in part, the difference in numbers. Now by zeroing in on certain facts over others, a false impression can be given of Trump's lack of popularity. The media conveniently neglected to explain the possible reasons for the discrepancy in their earnest desire to portray Trump as an unpopular president.

Is the omission of relevant facts similar to the use of 'alternative facts'? Maybe the use of these things could be understood as the bringing forth of certain facts which were left out of accounts given by anti-Trump media partisans. This type of thing happens quite a bit, and it's not confined to the tactics of one political party. The most obvious cases involve taking quotes out of context and presenting the person who said them in the most damaging way possible. That's a subtle form of deception which lies by omission. Now when referring to things like climate change, or simple matters like whether Trump denying he said something that he's on tape saying, then yeah, of course, the notion of alternative facts is absurd. If that's what his camp has in mind then let's mock and ridicule that as much as possible.

I do think it's indisputable that the American mainstream media (I hate using that term since it reminds me of the pejorative way in which Rush Limbaugh and other conservative blowhards used it) does not like Donald Trump. Point blank. They'll do whatever they can to make him look foolish and to discredit him in any way possible. They pick out a certain set of facts--invariably the ones which cast him in the worst possible light--and ignore or gloss over others. Trump's team will obviously gather those neglected facts and make them available to the American public as 'alternative facts' which aren't necessarily false per se, but may have been omitted by anti-Trump media sources. Both sides are trying to shape the way the public perceives Trump.

Furthermore, facts (excluding the most trivial) always take place within a particular context and are always understood through the prism of a set of guiding values and assumptions. They can often be interpreted from multiple angles, and these are generally guided by our biases. I watched a short political debate on youtube last night which confirmed the notion we perceive the world in ways colored by our values and beliefs. It was a typical Republican vs. Democrat debate, very predictable as usual, but what interested me most was the viewer commentary. Conservatives felt the Republican dominated the debate while progressives felt the exact opposite. So people of both political persuasions watched the same thing but saw something radically different. That must mean that truth and perception and facts aren't always simple and straightforward matters.

And I say all of this as someone perhaps deluded into thinking that truth, while elusive, is far more important than political ideology. I dislike both sides of this battle, but I'll also try my best to not to let an emotional hatred of Trump (or his opponents) blind me from the 'fact' that he's been under constant attack that's been at times unfair. Hillary didn't receive this treatment from respectable media, and Obama sure as hell didn't as the press largely fawned over him during his tenure as president.

So Trump has created a situation where if you speak out against him, you are, by default, speaking for the establishment. There's long standing suspicion of and disappointment in the establishment. It hasn't been that long since we were talking about California being a failed state, democracy had failed there, how long would it be before the same was true of the US in general, etc.

But what standard is being used to guide the criticism? And what's the purpose of criticizing in the first place if not to point to an alternative? People who are indifferent to politics don't engage in that sort of activity. Also, it would appear as though the very notion of defectiveness implies its opposite, just as diagnosing sickness implies an understanding of health, and criticizing what is bad does so by virtue of an understanding of what is good. To use a culinary analogy, if I say a dish you prepared is too salty, then I don't need to come out and tell you to put less salt in it next time. It's implied, and clearly so. The same goes for suggesting that (e.g.) a certain trade deal hurts American workers. The implication is that we should opt out of that arrangement. — Erik

I don't think that the practise of criticizing is as clear as you make it sound. To take your example, one can simply say that the dish is lacking something, "it doesn't taste the way I think it should", without even being capable of identifying the exact problem. There is no clear idea of "how it should taste", or of what is needed to make it taste that way. To determine that something is missing, and to determine what it is that is missing are two distinct procedures. It is the same in the example of sickness, the person who is sick may be able to say "I am sick", without having any capacity to diagnose the illness.

Now, if you feel that Trump is worse than Obama (and not just different), then please tell me how you arrived at this position without employing language laden with moral--or political or economic or cultural--value judgments or preferences. Truthfulness is a value which we admire, as are things like selflessness and compassion. But if they're not 'better' than their opposites, then what's your issue with Trump? In fact, why is destroying or dismantling systems wrong? Even the use of this sort of language harbors implicit moral judgments within this context. You really don't feel as though basic moral assumptions and guiding ethical principles are at work in your negative assessment of this man, or the agenda that he's proposing? — Erik

The matter is this. Moral principles are very difficult to understand logically. Values must be grounded in ends. The end is what makes the value a "true" value, it is validated by the end. Ends must be clearly defined, or principles laid out whereby an end may be determined as good or bad, or else there are no true values whatsoever. You say "truthfulness is a value", but you do not support that logically, with reasons why truthfulness should be valued. Without these reasons, the claim is hollow.

We may have been raised for generation after generation, taught and trained that truthfulness is a value. It would be so ingrained into our way of life that it is almost instinctual, we just accept it, take it for granted, that truthfulness is to be valued, unconditionally, so we grow up to behave this way. Now, someone may come along and say, no, that's wrong, in many cases being untruthful can be to one's advantage. In this way, truthfulness itself may be attacked, criticized as wrong or bad, under these conditions. As soon as truthfulness, as an absolute value, is undermined, as only valuable in some instances, then deception spreads like wild fire through all the situations in which untruthfulness appears to be advantageous. We no longer grow up behaving like truthfulness should be valued in all situations.

There is no way to stop the spread except to go back and revisit the principles. Why was truthfulness so strongly instilled within us in the first place? What reason is there for this? What good does it serve? In western society, the philosophical mindset, the desire for knowledge, the desire to know the truth about life, the earth, the solar system, the universe, chemistry, physics, had given great value to "truth". Knowledge is a collective effort, and truth is of the highest importance in relation to knowledge.

To me this is such an obvious point that I feel I must be misunderstanding your position. I mean this sincerely--I'm not primarily concerned with winning an argument here but really want to understand how one engaging in criticism need not do so from any (implied or explicit) notion of better or worse. I'll gladly concede if you can help me gain a better understanding of my own views, especially if they're flawed. I see this as an entirely separate issue (having to do with guiding assumptions being a necessary component of human existence) than the ascendancy of Trump to political power. Maybe the two are being conflated a bit. — Erik

So here is an example of criticism without an alternative proposal. I can criticise the mores of our society. I can say truth is becoming devalued. I can say that the entire moral structure, which was upheld in days long past, by the church, is becoming devalued. I can say that we take morality for granted, as if it is some naturally occurring thing, through the forces of evolution, and we've lost track of the fact that morality is really created artificially, requiring effort, strength of will. In our society we just assume that people will instinctively act morally, we have evolved to be like this. I have absolutely no idea or proposal for how to fix this. That's way beyond me. I can see a problem, and analyze it. And as I alluded to in the last passage, I can claim that it has to do with a loss of the philosophical mindset, but this is just deferring to a further problem. All I am doing here is working to identify the problem, similar to what Socrates did. I am providing no suggestions for resolution of the problem.

Finally, Trump did propose some solutions to what he perceives to be the nation's problems, even if we disagree with those. Pulling the US out of unfair trade agreements, controlling immigration, reigning in the ability of moneyed interests to lobby politicians, etc. — Erik

Until something is offered to replace the existing trade deals and immigration policies, I would not describe these as proposals for solution. These are just statements of "we should end the status quo because it's bad". And acting on this type of position is just to destroy existing systems with no proposal for how to replace them. But it may be that evolution actually works this way, the existing form must be destroyed in order for the new form to emerge and take its place. It is not a matter of repairing, and renovating the old, it is a matter of a complete rebuild. After all, as individuals, we all die, don't we?

@Metaphysician Undercover I rather like the example of Socrates to help explain what you're getting at. Makes a bit of sense, although it does seem that his type of intellectual humility is so exceedingly rare that he represents the exception to the rule. But you've shown that it's at least possible to critique without offering anything else. Kind of surprised I didn't think of his example.

I'll chew on the rest for a bit and maybe respond later if needed. Thanks for the contribution.

So Trump has created a situation where if you speak out against him, you are, by default, speaking for the establishment. There's long standing suspicion and disappointment in the establishment. It hasn't been that long since we were talking about California being a failed state, democracy had failed there, how long would it be before the same was true of the US in general, etc. — Mongrel

Not necessarily, although it does seem to me that this is the way many people think nowadays. We should also be cautious of the contrary idea that any criticism of the 'establishment' should be seen as tacit support for Trump. That's not the case either, and I have a strong aversion to this false dichotomy that's been perpetuated. It does create a strange sort of cognitive dissonance in which the seemingly natural tendency to understand my enemy's enemy as my friend is called into question.

I struggle with this at times, and I have to admit that my deep dislike of the political and economic status quo in the US has probably made me much more sympathetic to Trump on occasion than I should be. I know he's a narcissist and a pathological liar, but I've come to see many 'progressives' in an equally unfavorable light over the past year or so. And I've always hated the Republican establishment. The genuine 'good guys' are extremely hard to spot these days. To hell with both sides.

I know he's a narcissist and a pathological liar, — Erik

I don't think he is. He just fights dirty and he doesn't color within the lines. A long time ago I nicknamed people like that "sharks." When you approve of a shark, they're magic. They get things done that the less vicious of us just sat on for decades. But when they're wrong.. holy shit. They can make a magnificent mess and do permanent damage.

It's not us.. it's not that we just need to apply the right logic to it or whatever. It's the situation. There are aspects of the global scene that are screwed up... the US being almost $20 trillion in debt is a sign of that. Could Trump make the whole thing worse?

Look back to 2009. A $55 trillion dollar bubble popped. How did the global economy survive that? Because we finessed our way to refusing to face it. We pumped the banking system with cash, did a stress test on it (while it was good and plump) and declared the problem solved. Why did we do that? Because facing the truth would have been disastrous for just about everybody.

So this is the big post-truth. It has nothing to do with Trump. It's that there's a grave underlying problem with the global economy, it had a chance to be reset, and we deluded our way out of the reset. That we're now looking at removing the little bit of regulation we did after 2008 is.. well totally expected.

People hate Trump because he's unapologetically offensive. That's really, really small potatoes, though. Everything is going to be ok.

The point is, lies are lies. There are no 'alternative facts' - there's facts, and then there's falsehoods. And most powerful guy in the world doesn't acknowledge that.
— Wayfarer

Missed this earlier. This is an interesting issue which seems to have a long philosophical history going back to Plato's Sophist. Let's not forget Nietzsche's dictum that there are no facts, only interpretations. — Erik

I think that ought to be interpreted in context, and not applied willy-nilly to any kind of circumstance, which gives rise to all kinds of relativistic nonsense.

Now by zeroing in on certain facts over others, a false impression can be given of Trump's lack of popularity. — Erik

Please. The argument over the inauguration crowd was triggered by two photographs published side-by-side directly after the event:



It's black and white. This is what made the first performance by Sean Spicer so egregious. He basically lectured 'the mainstream media' that the photos were'nt evidence of the facts. That is one of a number of examples of that team's blatant disregard for facts.

I do think it's indisputable that the American mainstream media (I hate using that term since it reminds me of the pejorative way in which Rush Limbaugh and other conservative blowhards used it) does not like Donald Trump. Point blank. They'll do whatever they can to make him look foolish and to discredit him in any way possible. They pick out a certain set of facts--invariably the ones which cast him in the worst possible light--and ignore or gloss over others. — Erik

C'mon, that is rubbish. The media call out the fact that he lies, that he has no grasp of policy, that his ideas are often stupid, that his behaviour is reckless, that he has a narcissistic personality, that he exploits the fears of the electorate for his own gain, that he has obvious conflicts of interest. During the campaign, Politifacts compiled lists of several hundred lies that Trump told - yet the whole campaign was set against the background of 'lying Hillary' and chants of 'lock her up'.

I don't know if you're trying, but you're coming off as pretty 'post-truth' yourself. ;-)

Hahaha...yeah, I may very well be more open to the possibility of multiple truths in the realm of politics than the average partisan, who will basically see what he or she wants to see. And only that. Democrats lie. Republicans lie. You seem to want to privilege one side of this battle as being morally superior or more righteous (if not perfect) than the other, whereas I see the process involving the constant use of misdirection and deceit by everyone who participates. I apply my cynicism equally instead of selectively.

That selective application of standards is understandable to a certain extent. Didn't Hume make the claim that reason was a slave of the passions? I think that's largely true. If we have a deep emotional hatred for some specific person (or anything for that matter), then we'll find rational justifications to support this sentiment. We won't generally challenge it unless that emotion somehow shifts. I think being aware of this human tendency, first and foremost within ourselves, is an important step on the road to anything moving away from self-deceit and towards something like 'wisdom.'

That's sort of how I'd interpret the hysteria surrounding Trump's most vehement detractors. The media is not composed of an 'objective' and disinterested group of which simply state facts. Its members have biases and preferences--be they from the Left or the Right--and we should therefore be suspicious of the attempt to portray truth as a simple matter. We've had 'alternative facts' for a very long time.

If that makes me 'post-truth' then so be it; better to be humble and aware of my own limited perspective than assume that I have some privileged perspective on Truth and moral goodness. May not be a bad thing to be constantly on guard these days as we're fed misinformation from all angles.

Hahaha...yeah, I may very well be more open to the idea of multiple truths being possible in the realm of politics than the average partisan, who will basically see what he or she wants to see. Democrats lie. Republicans lie. You seem to want to privilege one side of this battle as being morally superior (if not perfect) to the other, whereas I see the process involving the constant use of misdirection and deceit by almost everyone who participates.

Didn't Hume make the claim that reason was a slave of the passions? I think that's true. If we have a deep emotional hatred for some specific person (or anything for that matter), then we'll find rational justifications to support this sentiment. We won't generally challenge it unless that emotion is somehow

That's sort of how I'd interpret the hysteria surrounding Trump's most vehement detractors. The media is not composed of an 'objective' and disinterested group of people who simply state facts. Its members have biases and preferences--be they from the Left or the Right--and we should therefore be suspicious of the attempt to portray truth as a simple matter.

If that makes me 'post-truth' then so be it; better to be humble and aware of my own limited perspective than assume that I--not to mention partisan media hacks--ave some privileged perspective on Truth . So it my not be a bad thing to be constantly on guard these days. Truth has rarely factored in to politics. 'Post truth' is often used as a way to discredit those who disagree with your view. Now fake news is a different matter altogether. It's not an anything goes or there's one truth scenario. More nuanced than that.

You seem to want to privilege one side of this battle as being morally superior or more righteous (if not perfect) than the other, whereas I see the process involving the constant use of misdirection and deceit by everyone who participates. — Erik

I want to say that (1) the guy who is continuously shown to be a liar, is, in fact, a liar, and (2) the fact that there is some degree of spin involved in all politics, doesn't make everyone liars.

If that makes me 'post-truth' then so be it; better to be humble and aware of my own limited perspective than assume that I have some privileged perspective on Truth and moral goodness. — Erik

There's that 'romanticism turning to cynicism' again, eh? Forget about 'privileged perspectives', simple truth will do.

I don't know, Wayfarer, I respect where you're coming from and do believe you're genuine in your concerns. No question at all about that IMO. I disagree, I think, with your very clear partisanship in this. You hate Donald Trump, and rightfully so, but this has blinded you to the propaganda you're being fed. I see propaganda coming at me from both sides, whereas you see truth on one side and 'alternative facts' or 'post-truth' on the other. Not that simple.