3 ms·

This is about to get interesting. Quick hypothetical here... What happens when the candidate that is "the brick thrown through the window of the establishment"

by deelowe 10y ago

This is about to get interesting. Quick hypothetical here... What happens when the candidate that is "the brick thrown through the window of the establishment" ends up just following the republican agenda anyways. Ohh boy, we are in for some interesting times for sure.

wahern 10y ago
Nothing? The base that supported Trump has a short memory and short attention span, though that's true to some extent of the electorate more generally. If Republicans implement their agenda incrementally (as expected), the effect will be delayed and culpability forgotten or deflected. What the country needs are agents with institutional memory, which has been lost through the fragmentation and creative destruction of traditional journalism and large interest groups. The revolution in journalism needs no explanation. Unions are no longer powerful enough to hold the Democrats feet to the fire long-term, and business interests are sufficiently diverse that there's no unified voice to keep the Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) focused on long-term outcomes. Instead, what we have are pundits, lobbying organizations, and think tanks. But they don't actually have any real economic incentive over the long-haul to be rational and correct; not like unions or industry. Their economic incentive is to take in more funding. The way to get more funding is to be edgy and even radical. It's a recipe for disaster. On a related note, it's sort of like the problem in academia (science, liberal art, and law) where the incentive structure for professors requires copious publishing of increasingly thin, contrarian, or radical theories, rather than thorough, concrete, and empirically grounded investigations. And that's because a school, much like a think tank, derives increasing amounts of their income by drawing attention to themselves (from donors, from students), not through substantive contributions to the body of knowledge.
- deelowe 10y ago
  The base didn't win the election. Moderates did as is often the case.
  - wahern 10y ago
    Many Hillary supporters could defend her policies with substantive argument no more than Trump supporters. There's a reason why the country splits nearly 50/50 down the middle every election nationally (or some other stable ratio locally) despite the variability in party personalities, policies, and outcomes. Most people's opinions and accompanying rationalizations are derivative of their environment. We can quibble about the popular vote, but somebody like Trump shouldn't have been able to come close to the Whitehouse if our republic was possessed of healthy institutions and structure. Voters in successful and healthy democracies aren't intrinsically smarter than those in failed states. The principle differences lie in the social and economic environments that guide and inform their voting.

by deelowe 10y ago

wahern 10y ago

Nothing? The base that supported Trump has a short memory and short attention span, though that's true to some extent of the electorate more generally. If Republicans implement their agenda incrementally (as expected), the effect will be delayed and culpability forgotten or deflected. What the country needs are agents with institutional memory, which has been lost through the fragmentation and creative destruction of traditional journalism and large interest groups. The revolution in journalism needs no explanation. Unions are no longer powerful enough to hold the Democrats feet to the fire long-term, and business interests are sufficiently diverse that there's no unified voice to keep the Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) focused on long-term outcomes. Instead, what we have are pundits, lobbying organizations, and think tanks. But they don't actually have any real economic incentive over the long-haul to be rational and correct; not like unions or industry. Their economic incentive is to take in more funding. The way to get more funding is to be edgy and even radical. It's a recipe for disaster. On a related note, it's sort of like the problem in academia (science, liberal art, and law) where the incentive structure for professors requires copious publishing of increasingly thin, contrarian, or radical theories, rather than thorough, concrete, and empirically grounded investigations. And that's because a school, much like a think tank, derives increasing amounts of their income by drawing attention to themselves (from donors, from students), not through substantive contributions to the body of knowledge.

deelowe 10y ago
The base didn't win the election. Moderates did as is often the case.
- wahern 10y ago
  Many Hillary supporters could defend her policies with substantive argument no more than Trump supporters. There's a reason why the country splits nearly 50/50 down the middle every election nationally (or some other stable ratio locally) despite the variability in party personalities, policies, and outcomes. Most people's opinions and accompanying rationalizations are derivative of their environment. We can quibble about the popular vote, but somebody like Trump shouldn't have been able to come close to the Whitehouse if our republic was possessed of healthy institutions and structure. Voters in successful and healthy democracies aren't intrinsically smarter than those in failed states. The principle differences lie in the social and economic environments that guide and inform their voting.