4 ms·

On the other hand, it's not surprising that a lot of people have a feeling that everything is "rigged". Because it is; there is real conspiracy in our world, an

On the other hand, it's not surprising that a lot of people have a feeling that everything is "rigged". Because it is; there is real conspiracy in our world, and it has always existed, but it is the invisible kind, and it exists in many forms, some less innocuous than others, some rather insidious. For example, racist bias of the kind exerted upon African-American citizens since the days of slavery is a kind of social, systemic, tacit conspiracy. There are of course plenty of kooks out there (like Alex Jones and his followers) who miss the point completely, but some of the anger and anguish coming from that direction seems genuine, even if it's misdirected at actually credible institutions like the NYT. (Not that NYT doesn't share some blame in propping up the establishment, but their elitism (which is not that egregious) is mostly a problem of monoculture, not politically reactionary ideals.) What happened with the 2008 financial crisis is that a lot of people woke up to the idea that the very fabric of a large part of the US was a kind of conspiracy of wealthy elite versus everyone else, and this feeling was confirmed when almost nobody was punished for causing the largest economic upheaval in many decades. It came at a time when a wave of globalization made it apparent to people that "the American dream" was becoming pretty unrealistic. At the same time, this apparent conspiracy is sufficiently elusive that it's hard for people to assemble in opposition to it, because who and what do you attack? Most people don't even understand how any of it works. Occupy Wall Street tried and failed because it didn't have a specific goal it could reach. It didn't surprise me that Trump was elected, because it was the one thing an ordinary person could do that could change anything (or at least feel like changing anything). For the worse, it turns out, but still.

tmuir 10y ago
That's certainly an interesting theory, that voting for Trump gave people the illusion of agency in bettering their lives. I've often thought of a Trump voter as akin to a Bernie Madoff investor. Madoff's investors were promised, and at least for a time, were delivered great returns. Trump supporters have been told that their good paying jobs will be restored, the government will be fixed, and a whole host of conservative ideals will be implemented, all immediately. Madoff's investors were unwilling to critically examine their investments, because that would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. Trump supporters seem willing to overlook any logistical concern with achieving Trump's plans, because the promised outcome is everything they've ever wanted, and must be preserved. In both cases, a judgement has been made that the payoff is so irresistible, that any critic can be easily dismissed as someone who doesn't want the "mark" to receive what they believe they are about to receive. In this context it is understandable why Trump supporters are so keen to accept a single correlation as causation, instead of cautiously evaluating why assertions might not be true. It is human nature to desire positive change in one's life. The more significant or positive that change, and more imminent that change appears, the less likely a person is to balance their emotional response with logical examination.
- slavik81 10y ago
  The similarities between the Trump 2016 and the Obama 2008 campaign are rather underlooked, IMO. While the two people couldn't be more different in substance, their campaigns have striking similarities. They were both outsider candidates, promising to fix Washington politics. Both made outrageously unrealistic promises, and had strong campaign slogans evocative of building a better future. "Make America Great Again" and "Hope and Change" / "Yes We Can" both hold very similar promise. The last person to build a slogan on quiet good governance was George W. Bush with "Compassionate Conservativism" back in 2000. Promising significant change seems to be the path to success these days.
  - lazulicurio 10y ago
    Another similarity: Obama was heralded in 2008 for being the first "social media" candidate, but Trump made that look like child's play with his campaign. For all the complaints about the "media" being biased against Trump, he sure played most of the traditional news organisations like a fiddle, both in the primaries and in the general election.
    - tmuir 10y ago
      I think that can be explained by who Donald Trump is. He is financially independent, held no previous office, and already had a reputation of making baseless claims. Whereas most politicians are self preserving, Trump has nothing requiring preservation. The media continually and incorrectly predicting his campaigns demise, actually gave him credibility with his supporters, showing his resilience. It also hurt the media's credibility with his supporters because he was able to conflate the media's predictions as attacks, instead of being based on events that have precipitated previous campaigns ending.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
arthur_pryor 10y ago
> a lot of people woke up to the idea that the very fabric of a large part of the US was a kind of conspiracy of wealthy elite versus everyone else and so what seems especially insane to me about this election is that our president is indisputably part of that particular elite. he is, much more than HRC's early 90s inner-city bogeyman, the super-predator that his own constituents should fear. > For example, racist bias of the kind exerted upon African-American citizens since the days of slavery is a kind of social, systemic, tacit conspiracy. yes, just want to agree with that and say thanks for pointing out a fact that many still try to gloss over or deny.

tmuir 10y ago

That's certainly an interesting theory, that voting for Trump gave people the illusion of agency in bettering their lives. I've often thought of a Trump voter as akin to a Bernie Madoff investor. Madoff's investors were promised, and at least for a time, were delivered great returns. Trump supporters have been told that their good paying jobs will be restored, the government will be fixed, and a whole host of conservative ideals will be implemented, all immediately. Madoff's investors were unwilling to critically examine their investments, because that would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. Trump supporters seem willing to overlook any logistical concern with achieving Trump's plans, because the promised outcome is everything they've ever wanted, and must be preserved. In both cases, a judgement has been made that the payoff is so irresistible, that any critic can be easily dismissed as someone who doesn't want the "mark" to receive what they believe they are about to receive. In this context it is understandable why Trump supporters are so keen to accept a single correlation as causation, instead of cautiously evaluating why assertions might not be true. It is human nature to desire positive change in one's life. The more significant or positive that change, and more imminent that change appears, the less likely a person is to balance their emotional response with logical examination.

slavik81 10y ago
The similarities between the Trump 2016 and the Obama 2008 campaign are rather underlooked, IMO. While the two people couldn't be more different in substance, their campaigns have striking similarities. They were both outsider candidates, promising to fix Washington politics. Both made outrageously unrealistic promises, and had strong campaign slogans evocative of building a better future. "Make America Great Again" and "Hope and Change" / "Yes We Can" both hold very similar promise. The last person to build a slogan on quiet good governance was George W. Bush with "Compassionate Conservativism" back in 2000. Promising significant change seems to be the path to success these days.
- lazulicurio 10y ago
  Another similarity: Obama was heralded in 2008 for being the first "social media" candidate, but Trump made that look like child's play with his campaign. For all the complaints about the "media" being biased against Trump, he sure played most of the traditional news organisations like a fiddle, both in the primaries and in the general election.
  - tmuir 10y ago
    I think that can be explained by who Donald Trump is. He is financially independent, held no previous office, and already had a reputation of making baseless claims. Whereas most politicians are self preserving, Trump has nothing requiring preservation. The media continually and incorrectly predicting his campaigns demise, actually gave him credibility with his supporters, showing his resilience. It also hurt the media's credibility with his supporters because he was able to conflate the media's predictions as attacks, instead of being based on events that have precipitated previous campaigns ending.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

arthur_pryor 10y ago

> a lot of people woke up to the idea that the very fabric of a large part of the US was a kind of conspiracy of wealthy elite versus everyone else and so what seems especially insane to me about this election is that our president is indisputably part of that particular elite. he is, much more than HRC's early 90s inner-city bogeyman, the super-predator that his own constituents should fear. > For example, racist bias of the kind exerted upon African-American citizens since the days of slavery is a kind of social, systemic, tacit conspiracy. yes, just want to agree with that and say thanks for pointing out a fact that many still try to gloss over or deny.