5 ms·

Negative, paranoid narratives and rhetoric are just easy, and water flows downhill. I'm sure that the majority of political "programs or demand" have always bee

Negative, paranoid narratives and rhetoric are just easy, and water flows downhill. I'm sure that the majority of political "programs or demand" have always been advanced with paranoid rhetoric. These are your enemies. This is how they deceive you. They are motivated by evil. I think the most common mistake to think of the solution as civility and/or facts or evidence based politics. The "paranoid style's" primary (IMO) attribute is presenting the opposition as beyond salvation. They disingenuous, immoral, lying, evil people. Believe nothing they say. Question their motives. etc. The actual opposite of this is broadly "Gandhism." Pared down: Assuming that your opposition is decent, responds to generous gestures, and can be convinced of your position because it is true. That doesn't mean that they aren't your opposition, but the idea is to recruit and oppose simultaneously. You're not trying to defeat anyone. Ultimately, politics is a proxy for conflict. People understand conflict. It's usually about creating a seething solidarity among your side to defeat an opponent. The "paranoid style" is also the rhetoric of generals motivating their troops. Your enemy is cruel and wicked.

burlesona 6y ago
I would also argue that the paranoid style is the natural consequence of the fully sorted national two party system competing in a “first past the post” winner take all electoral system. Multi-party democracies with proportional representation tend to be more civil, as the presence of multiple factions to negotiate with means you need allies, and you may find yourself allied with one party on one issue, while you’re aligned with another party on another issue. The requirement to operate by coalition makes demonization of the other party a bad strategy. For a deep dive on this I highly recommend this book: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44244963-breaking-the-two-party-doom-loop https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44244963-breaking-the...
- dalbasal 6y ago
  IDK about that. Plenty of multi-party systems get vitriolic. It's true though that the campaign itself, in a two horse race, tends to be more negative.
  - js2 6y ago
    Not just muliti-party, but also with proportional representation. I listened to the author in an interview[1] and he claimed there is less conflict on average in countries that use such systems. New Zealand was one example the author gave. I assume the book has citations. 1. https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/78074997 https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/7...
  - AniseAbyss 6y ago
    What characterizes the US is that whoever wins gets a LOT of power for 4 years. Especially if god willing someone on the Supreme Court dies.
jfengel 6y ago
The paranoid style is also self-reinforcing. The more you present your opponents as dangerous, the more people are encouraged to amp up the rhetoric. Compromises have to be presented as impossible -- if you compromise with them they can't be all that bad. After a while, it becomes self-fulfilling. If your opponents are your enemies, then you act like their enemy, and they have to perceive you as one. Fringe elements of your own side will eventually escalate to violence. And you won't discourage them too much -- if you've ceded the middle, you need to keep your extremes. It's not clear to me that Gandhism will succeed as a policy. Sometimes it works; sometimes you get bowled over. Gandhism requires a charismatic leader who can focus attention. Without that, you just seem boring and ineffective. It's especially hard today, when social media can quickly spread anti-Gandhi propaganda. Even Gandhi isn't Gandhi today; he's got a lot of negative things on his record and they'd eat him alive. So you may eventually become enemies for real, and not just as a matter of rhetoric. Breaking that self-reinforcing loop may be impossible.
- quantified 6y ago
  And the paranoids, by seeking to influence many with their paranoia, create a conspiracy against what they saw as a conspiracy. The problem is, as has been demonstrated many times, is: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. This is sort of an inflammation response that is wrong some percentage of the time but not 100%.
pjc50 6y ago
> Assuming that your opposition is decent, responds to generous gestures, and can be convinced of your position But what if none of these are true? What if they don't respond to gestures (see the history of "bipartisanship")? What if, Nixon passim, they have no sense of decency? What if they can't be convinced of your position because their income depends on not being convinced of it? People definitely like conflict as entertainment. Hence the clickbait industry. The problem is that this can be ramped up to the levels where it starts getting dangerous.
renewiltord 6y ago
Interestingly, on this forum, it is pretty common to espouse the "paranoid style" against tech giants, etc. The "paranoid style" is just an extraordinarily resilient meme. It might just be genuinely unbeatable.
xenocyon 6y ago
> "Gandhism." Pared down: Assuming that your opposition is decent, responds to generous gestures, and can be convinced That's quite an oversimplification of Gandhi's philosophy, which evolved quite a bit over his lifetime, starting from the position of trust and assumption of good faith that you describe (and indeed even a deference to India's colonial rulers), but later evolving into the less dependent philosophy of satyagraha, which makes no assumptions of the decency of one's opponent, nor holds any expectation of benevolence from an oppressive power, but relies solely on one's own rigorous and unflagging dedication to non-violent resistance to achieve change. It is the latter philosophy which formed the substance of his life's work and moved the needle on India's independence struggle.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Hence "paired down." BTW, I take my definition of ghandism form george orwell.. he was not at all a ghandist.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

burlesona 6y ago

I would also argue that the paranoid style is the natural consequence of the fully sorted national two party system competing in a “first past the post” winner take all electoral system. Multi-party democracies with proportional representation tend to be more civil, as the presence of multiple factions to negotiate with means you need allies, and you may find yourself allied with one party on one issue, while you’re aligned with another party on another issue. The requirement to operate by coalition makes demonization of the other party a bad strategy. For a deep dive on this I highly recommend this book: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44244963-breaking-the-two-party-doom-loop https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44244963-breaking-the...

dalbasal 6y ago
IDK about that. Plenty of multi-party systems get vitriolic. It's true though that the campaign itself, in a two horse race, tends to be more negative.
- js2 6y ago
  Not just muliti-party, but also with proportional representation. I listened to the author in an interview[1] and he claimed there is less conflict on average in countries that use such systems. New Zealand was one example the author gave. I assume the book has citations. 1. https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/78074997 https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/vox/the-ezra-klein-show/e/7...
- AniseAbyss 6y ago
  What characterizes the US is that whoever wins gets a LOT of power for 4 years. Especially if god willing someone on the Supreme Court dies.

jfengel 6y ago

The paranoid style is also self-reinforcing. The more you present your opponents as dangerous, the more people are encouraged to amp up the rhetoric. Compromises have to be presented as impossible -- if you compromise with them they can't be all that bad. After a while, it becomes self-fulfilling. If your opponents are your enemies, then you act like their enemy, and they have to perceive you as one. Fringe elements of your own side will eventually escalate to violence. And you won't discourage them too much -- if you've ceded the middle, you need to keep your extremes. It's not clear to me that Gandhism will succeed as a policy. Sometimes it works; sometimes you get bowled over. Gandhism requires a charismatic leader who can focus attention. Without that, you just seem boring and ineffective. It's especially hard today, when social media can quickly spread anti-Gandhi propaganda. Even Gandhi isn't Gandhi today; he's got a lot of negative things on his record and they'd eat him alive. So you may eventually become enemies for real, and not just as a matter of rhetoric. Breaking that self-reinforcing loop may be impossible.

quantified 6y ago
And the paranoids, by seeking to influence many with their paranoia, create a conspiracy against what they saw as a conspiracy. The problem is, as has been demonstrated many times, is: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. This is sort of an inflammation response that is wrong some percentage of the time but not 100%.

pjc50 6y ago

> Assuming that your opposition is decent, responds to generous gestures, and can be convinced of your position But what if none of these are true? What if they don't respond to gestures (see the history of "bipartisanship")? What if, Nixon passim, they have no sense of decency? What if they can't be convinced of your position because their income depends on not being convinced of it? People definitely like conflict as entertainment. Hence the clickbait industry. The problem is that this can be ramped up to the levels where it starts getting dangerous.

renewiltord 6y ago

Interestingly, on this forum, it is pretty common to espouse the "paranoid style" against tech giants, etc. The "paranoid style" is just an extraordinarily resilient meme. It might just be genuinely unbeatable.

xenocyon 6y ago

> "Gandhism." Pared down: Assuming that your opposition is decent, responds to generous gestures, and can be convinced That's quite an oversimplification of Gandhi's philosophy, which evolved quite a bit over his lifetime, starting from the position of trust and assumption of good faith that you describe (and indeed even a deference to India's colonial rulers), but later evolving into the less dependent philosophy of satyagraha, which makes no assumptions of the decency of one's opponent, nor holds any expectation of benevolence from an oppressive power, but relies solely on one's own rigorous and unflagging dedication to non-violent resistance to achieve change. It is the latter philosophy which formed the substance of his life's work and moved the needle on India's independence struggle.

dalbasal 6y ago
Hence "paired down." BTW, I take my definition of ghandism form george orwell.. he was not at all a ghandist.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]