5 ms·

Why spite could destroy liberal democracy

9 points by edward 5y ago

GaryTang 5y ago
Is spite destroying Cuba’s liberal democracy?
- seniorivn 5y ago
  Is it a joke?
  - maze-le 5y ago
    Just look at OPs posting history... My guess: either a single-issue political troll or a bot as part of a bigger influence operation. One of the main reasons I (any many others) tend to disinvest from this site is because these jokers are increasingly allowed to operate here.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Very concise observations. But I disagree with the perspective of the article. Because the political isle advertising for the considered positions, Brexit and Trump were primarily reactionary. Spiteful was the other side, or at least it was perceived as such. Remember old white men or the sexism/racism discussions? The "right side of history"? There is a lot of spite here without much merit. The mistake was to try to appease said spite and many people thought only Brexit and Trump could help to change this disastrous course, which would indeed undermine liberal democracy. And they would be correct, because leadership failed on that account multiple times. The reactionary side will of course develop the same symptoms. The motivation will degrade that anything is good if it just spites those "libs", what other means would they have? Furthermore the EU does indeed have democratic deficits. It also lessens sovereignty (you can argue higher order effects on influence of international policies and the ability to shape them, but those are merely badly argued conjectures). These arguments were plainly denied, which is ludicrously stupid. Denying the sky to be blue doesn't help if you want to craft an argument why a supranational institution could indeed be helpful despite of this. There is a compromise here, denying that is again either dishonest or incompetent. So I think the trigger was indeed trying to appease spite. Again denying the color of the sky. If a policy is motivated by spite, it should not be implemented. In policy, culture and values some people tried to extend to the wider population. There will be no improvement from this. But don't misunderstand it in a way that you should not appease the argument of those that voted for Brexit or Trump. They weren't the source of the spite, this is just a reactionary defense against those that allowed it in the first place. > people would no longer risk their lives for causes once deemed sacred Of course not, this is probably already the case today. Because those that do would be further subjected to the appeased spite. Like the police in the US in some cities or an EU army. I guess they will get into trouble recruiting forces. This is a failure of leadership, not a failure of voters. Another factor is how people respond to symbolism. Some people do, other don't care at all. There is a trust issue underlying this, but that cannot be tackled. So try not to create too dishonest martyrs or symbols for liberal democracy. If it is sacred and you want to convince people, you have to live it. Both Trump and Brexit argued for freedom. You should think about why that is the case and where things got wrong.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Trump didn't win because some huge cohort of people thought he was the great white hope. He won because he was seen as a giant middle finger to the establishment. Trump didn't win, Clinton lost through complacency and arrogance. She and her team pissed off enough people to push them into voting against her and what she represented. Trump had a tiny base and made the Republicans go through 4 years of a schizoid identity crisis, where they had to pretend everything was normal. Trump's election was as much a disaster for them as for the democratic establishment, as it showed how absolutely superficial the politicians are. They are all as morally and ethically bankrupt as Trump, as compromised and corrupt. They're just better at playacting and presenting a palatable public facade. Trump didn't represent freedom, or draining the swamp, or anything else idealistic or abstract. Those are stories bolted on post-hoc as damage control. Trump was a giant "fuck you" to the political class from about 55 million Americans. The conditions that allowed him to gain office have gotten worse and more polarized, and it looks like all the wrong lessons were learned.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    True, but that establishment was seen as catering to spite. Celebs and college grads making fun about how privileged flyover rednecks are and the establishment was seen catering to these people. They blamed the wrong people for their own predicaments, people that have no influence on the political situation at all. If you want to craft sensible policies, pointing the finger on people that cannot change course doesn't help. So who should people have voted for instead? People knew that Trump was a fraud perhaps, but it still seemed like the more sensible choice to many.
    - robbedpeter 5y ago
      I think something at the level of a constitutional convention and a total overhaul of congress is needed - there not a single person currently in office that can be trusted not to perpetuate and magnify all the problems currently affecting the US. We're operating on a system designed for paper in a world run by computers. Every citizen is living under a vast array of legislation and rules that more or less negate the principles of American government. Privacy, and thus liberty, is crippled, and we lack a reasonable framework with which to deal with tech giants and massive corporations. Algorithmic herding biases people and reinforces polarization that can't be stopped without the intervention of government, but that avenue of repair is compromised. Trump was an inevitable failure mode brought about by the corruption of democratic ideals, and it may have been a signal that the America we thought we lived in is well and truly gone. The ability to iteratively self correct was the genius of American constitutional government, and that mechanism ranges from enabling local government up to collectively engaging in constitutional conventions. I think we've passed the point at which any lesser remedy can divert American society from becoming a technocratic oligarchy pretending at democracy. Meh. /rant
quantified 5y ago
Quite possibly valid in its interpretation. Rooting anything in supposed behavior of hunter-gatherer societies of 10,000 years ago is fraught with error, unless there is actually evidence that the author fails to trot out. We really have no idea how societies back then functioned, do we?

9 points by edward 5y ago

GaryTang 5y ago

Is spite destroying Cuba’s liberal democracy?

seniorivn 5y ago
Is it a joke?
- maze-le 5y ago
  Just look at OPs posting history... My guess: either a single-issue political troll or a bot as part of a bigger influence operation. One of the main reasons I (any many others) tend to disinvest from this site is because these jokers are increasingly allowed to operate here.

raxxorrax 5y ago

Very concise observations. But I disagree with the perspective of the article. Because the political isle advertising for the considered positions, Brexit and Trump were primarily reactionary. Spiteful was the other side, or at least it was perceived as such. Remember old white men or the sexism/racism discussions? The "right side of history"? There is a lot of spite here without much merit. The mistake was to try to appease said spite and many people thought only Brexit and Trump could help to change this disastrous course, which would indeed undermine liberal democracy. And they would be correct, because leadership failed on that account multiple times. The reactionary side will of course develop the same symptoms. The motivation will degrade that anything is good if it just spites those "libs", what other means would they have? Furthermore the EU does indeed have democratic deficits. It also lessens sovereignty (you can argue higher order effects on influence of international policies and the ability to shape them, but those are merely badly argued conjectures). These arguments were plainly denied, which is ludicrously stupid. Denying the sky to be blue doesn't help if you want to craft an argument why a supranational institution could indeed be helpful despite of this. There is a compromise here, denying that is again either dishonest or incompetent. So I think the trigger was indeed trying to appease spite. Again denying the color of the sky. If a policy is motivated by spite, it should not be implemented. In policy, culture and values some people tried to extend to the wider population. There will be no improvement from this. But don't misunderstand it in a way that you should not appease the argument of those that voted for Brexit or Trump. They weren't the source of the spite, this is just a reactionary defense against those that allowed it in the first place. > people would no longer risk their lives for causes once deemed sacred Of course not, this is probably already the case today. Because those that do would be further subjected to the appeased spite. Like the police in the US in some cities or an EU army. I guess they will get into trouble recruiting forces. This is a failure of leadership, not a failure of voters. Another factor is how people respond to symbolism. Some people do, other don't care at all. There is a trust issue underlying this, but that cannot be tackled. So try not to create too dishonest martyrs or symbols for liberal democracy. If it is sacred and you want to convince people, you have to live it. Both Trump and Brexit argued for freedom. You should think about why that is the case and where things got wrong.

robbedpeter 5y ago
Trump didn't win because some huge cohort of people thought he was the great white hope. He won because he was seen as a giant middle finger to the establishment. Trump didn't win, Clinton lost through complacency and arrogance. She and her team pissed off enough people to push them into voting against her and what she represented. Trump had a tiny base and made the Republicans go through 4 years of a schizoid identity crisis, where they had to pretend everything was normal. Trump's election was as much a disaster for them as for the democratic establishment, as it showed how absolutely superficial the politicians are. They are all as morally and ethically bankrupt as Trump, as compromised and corrupt. They're just better at playacting and presenting a palatable public facade. Trump didn't represent freedom, or draining the swamp, or anything else idealistic or abstract. Those are stories bolted on post-hoc as damage control. Trump was a giant "fuck you" to the political class from about 55 million Americans. The conditions that allowed him to gain office have gotten worse and more polarized, and it looks like all the wrong lessons were learned.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  True, but that establishment was seen as catering to spite. Celebs and college grads making fun about how privileged flyover rednecks are and the establishment was seen catering to these people. They blamed the wrong people for their own predicaments, people that have no influence on the political situation at all. If you want to craft sensible policies, pointing the finger on people that cannot change course doesn't help. So who should people have voted for instead? People knew that Trump was a fraud perhaps, but it still seemed like the more sensible choice to many.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    I think something at the level of a constitutional convention and a total overhaul of congress is needed - there not a single person currently in office that can be trusted not to perpetuate and magnify all the problems currently affecting the US. We're operating on a system designed for paper in a world run by computers. Every citizen is living under a vast array of legislation and rules that more or less negate the principles of American government. Privacy, and thus liberty, is crippled, and we lack a reasonable framework with which to deal with tech giants and massive corporations. Algorithmic herding biases people and reinforces polarization that can't be stopped without the intervention of government, but that avenue of repair is compromised. Trump was an inevitable failure mode brought about by the corruption of democratic ideals, and it may have been a signal that the America we thought we lived in is well and truly gone. The ability to iteratively self correct was the genius of American constitutional government, and that mechanism ranges from enabling local government up to collectively engaging in constitutional conventions. I think we've passed the point at which any lesser remedy can divert American society from becoming a technocratic oligarchy pretending at democracy. Meh. /rant

quantified 5y ago

Quite possibly valid in its interpretation. Rooting anything in supposed behavior of hunter-gatherer societies of 10,000 years ago is fraught with error, unless there is actually evidence that the author fails to trot out. We really have no idea how societies back then functioned, do we?