BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Are you saying that Middlebury didn't happen?

Middlebury was ugly (whatever you think of Murray, a talk by him doesn't justify personal violence), but I don't understand why you equate "Protesting an invited talk by Murray" with "not expanding your horizon". I bet most of the protesters know more about Murray's arguments than you do. If they just wanted to avoid expanding their horizon, they could have just gone to the bar instead of to the talk. Meanwhile, Murray was (from what I read) invited on the initiative of students who disagreed with them, i.e. who made a conscious choice to expand their horizon and challenge their own beliefs. Yes, a minority of students tried to prevent that, but they were a minority.

On a more general note, I find this whole "Protesting against XY's college talk is an attack on free speech"-line of argument pretty, uhm, ridiculous. Any series of college choice makes choices about which viewpoints are worth presenting - there are only so many speaking slots each term. E.g. if my University decided to spend tuition dollars (sorry, pounds) on inviting a global warming sceptic who doesn't even understand basic chemistry/physics, then I'd be quite supportive of students deciding to protest that - nothing can be learned from listening for an hour to a speaker whose basic arguments are obviously wrong for anyone who has taking an introductory physical chemistry course.

Younger generations should challenge the older generations in their ways; and if they, say, think that my generation has settled into a canon of campus speakers that really needs serious re-thinking and overrepresents unworthy viewpoints at the cost of underrepresenting worthy viewpoints, then they should make their voices heard and protest! That is what free speech is about. Saying they shouldn't just shows you are part of the cranky older generation who doesn't want their own views challenged.

Tldr; - saying "Protest against XY is an attack on free speech" is an attack against free speech.

Those unfamiliar with the US democratic process are intrigued by the seemingly unending and irresolvable argument about the injustice of legislation against electoral fraud. First questions:

• What is the proposed legislation against electoral fraud?
• Would it really reduce electoral fraud?
• Would it disenfranchise legitimate voters?
• How?
• Would it target particular groups?
• And how many would it affect?

An analogy: currently, in the UK, we allow postal votes. A boon to those who find it hard to attend a poll-station, in person. Allegedly, however, some patriarchs collect all the postal-votes from their extended families. Such block-votes could have a significant effect on election results. Hence, although stopping postal-votes could disenfranchise some citizens, it might be beneficial overall, by reducing potential abuse of the electoral process.

I think the Putin model of authoritarianism is closer to what Trump uses, but even then there are comparisons to Hitler that are valid:

What about Hitler's and Trump's appeals to nationalism?
What about Hitler's and Trump's scapegoating minority groups as the source of the countries' problems?
What about Hitler's and Trump's desires to increase their military?

The Trumpettes like to bury their heads in the sand, or perhaps some believe they will become rich oligarchs like their hero.

Yearly the US spends nearly as much money on healthcare as the entire federal budget. If the uninsured were given full healthcare the healthcare bill would be larger than the federal budget. The federal debt would increase 2 or 3 trillion dollars a year.

Healthcare is not a right. The ER stabilizes the patient and sends him on his way.

Yearly the US spends nearly as much money on healthcare as the entire federal budget. If the uninsured were given full healthcare the healthcare bill would be larger than the federal budget. The federal debt would increase 2 or 3 trillion dollars a year.
The Trump administration is allocating money for military veterans' healthcare. 22 vets per day were committing suicide under the Obama administration. The vets were promised healthcare. The US government can't afford to guarantee full healthcare for all. That would bankrupt America.

Are you suggesting that the USA is poorer than every other developed nation in the world? Somehow the other countries do manage to offer healthcare to their citizens. Believe it or not, the rest of the world laughs at the American healthcare system and it is often joked at that one should be sure not to get sick when travelling there.

The specious argumentation would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Get some perspective because it is the polarization of opinion that is limiting, nay, ruining dialogue.
You might just as well compare the various chief executive's golf swings and scores to better effect. Really...

Healthcare is not a right. The ER stabilizes the patient and sends him on his way.
Yearly the US spends nearly as much money on healthcare as the entire federal budget. If the uninsured were given full healthcare the healthcare bill would be larger than the federal budget. The federal debt would increase 2 or 3 trillion dollars a year.
The Trump administration is allocating money for military veterans' healthcare. 22 vets per day were committing suicide under the Obama administration. The vets were promised healthcare. The US government can't afford to guarantee full healthcare for all. That would bankrupt America.

Mishra’s analysis concludes with a call for “transformative thinking,” suggesting that the root of the populist anger of the age lies in modernity itself and the resentment it ignites. The result is that his argument effectively precludes any possibility of a political response. If modernity is the problem, what is the cure? We are modernity and we have been so since Rousseau. Modernity endures because it emancipates as well as crushes, frees as well as imprisons. Above all, it is not a malign fate that can only be endured. Modernity is a reality shaped by human will, capitalist, anticapitalist, liberal, conservative, socialist, all pulling in different directions to produce the vast and fragmented reality in which we have to live.

What is missing in Mishra’s vision is any account of the influence of political will in changing the course of modernity in the years ahead. He is right when he says that we are currently living through “an extraordinary if largely imperceptible destruction of faith in the future—the fundamental optimism that makes reality seem purposeful and goal-oriented.” But you cannot reconstruct faith in the future if you give no credit to what political faith has actually achieved in the past. You would not know, reading Age of Anger, that democratic struggles for the right to strike, the right to vote, and the right to equality for countless excluded, despised, and marginalized peoples have enlarged the circle of political inclusion for millions of citizens.

A writer of Mishra’s passion and erudition might actually have engaged with what needs to be done, here and now, to make modernity fulfill its so often betrayed emancipatory promise. He calls for “transformative thinking,” but offers us only passionate fatalism and angry resignation. He does not consider what could be done: getting money under control in politics, defending the rule of law from predatory cliques, fighting for the rights of migrants and refugees, finding decent jobs for those left behind by economic change, reestablishing the norm that everyone, especially corporations and the super-rich, pay their fair share of taxes, getting nations together to slow the pace of climate change. The list is long and accomplishing any of it depends on faith in the capacity of men and women to work together to secure their objectives.

It hardly needs to be said that history does not appear to be on the side of liberal and progressive ideals. We are in the full gale of a conservative counterrevolution that could last for some time and reshape modernity in a reactionary direction. If this is the situation, Mishra’s analysis may be taken to imply that the best we can hope for is to be acute but futile observers, while the worst would be to give up political activity altogether. What is agonizing about our current situation is not that it is hopeless but that it could have been different. It is the contingency, the sheer avoidability of the current situation, that should rekindle faith that it can be changed in the future.

We’ve had an unforgettable lesson in the importance of political agency and the dire consequences of failures of political leadership. Had political leadership in the Remain camp in Britain or the Democratic Party in the United States mobilized constituencies in time and got out their vote, we would not be ruled by people with such a determination to move us in the opposite direction. In both cases, a different outcome was only narrowly defeated. Mishra’s analysis, which removes political agency from the story of modernity, makes it impossible to grasp that our present situation could have turned out very differently. We need to remember this if we are to recover the faith in ourselves that we need in order to shape the future in the direction of progressive ideals.

I don't understand why you equate "Protesting an invited talk by Murray" with "not expanding your horizon".

On a more general note, I find this whole "Protesting against XY's college talk is an attack on free speech"-line of argument pretty, uhm, ridiculous. Any series of college choice makes choices about which viewpoints are worth presenting - there are only so many speaking slots each term. E.g. if my University decided to spend tuition dollars (sorry, pounds) on inviting a global warming sceptic who doesn't even understand basic chemistry/physics, then I'd be quite supportive of students deciding to protest that - nothing can be learned from listening for an hour to a speaker whose basic arguments are obviously wrong for anyone who has taking an introductory physical chemistry course.

I agree with Nige1, on basic principles, but I fear that the idea of "open information leads to healthy discussions and good decisions by the population" is not working so well anymore.

It worked well when the individual could sit back and inform himself, listen to discussions and form an opinion. Nowadays, the population is completely saturated with information, desinformation, news, fake news, facts and alternative facts. How is Joe Average supposed to see the forest through the trees and form a decent opinion?

I am not going to advocate religion here, but in the past if one would tell a lie, one would go to hell. This made the information at least somewhat reliable, since hell didn't seem such a nice place. Nowadays, if you need to lie to sell something, it seems that you simply do that. So, who can you believe? Trump? The very dishonest media? Fox News?

These two social crises, the information overload crisis and the credibility crisis, make that Nige1's idea in practice is more difficult than it used to be.

Rik

I agree with Nige1, on basic principles, but I fear that the idea of "open information leads to healthy discussions and good decisions by the population" is not working so well anymore.
It worked well when the individual could sit back and inform himself, listen to discussions and form an opinion. Nowadays, the population is completely saturated with information, desinformation, news, fake news, facts and alternative facts. How is Joe Average supposed to see the forest through the trees and form a decent opinion?
I am not going to advocate religion here, but in the past if one would tell a lie, one would go to hell. This made the information at least somewhat reliable, since hell didn't seem such a nice place. Nowadays, if you need to lie to sell something, it seems that you simply do that. So, who can you believe? Trump? The very dishonest media? Fox News?
These two social crises, the information overload crisis and the credibility crisis, make that Nige1's idea in practice is more difficult than it used to be.
Rik