[RD] The origin of post-truth politics.

[Mouthwash]

I think it's time to explain just what my position is on this.

Trump has been named as a liar for making false claims, and (as most of you probably know) this has been backed up by something like every media fact-checker in existence. However, I would question the value of a fact-checker to begin with. It's tremendously easy to state true facts which mislead. After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a criminal, and we don't uphold criminals as shining examples to society, do we?

This is the easiest type of lie to make (even Big Lies must be chosen very carefully), and it's one that the press tells constantly. Ordinary people cannot refute law professors or political scientists who explain, with an avalanche of facts and statistics, why total open borders or socialism are right and necessary. It requires much more familiarity with a subject to be able to tell if an argument is misleading than it does to refute mere claims, like my example of MLK being a criminal. The average American (by which I mean the 'can't find Iran on a map' crowd) doesn't know much beyond their own community and their own life.

The conflict playing out today is between people who prize abstract thought and believe they can understand the world by studying it, and the people who live unexamined lives but don't like their values being trampled. My sympathies are with the latter. Intellectuals can easily lead societies to disaster, but, as I see it, only living and working as a blue-collar provincial (with all the barbecues and religiosity that entails) can give someone the direct contact with reality that intellectuals prize.

Trump isn't trusted by this segment of society because he doesn't make outrageous claims, but because he does. You can't go online today without being bombarded by endless journalists and studies explaining why the left is right about *everything,* unless you deliberately seek out non-leftist websites. Celebrities and public intellectuals compete to see who can race to the left the fastest. The values that the white lower and middle-class were taught as children are now regarded as phobias, illnesses which must be overcome to be politically correct. Not only are they held in contempt by the high society, it seems like the rights and culture of immigrants are valued far more than their beliefs are.

So while the media usually gets its facts right, it always has an agenda. Trump, who flagrantly violates any standard of political correctness, seems to speak to them from his heart (ludicrous exaggeration really is how these people talk). The world that the Democratic party created wasn't one in which a classic conservative like Mitt Romney could have won, but Trump saw, understood with amazing precision and took advantage of it. For this, he counts as the greatest politician of the age.

Is Trump really a threat to the republic? When politicians lie, it's usually because they're trying to disguise some kind of malicious action that they don't want exposed, which doesn't seem to apply as neatly here. Trump gets away with lying because the contempt felt by his voters for the media is so great that they will no longer listen to it even when it's obviously right. It's good politics to snub an institution that people hold in contempt. But the reverse is also true. Trump has been branded by the media as a white nationalist, a woman-hater and a privileged one-percenter. The more he attacks outlets like the NYT or Washington Post, the more they shore up the segments of America which despise Trump. In my opinion, both Trump and the media are feeding off each other. America's division is to their advantage, and they have every reason to whip up their side further.

EDIT: I'd like to take back what I said about the media getting its facts right. They don't. They just get them from authoritative sources and nobody except the right is interested in calling them out on it.

 

[Kozmos]

Having come from the barbecue religion place I can assure you their grasp of reality is just as tenuous as the far left's. Intellectuals might lead society to disaster, but I can reason with their pragmatic wing and prove things to them experimentally. You can't argue with emotional idiots. Is the rush to modernity leaving behind a lot of people? Yes, of course. Look at ISIS, you can keep denying reality all you want, but you're not going to have a good time. You either adapt or you're relegated to obscurity and basic-income business.

I also doubt Trump understood anything, rather that he stumbled on the right outrage triggers and surrounding political climate was just right for the perfect storm. Trump is a lot of things, but he's no Caesar. The media should not bother with proving him wrong or calling him this and that, but proving him to be an idiot. If there's anything the right hates, it's signs of weakness and incompetence.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

It's not the media's fault that your smooth brained god can't dribble diarrhea out of his mouth every time it opens.

Moderator Action: This is unacceptable. Enjoy your day off. FP
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The origin of post truth politics I think is simple. Its when the hidden agenda of the state controlled by few doesnt correlate with the interests of the majority of the people and when certain (large) segments of the population face choices between getting some benefit and compliance with the manipulators or being manipulated and being on the seemingly loosing side.
Post truth politics its just another name for political system recognised to be entering new phase (of corruption).

 

[Cutlass]

Being a political prisoner does not equal being a criminal. What you are trying to defend is people who are actively harming others for their own personal greed and selfishness. Trump is the greatest danger the US has faced since the fascist and socialist movements of the 1930s. And the reason for that is that he has no respect for any American values at all. It's all about what he can take for himself and his cronies. And the fact that his supporters continue to back him as it becomes obvious that he's actively engaged in treason just goes to show that they don't give a flying frig about any American values either. All any of them really care about is having the power to deny American values and rights to other people.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

To say that Trump is the greatest danger sounds terribly misguided plus you must be ignoring a lot of context in which Trumps election and actions are taking place. Here is an example of what I mean:

 

[Lexicus]

Do you really think the socialist movement in the 30s was a threat to America? The socialist movement in the 30s saved the United States from fascism by forcing the New Deal on the establishment. Socialism was and is the salvation of America, not a threat to America.

 

[Cutlass]

Do you really think the socialist movement in the 30s was a threat to America? The socialist movement in the 30s saved the United States from fascism by forcing the New Deal on the establishment. Socialism was and is the salvation of America, not a threat to America.

No, New Deal liberalism was an opponent to both the fascist and socialist movements. While some socialists got inside the New Deal, for the most part socialism was rendered entirely irrelevant by it. Both socialism and fascism had a real possibility of becoming major political forces in the US in the 1930s. By 1940 both were essentially kaput. And had either become a major force, the US and the world today would be very different, and worse, places.

 

[Lexicus]

No, New Deal liberalism was an opponent to both the fascist and socialist movements. While some socialists got inside the New Deal, for the most part socialism was rendered entirely irrelevant by it. Both socialism and fascism had a real possibility of becoming major political forces in the US in the 1930s. By 1940 both were essentially kaput. And had either become a major force, the US and the world today would be very different, and worse, places.

"New Deal liberalism" is termed "democratic socialism" by people not too full of American exceptionalism to see the obvious.
Revolutionary Marxism (which is only one subset of socialism) was rendered irrelevant by the New Deal, sure. But revolutionary Marxism was never a particularly strong force in US politics. Far from rendering it "irrelevant," the New Deal made a broader socialist politics more or less hegemonic in the US until the 1970s.

One can point to virtually any provision of the New Deal and show how it was essentially the liberal establishment meeting the socialist left halfway. The NLRB, for example, came into being to stop sit-down strikes which were accurately seen as a direct threat to capitalism.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think that there's any such thing as "post-truth politics". It's just politics. We're calling it "post-truth" because the technocratic consensus of the post-Cold War era has broken down, and we've become so used to thinking of technocrats as the arbiters of truth that rejecting their authority can appear as a rejection of truth itself. Right-wing voters have always been prepared to believe noxious reactionary drivel, but they used to get it from people we'd been conditioned to respect, however grudgingly; now it comes from people we don't, and we imagine that the sky is falling.

Trump is a shyster who has ridden popular discontent to the presidency, and we're still too early into his administration to regard him as the herald of a new age.

[edit: That last sentence was originally edited out, but I didn't realise Mouthwash had quoted it.]

No, New Deal liberalism was an opponent to both the fascist and socialist movements.

Everything the centre-left does is framed as being opposed to both the right and left. Both Roosevelts did, Kennedy and LBJ did it, Clinton did it. From the moment American politics became organised on recognisably left/right lines, rather than simply regional or sectional ones, the centre-left have been proclaiming themselves the loyal guardians of the Golden Mean, whatever that Mean actually describes in policy terms. At a certain point, you have to wonder if this is just rhetorical framing for what they were going to do anyway.

 

[Ryika]

I think with both, mainstream media and alternative media being extremely biased towards one side of the political debate, fact-checker-websites are one of the most important "inventions" of recent years. They actually do the journalism that the hit-piece press has long given up on in favor of just delivering the news that they want their audience to see, and/or that their audience wants to believe "is true". While not fail-proof, they are a source of pseudo-neutral, mostly objective facts that paint a pretty clear picture about overall politics - that both sides are lying, and that you shouldn't trust any politician ever.

Unfortunately, most people don't make use of them and feel better just pretending their party are the good ones, and that everything the opposition does is terrible and done because they're evil.

As for "post-truth politics"... what does that even mean? It's just politics. People always lie, and the media has for a while now only pointed out the lies of their opposition. It's just an attempt to discredit people who unfortunately do what everybody does in politics. Once Trump is gone, and the Democrats have (hopefully) taken office again, probably with some Clinton-approved puppet, CNN will do their best to ignore the truth and paint a rosy picture again.

 

[Mouthwash]

Having come from the barbecue religion place I can assure you their grasp of reality is just as tenuous as the far left's.

I'm not talking about the far left, I'm talking about the pro-abortion, left.

Is the rush to modernity leaving behind a lot of people? Yes, of course. Look at ISIS, you can keep denying reality all you want, but you're not going to have a good time.

So ISIS is the best example you could think for empathizing with right-wingers?

Intellectuals might lead society to disaster, but I can reason with their pragmatic wing and prove things to them experimentally. You can't argue with emotional idiots.

Nonintellectuals vote based on their lives and experiences. If a large amount of them feel left behind, that will be reflected in polls. Democracy isn't an intellectual exercise; in fact it's more useful for restraining intellectuals from policy.

I also doubt Trump understood anything, rather that he stumbled on the right outrage triggers and surrounding political climate was just right for the perfect storm.

Nah, you don't stage a political coup like this without knowing something. I doubt he could write a dissertation on why he won (again the abstract intellectual bias), but he was in touch with the political climate in a way that no one else even came close to. I'm really interested to see how the Republicans campaign in 2024.

Trump is a lot of things, but he's no Caesar.

Caesar couldn't have overthrown the Republic in 272 BC. Politicians are always limited by the political climate, no matter how canny they are.

Trump is a shyster who has ridden popular discontent to the presidency

Who else could have ridden that discontent? Or even thought to?

and we're still too early into his administration to regard him as the herald of a new age.

Being a great politician is no guarantee of being a great administrator or lawmaker, yes. It's only the former I'm claiming.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think that there's any such thing as "post-truth politics". It's just politics. We're calling it "post-truth" because the technocratic consensus of the post-Cold War era has broken down, and we've become so used to thinking of technocrats as the arbiters of truth that rejecting their authority can appear as a rejection of truth itself. Right-wing voters have always been prepared to believe noxious reactionary drivel, but they used to get it from people we'd been conditioned to respect, however grudgingly; now it comes from people we don't, and we imagine that the sky is falling.

This is a good point. I'd add that the rise of mass culture has made intersubjectivity more obvious than ever before and that this naturally has made the struggle over "truth" more visible.

Who else could have ridden that discontent? Or even thought to?

Barnie Sandles certainly thought to. I think Elizabeth Warren could actually have won.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think with both, mainstream media and alternative media being extremely biased towards one side of the political debate, fact-checker-websites are one of the most important "inventions" of recent years. They actually do the journalism that the hit-piece press has long given up on in favor of just delivering the news that they want their audience to see, and/or that their audience wants to believe "is true". While not fail-proof, they are a source of pseudo-neutral, mostly objective facts that paint a pretty clear picture about overall politics - that both sides are lying, and that you shouldn't trust any politician ever.

Heh, no, I think it's far too idealistic to suppose that there are such "impartial" and "objective" observers who are entirely agenda-free. Here's a good rundown of why Politifact is a terrible organization (there's also some good critique here).

This is a good point. I'd add that the rise of mass culture has made intersubjectivity more obvious than ever before and that this naturally has made the struggle over "truth" more visible.

So... people are living in bubbles? That's what you're saying here, right?

Barnie Sandles certainly thought to. I think Elizabeth Warren could actually have won.

Bernie Sanders is on the opposite side of the culture war.

 

[Lexicus]

Heh, no, I think it's far too idealistic to suppose that there are such "impartial" and "objective" entities who are entirely agenda-free. Here's a good rundown of what's wrong with Politifact.

That article on Politifact looks pretty good, can't read it now but looking forward to doing so. That guy also wrote an excellent piece on how awful Vox is.

So... people are living in bubbles? That's what you're saying here, right?

Basically, yes. But I'm also saying we've always lived in bubbles. Technology is just making the existing bubbles more obvious and making it easier to create new ones.

 

[Kozmos]

I'm not talking about the far left, I'm talking about the pro-abortion, left.

The pro-abortion left understands why they lost.

So ISIS is the best example you could think for empathizing with right-wingers?

The right wing that supports Donald Trump instead of their usual candidates? Yeah. Clinging to the same old paradigm that will keep failing them until the world completely leaves them behind.

Nonintellectuals vote based on their lives and experiences. If a large amount of them feel left behind, that will be reflected in polls. Democracy isn't an intellectual exercise; in fact it's more useful for restraining intellectuals from policy.

And we see how far that gets us. Maybe even a division into Rim States and Jesuslands in 30 years.

Nah, you don't stage a political coup like this without knowing something. I doubt he could write a dissertation on why he won (again the abstract intellectual bias), but he was in touch with the political climate in a way that no one else even came close to. I'm really interested to see how the Republicans campaign in 2024.

Sanders would have likely trounced him had he been the candidate and spoke about many of the same issues, with only some mild idiocy on economic policy. Does Trump knows how to pander to his crowd and play the role of the outsider? Absolutely, but that is bargain bin populism riding the backlash on PC culture. His track record as a politician looks worse every day.

Caesar couldn't have overthrown the Republic in 272 BC. Politicians are always limited by the political climate, no matter how canny they are.

But good politicians know how to adapt and navigate it to the best of their ability. Caesar had a lot of luck on his side too, but he was a proactive, high-energy man who knew the right moves from the outset and he came from almost nothing unlike him. Either Trump is the best actor on the planet faking his entire life his entire personality or he really is just a thin-skinned brute who's good at socializing with disenfranchised masses who share his strongman beliefs.

It's hard to say whether Trump is the worst possible outcome or the best. A smarter candidate riding the same wave but with his moral vertical would have undoubtedly done a lot more damage. At least Steve Bannon has to work him second-hand.

Who else could have ridden that discontent? Or even thought to?

Sanders?

Being a great politician is no guarantee of being a great administrator or lawmaker, yes. It's only the former I'm claiming.

My problem with Trump (aside from his viewpoint on everything) that really he is none of these. Rising to the acclaim of the masses is not that hard. Transformers movies sell well, for gods sakes.

 

[Evie]

My sympathies are with the latter. Intellectuals can easily lead societies to disaster, but, as I see it, only living and working as a blue-collar provincial (with all the barbecues and religiosity that entails) can give someone the direct contact with reality that intellectuals prize.

That may be how blue collar types feel about it (it most likely is). It's wrong, though. Blue collars are in no way more connected with the modern reality than intellectuals. The modern reality is found in global cities where one actually get to *meet* the world, instead of hearing vague scary stories about strangers. It's found in offices and services industry job where people are constantly in contact with one another and one another's problem, not in blue collar factory work that's increasingly becoming obsolete (even absent relocalisation) thanks to automation technology.

And of course, blue collar provincials are just as capable of leading societies to disaster as their intellectual brethren - often, through trying to upscale ideas that work locally in homogenous groups, and trying to apply them blindly to massive, global, heterogenous groups. Trying to run countries like corporations (or like unions) lead to disaster, too, whatever the blue collar types might like to think.

Your vaulted blue-collar provincials aren't connected to reality. They're connected to antiquity.

 

[Perfection]

Pretty sure the origin is Cain.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't think that there's any such thing as "post-truth politics". It's just politics. We're calling it "post-truth" because the technocratic consensus of the post-Cold War era has broken down, and we've become so used to thinking of technocrats as the arbiters of truth that rejecting their authority can appear as a rejection of truth itself.

I would disagree with that. With Trump and other disreputable far right candidates in Europe, we can see them making demonstrably, factually wrong statements (and these are easy to prove and easy to understand facts), yet their supporters either don't care about the ignorance/lie or don't see a politician lying as an issue.
When we extend lying to include "stupid opinions with no basis in reality" - like Putin's apparent belief that the homosexuals are trying to convert children, or that one Australian politician who believes the UN is using homosexuality and climate change to create a one world government - and people are still voting for them or not trying to distance themselves, I find it worrying.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It is much more then just one spectrum of politicians. It involves special interests and media. Good example is the Russian post truth brainwashing: