Let's take a minute to recall the sort of thing that Trump has been saying; then let's take a look at how Mr. Resnikoff interprets this, and finally consider how we should react to it.
Throughout the campaign, D. T. has said various things that are lies, or at the very least, spreading rumors: "I don't know. I just heard that ..." And then he goes on to either (a) deny that he ever said it, or (b) come up with a new rumor that actually contradicts the old rumor, or (c) when challenged, assert that the lie is the truth, or deny, or ignore the accusation. Especially to those who are already predisposed to looking favorably on anything D.T. says, this is all fine, and it has trained them to disregard facts, and furthermore, left them thinking that he himself is the only source of truth, or at least, palatable truth. We certainly have some evidence to believe that Trumpies are immune to logic; they seem to feel (and feelings are all that they trust, especially if Trump gives them their jollies) that logic is some twisted invention of the liberals whom Trump hates. Since the Liberals (Trump says) always argue from "logic", logic must be untrustworthy somehow.
Resnikoff proceeds to make a case for believing that Trump has set out on a campaign to actually erode the people's trust in their own reason. Once you have the public believing that the Liberals are capable of all sorts of evil, and the only reason we don't understand why this is going on is because the Liberals (or Democrats, or what have you) are hiding all sorts of secrets, you (Donald) can persuade them that only you (Donald) are trustworthy, and the opposition just lies all the time. Simply because you (Donald) set yourself up as the arbiter of truth. (Resnikoff goes further, and states that this post-modern brand of conservatism is out to destroy democracy, which is on the face of it rather preposterous, but it paves the way for the Rule of Business, or at least the Rule of Certain Favored Businesses. It is a dystopian view of the future. (This state of affairs is not going to make life much more pleasant for the WWC--the white middle class with working-class origins. Since they have been taught to not use their reasoning, it will be a long time before they realize that they're in the pot, getting cooked with the minorities and the women. By then, about fifteen years from now, it will be normal for everyone except the very wealthy 1% to just suffer all the time. That small sliver of society will not like how things go, either, but they too are convinced that this libertarian philosophy is good. Unfortunately, they're going to run out of poor people to exploit, in about another 20 years!)
More worrisome is the information that there is some Russian fellow who is an adept at this sort of psychological warfare. DT's team might not be bright enough to dream up this sort of disgusting strategy, but the russkies certainly are.
What is in it for these Russians? What game are they playing? I hate these super conspiracy theories, unless there is some tangible advantage in the outcome for whoever is being accused of doing the dirty; it has been far too convenient to make the russkies the scapegoats for everything, for at least 50 years. So keep your eyes and ears open, but panic doesn't make a lot of sense, because panic is what (it seems) they want.
More later.
OK, it's later.
 |
| Where visitors to this blog come from-Google. |
Even if (and I don't think this is very likely) this psychological strategy has been decided upon consciously, I don't think it makes sense for anyone who is disappointed in the outcome of the election to immerse themselves in gloom, and roll over and play dead. The best response to persecution, as they say, is to live well. In these times of suspicion of logic and science, anyone with any positive attitude left, and with any credibility, can only persuade those who believe in them, and trust them. My friends all believe that I am a well-intentioned person without any reservation, but half of them (and you know which half) thinks that my politics are misguided. Just today I was trying to persuade a conservative friend of mine that I did not consider unemployed people drawing Social Security was a problem. Well, ideally there should be nobody unemployed. But some people are unable to find jobs, because they are not qualified for a job. Or because employers would rather not pay them for work. The actual money spent on these people on Social Security is a mere pittance. Go check this out for yourself. They get very little money, and there isn't any doubt that some of them spend it (at least some of it) on alcohol, drugs and lottery tickets. Others below the poverty line spend it on rent, food, medicine, and day-care. What are we going to do: let them starve? One thing conservatives are bad at is really looking at poverty.
What stops them from believing that at least half the money paid out to the poor in Social Security is well spent, is that they are not familiar with very many poor. And this is something that we can't easily rectify. All we can do is to organize soup kitchens, even if destitute folks hate to go there, and work other angles. And then we must support the Arts, public radio and TV, because it doesn't help the cause if we go into clinical depression.
Well, it's time for tea. [To be continued.]
Arch
No comments:
Post a Comment