An expert on civil war issues a warning about America, but exaggerates(economist.com)
economist.com
An expert on civil war issues a warning about America, but exaggerates
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2022/01/08/an-expert-on-civil-war-issues-a-warning-about-america
101 comments
Here's a wild idea. Everyday people should not label themselves by a political party. Only politicians need to have a political party. Why put ideology horse blinders by self labeling yourself by a political party? That's why I'm a radical Independent. I look at each issue individually and come up with my own conclusions.
Technically, even politicians could run as independents, although it only very occasionally works. George Washington's farewell address warned of the dangers of political parties (he was not a member of one).
I have a dream that someday ballots will list only a candidates name. Party affiliation and incumbency status will not appear anywhere.
> I look at each issue individually and come up with my own conclusions.
That takes an enormous amount of brainpower. Not in terms of being particularly intelligent, but just in terms of time required to form a position on every single issue.
This isn't a good time investment, considering the duopoly of politics in the United States. At best you'd be able to get a slightly bigger overlap on your issues by going with one party or another, since independents are unlikely to win in the foreseeable future.
That being said, your position is admirable, if only for developing critical thinking skills and exercising them, something that modern politics is in dire need of.
That takes an enormous amount of brainpower. Not in terms of being particularly intelligent, but just in terms of time required to form a position on every single issue.
This isn't a good time investment, considering the duopoly of politics in the United States. At best you'd be able to get a slightly bigger overlap on your issues by going with one party or another, since independents are unlikely to win in the foreseeable future.
That being said, your position is admirable, if only for developing critical thinking skills and exercising them, something that modern politics is in dire need of.
It's common in multi-party democracies.
Before each elections there are even online tools to help you verify which party is best aligned with you.
It has a form of a poll. If responses that party gave match the once you gave then the fit is higher.
Before each elections there are even online tools to help you verify which party is best aligned with you.
It has a form of a poll. If responses that party gave match the once you gave then the fit is higher.
Some research has found that many people who label themselves independent vote for one party or another a large fraction of the time. I almost always vote for one of the two major parties, so the label of that party applies to me.
The label might apply in certain contexts, but do you tie your identity to it? Will you switch parties if given a reason?
I remember HN being a place to discuss microcosm of things related to hacking and tech but am saddened to see it lean towards redditesque macro style of cognitive dissonance.
If ya'll want to remember 1/6 as some hate-driven event, I want no part in it.
If ya'll want to remember 1/6 as some hate-driven event, I want no part in it.
eh it's not really HN - this has been the narrative of certain elements for a long time now:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1085...
the left has become obsessed with authoritarianism under the guise of "liberalism". i don't think any of them know what the word means anymore. they rile up imaginary "injustice" to distract and sow discord. people who would do that are far more traitorous than grandma going on a larp in the capitol.
the left has become obsessed with authoritarianism under the guise of "liberalism". i don't think any of them know what the word means anymore. they rile up imaginary "injustice" to distract and sow discord. people who would do that are far more traitorous than grandma going on a larp in the capitol.
The media will plant and reinforce the idea until it does happen.
This will certainly be how the cause is framed by many people, if it happens.
I came across an interesting wikipedia article that attempts to describe how and why mass media behaves the way they do..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory
The article is actually a critique of this idea, but clearly, no one read it
Personally I want a referendum. Why does everyone jump to war as the first option (unless the killing of the others is the true desire rather than a necessary evil)?
It seems preemptive to frame a future war as the fault of people speculating about the possibility of a future war. Speculating is not "jumping to war as the first option", as that implies a desire to enact, not a speculation of the future (and it's unclear what "first option" means here). You've made that leap explicit by simply stating it as a question in your parenthetical.
Nope
Archived: https://archive.ph/uze0y
I’m very curious what Biden thought he was accomplishing by bringing this all up today as if it’s some anniversary to be remembered and then putting Trump in the spotlight. The man is either that ignorant or is attempting to push the wedge deeper.
It’s an election year. Rather than address why voters are supporting Trump it’s easier to demonize them than reflect on one’s own shortcomings.
Yes, but you would think the economist would describe the preceding economic turmoil. Whatever their politics, all americans have it relatively very good. When that changes and there is serious blaming and fingerpointing then it is the liberals fault or conservatives fault, the worse it gets the more racial and xenophobic it gets.
The difference between social unrest and civil war is the latter has organized military forces on both sides. In the US it will never be militias going at it, it will be state national guards and other branches of military. Things would need to get very bad to where for example nebraska blocks trains and California blocks trucks to opposing states.
I am not saying the whole blm vs white supremacist b.s. has no place, I am just saying that social unrear would need to be very bad with state gov/police support causing other states to intervene.
One way or the other, a state would need to refuse to cooperate with fed gov even with military intervention.
For perspective, when JFK sent troops to let the first black kid attend school with white kids, the governor did no command his military to resist. Things would need to get worse than that.
Even with the internet, this can't be less than 8-10 years away, by that time the population will change significantly. Boomer deaths but also post 9/11 kids who only knew crisis after crisis either very hungry or repulsed by the idea of an internal conflict.
Meanwhile China, Russia and pals are working very hard to undermine the US economy. My guess is they will somewhat succeed before any serious social turmoil. Also, keep in mind, terror works very well against the US population (sorry NSA guy monitoring this), be it 9/11, afghanistan or vietnam, events that get the people overhwelmed and upset will have lasting and effective change. If that were not the case the US would have invaded pakistan and afghanistan leaving them in ruins very fast and getting out, vietnam would have been a proper invasion instead of supporting south vietnam and it would have lasted as long as it needed to, the military would be much more brutal and cruel like most other non-western military forces (rape, murder,etc... rampant). My point is the US as a whole country is not the same as 156 years ago, serious conflicts will not persist due to weak stomach. It will take a lot (hunger, national shame,etc...)
Horrible things to think about.
The difference between social unrest and civil war is the latter has organized military forces on both sides. In the US it will never be militias going at it, it will be state national guards and other branches of military. Things would need to get very bad to where for example nebraska blocks trains and California blocks trucks to opposing states.
I am not saying the whole blm vs white supremacist b.s. has no place, I am just saying that social unrear would need to be very bad with state gov/police support causing other states to intervene.
One way or the other, a state would need to refuse to cooperate with fed gov even with military intervention.
For perspective, when JFK sent troops to let the first black kid attend school with white kids, the governor did no command his military to resist. Things would need to get worse than that.
Even with the internet, this can't be less than 8-10 years away, by that time the population will change significantly. Boomer deaths but also post 9/11 kids who only knew crisis after crisis either very hungry or repulsed by the idea of an internal conflict.
Meanwhile China, Russia and pals are working very hard to undermine the US economy. My guess is they will somewhat succeed before any serious social turmoil. Also, keep in mind, terror works very well against the US population (sorry NSA guy monitoring this), be it 9/11, afghanistan or vietnam, events that get the people overhwelmed and upset will have lasting and effective change. If that were not the case the US would have invaded pakistan and afghanistan leaving them in ruins very fast and getting out, vietnam would have been a proper invasion instead of supporting south vietnam and it would have lasted as long as it needed to, the military would be much more brutal and cruel like most other non-western military forces (rape, murder,etc... rampant). My point is the US as a whole country is not the same as 156 years ago, serious conflicts will not persist due to weak stomach. It will take a lot (hunger, national shame,etc...)
Horrible things to think about.
I think you make some cogent points, but what do you mean by preceding economic turmoil?
After '08/'09 there were daily steady decreases in unemployment through to the 2016 election and steady market increase to ~historic highs by the 2016 election.
After '08/'09 there were daily steady decreases in unemployment through to the 2016 election and steady market increase to ~historic highs by the 2016 election.
I meant one way or the other there will be a recession or depression, I don't know enough to speculate there but that and global economic trends and US isolationism are the recipies I was thinking of. All the major US states have big liberal cities and wide conservative rural areas. In the original civil war, slave based economy and livelihood was at stake. No matter what, economy will supersede ideology, there will be no civil war with a good economy. Just social unrest. And by good I don't mean stock market or cheap houses but well stocked walmart and >70% employment rate for those looking for work.
>I meant one way or the other there will be a recession or depression,
I thought the context was the 2016 election? (Or I misunderstood). It didn't seem apparent in 2016 that a depression was looming (to me).
I thought the context was the 2016 election? (Or I misunderstood). It didn't seem apparent in 2016 that a depression was looming (to me).
[deleted]
Seems more likely than people think. Both sides now work hard to silence opposing or even moderate viewpoints.
Even our dictionary definitions are moving more extreme, someone pointed out a few weeks ago that the definition of anti-vaxer for example now includes anyone that opposes any vaccine mandate.
There's very little engagement on ideas or push to get closer to truth.
Even our dictionary definitions are moving more extreme, someone pointed out a few weeks ago that the definition of anti-vaxer for example now includes anyone that opposes any vaccine mandate.
There's very little engagement on ideas or push to get closer to truth.
If the center of the political spectrum shifts too far left or right then things get distorted. Moderate viewpoints when this happens will similarly have shifted to the right or left. From my perspective the U.S. has very much shifted to the right the past 50 years. Consider that Nixon created the EPA and Regan believed that the tax on labor should be less than the tax on capital. When the starting point on discussions has shifted too far in one direction then it’s hard to have sane discussions with the majority of the electorate.
That we have sitting members of Congress openly call for secession and the suppression of voting rights without their party condemning them indicates to me that we have tilted too far to the right for common ground to be found.
That we have sitting members of Congress openly call for secession and the suppression of voting rights without their party condemning them indicates to me that we have tilted too far to the right for common ground to be found.
> the suppression of voting rights
Which countries allow voting by mail and/or without ID?
Which countries allow voting by mail and/or without ID?
Don’t know.
We don’t have a national ID system in the U.S. In Wisconsin they mandated voter ID and promptly closed a lot of places to get said IDs. They made it harder for people to get it. In some states Polling places get closed down in poor areas or make things like 1 drop off location per county regardless of population size. Some places put in enough poll workers to make voting fast while limiting the number of poll workers in less desirable locations to make voting slow.
You can get a passport via mail and can file taxes via mail. Selective Service is done by mail. There isn’t any evidence of voter fraud beyond an extremely small number of cases. There are plenty of sources to give you the information on the ways voter suppression is accomplished. They are easy to find.
We don’t have a national ID system in the U.S. In Wisconsin they mandated voter ID and promptly closed a lot of places to get said IDs. They made it harder for people to get it. In some states Polling places get closed down in poor areas or make things like 1 drop off location per county regardless of population size. Some places put in enough poll workers to make voting fast while limiting the number of poll workers in less desirable locations to make voting slow.
You can get a passport via mail and can file taxes via mail. Selective Service is done by mail. There isn’t any evidence of voter fraud beyond an extremely small number of cases. There are plenty of sources to give you the information on the ways voter suppression is accomplished. They are easy to find.
> You can get a passport via mail
You can renew by mail in certain circumstances. However, the initial application requires an in-person check.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-pa... https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/have-pa... https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-pa...
> There isn’t any evidence of voter fraud beyond an extremely small number of cases.
There are a fair number of cases, which is amazing because we actually don't look for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_co...
You can renew by mail in certain circumstances. However, the initial application requires an in-person check.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-pa... https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/have-pa... https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-pa...
> There isn’t any evidence of voter fraud beyond an extremely small number of cases.
There are a fair number of cases, which is amazing because we actually don't look for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_North_Carolina%27s_9th_co...
First time you get passport it’s in person. Renewals are by mail. So do you support first time voting in person and mail in voting for subsequent elections?
I don’t believe there are a fair number of cases in which voter fraud caused the wrong candidate to win. I’m all in favor of week long voting, with plenty of well staffed polling places, and plenty of readily available places to acquire free state IDs.
Continue with your belief that voter suppression is not a thing.
I don’t believe there are a fair number of cases in which voter fraud caused the wrong candidate to win. I’m all in favor of week long voting, with plenty of well staffed polling places, and plenty of readily available places to acquire free state IDs.
Continue with your belief that voter suppression is not a thing.
Former President Trump setup a special commission to look for voter fraud and it was disbanded after not finding any significant evidence of widespread fraud. So even the most vocal proponent on the existence of fraud, with ample resources at their disposal, was unable to find it.
hangpelosi(1)
> Both sides now work hard to silence opposing or even moderate viewpoints.
Who has the Right deplatformed?
Who has the Right deplatformed?
Members of the Republican party are doing it to other members who do not support former President Trump.
One side has a monopoly on calling for civil war. One side has sitting congressional representatives openly advocating a "national divorce" i.e. a civil war.
It's not fair to say it's one-sided. CA banned state-employee travel to 1/3 of America for states that differ in their views.
This just isn't a path toward finding common ground. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1011253354/california-bans-st...
Some republicans definitely seem to have ramped things up but actions like this on the democratic side are nearly as concerning.
This just isn't a path toward finding common ground. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1011253354/california-bans-st...
Some republicans definitely seem to have ramped things up but actions like this on the democratic side are nearly as concerning.
>Both sides
Lol.
Lol.
Your comment does the very thing you ridicule. Be better.
Nope. The 'both sides' argument is the paradox of tolerance. Both sides didn't launch an armed insurrection, it was just the one.
As a former Democrat turned party-agnostic by the last few years, I disagree. I would call CHAZ/CHOP an armed insurrection. And it was the left that bombed the U.S. Senate in 1983.
Most liberals are good people. Some aren't. The same thing goes for conservatives.
Most liberals are good people. Some aren't. The same thing goes for conservatives.
Trump won the first time because every little thing he said or did was carried repeatedly by the media, for days.
Articles like this significantly help his 2024 run.
Articles like this significantly help his 2024 run.
The Economist, despite being one of the few journalism outlets still worth reading, is not immune from the economics (pun only partly intended) of mass market media.
To regular folks, Trump is like a car accident. He's awful but you tend to be interested in the goings on, despite the distaste.
To regular folks, Trump is like a car accident. He's awful but you tend to be interested in the goings on, despite the distaste.
I would pay real cash money for a browser extension that muted every reference, every article that has anything to do with him or his brood. Harry and Meaghan too, while we’re at it.
It helped that Hillary was a fairly unpopular candidate. That didn't lose her anyone that was going to vote Democrat no matter what. But that's in contrast to Trump, also an unpopular candidate with the GOP establishment, but again he'd get the votes of most people who were going to vote no matter what, and his 300+ firebrand rallies were a style that attracted many new voters. Though yes-- media coverage of every controversial statement made probably helped as well.
>It helped that Hillary was a fairly unpopular candidate.
And yet she got more votes than the other guy...
And yet she got more votes than the other guy...
It's the states that were traditionally (but closely) blue where the expanded Republican voter pool made a difference, along with a few swing states.
To some extent, she lost by very little in states where it mattered and won by huge margins in some states where it didn't.
To some extent, she lost by very little in states where it mattered and won by huge margins in some states where it didn't.
Yes, she lost because of bad strategy and bad press, not because she was unpopular.
Certainly not because Trump was significantly more popular.
Certainly not because Trump was significantly more popular.
Well, she was also a bit unpopular too. Better strategy, or better popularity, might have made the difference. Hard to say. Things were so close in key states that it all approached a chaotic system where minor things could have unpredictable results.
It seems overly simplistic to say he won because of constant media exposure. The 2016 election was a white nationalist backlash against both political parties. Trump’s catering to this surely had quite a lot to do with his victory.
> It seems overly simplistic to say he won because of constant media exposure. The 2016 election was a white nationalist backlash against both political parties. Trump’s catering to this surely had quite a lot to do with his victory.
If not of free media coverage[1], he would be a failed right wing fringe politician. Because of this coverage and his polarizing policy, he created conditions where even moderate republicans needed to vote for him. He successfully hijacked the Republican Party, from party working on immigration reform helping Mexican immigrants to party that want to build a wall.
I think if Trump managed to maintain women support, he might win again.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/sabota...
If not of free media coverage[1], he would be a failed right wing fringe politician. Because of this coverage and his polarizing policy, he created conditions where even moderate republicans needed to vote for him. He successfully hijacked the Republican Party, from party working on immigration reform helping Mexican immigrants to party that want to build a wall.
I think if Trump managed to maintain women support, he might win again.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/sabota...
Trump won the hispanic vote. Trump is many bad things, but I have no idea why his haters feel the need to make him into an imaginary racist. Really all that has done is make uninterested folks (like me) more sympathetic to him for having to deal with this kind of unsubstantiated nonsense.
He pandered to racists all the time. It's not imaginary or unsubstantiated. Muslim ban, "build that wall", "shit hole countries", etc...
When "dog whistles" become loudspeakers to those whom understand the language; a relatively new term I learned about I might add.
Back during the beginning of the pandemic, no one would have thought it would be framed as xenophobia had the US closed it's borders by restricting incoming international flights from Wuhan China but some policymakers got it in their heads that that was the case. As an Asian myself, that would've been the simplest of preventative measures that they could have done.
Back during the beginning of the pandemic, no one would have thought it would be framed as xenophobia had the US closed it's borders by restricting incoming international flights from Wuhan China but some policymakers got it in their heads that that was the case. As an Asian myself, that would've been the simplest of preventative measures that they could have done.
And that is the problem with knee jerk reactions. Trump’s travel ban against China was widely criticized but he was right to do so. Just because Trump said it or did it doesn’t make it wrong.
If those things are racist then every sitting president has been racist, including the current one. It doesn't seem very useful to make racism so broad that everyone is a racist.
>Muslim ban
You do realize Biden recently banned travel from 8 African countries?
>"build that wall"
Type into any search engine "kamala harris says do not come"
The irony here is off the charts.
You do realize Biden recently banned travel from 8 African countries?
>"build that wall"
Type into any search engine "kamala harris says do not come"
The irony here is off the charts.
Trump may or may not be a racist (there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that he is, but some people won't be satisified unless he walks up to a podium in blackface or a Klan hood something) but the wellspring of support for his populism among white supremacists, and the effect of that support both on his election and throughout his first term has been so thoroughly substantiated and documented by now that your comment speaks to either naivete or willful ignorance in pretending it never existed.
Edit: oops, you used the term 'TDS' in another comment. The jig is up, seems you're not a disinterested party, and you're just here to troll.
Edit: oops, you used the term 'TDS' in another comment. The jig is up, seems you're not a disinterested party, and you're just here to troll.
>oops, you used the term 'TDS' in another comment. The jig is up
TDS is a term also used by actual, you know, leftists. Like Bernie voters:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/ext4tn/bernie...
I've seen plenty of people on the left on social media also use "Let's go Brandon", do you think those are trolls too? Just because they don't believe in "the lesser of two evils" which leaves them unrepresented in politics?
TDS is a term also used by actual, you know, leftists. Like Bernie voters:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/ext4tn/bernie...
I've seen plenty of people on the left on social media also use "Let's go Brandon", do you think those are trolls too? Just because they don't believe in "the lesser of two evils" which leaves them unrepresented in politics?
The sad part is I would've wanted to see Trump impeached and removed from office for many different things (such as his many conflicts of interest), but it's increasingly easy to sympathize with a man attacked by people whose entire social media personality is dragging him thru the mud for anything, justifiably or otherwise.
[deleted]
Lol, wut? Clinton won hispanics 66-28 in 2016. Biden won hispanics 59-38 in 2020.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-biden...
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-biden...
yeah, 2016 he drew the latino vote back to 28 from 27 and then in 2020 he took it to 38. That's called winning the latino vote - just because Republicans have historically not gotten the majority is beside the point. We're talking about Trump, who did better than any other republican candidate (save for one of GWBush elections).
You don't pull minority votes over to republicans as a white nationalist, unless I'm missing something.
You don't pull minority votes over to republicans as a white nationalist, unless I'm missing something.
Do you believe that winning the Hispanic vote automatically makes someone not a racist? That is a pretty strange standard to go by. Is someone a racist by not winning the Hispanic vote? Are you aware of the racial divides and disparities that exist in almost every Latin American country?
At any rate, I did not call Trump a racist. I said that he catered to the white nationalist sentiment. Trump is a charlatan and an opportunist. His politics are self enrichment and aggrandizement and if catering to white nationalist sentiment gets him fealty the he desires then he will do so.
Trump is a liar and devoid of redeeming qualities. It is easy to find the ways he is flawed and only deliberate ignorance can explain someone not being aware of the many, many character flaws the man has.
At any rate, I did not call Trump a racist. I said that he catered to the white nationalist sentiment. Trump is a charlatan and an opportunist. His politics are self enrichment and aggrandizement and if catering to white nationalist sentiment gets him fealty the he desires then he will do so.
Trump is a liar and devoid of redeeming qualities. It is easy to find the ways he is flawed and only deliberate ignorance can explain someone not being aware of the many, many character flaws the man has.
I can understand people thinking that of him in 2016, but it's demonstrably false at this point.
Consider that Trump is despised in White nationalist circles. Hated and mocked perhaps even more than among radical leftists (with the exception that we appreciate his occasional humorous moments). Yet another grifter, and a traitor to his people.
It will be very interesting to see how his White vote fares next time around.
Consider that Trump is despised in White nationalist circles. Hated and mocked perhaps even more than among radical leftists (with the exception that we appreciate his occasional humorous moments). Yet another grifter, and a traitor to his people.
It will be very interesting to see how his White vote fares next time around.
I'll never get over the TDS in the tech community. All of these lengthy comments and the only specific examples of racism people can come up with are policies shared by many many many politicians, most of whom I've never heard called racist.
That's an oversimplification. They helped but white nationalists weren't the only ones not interested in the GOP status quo during the primaries, or the Democrats offering for POTUS. The two parties served up tired rehash and paid for the mistake. W.DC is still living the myth that they contributed nothing to Trump's rise. That's impossible. Every moment has context.
And while that was for the win in 2016, the fact is Trump got more votes in losing than either Obama win. Yet look at how the media paints each. I don't like Trump but the majority of the narratives spun around him are nonsense, which only fuels the idea that The People are not being served by the system.
And while that was for the win in 2016, the fact is Trump got more votes in losing than either Obama win. Yet look at how the media paints each. I don't like Trump but the majority of the narratives spun around him are nonsense, which only fuels the idea that The People are not being served by the system.
I don’t claim they were his only supporters but he clearly targeted them and emboldened people to say/do things that they kept suppressed. I think historians will agree with my assessment. I could be wrong.
That's true but the point is it an oversimplification, a fringe subset that fits a now convenient narrative.
Trump targeted the discontents. Full stop.
Like it or not, that's what good marketing does. Like it or not - and the status quo still refuses to admit it - those numbers are significant. Significant enough to get Trump elected.
The fringe subset narrative of white supremacists is just that...spin. Unless of course all those who went for Trump in 2020 are white supremacists. That doesn't seem likely, not based on the numbers we're talking about.
It's also important to realize the fact is, the same actors who push the white supremacists narrative are the same who crafted and front lined the Russian narrative, and as we know that was a lie.
Trump targeted the discontents. Full stop.
Like it or not, that's what good marketing does. Like it or not - and the status quo still refuses to admit it - those numbers are significant. Significant enough to get Trump elected.
The fringe subset narrative of white supremacists is just that...spin. Unless of course all those who went for Trump in 2020 are white supremacists. That doesn't seem likely, not based on the numbers we're talking about.
It's also important to realize the fact is, the same actors who push the white supremacists narrative are the same who crafted and front lined the Russian narrative, and as we know that was a lie.
A lot of the discontent as you put is race based. Whites soon will no longer have a majority and there is an ongoing shift in the demographics. There is a sense amongst uneducated whites and lower class whites that things aren’t right and their ire is focused at the wrong thing. There is also a rural/urban divide. As is common in America the lower classes get sidetracked by talking about race instead of class. There is anger and it is being successfully diverted from the oppressor to the “other” side.
There is definitely a white nationalist backlash at a grand scale. America is changing demographically and the infrastructure is declining. Women are dominating in terms of college degrees now and in terms of graduating from college. Russia and others have done a great job at sowing dissent. Corporate media too have done a great job. Humanity is not prepared to be manipulated at the scale Facebook enables and the cost doing this manipulation is cheap.
The U.S. is in a long term state of imperial decline. We are not ready for the social changes that are occurring. All of these things suggest to me that the country is ripe for authoritarianism. It just takes a demagogue with an ounce of competence to install it. Trump, fortunately, is devoid of competence and he failed. The next demagogue will likely succeed.
There is definitely a white nationalist backlash at a grand scale. America is changing demographically and the infrastructure is declining. Women are dominating in terms of college degrees now and in terms of graduating from college. Russia and others have done a great job at sowing dissent. Corporate media too have done a great job. Humanity is not prepared to be manipulated at the scale Facebook enables and the cost doing this manipulation is cheap.
The U.S. is in a long term state of imperial decline. We are not ready for the social changes that are occurring. All of these things suggest to me that the country is ripe for authoritarianism. It just takes a demagogue with an ounce of competence to install it. Trump, fortunately, is devoid of competence and he failed. The next demagogue will likely succeed.
> Whites soon will no longer have a majority and there is an ongoing shift in the demographics.
The "ongoing shift" narrative turns out to be quite illusory. Hispanics are increasingly joining the "white" bandwagon, so "whites" will not become a demographic minority any time soon. Yes, this also means lots of potential voters for either party: there will be no raw demographically-based prominence for either Republicans or Democrats.
The "ongoing shift" narrative turns out to be quite illusory. Hispanics are increasingly joining the "white" bandwagon, so "whites" will not become a demographic minority any time soon. Yes, this also means lots of potential voters for either party: there will be no raw demographically-based prominence for either Republicans or Democrats.
Well, Republicans haven’t quite shifted their views/policies enough to include Hispanics as a whole in their party. Rabiblancos (Panamanian Spanish term) are acceptable but even ones like Rafael Cruz feel the need to go by names like “Ted”. Republicans went hard for the white nationalist vote in 2016 and 2020. Can they shift enough, soon enough? I don’t know. They have a propensity - and Democrats too - to care about the next election and not long term.
>Russia and others have done a great job at sowing dissent.
This has been debunked by non-corporate journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, etc.
After 1.5 years of investigation, unlimited subpoena powers and 10s of millions of dollars spent, nobody can name 1 american citizen who has been convicted under the original premise of the Russiagate, which was criminally conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election.
EDIT: While we're at it I'll also address this comment you've made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29776626
>Regardless of whatever happened in the past the fact remains that the government was almost overthrown on January 6 and the instigators (the top leaders) have not been brought to justice.
700+ people are charged with crimes associated with Jan 6. Not a single one, not one has been charged with insurrection, inciting an insurrection, attempting to overthrow a government, sedition, treason, etc.
They're all just common crimes: Trespassing, violent assault for the ones who used violence, interrupting government procedures/processes, etc.
If this was an actual insurrection, or a seditious act, or a coup, why is the Justice Dept. under the control of the Biden administration, not William Barr or Donald Trump, not charging anybody with those crimes that are alleged to have taken place?
Why are they charging them with common crimes that happen at protests and riots instead?
Could it be because that was all that event was?
This has been debunked by non-corporate journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, etc.
After 1.5 years of investigation, unlimited subpoena powers and 10s of millions of dollars spent, nobody can name 1 american citizen who has been convicted under the original premise of the Russiagate, which was criminally conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election.
EDIT: While we're at it I'll also address this comment you've made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29776626
>Regardless of whatever happened in the past the fact remains that the government was almost overthrown on January 6 and the instigators (the top leaders) have not been brought to justice.
700+ people are charged with crimes associated with Jan 6. Not a single one, not one has been charged with insurrection, inciting an insurrection, attempting to overthrow a government, sedition, treason, etc.
They're all just common crimes: Trespassing, violent assault for the ones who used violence, interrupting government procedures/processes, etc.
If this was an actual insurrection, or a seditious act, or a coup, why is the Justice Dept. under the control of the Biden administration, not William Barr or Donald Trump, not charging anybody with those crimes that are alleged to have taken place?
Why are they charging them with common crimes that happen at protests and riots instead?
Could it be because that was all that event was?
I wasn’t referring to Russia gate as such. It is clear that foreign governments are using bots and fake accounts to sow dissent. China uses a lot of people to do this. Israel uses fake accounts and whatnot to try to sway opinions regarding Palestinians and Iran. Mass manipulation is quite cheap and easy in the age of Facebook. You don’t think this occurs?
January 6 was an insurrection. Why DOJ chooses to or not to pursue charges is not something I’m privy to. Biden, Pelosi, Garland and others are governing as if the political norms haven’t drastically changed. While DOJ is headed by a moderate Republican it’s not as if he can control the rank and file to do his bidding. He has great influence but he’s not a dictator. Trump couldn’t dictate exactly what he wanted DOJ to do either. We haven’t reached that point yet.
Politics are involved and those in power do what they think is right considering their personal moral views/ambitions and their reading of what is politically feasible. That it isn’t being treated as an insurrection indicates to me the fragility of the system. The precedent has been set. Don’t like the result of a Presidential election and you have an army of fanatics willing to assault the Capitol then you may have them do so with impunity.
That reasonable people such as yourself don’t see the danger in this tells me that we are past the point where we will ever return to normalcy in governance. Eventually one side or the other will lead us to authoritarianism or secession.
EDIT: Capone was never charged with murder. Do you think he was never guilty of murder or being the cause of murders? One must disassociate the actions/intent of a person from the charges used against them. Perhaps prosecutors think Republican jurors will balk at the notion of insurrection and will never convict on this charge despite the evidence. You appear to ignore the plain evidence of insurrection and refuse to use that term.
January 6 was an insurrection. Why DOJ chooses to or not to pursue charges is not something I’m privy to. Biden, Pelosi, Garland and others are governing as if the political norms haven’t drastically changed. While DOJ is headed by a moderate Republican it’s not as if he can control the rank and file to do his bidding. He has great influence but he’s not a dictator. Trump couldn’t dictate exactly what he wanted DOJ to do either. We haven’t reached that point yet.
Politics are involved and those in power do what they think is right considering their personal moral views/ambitions and their reading of what is politically feasible. That it isn’t being treated as an insurrection indicates to me the fragility of the system. The precedent has been set. Don’t like the result of a Presidential election and you have an army of fanatics willing to assault the Capitol then you may have them do so with impunity.
That reasonable people such as yourself don’t see the danger in this tells me that we are past the point where we will ever return to normalcy in governance. Eventually one side or the other will lead us to authoritarianism or secession.
EDIT: Capone was never charged with murder. Do you think he was never guilty of murder or being the cause of murders? One must disassociate the actions/intent of a person from the charges used against them. Perhaps prosecutors think Republican jurors will balk at the notion of insurrection and will never convict on this charge despite the evidence. You appear to ignore the plain evidence of insurrection and refuse to use that term.
>Mass manipulation is quite cheap and easy in the age of Facebook. You don’t think this occurs?
"Cheap and easy" != effective.
The alleged Russia intervention appears to have been on the order of several hundred thousands of dollars worth of Facebook ads. The exact figure differs depending on what sources you read, but a Pres. election operates on the scale of billions, not < 1M.
And if it is so effective, how come Mike Bloomberg, who spent some $560 Million on his election campaign, had nothing to show for it? Surely he could have hired all those Russian political campaign savants with that much money, no?
>Don’t like the result of a Presidential election and you have an army of fanatics willing to assault the Capitol then you may have them do so with impunity.
An army of... unarmed fanatics? The wanna-be insurrectionists killed nobody, there were no weapons brandished in the Capitol. Do you want people to take seriously a claim that around a 1000 unarmed men are enough to overthrow the most militarized and powerful government in the history of mankind?
The Feds were also well aware of it, just type into any search engine "NYT Jan 6 informants".
>Republican jurors
Republican jurors in DC, that voted 93% for Clinton in 2016? Really?
This is the line of thinking that lead good people, but who consumed too much media, to believe that Jussie Smollett really was really assaulted in the dead of night in very blue Chicago in freezing temperatures by Trump supporters with a noose and bleach, yelling "This is MAGA country". At some point you have to rely on Occam's Razor and start questioning the most basic of premises without being afraid of appearing a conspiracy nut.
> Capone was never charged with murder.
Yes, but those who carried out his orders were. And if a murder takes place there's a body, or if the body was moved or disposed of, there's at least evidence of struggle or evidence that the victim was at the crime scene. And there is also evidence that the criminals were at the crime scene at the time the crime itself took place.
"Cheap and easy" != effective.
The alleged Russia intervention appears to have been on the order of several hundred thousands of dollars worth of Facebook ads. The exact figure differs depending on what sources you read, but a Pres. election operates on the scale of billions, not < 1M.
And if it is so effective, how come Mike Bloomberg, who spent some $560 Million on his election campaign, had nothing to show for it? Surely he could have hired all those Russian political campaign savants with that much money, no?
>Don’t like the result of a Presidential election and you have an army of fanatics willing to assault the Capitol then you may have them do so with impunity.
An army of... unarmed fanatics? The wanna-be insurrectionists killed nobody, there were no weapons brandished in the Capitol. Do you want people to take seriously a claim that around a 1000 unarmed men are enough to overthrow the most militarized and powerful government in the history of mankind?
The Feds were also well aware of it, just type into any search engine "NYT Jan 6 informants".
>Republican jurors
Republican jurors in DC, that voted 93% for Clinton in 2016? Really?
This is the line of thinking that lead good people, but who consumed too much media, to believe that Jussie Smollett really was really assaulted in the dead of night in very blue Chicago in freezing temperatures by Trump supporters with a noose and bleach, yelling "This is MAGA country". At some point you have to rely on Occam's Razor and start questioning the most basic of premises without being afraid of appearing a conspiracy nut.
> Capone was never charged with murder.
Yes, but those who carried out his orders were. And if a murder takes place there's a body, or if the body was moved or disposed of, there's at least evidence of struggle or evidence that the victim was at the crime scene. And there is also evidence that the criminals were at the crime scene at the time the crime itself took place.
Thank you for your response. It’s fascinating to me.
I talk about sowing dissent as the specific form of mass manipulation that is easy and cheap to do. You then bring Bloomberg’s failed Presidential bid. Winning an election requires support and buying support is hard to do without rallying the base. Bloomberg spent that money trying to manufacture a base and that is hard to do. Sowing dissent is easy and cheap. You provide a great example of this when bringing up Smollet. Look at how easy and cheap it was to get people all upset and angry over something that didn’t actually happen.
You ask why the insurrectionists aren’t charged with insurrection and I say that I don’t know. I give an example of how sometimes prosecutors bring charges they think they can win and not necessarily with the full extent of what they think the person did. It is obvious this is so and there are lots of examples of this. But you ignore the broader point and get stuck in the minutia of the example I used. That’s fascinating. It’s fascinating that you think Republicans jurors are not a thing in D.C. By your own admittance at least 7% of the electorate are Republicans. Prosecutors need unanimous verdicts. Not just 93% approval. But like I said I don’t know the thinking prosecutors used on this case to determine what charges to bring.
The U.S. is not the most militarized government in the world. North Korea is. Unarmed rebellions have successfully occurred many times. In Romania thousands of unarmed people stormed the seat of government and that led to the overthrow of the government. What happened a year ago was an insurrection. It was poorly thought and incompetently led but the precedent has been set. It’s now known how fragile our system and society are.
You make assumptions about me because you yourself have bought into narratives that you have been fed. Try to look at things dispassionately. I suspect you wouldn’t believe me if I told you that my vote for Trump in 2016 was the first time I voted for the winner in a Presidential election. I’ve voted for Republicans for President more than I have Democrats. In fact, I’ve never voted for a Democrat for President.
I talk about sowing dissent as the specific form of mass manipulation that is easy and cheap to do. You then bring Bloomberg’s failed Presidential bid. Winning an election requires support and buying support is hard to do without rallying the base. Bloomberg spent that money trying to manufacture a base and that is hard to do. Sowing dissent is easy and cheap. You provide a great example of this when bringing up Smollet. Look at how easy and cheap it was to get people all upset and angry over something that didn’t actually happen.
You ask why the insurrectionists aren’t charged with insurrection and I say that I don’t know. I give an example of how sometimes prosecutors bring charges they think they can win and not necessarily with the full extent of what they think the person did. It is obvious this is so and there are lots of examples of this. But you ignore the broader point and get stuck in the minutia of the example I used. That’s fascinating. It’s fascinating that you think Republicans jurors are not a thing in D.C. By your own admittance at least 7% of the electorate are Republicans. Prosecutors need unanimous verdicts. Not just 93% approval. But like I said I don’t know the thinking prosecutors used on this case to determine what charges to bring.
The U.S. is not the most militarized government in the world. North Korea is. Unarmed rebellions have successfully occurred many times. In Romania thousands of unarmed people stormed the seat of government and that led to the overthrow of the government. What happened a year ago was an insurrection. It was poorly thought and incompetently led but the precedent has been set. It’s now known how fragile our system and society are.
You make assumptions about me because you yourself have bought into narratives that you have been fed. Try to look at things dispassionately. I suspect you wouldn’t believe me if I told you that my vote for Trump in 2016 was the first time I voted for the winner in a Presidential election. I’ve voted for Republicans for President more than I have Democrats. In fact, I’ve never voted for a Democrat for President.
>In Romania thousands of unarmed people stormed the seat of government and that led to the overthrow of the government.
Wikipedia says[0] it was "the only violent overthrow of a communist government". Violent does not sound unarmed to me, since punches and kicks only take you so far.
"As anti-government protesters demonstrated in Timișoara in December 1989, he perceived the demonstrations as a political threat and ordered military forces to open fire on 17 December, causing many deaths and injuries. The revelation that Ceaușescu was responsible resulted in a massive spread of rioting and civil unrest across the country.[3] The demonstrations, which reached Bucharest, became known as the Romanian Revolution—the only violent overthrow of a communist government in the course of the Revolutions of 1989"
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu
>The U.S. is not the most militarized government in the world.
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/07/the-united-states-spends-m...
>It’s fascinating that you think Republicans jurors are not a thing in D.C.
It is a thing. It's also a thing that an average Republican in Texas and an average Republican in NY or DC are not quite the same. Even if we put forward the very unlikely premise that they are super MAGA Republican, peer pressure is a thing. Simply going by the numbers, chances are a significant chunk of their friends and family are Democrats, and it's not like an average person can easily hide they were on a jury. Also, consider how many juries there would be for that many defendants, will no one be convicted?
Wikipedia says[0] it was "the only violent overthrow of a communist government". Violent does not sound unarmed to me, since punches and kicks only take you so far.
"As anti-government protesters demonstrated in Timișoara in December 1989, he perceived the demonstrations as a political threat and ordered military forces to open fire on 17 December, causing many deaths and injuries. The revelation that Ceaușescu was responsible resulted in a massive spread of rioting and civil unrest across the country.[3] The demonstrations, which reached Bucharest, became known as the Romanian Revolution—the only violent overthrow of a communist government in the course of the Revolutions of 1989"
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu
>The U.S. is not the most militarized government in the world.
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/07/the-united-states-spends-m...
>It’s fascinating that you think Republicans jurors are not a thing in D.C.
It is a thing. It's also a thing that an average Republican in Texas and an average Republican in NY or DC are not quite the same. Even if we put forward the very unlikely premise that they are super MAGA Republican, peer pressure is a thing. Simply going by the numbers, chances are a significant chunk of their friends and family are Democrats, and it's not like an average person can easily hide they were on a jury. Also, consider how many juries there would be for that many defendants, will no one be convicted?
The speech Ceacescu gave in Bucharest after what happened in Timisoara led directly to his downfall. It started with unarmed people storming the capitol building. There’s video of this on YouTube. The army switched sides to be against Ceacescu and that led to armed fighting against the Securitate.
But great job at ignoring all the broader points and ignoring the fact that you originally claimed that unarmed rioters can’t possibly overthrow the government and now write that Romania was the only violent overthrow of a communist government. This means that some communist government were overthrown by unarmed people. So you must now agree with me that unarmed people can overthrow a government.
The U.S. spends the most money in absolute dollars on the military. It is not the most militarized nation in the world. That would go to a nation that spends the highest percent of GDP on the military or one that has the highest percent of its population in the military. The U.S. is not first in any of these categories.
You would benefit from taking a course on statistics and economics.
But great job at ignoring all the broader points and ignoring the fact that you originally claimed that unarmed rioters can’t possibly overthrow the government and now write that Romania was the only violent overthrow of a communist government. This means that some communist government were overthrown by unarmed people. So you must now agree with me that unarmed people can overthrow a government.
The U.S. spends the most money in absolute dollars on the military. It is not the most militarized nation in the world. That would go to a nation that spends the highest percent of GDP on the military or one that has the highest percent of its population in the military. The U.S. is not first in any of these categories.
You would benefit from taking a course on statistics and economics.
hangpelosi(1)
If the media is to be believed I could see it. There’s so much hate in Trump/MAGA/QAnon country and they’re armed so…
What’s really scary is the quiet coup happening. All across the country the GOP is gerrymandering in its favor, putting forward Stop the Steal acolytes for key positions so that when the time comes to not certify they can.
What’s really scary is the quiet coup happening. All across the country the GOP is gerrymandering in its favor, putting forward Stop the Steal acolytes for key positions so that when the time comes to not certify they can.
Yeah - when I read the news I see it... But when I go to the grocery store, the PTA meeting, or the mall I don't. It very well might be my bubble, but I don't see neighbors arming themselves, and the ones I know that are most adamant that Trump should be President for Life, would be shocked and appalled if called upon to leave the couch or keyboard to fight. It's become a passtime to predict the end of our democracy, but it takes a lot more than Twitter rants to really overthrow the government and install a new one.
As the communists would say - it’s not who votes matters, but who counts. GOP is learning all the right lessons from Lenin and soviets (and Nazies too I think).
[deleted]
The war started some time ago. One side is still in denial, the other is still building strength.
Which "side" are you talking about?
I'm talking about two sides. Which one are you referring to?
It's just a bit delayed in relation to John Titor's timeline. On the bright side, we may have time machines after all ;-)
Edit: My comment was a knee jerk reaction to a misleading post title. In reality the Economist is in agreement with me here, they are reviewing a book that is predicting a civil war and calling it very hyperbolic. Good to see there are still some outlets with journalistic integrity.