A New Paradigm: Institutionalists vs Populists

[Bootstrap]

The only way i see it possible to regain institutional standing is the way they did it: infiltration. Our numbers must increase in the institutions slowly, gradually, imperceptibly. We must first weaken their grip on the institutions.

Who is the "we" who wants this institutional standing, and why do "we" want it?

And who is "they"? And once the institutions are infiltrated, what exactly are the actual goals?

I don't want to be on either side in this populist war.

[Falco Knotwise]

Are you saying accusations are true if they are loud or if there are a lot of them?

Sorry, I only read that one line of your post and then quit. I don't think I said that anywhere, so I'm not going to waste my time defending it. The rest of your post is Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Here's what I was responding to, once again:

Here is the unmentionable problem: if a bloc of voters exists large enough to present an existential threat TO the institutional establishment it's likely because they're sensing an existential threat FROM the institutional establishment. Its likely the threat is real even if it's written off as conspiracy theory, the ravings of mad lunatics. The real question that needs to be addressed is not why are there so many conspiracy theorists -- but rather why are there so many people willing to believe them? To consider that question with the seriousness it deserves (and not just brush them all off as "nuts") means you just might have to consider that there really is something rotten in the state of Denmark. And some bloc of the establishment fears to face that question or to let it be faced.

Why are so many people willing to believe them? I don't know, but a lot of people are willing to believe a lot of things that are not true. If we want a stable society, we need ways to evaluate accusations and decide what the evidence says. And we need ways to do this with the seriousness that it deserves. That means hearings and court trials. Social media doesn't cut it. Youtube videos don't cut it. Political rhetoric doesn't cut it. And right now, those things are often drowning out every venue that can actually evaluate these claims with the seriousness they deserve.

Dominion Voting Machines sued Sydney Powell, and her claims about voting are now being treated with the seriousness they deserve.

Her lawyer's defense is quite literally that no reasonable person would believe her claims about the voting machines. They say that a reasonable person should have seen that her claims were "wild accusations", "outlandish claims". As Powell's lawyers tell us, "reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes ... is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.”Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.”Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001). Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.”Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.”Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.

Ironic, isn't it? Her defense lawyers tell us we should not have taken her claims so seriously, that we should wait for the courts to evaluate them. Her defense lawyers tell us that people who put great faith in these claims are not reasonable people.

So perhaps reasonable people should trust courts and election boards more than they trust this kind of claim.

My post wasn't about Sidney Powell. It was about people's concern about Political Correctness/Marxism getting established in the institutions. There were far more reasons people supported Trump than Sidney Powell and Qanon.

By constantly making it about that you are ignoring the real problem. That's my entire point.

Do not post to me about any of that or I will simply ignore your posts.

[Bootstrap]

My post wasn't about Sidney Powell. It was about people's concern about Political Correctness/Marxism getting established in the institutions. There were far more reasons people supported Trump than Sidney Powell and Qanon.

By constantly making it about that you are ignoring the real problem. That's my entire point.

Thanks for being more concrete. Let me try to explain why these terms don't get me all excited.

I really don't think Marxism is widespread in American institutions. Not real Marxism, at any rate. Can you give me a widely-accepted definition of Marxism, based on what Marx wrote, and show me where it has become a mainstream paradigm in American institutions? In everyday usage, I think the phrase is usually nothing more than an emotional term used by politicians and pundits to get people worked up.

I say that as someone who is strongly opposed to Marxism. I was in Berlin when the Wall fell, I have very strong feelings on the topic.

And in Trump-speak, "political correctness" was often a term used to shield him from basic morality or constitutional concerns. For instance, when he called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," he told the crowds that what he had just said was "very, very salient, very important and probably not politically correct." He wanted to make it about political correctness, not about the First Amendment protections for religious minorities. When Trump called some women "dogs" and "fat pigs", he told people who were offended this: "I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct". When he was criticized for racist comments about a federal judge, he said "We have to stop being so politically correct in this country."

Not by that definition. We really shouldn't be racist, rude, or violate the First Amendment's protections on religion. So I think we need to define our terms carefully, and remember that populists are trying to redefine them to their advantage.

I think that's what makes me an institutionalist. I like facts, definitions, careful thinking. I have seen how people can work crowds with emotional arguments based on fear and outrage and partisan tribalism, and how they spread through social media. I like to slow it down and think carefully together. I like courts and hearings that can ferret out the facts behgind the questions we are looking at.

[Falco Knotwise]

Can you give me a widely-accepted definition of Marxism, based on what Marx wrote, and show me where it has become a mainstream paradigm in American institutions?

My opinion is any "ism" (including Marxism) really just vaguely describes a kind of an attitude, an outlook on life, built on certain premises. As such, it makes defining them problematic. We can use it as a reference point, that's about it.

You'd run into the same problem trying to define Christianity. People could argue all day about the true meaning of that.

In everyday usage, I think the phrase is usually nothing more than an emotional term used by politicians and pundits to get people worked up.

Personally, I think your use of the term "populism" is the same thing.

We really shouldn't be racist, rude, or violate the First Amendment's protections on religion. So I think we need to define our terms carefully, and remember that populists are trying to redefine them to their advantage.

First, if "populists" are trying to define things to their advantage, so do you. Witness your use of the term "populists" to define THEM. Secondly, I don't accept your view of "them" as anything more than your own opinion, so I don't feel obligated to remember anything you have say about "them."

"We" need to remember you don't speak for "us," only yourself.

[Bootstrap]

Can you give me a widely-accepted definition of Marxism, based on what Marx wrote, and show me where it has become a mainstream paradigm in American institutions?

My opinion is any "ism" (including Marxism) really just vaguely describes a kind of an attitude, an outlook on life, built on certain premises. As such, it makes defining them problematic. We can use it as a reference point, that's about it.

Marxism really isn't that vague. An "ism" is a main way of understanding the world. Marx taught that the people who produce things, the "proletariat", are oppressed by the people who own the capital and the factories, the "bourgeoisie". He taught that we needed educated revolutionaries who can help the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie to establish a classless society in which "the people" own the means of production.

I don't think there are a lot of Marxists, though there are now some people openly calling themselves Marxists again. I bet most of the people you think of as Marxists would openly reject Marxist revolution, believe in private ownership of property, and think of Communism as a failed experiment.

And that's a common trait of angry populism. Words are used for their emotional impact, not for what they actually mean. In that kind of rhetoric, the way an accusation feels is more important than telling the truth.

[Bootstrap]

"We" need to remember you don't speak for "us," only yourself.

Do you feel the same way when Trump talks about "us" and "them"? I think you accept this from populists. And you speak this way yourself:

The only way i see it possible to regain institutional standing is the way they did it: infiltration. Our numbers must increase in the institutions slowly, gradually, imperceptibly. We must first weaken their grip on the institutions.

To me, that's a lot more insidious than what I said here:

We really shouldn't be racist, rude, or violate the First Amendment's protections on religion. So I think we need to define our terms carefully, and remember that populists are trying to redefine them to their advantage.

Surely you don't believe that we SHOULD be racist, rude, or violate the First Amendment's protections on religion. Why is my use of "we" offensive to you in a way that Trump's is not? Should I be equally offended by your use of the word "we"?

[Bootstrap]

First, if "populists" are trying to define things to their advantage, so do you. Witness your use of the term "populists" to define THEM. Secondly, I don't accept your view of "them" as anything more than your own opinion, so I don't feel obligated to remember anything you have say about "them."

You don't seem to accept standard definitions of words.

Dictionaries and articles are pretty helpful for definitions like this. Wikipedia often is, too. I am using the word in this sense.

Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". The term developed in the 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties, and movements since that time, although it has rarely been chosen as a self-description. Within political science and other social sciences, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.

A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". Populist parties and social movements are often led by charismatic or dominant figures who present themselves as the "voice of the people". According to the ideational approach, populism is often combined with other ideologies, such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum, and there exist both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.

So when Trump says "I am your voice" or "I am the only one who can save you" or "I am the only one who can fix it", when he rants against THEM, when he tells you that anyone who wants to hold him accountable legally is just trying to get you, that's classic populism. Is "us" versus "them," where "we" are everyday normal people.

This is not a Christian world view. In the Christian world view, it's the Kingdom versus the World. The World includes people of all classes, educational levels, wealth levels, nationalities, and political parties. Our identity is in Jesus Christ, not in some political faction. The urgency of these conspiracy theories is seductive, but it's a distraction from the Kingdom of God.

I don't think we need fanatical loyalty to the institutions either, but they have Roman 13 authority for a reason, even if they too are worldly. They are much better than chaos or mob psychology.

[Dan Z]

MODERATOR ACTION: Moved last three posts discussing who should be allowed to ignore whose post to the Briar Patch as off-topic. Thanks.

[Falco Underhill]

Delete