The Trump Presidency

Runnin said:
So are you going to call foul for any article not from Fox News? Is that your standard for objective journalism? I don't care if you don't like where an article comes from. If you're a Trump supporter, I assume you've already sold your soul, beyond help and will defend him to your grave. More power to you.

The article, if you read it, is mostly about studies done long before this election season even began and is mostly neutral about the Trump win, except to point out the obvious that Trump is an authoritarian leader and a segment of the country has been moving toward that way of thinking for a while. I'm surprised you didn't like the article. It refutes the idea that Trump supporters are just a bunch of racists and white supremacists. That's part of why I posted it.

Please, show us the lies, cherry picked stats (lol) and pseudo science you uncovered.



"the average man does not want to be free. he simply wants to be safe."

H. L. Mencken
Click to expand...

Can you quote the section where the article refutes the idea that Trump supporters are racists and white supremacists?
 
Runnin said:
So are you going to call foul for any article not from Fox News? Is that your standard for objective journalism? I don't care if you don't like where an article comes from. If you're a Trump supporter, I assume you've already sold your soul, beyond help and will defend him to your grave. More power to you.

The article, if you read it, is mostly about studies done long before this election season even began and is mostly neutral about the Trump win, except to point out the obvious that Trump is an authoritarian leader and a segment of the country has been moving toward that way of thinking for a while. I'm surprised you didn't like the article. It refutes the idea that Trump supporters are just a bunch of racists and white supremacists. That's part of why I posted it.

Please, show us the lies, cherry picked stats (lol) and pseudo science you uncovered.


"the average man does not want to be free. he simply wants to be safe."
H. L. Mencken
Click to expand...

Well, he's right to the extent that Ezra Klein is a liberal and Vox is a progressive blog.

Maybe it's important to note, maybe it's not.

The article was interesting, but I would wholeheartedly challenge the author's assertion that Feldman's 'parenting goals' line of questions is the definitive measure of authoritarianism. To me, it's actually the perfect example of a political scientist trying to play a psychologist and airmailing it.

There is a strong distinguishing factor between political science's view of authoritarianism and psychology's view of authoritarianism as well as a great deal lot of overlap and disagreement between the two schools; for example, do citizens gravitate toward authoritarian ideals based on ideology or personality - and if so - how do we define that ideology and that personality?

A psychologist, Bob Altemeyer, conducted a popular study on Right Wing Authoritarianism in the mid-90s: http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/altemeyer The Other Authoritarian Personality.pdf (sorry, it's the only digital copy I could find). His questions, from my perspective, and especially in light of my perception of this past election, are much more in-tune with today's political climate and how we should go about defining modern authoritarianism.

Altemeyer references Erich Fromm in his introduction. Fromm believed that Germans who supported Nazism represented both submissive AND dominant personality types. The author of the Vox piece dismisses Fromm and what would later become known as the "Berkeley" research on authoritarianism as "junk science" ... that's asinine. Anyways, Altemeyer's findings ultimately circle around the idea of "Social Domination" ... ie. winning (how ironic) ... being the 'new' Authoritarianism (and I'm overly simplifying).

Trump won a campaign predicated ENTIRELY on winning. He was overtly competitive and arrogantly ambitious. What grew his appeal was being an underdog from the moment he lurched out of the gate and proving his detractors and enemies wrong literally every step of the way. Sure, he sprinkled some policy on here and there for show, but let's not kid ourselves: most people did not vote for Trump because he promised to build the wall or because he said he would abolish TPP. They voted for him because he promised greatness. And is that not one of the fundamental principles that Americans are constantly encouraged to strive for essentially from birth?

I think to categorize Trump as an authoritarian in the traditional sense is a bit flawed because it carries these historically nefarious undertones. Is he a larger than life personality? Yes. Absolutely. But that does not automatically translate into an authoritarian. Not in the slightest.

It's logically and morally dubious for Vox to loosely propagate that particular claim using a singular and oft-challenged scientific method.
 
Hawk said:
Well, he's right to the extent that Ezra Klein is a liberal and Vox is a progressive blog.

Maybe it's important to note, maybe it's not.

The article was interesting, but I would wholeheartedly challenge the author's assertion that Feldman's 'parenting goals' line of questions is the definitive measure of authoritarianism. To me, it's actually the perfect example of a political scientist trying to play a psychologist and airmailing it.

There is a strong distinguishing factor between political science's view of authoritarianism and psychology's view of authoritarianism as well as a great deal lot of overlap and disagreement between the two schools; for example, do citizens gravitate toward authoritarian ideals based on ideology or personality - and if so - how do we define that ideology and that personality?

A psychologist, Bob Altemeyer, conducted a popular study on Right Wing Authoritarianism in the mid-90s: http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/altemeyer The Other Authoritarian Personality.pdf (sorry, it's the only digital copy I could find). His questions, from my perspective, and especially in light of my perception of this past election, are much more in-tune with today's political climate and how we should go about defining modern authoritarianism.

Altemeyer references Erich Fromm in his introduction. Fromm believed that Germans who supported Nazism represented both submissive AND dominant personality types. The author of the Vox piece dismisses Fromm and what would later become known as the "Berkeley" research on authoritarianism as "junk science" ... that's asinine. Anyways, Altemeyer's findings ultimately circle around the idea of "Social Domination" ... ie. winning (how ironic) ... being the 'new' Authoritarianism (and I'm overly simplifying).

Trump won a campaign predicated ENTIRELY on winning. He was overtly competitive and arrogantly ambitious. What grew his appeal was being an underdog from the moment he lurched out of the gate and proving his detractors and enemies wrong literally every step of the way. Sure, he sprinkled some policy on here and there for show, but let's not kid ourselves: most people did not vote for Trump because he promised to build the wall or because he said he would abolish TPP. They voted for him because he promised greatness. And is that not one of the fundamental principles that Americans are constantly encouraged to strive for essentially from birth?

I think to categorize Trump as an authoritarian in the traditional sense is a bit flawed because it carries these historically nefarious undertones. Is he a larger than life personality? Yes. Absolutely. But that does not automatically translate into an authoritarian. Not in the slightest. And it's logically and morally dubious to loosely propagate that message using a singular and oft-challenged scientific method.
Click to expand...

The problem will be there are a lot of different angles to the whole greatness question and one looks like greatness to one group doesn't necessarily look like greatness to another. Sooner or later decisions will have to be made and if one doesn't have a more firm set of principles to operate from besides a nebulous notion of "greatness," things could fall apart. My biggest fear in a Trump presidency is that he's going to run it like a television show and if the ratings dip, he'll change the plot or drop a character or do whatever it takes to stay on the air (so to speak). I find it difficult to lump him into the classical definition of authoritarian because most authoritarians come from a more formalized movement (Hitler with the Nazis, Mussolini with the National Fascist Party, Mao and Lenin with various strands of communism). Trump came from "above."

The parenting angle was also played up by George Lakoff (I think it was Lakoff) in his work. I don't know if it really holds water or not.

Anyway, I found both articles--Runnin's and weso's--interesting.
 
ESP47 said:
Vox is a garbage left biased site. The author is a feminist and social justice warrior who also writes for the NYT (another non credible source when it comes to anything about Trump or republicans). Article is full of lies, cherry picked stats and pseudo science. Just look at the picture at the top of the article and it'll tell you all you need to know.
Click to expand...

Wow
 
Romney? Romney? Dang this is getting weirder by the moment.
romney-and-trump-to-discuss-secretary-of-state-position-nbc-source-says.html
 
weso1 said:
Pretty extensive take down of the media pushed myth that Trump and a significant amount of his supporters are racists.

link
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but did the author of this article just suggest to me that Donald Trump eating a taco bowl is compelling evidence that I can't think there were some racist undertones in his campaign? That's on par with claiming to have a black friend as a defense.
 
mqt said:
Never thought I'd see the day where I was actively rooting for Mitt Romney to have a top position in our government.
Click to expand...

Til I see otherwise, I'm going to assume that Romney (and maybe Haley) are being used as a counter-narrative to the stories about how the Trump camp is vindictive towards non-believers

AM I NOT MERCIFUL?
 
mqt said:
I'm sorry, but did the author of this article just suggest to me that Donald Trump eating a taco bowl is compelling evidence that I can't think there were some racist undertones in his campaign? That's on par with claiming to have a black friend as a defense.
Click to expand...

No, it was part of his argument about leftists crying wolf about Trump being "openly" racist.

I think having a black friend is actually pretty good evidence that you aren't racist. Never really understood why folks poo poo that one. Maybe the implication is that the person is lying. Of course for most people the correct argument if someone accuses you of being a racist, without evidence, is screw you, you are a ****ty person.
 
ESP47 said:
Can you quote the section where the article refutes the idea that Trump supporters are racists and white supremacists?
Click to expand...

The thesis of the article refutes the idea since it shows how the this move toward authoritarianism has been going on for years. It presents a different narrative to the white supremacist angle which is exactly why I posted it, in a search for other causes.

I don't have time to look now but I don't know that the article even mentions white supremacy or racism.
 
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Just got a call from my friend Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford, who advised me that he will be keeping the Lincoln plant in Kentucky - no Mexico
 
Hawk said:
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Just got a call from my friend Bill Ford, Chairman of Ford, who advised me that he will be keeping the Lincoln plant in Kentucky - no Mexico
Click to expand...

Man, if that money from overseas can find a way inside our country we could see a revitalizaton of the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top