First and most important, thanks CY for providing serious, direct answers to serious, direct questions. As was quickly proved, I know it's not easy to take this side of the discussion around here but I think it's so necessary and helpful that you do. I really appreciate it and I hope others will be encouraged as well. I'm sure you will understand that my responses are not in the way of debate or argument or objection but simply express my reaction to the views you describe, mostly for the purpose of trying to work things out in my own mind. In any case I recognize that these are not necessarily your views and to some extent you are acting as a messenger for the benefit of the group. Mad respect and appreciation.Cole Younger wrote:Ok. Bubba I apologize for taking so long to get back to you on this. And thank you for the welcome back. Although I'm not sure how back I am, in this thread I mean, but we'll see how it goes.
I will take these one at a time and just answer them as I see them because on some of these (all?) I just can't say for sure.
"How does one deal with a significant portion of the population who, 3, 10, 20 years ago would have freaked out over Russian meddling in the election and would have recognized it for the attack on the country by a foreign and oppositional power but now don't care because Tump?"
Most of the people I know who voted for Trump, and I know a few as you might imagine, aren't reacting to this in a way that might make more sense to you for one reason, the meddling by Russia gets drowned out by the collusion story and they don't buy the collusion story. That's really it. If you were to ask them if they thought Russia meddled in the election they might surprise you with their answer. But the collusion stuff? Forget it. And that is what has been front and center and getting the most attention of the two parts of the story by far. Why don't they believe the collusion story? Mostly because they don't believe anything CNN or the alphabet news media comes forward with. Now a person could find that hard to understand and might be tempted to chalk it up to one or several of the old standbys when it comes to conservatives (racist,mean, stupid etc) but none of those news outlets have done themselves any favors at least since the Obama campaign in 2008. Bringing up FOX and comparing them is a waste of time too because A). "FOX Lies!" Has been screamed to the point that it doesn't mean anything other than its a talking point to these folks and B) Contrary to popular belief, not all conservatives watch FOX. Probably fewer now than at any point in the last ten years at least. This is not so much about a love of Trump as it is they just don't believe anything those News outlets tell them and they certainly don't believe anything the Democrats say. I think that's how we got there in the Russia issue. It also doesn't help that when Mitt Romney cited Russia as a national security threat in the 2012 debates, he was laughed at by Barak Obama while Obama supporters yucked it up along with those hackish political commedians, Colbert and that lot, only to turn around a few years later and tell them the guy they voted for only won because he colluded with the Russians. I'm not arguing their case except to explain where this comes from and to say that I can at least somewhat see why they feel that way. "Oh now Russia is a threat because you guys lost the election and Trump cheated 'cause the Democrat lap dogs in the media say so? Mmm K. Whatever."
"Or that same group of people thinking it's ok as a strategy and policy to simply declare N. Korea not a threat because Trump?"
Here again, I know a lot of people who voted for Trump. From what I hear from them, this isn't what they think. They just don't think it was bad for Trump to meet with the North Koreans about nuclear disarmament. As far as thinking the North Koreans are no longer a threat and will do just what they say they will do and won't do, I don't know anybody who thinks that. But they didn't get how it was bad for Trump to try for it and absolutely did not get the left acting disappointed or even angry about it. I've heard from more than one person, "They act like they would rather have a nuclear war with North Korea than have something Trump did turn out good". I have to admit, it did sort of come off like that.
"And in my personal opinion worst of all, the same people who claim all kinds of religious motivations and family values and consider themselves simply to be good people, still support Trump even though he is separating kids from parents at the border..."
This one is a little bit like the first one. Number one, they don't believe this exactly what's happening. At least not in a "babies in cages"sort of way. They don't believe these children are being locked in cells and not allowed to reunite with their families. Again, they don't believe anything the alphabet media says and that is, at least in part, the media's own fault for years of Democrat cheerleading. And they sure don't believe anything the Democrats say. Also, they are never going to be for open borders and sanctuary cities. Ever. It's a lot easier to just chalk that up to racism in a blanket sort of way. And for some of them that's all that drives it. But for a lot more of them it's this, they don't believe for one second that the Democrats care about these people who are entering illegally at our southern border. They believe the Democrats see these folks as useful means to an end. They think the Democrats believe that these folks will eventually provide them with a permanent voting majority and it is that and nothing more.
How do you talk to these people? Why should you? I'm not going to tell you that you should but I will tell you that, at least for the Trump supporters that I know, their views aren't quite what are being reported and they aren't driven by stupidity or evil etc. Not to say that none of them are anywhere. I'm just telling you about the ones that I know personally.
How do you communicate with people who simply don't care that the preside t lies to them directly and who simply reverse course when he does literally just like Orwell portrays in 1984? This isn't new is it? Obama lied directly to people. So did Bush. So did Clinton. And on and on and on. I'm not saying that makes it any better. Simply that it isn't new.
Is there any hope in finding a spark of commonality with those people? I think so. Some of them anyway.
I don't know if that helps any but those are the answers as I see them and know them from talking to people that I know.
I've already hinted at my overall reaction to your post and some of the follow-up: Despair, depression, feelings of helplessness and hopelessness and a real fear that there's no way back from where we are now (and where we're heading at an accelerating rate). I don't see any way to find common ground, build bridges, recognize that we're in this together and need each other, or, bottom line, to live together in a way which allows us to continue to live under some form of democratic republic that resembles the best of what America is and might be.
Just the other day I was reading one version of the very common observation in mysteries and thrillers that the best way to interrogate and break a suspect down is to catch them in one lie. Once you have grabbed on to that lie, the rest is almost inevitable. The same is true in debate, whether it be formal competitive debate, political "debates" or dorm room or family table "discussions." We all do it to some extent and to some extent it's legitimate. But like so much in our internet/social media world it has become distorted beyond recognition: everyone has access to unlimited "resources," unchecked for truth or accuracy, catering to every taste, whim and theory, and everyone who has even the slightest connection to the most outrageous, most extreme viewpoints is saddled w/ the most extreme statements and lies of the purveyors of those viewpoints which undermines the principal and principled arguments being made and in fact undermine the very argument. I see no, and I mean no as in zero, none, nada, way to get out of this loop.
For example, I have no doubt that somewhere out there in internet or fringe tv land, some people have said or are saying that they hope Trump's N. Korean initiative fails. I don't know who those people are or exactly what they're saying, but I'm sure plenty of people would be happy to quote me chapter and verse. The problem is that I don't know, or know of, a single person like that. Every single thing, literally, that I've read or heard about N. Korea starts out w/ either "I hope I'm wrong" or "I hope he succeeds and all this [concerns being expressed] goes away." But if the audience I seek lumps me in w/ unreasonable people who are unpatriotic enough to hope that the president fails in a major diplomatic engagement, there is no chance of me being heard much less persuasive.
I have been ranting and raving about the NY Times since I was in college, generally delivering a message that people I know (assume any stereotypes you like, at least some will be close enough) don't want to hear. So I'm not very popular on the subject. I have ranted about the inaccuracies in the Times, about their stilted priorities that stilt the very nature of how and what news is delivered and about the ways in which the Times often acts as little more than the official news agency of officialdom. So I like to think I have some credibility on the subject of news and news organizations. But it never, ever occurred to me to dismiss as false, fake, lies or what have you, EVERYTHING the Times reports. Yet anyone looking to find mistakes, bias, incorrect assumptions, etc, can find them and once they've found them, that apparently justifies dismissing the entire enterprise. I have no idea how to respond to that other than that it's absurd, which, as we know, is not exactly helpful. Once again, if we can't agree on the basic FACTS and the basic lay of the land, there is NO HOPE of overcoming differences. It's impossible.
I can't even articulate how much I hate the assumption/cliche that the media has liberal bias. This is, of course, stated as fact by many people at many different places along the spectrum. CY, I don't know if you're stating it as a fact, or stating that the people you know believe it's a fact, but either way, historically IT'S JUST NOT TRUE. Study after study after study over a long period of time has shown that major traditional media is overwhelmingly what we used to call rock-ribbed Republican. Today, I don't think we can generalize because the internet - how would one even know what to count or how many to count in trying to make this sort of analysis? Who can even tell what constitutes "major" media anymore? But if we look to traditional media, which still has some influence and until fairly recently in real (as opposed to internet) time dominated the influence game, the statistics are clearer than clear. Think about it for a moment: Who owns most newspapers and TV stations? Rich people or rich, powerful companies. Until fairly recently, most newspapers were locally owned and oriented and the owner/publisher/editor was an influential person in the relevant town/city/county/state. That person most likely belonged to the fancy country club, lived in the most exclusive neighborhood, sent his/her kids to fancy colleges to meet other people like them, etc. That person was 99% likely to be a Republican!!! Sure some of the exceptions are/were exceptionally high profile but they were/are the exceptions!! If I may, it's no different than the similar line that Jews own all the banks, which is often conflated w/ Jews owning the media as well. The facts are completely contrary (these are things that can be counted!!), but that doesn't seem to slow down, much less stop, the constant repetition of these canards because they serve a purpose(s) for the people who repeat them. In the face of the extraordinary challenge which is reporting on Trump, there is no doubt that some of the major media which I would never have characterized as being especially liberal or biased to the left, have moved leftward and become more express in their biases. But that's a new phenomenon and not the basis for the claims about how biased "the media" is in a liberal direction (which is to say that now there may be more examples for that view but the view preceded these changes).
How can people literally not believe that there were babies in cages? Are all the photos doctored? Is all the testimony from all kinds of people w/ all kinds of responsible positions and pristine reputations lies? Seriously? But if one thinks the only two views are "protect the country" and "open borders" I can understand why one might refuse to believe facts that are counter to one's position on the larger issue (that is, the issue is national security, not babies in cages per se). But here's the problem: From where I'm sitting "nobody" thinks open borders are the correct, much less the single, alternative to closed borders. The people I know, the people I know who are up in arms about babies in cages and separated families, want secure borders, too. There might be some disagreement about what constitutes "secure" and how to go about getting there, but I think every single one of those people, including me, would be shocked to learn that advocating on behalf of babies and families being treated in cruel and inhumane ways is a statement that they (or I) believe in open borders. But again, I have no doubt that anyone w/ the desire can go to the internet and find some examples of some people saying exactly that and somehow that demonstrable small fringe stands for the whole. To see this whole episode as an example of Democrats cravenly seeking votes doesn't square w/ any of the known facts (most of those seeking asylum won't get it and if they do they won't become voters for many, many years; even their families already in this country don't vote if they're here illegally). It's just convenient and easy to say when one simply refuses to believe factual reporting and prefers any conspiracy, no matter how outlandish, to the hard, messy and often ambiguous facts of real life.
The recently exploded debate about ICE is another great example. From everything I can tell, the notion to disband ICE originally had NOTHING to do w/ questions of border security (ICE doesn't even work at the borders!!!!!!!). It had to do w/ boring administrative details about how best to structure the parts of Homeland Security that deal w/ immigration and immigrants. A number of responsible people w/in ICE have advocated for moving the agency out of Homeland Security precisely so it won't get caught up in political battles about border security because right now they can't do their job effectively (many state and local politicians won't cooperate w/ them). But is that POV any part of the story on this? Nope. It's all about disbanding ICE = open borders. Again, no doubt somebody(s) somewhere(s) believe this. And if all one does is read headlines, it's undoubtedly easy to leap to the conclusion that this is the issue. But it isn't, or wasn't. Personally I think the Democrats are nuts to make even the perspective on the issue I describe an election issue precisely because it is so easily and predictably distortable beyond all recognition, but is that really how we want to treat seriously proposed policy alternatives?
CY, I agree w/ your analysis of the Russia/collusion thing, but even so it still fits into the structure I'm trying to construct here. Why can't someone believe that the Russians interfered in the election and that such interference is not just bad but a serious threat to our country and also believe that Trump and/or the Trump campaign didn't collude w/ the Russian government? Why does not believing in collusion automatically mean that the Russians didn't do anything or don't constitute a threat? Obviously for at least some people it's more convenient or useful to use the existence of the small, questionable tail to grab the dog and throw it into the river, or under the bus, or whatever metaphor one prefers. Have the Democrats shot themselves in the foot in their approach to this? Of course they have. It's what Democrats do. But the facts remain the facts and facts have consequences. In this case the consequences have not nearly fully played out and guess what? Those consequences will affect all of us in similar, perhaps identical ways. Ready, fire, aim! Not the best strategy.
What does all this mean? Hard to know. I see a lot of fear about a lot of things explaining at least parts of the reactions you describe, CY. As you aptly point out some is also understandably defensive because yes portions of the media and social media have made disagreement about certain issues tantamount to being racist or an otherwise suspect human. Plenty of blame to go around on how that happens or happened and the bottom line is that it has been very counter-productive. So on one side you have people shouting "racist!" and on the other you have people shouting "I don't believe in facts!" Each side has its reasons for doing so and each is tenuously connected to some reasonable factual underpinning but both have gotten totally out of control and have led to, among other things, the phenomenon that both sides believe they can't give an inch even if they're clearly wrong because doing so would undercut their entire belief system, something which could only be a risk in the hyperpartisan, emotionally supercharged, exaggerated lightning speed internet echo chamber environment in which we currently live. And I can't see a way out.