The real question is not so much why the GOP as a party supports Putin. Power at any cost is a given for them. The question is why so many Americans fall for it. I can get that some people just want the "security" of being told what to do so they can get on with the process of getting the latest TV--even though when told simply that they SHOULD wear masks mid-pandemic it is a horrendous burden on their freeeeedum. But why so MANY?
I suspect the answer is that what they think of as the result of a Putin style regime is that such a government will tell OTHER people what to do, not themselves. This is what Jeff Tiedrich calls the Leopard Eating People's Faces Party. The leopards will never eat THEIR faces because, of course, whatever the Leopards propose must align with their own beliefs, which are inexorably correct about everything.
"The question is why so many Americans fall for it. "
Spot on. Really it's the only question I have at this point. We already know who the good actors are and who the bad actors are. The stage is set and there's not really that much new information interesting or shocking enough to change the basic facts on the ground ground. The only question that remains is why so many Americans are rooting for the bad guys. That still doesn't make sense to me. That still some thing I just don't understand
Noah had an article here the other day explaining why political attention is like Super Bowl attention. Those of us who don't follow sports likely can't even name the two teams that went to the Super Bowl. And on the other side, there are people who have no idea what's going on in the political world. Which explains a lot. But what's weird to me is it people who would pay so little attention to politics would even bother to show up to vote. That would be like me not giving a fuck about football but buying tickets to the Super Bowl. So clearly they care enough to show up to vote, but they don't care enough to pay a modicum of attention to what the fuck is going on in the world and why the vote matters. So it's still weird to me
The question still is, why THIS kind of partisanship? The cult isn't primarily made up of what I call simple "legacy Republicanism"--the "good enough for dad good enough for me" syndrome. A lot of those folks are actually dissenting. After all, when a poll says "80% of Republicans believe" something really stupid, there are 20%--the famous 1 in 5--that don't.
My Facebook group is having an interesting discussion of "operant conditioning"--the power of positive reinforcement. Though this is no longer the be-all and end-all of psychology it was when I was an undergrad, it truly does work. And I suspect that this is as much a secret of the "echo chamber" as any evolutionary bent towards tribalism.
Everyone is subject to this, right or left. Everyone can be swayed by positive reinforcement. But as one watches all those Man in a Diner in Ohio interviews, the difference seems to be that those on the left can articulate what they find attractive in their echo chamber, explain reasons, cite specifics. The right seems more to react with labels, summing everything up with things like "he's a maverick"(true) or "he's a good businessman" (not true). That makes propaganda much more effective on the right, since propaganda pretty much depends on not relying on facts or reasons, and everyone who finds it easy and attractive gets a little thrill of "positivity" every time trump or their echo chamber mates repeats is.
Psychologists way better trained than I will be contemplating this far into whatever future there is.
So, I'm leery of arguments based on some sort of innate psychological difference on the left vs. the right.
Partisanship is a really strong force for everyone; it's the main driver of election choices. That's not a good or bad thing; it's just how it works. Most people don't pay close attention to politics, and tend to make voting choices based on input from leaders and media they trust and with which they identify.
Once Trump became the GOP candidate and then the president, it became extremely difficult for Rs to defy him. Parties are focused on winning; discrediting or abandoning your own candidate is a sure way to lose. There's just huge incentives not to lose. Trump's been good at exploiting that.
I'm not really talking about "innate" differences (like the bit about the size of amygdalas.) It's more how different people react to psychological mechanisms common to us all. And the tendency to rely on labels is actually true of something we don't really pay attention to but have vaguely heard about.
Me and the Superbowl--or any sports--for example. I doubt I can say anything at all intelligent about any sport. So if I read somewhere that such and such a coach is corrupt, I just go "yep, probably" and pass it by without checking the facts.
So I think that consideration of how labels are used actually fits your analysis of most people not paying attention to politics. The problem is where the label comes from. Propaganda in in the business of making people think in terms of labels.
I actually know the names of the teams in this years Superbowl. But ONLY because of Taylor Swift (whose work I barely know, anyway.) The Superbowl should pay HER for being an ad for them.
But I had to encounter those stories several times before they registered. It's almost as if there isn't even a place in my brain to store that kind of information.
I have a corner of my brain reserved for noting idiocies. Though sometimes I have to jump start it nowadays. That corner is getting very very full--an overstuffed file cabinet.
My only conclusion is that the few billionaires that control 90%+ of the media are loving those Trump tax breaks and are hoping for more where that came from.
That's probably part of it, but I think more of it is the media's desperation for Drama! Thrills! Excitement! Morbidly obese reality TeeVee clowns behaving like they're the reincarnation of Hitler! A competent, if gaffe-prone (as he's been for decades) career politician doesn't do much that's, you know, "exciting"—and the media's losing so much of their position (and money!) that they're scrambling for anything that will make people pay attention to them again.
If it was just tax breaks, those billionaires could figure a way to get them from Biden—or at the very least, get a few outs inserted in legislation to keep their money in their hands. (Like I said, he's a competent career politician—HE knows which side of his bread is buttered!) "President Donald Trump" is like a gorilla on the cover of a superhero comic to them—he sells funny papers (or clicks, or airtime). They either don't care, or don't believe that what they're doing is really important enough to change their scummy yellow journalist ways....
Biden's been pretty consistent in wanting tax hikes for the rich. Biden knows which side his bread is buttered on...and taxing the rich is extremely popular with voters, and with Democrats in particular. that's the side biden's bread is buttered on, I think.
Is that why Biden sponsored or co-sponsored Crime "Reform" that excessively targeted Blacks and made privatized prisons possible; or Bankruptcy "Reform" that outlawed student loan debt bankruptcy but made it easier for corporations and oligarchs to declare bankruptcy? Yes, he did those as SENATOR Biden, but I still can't forgive him for either so long as he lets both stand.
He says "Tax the Rich!" because that'll get him votes—I wonder just how sincere his desire really is, given he's rich himself.
that horrible crime bill was quite popular, unfortunately, even with a lot of Black people. That was definitely done to attract voters, not billionaires.
I think the bankruptcy shit was about industry in Delaware. so again about his constituency.
being motivated to try to cater to voters doesn't always lead to good policy at all.
Oh, I know! But the crime bill ended up adversely affecting Black people and jump-starting the private prison industry, so it's still not one of his finer moments.
And the bankruptcy bill was just...disgusting to people who took out student loans. Far as I'm concerned, all current student loans should be forgiven, and banks that charge interest for student loans should be tossed in prison for Usury!
Okay, maybe we can't grandfather that, but we can certainly make banks only offer Interest-Free (or very very low interest, more likely) student loans with stiff penalties for any attempt to profit off them. Higher education should be something we facilitate in every way possible, not a grubby profit center for banksters....
::while cable news is shy about this, there’s no reason the rest of us should be. ::
We can and we do trumpet it, Noah, but outside of MSNBC (sometimes), trying to get the MSM to acknowledge Trump is a Treasonous Fascistic PoS is like trying to climb a glass wall.
With your bare hands.
Covered in grease.
A lot of people (yourself included, IIRC) have taken Jon Stewart to task for pointing out that both Biden and Trump are Old Men With Memory Issues, and not pulling out his flaming lightsaber of TRUTH! to cut Trump down in his tracks. That is a HEAVY burden to put on a middle-aged comedian who, however well-meaning, has always been a classic liberal centrist—and a very light one to put on THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, network news, CNN, TIME MAGAZINE, NEWSWEEK, etc., etc., etc. ....
Rather than railing against Stewart for not being sufficiently radical to satisfy you—especially Mary Trump, who sounds more like her hated Uncle Donald in her zeal to nail his bloated hide to a wall? Why not flood the opinion pages and Letters to the Editor with challenges to the Bothsidesism narrative? Make the MSM question whether or not the game they're playing is worth looking cowardly and sleazy for.
The real question is not so much why the GOP as a party supports Putin. Power at any cost is a given for them. The question is why so many Americans fall for it. I can get that some people just want the "security" of being told what to do so they can get on with the process of getting the latest TV--even though when told simply that they SHOULD wear masks mid-pandemic it is a horrendous burden on their freeeeedum. But why so MANY?
I suspect the answer is that what they think of as the result of a Putin style regime is that such a government will tell OTHER people what to do, not themselves. This is what Jeff Tiedrich calls the Leopard Eating People's Faces Party. The leopards will never eat THEIR faces because, of course, whatever the Leopards propose must align with their own beliefs, which are inexorably correct about everything.
"The question is why so many Americans fall for it. "
Spot on. Really it's the only question I have at this point. We already know who the good actors are and who the bad actors are. The stage is set and there's not really that much new information interesting or shocking enough to change the basic facts on the ground ground. The only question that remains is why so many Americans are rooting for the bad guys. That still doesn't make sense to me. That still some thing I just don't understand
Noah had an article here the other day explaining why political attention is like Super Bowl attention. Those of us who don't follow sports likely can't even name the two teams that went to the Super Bowl. And on the other side, there are people who have no idea what's going on in the political world. Which explains a lot. But what's weird to me is it people who would pay so little attention to politics would even bother to show up to vote. That would be like me not giving a fuck about football but buying tickets to the Super Bowl. So clearly they care enough to show up to vote, but they don't care enough to pay a modicum of attention to what the fuck is going on in the world and why the vote matters. So it's still weird to me
I think racism has a constituency, and partisanship is powerful are the explanations for trumps success.
The question still is, why THIS kind of partisanship? The cult isn't primarily made up of what I call simple "legacy Republicanism"--the "good enough for dad good enough for me" syndrome. A lot of those folks are actually dissenting. After all, when a poll says "80% of Republicans believe" something really stupid, there are 20%--the famous 1 in 5--that don't.
My Facebook group is having an interesting discussion of "operant conditioning"--the power of positive reinforcement. Though this is no longer the be-all and end-all of psychology it was when I was an undergrad, it truly does work. And I suspect that this is as much a secret of the "echo chamber" as any evolutionary bent towards tribalism.
Everyone is subject to this, right or left. Everyone can be swayed by positive reinforcement. But as one watches all those Man in a Diner in Ohio interviews, the difference seems to be that those on the left can articulate what they find attractive in their echo chamber, explain reasons, cite specifics. The right seems more to react with labels, summing everything up with things like "he's a maverick"(true) or "he's a good businessman" (not true). That makes propaganda much more effective on the right, since propaganda pretty much depends on not relying on facts or reasons, and everyone who finds it easy and attractive gets a little thrill of "positivity" every time trump or their echo chamber mates repeats is.
Psychologists way better trained than I will be contemplating this far into whatever future there is.
So, I'm leery of arguments based on some sort of innate psychological difference on the left vs. the right.
Partisanship is a really strong force for everyone; it's the main driver of election choices. That's not a good or bad thing; it's just how it works. Most people don't pay close attention to politics, and tend to make voting choices based on input from leaders and media they trust and with which they identify.
Once Trump became the GOP candidate and then the president, it became extremely difficult for Rs to defy him. Parties are focused on winning; discrediting or abandoning your own candidate is a sure way to lose. There's just huge incentives not to lose. Trump's been good at exploiting that.
I'm not really talking about "innate" differences (like the bit about the size of amygdalas.) It's more how different people react to psychological mechanisms common to us all. And the tendency to rely on labels is actually true of something we don't really pay attention to but have vaguely heard about.
Me and the Superbowl--or any sports--for example. I doubt I can say anything at all intelligent about any sport. So if I read somewhere that such and such a coach is corrupt, I just go "yep, probably" and pass it by without checking the facts.
So I think that consideration of how labels are used actually fits your analysis of most people not paying attention to politics. The problem is where the label comes from. Propaganda in in the business of making people think in terms of labels.
Right wing media is a big part of the story; it's completely disconnected from reality, and so it's audience is also.
It's the equivalent of teaching your dog a trick. You have to reward them with a simple treat that can be gobbled down in one bite,
Excellent comment
nice framing
"racism has a constituency"
I actually know the names of the teams in this years Superbowl. But ONLY because of Taylor Swift (whose work I barely know, anyway.) The Superbowl should pay HER for being an ad for them.
Right?
But I had to encounter those stories several times before they registered. It's almost as if there isn't even a place in my brain to store that kind of information.
I have a corner of my brain reserved for noting idiocies. Though sometimes I have to jump start it nowadays. That corner is getting very very full--an overstuffed file cabinet.
My only conclusion is that the few billionaires that control 90%+ of the media are loving those Trump tax breaks and are hoping for more where that came from.
That's probably part of it, but I think more of it is the media's desperation for Drama! Thrills! Excitement! Morbidly obese reality TeeVee clowns behaving like they're the reincarnation of Hitler! A competent, if gaffe-prone (as he's been for decades) career politician doesn't do much that's, you know, "exciting"—and the media's losing so much of their position (and money!) that they're scrambling for anything that will make people pay attention to them again.
If it was just tax breaks, those billionaires could figure a way to get them from Biden—or at the very least, get a few outs inserted in legislation to keep their money in their hands. (Like I said, he's a competent career politician—HE knows which side of his bread is buttered!) "President Donald Trump" is like a gorilla on the cover of a superhero comic to them—he sells funny papers (or clicks, or airtime). They either don't care, or don't believe that what they're doing is really important enough to change their scummy yellow journalist ways....
Biden's been pretty consistent in wanting tax hikes for the rich. Biden knows which side his bread is buttered on...and taxing the rich is extremely popular with voters, and with Democrats in particular. that's the side biden's bread is buttered on, I think.
Is that why Biden sponsored or co-sponsored Crime "Reform" that excessively targeted Blacks and made privatized prisons possible; or Bankruptcy "Reform" that outlawed student loan debt bankruptcy but made it easier for corporations and oligarchs to declare bankruptcy? Yes, he did those as SENATOR Biden, but I still can't forgive him for either so long as he lets both stand.
He says "Tax the Rich!" because that'll get him votes—I wonder just how sincere his desire really is, given he's rich himself.
that horrible crime bill was quite popular, unfortunately, even with a lot of Black people. That was definitely done to attract voters, not billionaires.
I think the bankruptcy shit was about industry in Delaware. so again about his constituency.
being motivated to try to cater to voters doesn't always lead to good policy at all.
Oh, I know! But the crime bill ended up adversely affecting Black people and jump-starting the private prison industry, so it's still not one of his finer moments.
And the bankruptcy bill was just...disgusting to people who took out student loans. Far as I'm concerned, all current student loans should be forgiven, and banks that charge interest for student loans should be tossed in prison for Usury!
Okay, maybe we can't grandfather that, but we can certainly make banks only offer Interest-Free (or very very low interest, more likely) student loans with stiff penalties for any attempt to profit off them. Higher education should be something we facilitate in every way possible, not a grubby profit center for banksters....
I agree! Biden's been doing a lot of good work forgiving loans. (I may write about that next week...)
::while cable news is shy about this, there’s no reason the rest of us should be. ::
We can and we do trumpet it, Noah, but outside of MSNBC (sometimes), trying to get the MSM to acknowledge Trump is a Treasonous Fascistic PoS is like trying to climb a glass wall.
With your bare hands.
Covered in grease.
A lot of people (yourself included, IIRC) have taken Jon Stewart to task for pointing out that both Biden and Trump are Old Men With Memory Issues, and not pulling out his flaming lightsaber of TRUTH! to cut Trump down in his tracks. That is a HEAVY burden to put on a middle-aged comedian who, however well-meaning, has always been a classic liberal centrist—and a very light one to put on THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, network news, CNN, TIME MAGAZINE, NEWSWEEK, etc., etc., etc. ....
Rather than railing against Stewart for not being sufficiently radical to satisfy you—especially Mary Trump, who sounds more like her hated Uncle Donald in her zeal to nail his bloated hide to a wall? Why not flood the opinion pages and Letters to the Editor with challenges to the Bothsidesism narrative? Make the MSM question whether or not the game they're playing is worth looking cowardly and sleazy for.