443
submitted 1 day ago by WeUnite@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

This article was posted shortly before the election but everything in there is still true and seeing his appointees perhaps worse than predicted.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 57 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Carl Sagan wrote in 1995:

I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance

While there were always idiots, they often lacked the capacity to engage or equip themselves with such a sophisticated web of lies to prop up their beliefs. As such, Joe Schmoe from Bumfuck, Alabama had a limited platform and so could go on his blissfully ignorant way without much harm beyond his county line.

These days? They all communicate together and domestic and foreign operatives can reach them all the same to stoke division.

Crazy to watch.

[-] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 30 points 14 hours ago

"Democratic collapse nowadays isn’t a matter of abolishing elections and declaring oneself dictator, but rather stealthily hollowing out a democratic system so it’s harder and harder for the opposition to win. This strategy requires full control over the state and the bureaucracy: That means having the right staff in the right places who can use their power to erode democracy’s core functions."

The establishment Dems and Reps have been doing this for decades. Trump is just the last straw. He's walking away with the monster they created and he's probably going to let it off the leash.

The only question I have is whether the oligarchy wants him to do that. Imo they weren't ready for it last time. They built the monster for someone controllable like Clinton or Jeb!, and I think they were actually surprised when Trump won the first time. This time they made him a nice little play book, and they've had some time to learn how to at least keep him pointed in the right direction, if not controlled. They might be ready to release the monster they created. Everyone will blame Trump too, instead of the oligarchy... Bonus.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

The only question I have is whether the oligarchy wants him to do that.

Quite a few have explicitly said they do. That's a big reason why Trump won with Silicon Valley conservatives this year.

[-] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

He's also much more senile this time. And they have plenty of experience with that from Reagan.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 102 points 1 day ago

We live in an era where democracies once considered “consolidated” — meaning so secure that they couldn’t collapse into authoritarianism — have started to buckle and even collapse.

Literally everytime a society acts like authoritarianism isn't a threat...

You'll never guess what shows up.

It's a constant fight, it will literally never be over. But over and over, all it takes is 2 or 3 generations for people to think it was really over last time.

A huge part of the issue is writing them all off as evil monsters. The leaders always are. But their supporters are almost always desperate people who think they're doing the right thing.

To truly keep it at bay, we need a society where everyone has enough to live comfortably so they're not desperate and looking for scapegoats to blame. It would solve the vast amount of local crime as well. We focus on making prison worse than poverty, but no one would choose prison over a comfortable life.

[-] Seleni@lemmy.world 11 points 13 hours ago

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

-Terry Pratchett

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

I agree with the sentiment. But I think one of the perils of Democratic erosion has been "Us" having less and less say in how government functions, particularly at the local level.

The mayor is as alien and removed from me as any CEO or celebrity. City council is dominated by real estate agents and business cronies. Even the school board is inaccessible, as they pay far more attention to their friends in state government than anyone with kids in grade school.

Fearmomgering against the other is a tool leveraged to win high office. But it's hard to see who isn't just running a racket when the profession seems to repel activists and draw in shills like a magnet.

[-] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 13 points 16 hours ago

MAGAs are bad people.

[-] jrs100000@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago

It would be easier to believe they think they are doing the right thing if they weren't so excited about all the people they want to hurt.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago

Reported as a duplicate from 3 weeks ago:

https://lemmy.world/post/21605389

Allowing this for now as the discussion following a Trump win has a different context than hypotheticals from before a Trump win.

For example:

Before the election Trump was still claiming he knew nothing of Project 2025.

AFTER the election, his nominee to run the FCC is the guy who WROTE the FCC chapter of Project 2025.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-brendan-carr-federal-communications-commission-rcna180567

[-] WeUnite@lemm.ee 21 points 1 day ago

I'm very sorry, I tried to use the search function prior to posting to make sure it wasn't already posted. I don't know if it was because I made a mistake or if it was because I searched based on the URL instead of the title but for some reason I didn't receive any results.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

Meh, it died long ago for marginalized people, it's just catching up to white people now.

Nations rise and fall. Its fine. Eventually dictatorships fall. The climate, however...

Theres no time...

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 12 hours ago

Maybe we'll get lucky and the economy will collapse.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 10 hours ago

Seems likely

[-] shadow 14 points 22 hours ago

This is written as if the election were still in the future. We're going in, and it's going to be hell. This is the loadout selection screen before the match starts. We need to be thinking of ways we can bolster our communities and defend ourselves.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 19 points 20 hours ago

This is written as if the election were still in the future

Because it was at the time

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago

That headline though. My inner pedant just cannot leave it alone. Democracy is like Nature. It does not care about you or me or Trump. It will continue to exist as an idea no matter what he does. Other countries will even continue to use it.

[-] andyortlieb 6 points 15 hours ago

Same as anarchism.

Lots of people valuing self reliance and care for others without regard for our existing leaders and systems. There just happens to also be systems of governments around.

[-] zeca@lemmy.eco.br 6 points 14 hours ago

excuse my ignorance, but ive always wondered this about anarchism: Seems to me that people gather and organize themselves to reach common goals. How can these organizations not become governments? is that actually possible?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

A lot of what is commonly called anarchism isn't a complete lack of government. It's more like removing the capitalist system and wealthy elite. Then not having large governments, make stuff like the town council the highest form of government.

I'm not 100% sure how that translates to modern mass infrastructure and global trade but those are the basic ideas as best as I can see.

[-] andyortlieb 9 points 11 hours ago

I think like any other political or philosophical view, this is one of those things where you will get one unique answer per each anarchist you ask.

Speaking personally, I think philosophies should be used as tools, and as the best tool for a job.

To me, anarchism means disregarding established authority and working together to achieve whatever a goal is. Ideally cooperatively. Some groups will perform well at this and some will not. Some will perform better under a more traditional organized structure.

I don't want to subjugate people with anarchist dogma. I want to help people learn to trust themselves and to cooperate. And I want to get better at it myself.

[-] zeca@lemmy.eco.br 6 points 10 hours ago

I see, so you see it not an actual state we may achieve, but rather the negation of present authorities and systems.

[-] andyortlieb 4 points 10 hours ago

That is my take.

The delusion of grandeur I might suffer would be something like people foster such a strong culture of cooperation and mutual aid that state government operations and programs become obsolete.

That's a north star. Something to aim for as a concept. But of course we won't ever land a rocket ship on the actual North Star.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 12 hours ago

By avoiding hierarchy. So it's like how a poker game has a bunch of players, but nobody is the boss of poker. And if somebody starts cheating, you either expel them or form a new group.

The hard part is scaling this up to billions of people.

[-] zeca@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 10 hours ago

So as long as an organization is truly democratic, it can be considered anarchist?

For example, if one person likes to make coca cola but as a side effect he pollutes a river that the rest of the group wants to keep clean. The group may decide democratically to force him to not make coca cola. I would call this a goverment-like organization, even though it does not need to have a leader to fulfill its goal.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago

I would consider that anarchist iff it's not hierarchical, yes.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
443 points (94.7% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2971 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS