This post is old and has some outdated statements, but in general it is still applicable. Also since its time I added some fresh posts on the matter:
Knowledge Is NOT Power. At Least In Politics.
The N-Word: The Great Deflector From Real Issues
"He who has eyes, let him see". But what should "She" do?
"Why Didn't I Win", by Elizabeth Warren (2020)
American Republicans are just Russian Bolsheviks!
To the Table of Content / List of All Posts
Out of all my posts on this blog, these five are the most connected to the long term political future of the Country.
“The Dawn of The Era of Dictatorships; Explained by The Systems Theory.”
“Peering through the fog of brainwashing: the real reasons behind the conservative politics.”
The Degradation of The White Male American Elite
Disclaimer: due to its extensive length (112
tweets) this article may be boring.
Foreword: Every society has times when people have
to stand up for things they believe in. For America this time is NOW (again).
Hope: Do not judge a book by its cover, do
not judge a piece by its title.
There were three main reasons for me to move from Russia in the US.
First
two were:
1. Free
speech.
and
2. The
rule of the law.
The
prosperity of America is based on the three pillars: (a) checks and balances in
politics and governing; (b) preserved by the free speech, and (c) enacted by
the rule of law. Break any one of them and the whole society will collapse.
But for
me personally the most important reason for my moving was:
3.
America does not have a military draft.
When I
was a young father I personally knew a young guy (who BTW was a son of a top
manager well-known in the city) who did not return home from the Russian army
after he was drafted for a one-year term. The story was very sad and stupid.
His feet got hurting. He went to an army doctor. The doctor gave him some
ointment. Some days later turned out it was a gangrene, but the sepsis was so
deep it was too late to save his life.
So, I
definitely would do everything I could to prevent my son from this fate. Hence,
when I had a chance to move to the US, I took that chance. I was at the top of
my professional career and had pretty good chances to move up the professional
ladder even higher, say Moscow, (TeachOlogy.xyz/vv.htm),
but I dropped everything and became a janitor at a Shaw’s supermarket (at
first; GoMars.xyz/vvli.html). I
saved my son, and the other two "first" reasons came like "collateral benefits".
And I believe that the level of my personal and professional achievement allows
me to talk openly about actions of others.
Time is
changing. If the draft in the US does not seem coming back any soon, free
speech and the rule of law are at a huge risk to be purposefully destroyed (I
have seen how this was successfully done after the Perestroika, simply because
people were hungry).
And I
don’t mean “deteriorated”, diminished”, “weekend”, I do mean “destroyed”,
because there is a social force which is actively engaged in the planning and
executing actions with the goal of destroying free speech and the rule of law
in America.
The
obvious leader of this social force is the current American President Donald J.
Trump.
But he
represents just a tip of the iceberg. He just rides the wave of racism,
misogyny and bigotry which have been brewing for quite some time and now is
flashing over the Country.
Millions
of Americans support Donald Trump in his endeavor to destroy the free speech
and the rule of law.
We need
to keep in mind, though, the difference between people who voted for Donald
Trump and people who support Donald Trump. There is a large overlapping between
those two groups, but they are not completely identical.
Some of
the people who voted for Trump did it despite his obvious racism, misogyny and
bigotry. For the long period of time they have been seeing the gradual decline
in their well-being, financial and professional life, and wanted that to change, at least for their kids. BTW, the main reason Obama won was that he was so different from mainstream politicians that people hoped he could deliver on his promises of change, but he didn't - which led to Trump - who has become Obama's legacy. People have been hurting, but they could not associate any change with Hillary
Clinton, at least not for them. Hillary Clinton was a status quo candidate, the
establishment candidate, and for millions of Americans who could not promise
any more to their children the life better than their own, Hillary
Clinton's presidency would not offer any change (when I was an active
blogger on the matter, I posted “Why
did Hillary Clinton Lost the Race?”, among many
other posts on the issue).
However,
there are Trump supporters, i.e. people who voted for him not
despite, but precisely because he is a racist, a misogynist, and a bigot. And
the name for them is Legion (here an old Russian proverb comes to mind: if you
look into a mirror and don’t like what you see, don’t blame the mirror!).
Of
course, Donald Trump is not the only rich or poor American who is trying to
convert the country from a democracy into an autocracy or oligarchy.
The
natural question, of course, is – why?
The true
answer is simple – for white male Americans it is the ONLY way to hold
onto their power in the face of the upcoming drastic changes in the American
demographics.
In a short post which I wrote
more than a year ago I stated that:
“EVERYTHING
what "conservatives" do, they do it because of one single reason (so,
just ignore anything else they say).
They do
it because of fear.
They
do it because of fear of losing political power – to the current minorities.”
Lately,
various late night talk show TV personalities confirmed my statement (for
example, watch Bill Maher or read Bill
Maher’s “The New Rules” from August 3).
BTW, many so-called liberals are quiet and dormant (or lie to pollsters) because they would also
prefer to postpone the day when white Americans will become the ethnic minority
(this statement so far has not been broadcasted, I am the only person who has
strength to openly make it). This is one of the answers to a regular Bill
Maher’s question – why do so few liberals go to a voting booth - because they prefer to keep status quo, which means keeping the state of the white privilege. This is exactly
the reaction of white liberals the Republican puppet masters count on in their
pursuit of their happiness.
Before
talking specifically about the Republicans/Conservatives, or
Democrats/Liberals, I would like to make one general note.
There is
simply no country in the whole world which would be governed directly by
the people. Direct governing would be possible only in a very small country
where all citizens could gather around at the same time in the same place. It
also may become possible in the future when everyone will be able to vote with
just a push of a button on a phone. But until then, every
country in the world is ruled by its elite. The only difference between
different countries and political regimes is who and how
can become a member of the elite. For example, if the place in the
elite is based on the blood line, the governing type is a monarchy; but if the
place in the elite is based on blind loyalty to the leader and decided
strictly by the leader – we have a dictatorship (or a mafia). A democracy
is based on the governing through elective representatives.
The
notion of a governing by elite should not be foreign to anyone, even the folk
wisdom says that “a fish rots from the head down”, so, people know how the
governing happens. Governing means managing, and managing is a function of a
specific organ. In a body that organ is not a hart, not a liver, etc, in a body
that organ is a brain: a body with a weakened brain cannot sufficiently manage
its own living. In a society such an organ is elite.
The social mechanism is very simple. Historically, and for a foreseeable future, more than 90 % of human population is simply incapable of thinking for themselves beyond their everyday needs: people simply have no adequate education, no adequate experience. That is why for the answers to their questions they turn to "celebrities", i.e. to elite. When elite is adequate, the society runs smoothly. When elite begins shifting more and more away from the needs of the society as a whole, eventually it will be replaced by a new elite.
American elite has been gradually degrading. One of the signs of a degrading management (on all levels) is the fact that for a long period of time the quality of many products and services has also been in a decline.
The social mechanism is very simple. Historically, and for a foreseeable future, more than 90 % of human population is simply incapable of thinking for themselves beyond their everyday needs: people simply have no adequate education, no adequate experience. That is why for the answers to their questions they turn to "celebrities", i.e. to elite. When elite is adequate, the society runs smoothly. When elite begins shifting more and more away from the needs of the society as a whole, eventually it will be replaced by a new elite.
American elite has been gradually degrading. One of the signs of a degrading management (on all levels) is the fact that for a long period of time the quality of many products and services has also been in a decline.
When a
country is spinning into a social or economic decline, it happens because the
elite lost its touch with the reality and could not make adequate decisions anymore.
This may happen due to various reasons: deliberately limit all
communication only with people who agree, becoming lazy, arrogant,
overconfident, rigid,
overdosed. For example, there is an opinion that the demise of the Roman empire
was in part accelerated by the fact that many rich Roman citizens used water
delivered via lead
aqueducts. Anyway, no matter of the reasons, when the ruling class, the elite, bluntly begins associate the future of the country with their own future, the well-being of the country with their own well-being, we see the dusk of the social well-being of the country as a whole.
America
has been known in the world as the beacon of democracy executed via free
elections.
But the
human history knows countries in which elections only look like such (I had
been participating in such fake elections). So, the fact that people go to a
voting booth and drop a ballot does not necessarily mean that democracy has
been served. A lot depends on many other factors, including the average level
of education of the voters, opinion influence via mass media, cultural
traditions, and more.
Classification
and assessment of a governing type is very subjective; for example, there is an
opinion that the United States of America is not an actual democracy, but
a financial
oligarchy.
Whether
it is true or not, America, like all other countries, is ruled by its
own American elite, and as the matter of an oblivious fact, since the inception
of America, that elite has been vastly/mostly represented by white
males.
Any
significant social and economic changes in the fabric of the American society
is eventually rooted in the actions (or inaction) of the White Male
American Elite.
It this
piece, I want to describe several specific examples demonstrating that for the
last 30 years the white mail American elite – or WMAE (which probably does not
exceed 1 to 3 percent of the whole population) - has been gradually degrading.
Simply saying, WMAE has become much more stupid and idiotic than it is required
to provide an efficient and adequate governing of the Country.
I want
to stress that terms “stupid” and “idiotic” do not have any offensive meaning,
but used in their clinical/original sense. “Stupidity” means an
inability to think (e.g. due to biological reason). “Idiocy” means a refusal to think (usually due to psychological reason). “Idiots” are those people who due to their social status or official position are supposed to be smart, but make stupid decisions.
One may ask, why using so strong language, anyway?
Well, to stress my frustration with the actions of current politicians on both sides of the political political aisle. Because the actions of the current politicians will greatly affect my own living 15-20 years from now, and most probably, in a negative way (I have another post on this matter). Plus, I write for people who can hold their emotions in check. People whose emotions override their reasoning do not matter in politics because they are easily manipulated (an old Russian saying goes "Call me a pot, if it makes you feel better, just don't put me in an oven").
Thinking is a mental process requiring the host to be able to manage and navigate his/her thoughts in a specific direction. In order to enact thinking, the host needs to be aware of the broad context, of the informational landscape, of the map (so to speak) of the relevant knowledge, and also has to be able to operate with a large set of mental entities ("juggling several mental balls at the same time").
Well, to stress my frustration with the actions of current politicians on both sides of the political political aisle. Because the actions of the current politicians will greatly affect my own living 15-20 years from now, and most probably, in a negative way (I have another post on this matter). Plus, I write for people who can hold their emotions in check. People whose emotions override their reasoning do not matter in politics because they are easily manipulated (an old Russian saying goes "Call me a pot, if it makes you feel better, just don't put me in an oven").
Thinking is a mental process requiring the host to be able to manage and navigate his/her thoughts in a specific direction. In order to enact thinking, the host needs to be aware of the broad context, of the informational landscape, of the map (so to speak) of the relevant knowledge, and also has to be able to operate with a large set of mental entities ("juggling several mental balls at the same time").
This
ability can be blocked or severely diminished due to various reasons, for
example, due to genetic deficiencies or due to the absence of the relevant
practice (two of the most common reasons for stupidity). However, thinking
ability also can be blocked or severely diminished due to
psychological reasons such as arrogance, or overconfidence (“If it is not
my idea, it is a wrong idea”; “I have been doing this since you were little,
who are you to tell me what to do”, etc.). One special thinking blockage comes
from the fascination by the money (“If you are so smart why aren’t you rich?”)
or status (“If I am the boss, I am smart and you are dumb, if you are the boss,
you are smart and I am dumb”). People refuse to see that there is no
correlation between intelligence and social success; if
it was, Albert Einstein would have been the richest person of all time.
One may
say that I call people “stupid” or “idiotic” simply because they do not share
my logic. That is not the case, though. I have no goal to teach the Republicans
or the Democrats what to do. My goal is simply to demonstrate that what
they do contradicts the goals they claim they want to achieve, that their
own actions lead to the results opposite to the goals they declare, and that
they refuse to even consider this as an option, and that is what is called
stupid or idiotic.
1. My
first point is about both, the Republicans and the Democrats.
Here and
below it is to be assumed that when I write “the Republicans” or “the
Democrats” I only mean the top members of the parties, and their top donors, what
is called “an elite” (again, probably about 1 to 3 percent of the American
population).
In order
to govern efficiently and adequately, a ruling elite (a stratum, a class, a
group) needs to have a certain number of representatives who are smart and
knowledgeable and capable of thinking, capable of conducting a
complicated logical analysis based on a vast amount of information, and capable
of making difficult decisions (the rule of thumb says that this group
should comprise at least about 80 % of the elite). When the percentage of
stupid or idiotic people in the elite rises, and crosses some critical level,
the elite cannot provide anymore an efficient governing and becomes at risk of
being replaced. Historically, the process of elite degradation leads to a
social and/or economic spiraling down, unrest, chaos, which, since it is
coupled with more bad decisions, leads to more chaos, and more bad decisions,
and may lead to a social implosion or explosion (a.k.a. a revolution: there are many books on this matter, written by people with opposite views on the reasons for social evolution, for example, Karl Marx, or Oswald Spengler).
One of
the most serious problems of WMAE is their religious belief into American
exceptionalism. It is one thing to inspire citizens by uplifting slogans; that
is a strong propaganda point used by all governments in all countries. But it
is absolutely another thing to be delusional about the actual state of
political and economical affairs, to ignore the laws of history and to assume
that a country can be singled out from the forces of those laws, that a country
can be above the laws which govern social and economic changes. And that is exactly
what the majority of WMAE believes. And that is why their actions contradict
their goal – which is the prosperity of American society (at least the say so).
It
should be noted, that different parts of the elite may have different views on
what “the prosperity of American society” means. However, the growing gap
between their views and the view of the majority of the citizens is one of the
reasons the elite is becoming obsolete; and inability to recognize this growing
gap, and the stubborn clinging on the outdated views is another reason why the
elite is becoming obsolete, and eventually replaced.
There is
a legal principle which says that unawareness about a law does not exclude from
the requirement for following that law, and does not excuse breaking the law.
This principle, though, is just a copy of the governing scientific principle in
physics, or any other science. One cannot break a law of nature. One can try,
but one will be punished by the nature (sometime by the death). Laws only can
be discovered, described and applied. Everyone who thinks differently should
take an airplane built on the assumption that the acceleration due to the
Earth’s gravity is 10 m/s2 (or 30 ft/s2), because
round numbers are simpler to use (check this link about the
Indiana PI bill, it is hilarious!).
WMAE
simply does not believe in the existence of the laws which govern human
history. That is why WMAE is wasting the precious time on reinventing a wheel,
or even refusing to accept that they need a "wheel". As a person of
science, I always analyze a phenomenon by developing a simple model which would
grasp the essence of the phenomenon. The simplest model (but, naturally, wrong
in many other ways) of social changes has been offered by Karl Marx. And for all Marx deniers - this is what Alan Greenspan said about "Das Kapital".
Nowadays, we could paraphrase Marx's approach by saying, that the reason for a social change is a large and growing disconnect between the way wealth is being created and the way wealth is being distributed. For example, in the last 30 years the large portion of wealth creation has been shifted from manufacturing to financial manipulations (this is not the only shift, but one of the most visible). However, the structure of the wealth distribution has not changed (only a very limited number of people can participate in this type of wealth creation), and as the result of that, a vast portion of newly created wealth has been funneling to a tiny percentage of a population. When all financial gains go only to the top, but all the losses are spread over the working folks, no worker will really care about fundamental theory of economics. Instead workers will be looking for the "Savior", a.k.a. Trump (and someone needs to tell this to the Democrats). Infamous “income inequality” is not the actual problem, the actual problem is income insufficiency, i.e. when a large portion of a population is poor and - which is much more important - has no real opportunity to change it. For the Republicans, true people are only those who look and think like them. The Republicans base their policies on the assumption that most people (not them, though) are lazy and stupid and need to be guided through life by a strong shepherd. But the Democrats cannot offer anything better because they simply don’t have any philosophy about human behavior except “people are nice”. Hence, the only idea the Democrats came up with is "redistribution of wealth via taxation". But the majority of big donors to the Democrats do not feel good about redistribution of wealth. Money talks louder than the ideals, especially if those ideals are very vague, not specific.
Nowadays, we could paraphrase Marx's approach by saying, that the reason for a social change is a large and growing disconnect between the way wealth is being created and the way wealth is being distributed. For example, in the last 30 years the large portion of wealth creation has been shifted from manufacturing to financial manipulations (this is not the only shift, but one of the most visible). However, the structure of the wealth distribution has not changed (only a very limited number of people can participate in this type of wealth creation), and as the result of that, a vast portion of newly created wealth has been funneling to a tiny percentage of a population. When all financial gains go only to the top, but all the losses are spread over the working folks, no worker will really care about fundamental theory of economics. Instead workers will be looking for the "Savior", a.k.a. Trump (and someone needs to tell this to the Democrats). Infamous “income inequality” is not the actual problem, the actual problem is income insufficiency, i.e. when a large portion of a population is poor and - which is much more important - has no real opportunity to change it. For the Republicans, true people are only those who look and think like them. The Republicans base their policies on the assumption that most people (not them, though) are lazy and stupid and need to be guided through life by a strong shepherd. But the Democrats cannot offer anything better because they simply don’t have any philosophy about human behavior except “people are nice”. Hence, the only idea the Democrats came up with is "redistribution of wealth via taxation". But the majority of big donors to the Democrats do not feel good about redistribution of wealth. Money talks louder than the ideals, especially if those ideals are very vague, not specific.
When one
cell in a body “decides” that it is the most important one and starts
converting all other cells into itself (“Agent Smith” in “The Matrix
Revolutions”), the body eventually dies, and we call it “cancer”. Financial
manipulations have become such a social cancer, which – if not cured or at least contained –
will eventually lead to a social death of the Country.
For a
physicist, a social change is just an example of a phase transition. It happens
when one stable phase (e.g. ice) is replaced by another stable phase (e.g.
water), but in between there is state with a chaotic and unpredictable behavior
(e.g. a mixture of ice and water). In physics, there are models which could
help understand this type of a transition in any area, including social. In
sociology that state with a chaotic and unpredictable behavior is called a
revolution (which can be bloody, or soft).
A social
revolution is always accompanied by the process of an elite replacement, i.e.
when one dominant elite is gradually (or drastically) replaced by a new elite
(some smart representatives of the outgoing elite can be accepted as partners
into a new upcoming elite, if they are able to detach themselves from outdated
views and principles).
The
roots of American exceptionalism are very simple – for a long period of time America
has been occupying an exceptional place among all other countries. However, an
honest historical analysis demonstrates that American influence in the world
has significantly grow after the WWII. In 1945 there was only one major country
in the whole world which economy was not just spared from devastation, but had
significantly grown. Europe, Russia, Japan were in ruins. Losses America had
during WWII were much smaller than the losses of other countries. America had
so much economic power, it was like racing a marathon when everyone had to
start from the start line but one runner started one mile before the finish
line.
For decades, using its enormous economic power America has been able to attract the best and brightest minds from all over the world. Clearly, the world is very different today than it was about 70 or even 30 years ago (the "runners" are not so far from each other anymore). But WMAE does not want to accept this change as a fact. Hence, all decisions WMAE makes are based on the models which do not describe the current state of the world. Hence, the results from those decisions will inevitably contradict the original goals those decisions had been made for.
For decades, using its enormous economic power America has been able to attract the best and brightest minds from all over the world. Clearly, the world is very different today than it was about 70 or even 30 years ago (the "runners" are not so far from each other anymore). But WMAE does not want to accept this change as a fact. Hence, all decisions WMAE makes are based on the models which do not describe the current state of the world. Hence, the results from those decisions will inevitably contradict the original goals those decisions had been made for.
2. The
Republicans wage a war on public education. I will return to this issue later.
Here I want to point at the fact that the Democrats have no idea what to do
about public education. They say they want to lift it up, to bring it to the
much higher level, but everything they have been trying to do for the last 30
years has not made any significant difference. That is not a problem per se.
The problem is that the Democrats refuse to accept the fact that what they do
does not work. Hence, they are bound to remain being “insane” (in accordance
with the Albert Einstein’s definition). One of the reasons, though, that the
Democrats do not make any progress in public education is that they do not
really want to have that progress, they are much more interested in fighting
the fight than in winning it (keeps them relevant). For decades, they have been
stuck it the useless confrontation between charters and regular public schools,
between merit pay and unions. It is like a ship is sinking because it has
thousand holes, and there are only ten pegs, and instead of making more pegs
(i.e. preparing more good teachers)
the crew is just fighting for those ten pegs, and then whoever grabs a peg fight for what color it should be
painted, or how to accessorize it. If the solution could be found within this
framework, it would
have been found a long time ago. Unfortunately, America
does not have a strong social force which would fight for the highest
possible quality of public education for all. Political events of the last
couple of years have clearly proved that the Democrats badly need a massive
population of an educated people. However, instead of approaching the problem as
a whole the Democrats (including their donors) got bogged down into myriads of
their small pet projects scattered around the Country. This type of heavy
self-involvement, narcissism, inability to see a bigger picture is a clear sign
of an intellectual degradation.
3. The
Republicans wage a war on public education. The reason for this war is obvious
for anyone who wants to see – race. It is not a secret that the vast majority
of failing public schools is located in the district with the predominantly
minority (for now) population. My point is not that this is bad (this is!). But
in this piece, I am saying that this policy is bad for the
Republicans. And they are just not smart enough to see it. They may
accept the fact that the growth of the non-white population is inevitable,
unavoidable, and unstoppable. But they decided to focus all the energy on
building the political machinery which would exclude the non-white population
from political power (e.g. incarceration, voter IDs, poor education, and poor food). In the country with only one political force (Russia,
China) that could work. But in America this strategy is bound to eventually
fail. It may temporarily work (and it has!), but more and more people finally
start seeing the slowly moving anti-democratic coup and begin mobilize against
it. Down the road, eventually and inevitably non-white Americans together with
anti-conservative white Americans (not from WMAE) will gain the political power
strong enough to override whatever barriers the Republicans will be able to
build.
What the Republicans should start doing for their own sake is making sure that people who will eventually come to the power will be educated enough to use that power for the benefits of all, including them, the Republicans.
What the Republicans should start doing for their own sake is making sure that people who will eventually come to the power will be educated enough to use that power for the benefits of all, including them, the Republicans.
4. The
Republicans blame their loss of political power on the fact that America becoming "browner". The succeeded to agitate enough white voters to take over all three branches of the political power. However, this victory is only temporary. The Republicans need to accept the hard truth that if they want to have a fair chance on sharing the power with the Democrats, they have to figure our the way to attract non-white voters. The problem is that for centuries white Americans never had the need for attracting non-white voters. In fact, America is just entering the new era when white politicians can only win with the support of non-white voters. The Democrats got it sooner than the Republicans and effectively use ideas appealing to non-white voters. The Republicans are too deep in their "Conservative" agenda; it is hard for them to see that what they call "conservatism" in reality is "white preference". Republican "Conservatism" is like saying "we have many highways and you can be anywhere you want to" to people who already have a car, and then inviting to join them people who can only travel on feet. First, they need to help everyone get a car. Helping non-white voters to elevate their economic standing would greatly benefit the Republicans, but that's not going to happen any soon, because the Republicans way too deep in fighting for "white preference" (and the Democrats are way to rigid to use this).
5. The Republicans wage a war on women, specifically, on white women. In their “defense”, they do not understand that they do it. Recently we all had another confirmation of how stupid (or idiotic) the Republicans are. It happened when American representatives defended the use of the artificial milk for babies. No sane person would ever agree that an artificial milk is better for infants than the natural mother’s milk. The very goal of the artificial milk was using it when a mother could not produce enough milk for her baby. Then things got out of hands. The result is the rise of allergies, reproductive disorders, immune system deficiencies, and organ damage. But the main point is that the Republicans support measures which defeat one of their own main goals – which is to increase the population of white people. If they would be smart enough they would support every measure other developed countries already have, such as a paid maternity leave, paid kindergarten, etc. Even abortions! The reason the Republicans do not do any of this is because they are afraid of the rise of non-white population who would benefit from all that social support for women. In reality, non-white families do not rely much on that type of support because those families are traditionally large, and family members traditionally support each other. Who would benefit the most from all forms of a women social support is white women! But the Republicans are too stupid or idiotic to see that (again, in the original sense of the words “stupid” and “idiotic”).
5. The Republicans wage a war on women, specifically, on white women. In their “defense”, they do not understand that they do it. Recently we all had another confirmation of how stupid (or idiotic) the Republicans are. It happened when American representatives defended the use of the artificial milk for babies. No sane person would ever agree that an artificial milk is better for infants than the natural mother’s milk. The very goal of the artificial milk was using it when a mother could not produce enough milk for her baby. Then things got out of hands. The result is the rise of allergies, reproductive disorders, immune system deficiencies, and organ damage. But the main point is that the Republicans support measures which defeat one of their own main goals – which is to increase the population of white people. If they would be smart enough they would support every measure other developed countries already have, such as a paid maternity leave, paid kindergarten, etc. Even abortions! The reason the Republicans do not do any of this is because they are afraid of the rise of non-white population who would benefit from all that social support for women. In reality, non-white families do not rely much on that type of support because those families are traditionally large, and family members traditionally support each other. Who would benefit the most from all forms of a women social support is white women! But the Republicans are too stupid or idiotic to see that (again, in the original sense of the words “stupid” and “idiotic”).
6.
Denying the existence of a climate change and the human factor in it is just
stupid. Making the Earth inhabitable does not help anyone. There is no doubt that climate changes. Some people say that it happens cyclical, and humans are not responsible. Maybe even so. But the trivial logic says that if there are two possible theories, one should be preparing for the one with the worst outcomes. If that outcome will not happen - be happy about it! But it will be much worse it the worst outcome will happen and no one will be ready for it. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand this logic. The only people who cannot a refuse to follow it are stupid or idiots.
7. The
political strategy of the Democrats is trivial, outdated, and does not reflect
new social fabric of the society. They have no idea about a complicated political
machinery. Their strategy is trivial - inventing a new idea and screaming
it out as loud as possible (but only if that idea does no upset rich
donors).
A good
recent example of this mentality is Chris Hughes, who basically accepted in his
book that his best and only life achievement was sharing a room with Mark
Zuckerberg. But by some reason he convinced himself that his support for the
idea of basic
income would make all the difference in the world.
A
motivational speaker or an educator is not a politician. In order to preserve
his legacy as "fair and balanced" President Barack Obama removed himself from the party politics. Now, his legacy is Donald Trump. Have you watched “The
Manchester by the Sea?” That movie is about Obama leaving the White House. The
Republican puppet masters are much smarter on the matter of political machinery
than the Democrats. I have many post on the issue and address everyone to this
blog: www.the3dforce.us (e.g.
“Democratic Party
Leaders Have No Vision”, or “What does the Sanders
Institute Need to Do?”). This is why I do not believe in the “blue wave”
coming any soon. The Democrats are so self-involved (2016 has been erased from
the memory as a bad dream), so they would really need another shock to at least
start thinking outside of their traditional views. The first step the Democrats
need to do is to accept the fact that the Donald Trump’s
presidency is mostly their fault! Like in the 12-step program, until one
makes the first step, expecting any improvement is just a wishful
thinking.
The Democrats refuse accept the fact that the contemporary politics is not based on the competition of ideas, it is based on the competition of characters. People who stick with the Democrats do it because they just follow a tradition; they are just fans of some politicians, like there are fans of sport teams or actors or singers. But they do not decide the outcomes of the elections. The outcomes of the elections are decided by the independents/unenrolled. Those people simply don't believe that the Democrats have balls to deliver on their promises, or that they just have balls. But to demonstrate the character the Democrats should not go for the Republicans; they should go for the Democrats who are responsible for the the failing party politics of the last decades.The Democrats have no chance of winning the Presidency until they openly accept that pushing for Hillary Clinton was a big mistake. There is at least one obvious feature which all democrats can agree on about Hillary Clinton - she was not a uniter, she was a divider, like Trump; remember "baskets of deplorables"? The American leader who wants to beat Trump have to be seen as politicians for all Americans, even for "deplorables". Saying that millions of American are stupid is not smart. That may be right, but there has to be someone else who can pronounce it. This is a trivial rule of political machinery, but the Democrats have no idea about it.
BTW: the best thing what the retired President Obama and his foundation can do for the Country now is to initiate and run a deep investigation into why millions Republicans, and them millions of Americans selected voting for Trump over all other candidates. Of course, if he is brave enough to face the results.
BTW: the best thing what the retired President Obama and his foundation can do for the Country now is to initiate and run a deep investigation into why millions Republicans, and them millions of Americans selected voting for Trump over all other candidates. Of course, if he is brave enough to face the results.
8. The
Democrats simply do not understand what moves the Republican party and why it
is getting closer and closer aligned with Russia. The fact of the matter is
that the Republicans are just American Bolsheviks.
9. The
fight against the border wall clearly demonstrates inability of the Democrats
to think.
For the
Republicans the wall is a strong talking point, a good propaganda piece. Many
Americans, especially in rural areas, do not like immigrants and against
immigration (illegal and legal). For a long period of time
their economic status has been declining and "those damn immigrants"
turned out to be a good scapegoat. Of course, immigrants have nothing to do
with the economic decline. Of course, the wall will not solve anything. If
starting tomorrow no immigrant would enter the Country, that would not stop the
inevitable - the demographic switch which will make the whites a minority.
Building the wall to curb the demographic rise of minorities is like peeing on
sparks falling down from a burning house - "at least I am doing something
about it!". For the main goal of the Republicans the wall is useless. But
that is exactly why the Democrats have to stop fighting it and need to embrace
it, and to use
the wall as a bargaining piece. How many billions will it cost? Fine.
Go. But in return, we want ten times more in the budget for our programs
(immigration reform, healthcare, free colleges, etc. - whatever they want).
Even if the wall will be built, it will not affect anything for those rural
Americans, hence, it can become a good talking point for the Democrats ("we
told you that, remember?"). Plus, the Democrats can bargain that large
portion of the jobs on the wall would go to low income Americans.
But the most important lesson from the "wall situation" is that the Democrats refuse to see how important the problem of immigration is, even for many liberally-inclined voters. And the majority of Americans want to make the immigration policy tougher. For the Democrats it is a chance to present the policy which is tough but humane (in contrast with what is happening now).
"Republicans say America is for Americans! We, the Democrats say that America is for ALL Americans! Many people who came here illegally have become Americans and deserve the path to the citizenship. But only after we close the doors for future illegal immigration. And we don't need a wall for that. We may block the parts of the border by a wall, or a fence, or anything our border patrol will recommend us to do. But our weapon will be our humane approach to people seeking entering our Country. We will not separate families. But we will return them back to the country they cam from. And we will give them a chance to apply for refuge legally, in their own country. For that we will boost our embassies, we will work closely with the governments of those countries to ensure that no one returned back would be harmed. We will significantly increase our media presence, we will make everyone in those countries know that the only way to enter America is the legal path through our embassies. It will take money, it will take resources, but those resources are nothing compared to how much "the wall" and refuge camps and ICE intensification would cost to us, to the U.S."
But the most important lesson from the "wall situation" is that the Democrats refuse to see how important the problem of immigration is, even for many liberally-inclined voters. And the majority of Americans want to make the immigration policy tougher. For the Democrats it is a chance to present the policy which is tough but humane (in contrast with what is happening now).
"Republicans say America is for Americans! We, the Democrats say that America is for ALL Americans! Many people who came here illegally have become Americans and deserve the path to the citizenship. But only after we close the doors for future illegal immigration. And we don't need a wall for that. We may block the parts of the border by a wall, or a fence, or anything our border patrol will recommend us to do. But our weapon will be our humane approach to people seeking entering our Country. We will not separate families. But we will return them back to the country they cam from. And we will give them a chance to apply for refuge legally, in their own country. For that we will boost our embassies, we will work closely with the governments of those countries to ensure that no one returned back would be harmed. We will significantly increase our media presence, we will make everyone in those countries know that the only way to enter America is the legal path through our embassies. It will take money, it will take resources, but those resources are nothing compared to how much "the wall" and refuge camps and ICE intensification would cost to us, to the U.S."
10. The Democrats have been accusing the Republicans in voter suppression. But what did the Democrats really did to help people to vote? Blaming and pointing fingers is not politics. They could have establish mobile groups helping people to get an ID, to register, even to pay, say, $10 for time people spend on paperwork. There are actions which could have been done.
I already said that the Democrat have no idea about political machinery. Otherwise they could win all the tight races (but, evidently, they will wait until the Republicans will start using this method first). They should have embraced independent candidates. "We, Democrats, out country ahead of us! Our mission in these elections is to defeat Republicans, if independents could do it better than us, so be it. But we will also fight tooth and nails. We make an agreement with all non-Republican candidates, that two weeks before the election day we all turn to support the candidate who has the most chances to be elected, to beat the Republicans". If they would have started this strategy a year ago by now people, the supporters of the other candidates, would have get used to the idea to vote for the Democrats, and would give them the edge. BTW: that is what the third party really IS for! Democrats have political advisers who have no knowledge of political history at all.
11. The Democrats say they are on the side of the minorities. But that is all they do. Say. They have not been able to elevate public education to the sufficient level. The have not been able to provide robust job security or the poor (when many whites have become poor, or at least poorer, the Democrats have not been able to offer a robust employment strategy which would prevent Trump from winning). But the most indicative sign of the inability of the Democrats to deliver on their promises it is inability of the Democrats to attract minority voters. "For non-Hispanic blacks, turnout rates decreased in 2016 for every age group." Many African-Americans simply do not trust the Democrats the same way they do not trust the Republicans. What do the Democrats do about it? Nothing. Whatever the Democrats try to promote has nothing to do specifically with African-Americans. Why? My answer is simple - because the Democrats do not really want to do anything about it. Because if they did want to do something about it, they could have started promoting long ago a very simple idea. The idea of (the name is tentative) "The Federal African-American Restoration Trust". Every U.S. individual or a corporation - no exceptions - would have to pay (the number is tentative) 0.5 % of an annual income in that Trust. The Trust would be run by prominent African-American leaders appointed by the NAACP. What African-American wouldn't support this idea by voting for people who would promise to realize it? Of course, some white democrats would oppose on the basis this may alienate white voters. And most probably it will, but not because the idea is wrong because the Democrats are not smart enough to promote it in the right way. They need to develop an ideological umbrella for the whole Democratic party. At different levels and places different Democratic leaders would employ agendas tuned up to the level and location. But the overarching theme should be the same for all. And it is not "we are against ..." whatever it may be. It is "we all are for ..." What for - depends on the specific historic period. For the current period and for the foreseeable future this overarching theme is Fairness. America is the country of the fairness for all. The history of America is the history of fixing unfair treatment to one group after another. Now is the time for the another step.
BTW: I have already been writing that the Democrats cannot win if they don't change they tactical approaches to elections. For example, since the day one after the 2016 loss they should have been counter-campaigning Trump, the top Democratic figures should have been doing it in concert (no Democrat alone can take Trump down). Looking into 2020, the Democrats need to show people that they are serious about doing things new way. For that they need to adopt a European stile, i.e. not just push for a president, but offer the whole possible cabinet (and rival presidential candidates should include each other).
12. The Russia card is being played by the both parties, and both parties do it in the stupidest way possible.
I already said that the Democrat have no idea about political machinery. Otherwise they could win all the tight races (but, evidently, they will wait until the Republicans will start using this method first). They should have embraced independent candidates. "We, Democrats, out country ahead of us! Our mission in these elections is to defeat Republicans, if independents could do it better than us, so be it. But we will also fight tooth and nails. We make an agreement with all non-Republican candidates, that two weeks before the election day we all turn to support the candidate who has the most chances to be elected, to beat the Republicans". If they would have started this strategy a year ago by now people, the supporters of the other candidates, would have get used to the idea to vote for the Democrats, and would give them the edge. BTW: that is what the third party really IS for! Democrats have political advisers who have no knowledge of political history at all.
11. The Democrats say they are on the side of the minorities. But that is all they do. Say. They have not been able to elevate public education to the sufficient level. The have not been able to provide robust job security or the poor (when many whites have become poor, or at least poorer, the Democrats have not been able to offer a robust employment strategy which would prevent Trump from winning). But the most indicative sign of the inability of the Democrats to deliver on their promises it is inability of the Democrats to attract minority voters. "For non-Hispanic blacks, turnout rates decreased in 2016 for every age group." Many African-Americans simply do not trust the Democrats the same way they do not trust the Republicans. What do the Democrats do about it? Nothing. Whatever the Democrats try to promote has nothing to do specifically with African-Americans. Why? My answer is simple - because the Democrats do not really want to do anything about it. Because if they did want to do something about it, they could have started promoting long ago a very simple idea. The idea of (the name is tentative) "The Federal African-American Restoration Trust". Every U.S. individual or a corporation - no exceptions - would have to pay (the number is tentative) 0.5 % of an annual income in that Trust. The Trust would be run by prominent African-American leaders appointed by the NAACP. What African-American wouldn't support this idea by voting for people who would promise to realize it? Of course, some white democrats would oppose on the basis this may alienate white voters. And most probably it will, but not because the idea is wrong because the Democrats are not smart enough to promote it in the right way. They need to develop an ideological umbrella for the whole Democratic party. At different levels and places different Democratic leaders would employ agendas tuned up to the level and location. But the overarching theme should be the same for all. And it is not "we are against ..." whatever it may be. It is "we all are for ..." What for - depends on the specific historic period. For the current period and for the foreseeable future this overarching theme is Fairness. America is the country of the fairness for all. The history of America is the history of fixing unfair treatment to one group after another. Now is the time for the another step.
BTW: I have already been writing that the Democrats cannot win if they don't change they tactical approaches to elections. For example, since the day one after the 2016 loss they should have been counter-campaigning Trump, the top Democratic figures should have been doing it in concert (no Democrat alone can take Trump down). Looking into 2020, the Democrats need to show people that they are serious about doing things new way. For that they need to adopt a European stile, i.e. not just push for a president, but offer the whole possible cabinet (and rival presidential candidates should include each other).
12. The Russia card is being played by the both parties, and both parties do it in the stupidest way possible.
Of course,
Russia interfered in 2016! Russia has been interfering, is interfering, and
will be interfering. And expecting from Russia
something different was and is stupid! BTW: everyone who wants to know,
knows that America is also not so innocent (the examples are numerous, e.g.
check the "failing" NYT).
Well, this time Russia outplayed American forces. Let’s see who will win the
next round.
What the
Democrats need to do is to get in the head of the #1 Russian – Vladimir Putin.
Vladimir
Putin hates America. He hates America for breaking up the USSR. He believes
that without American intrusion that would not happen. And he will do
everything he can to get back at America (including the secession of Texas, if
possible) – with a smile on his face. So, someone in the US counterintelligence should
start thinking like Putin, trying to prevent the next “Russian-lead
technological/political/social 9/11” (remember the “failure of imagination”?).
Russia
is a strong and very resourceful country with a long and difficult history.
Russia knew riots and revolutions; wars, starvation and prosperity. Russia won
WWII (the allies entered the active war actions in Europe only when they
realized that Russia could and would finish Hitler without any help). Russia rebuilt
itself after WWII. Russia built an atomic bomb, a hydrogen bomb, sent a
cosmonaut into the space. And Russian people know that they can do great and
difficult things, hence they are confident they will survive any serious
turmoil. Russian people are ready to sacrifice for the greatness of the
Country. And also, due to a thousand of years of monarchy, Russian people do
not believe in democracy, and in a case of a crisis always seek for a “Good
Tsar” to rescue the Country.
And the
new “Good Tsar” delivered on the promises, and established a stable and
relatively good living for many Russians (if there is anything
"positive" in a dictatorship it is stability, hence predictability –
BTW, one of the reasons why big businesses do not mind
dictatorships).
Putin
knows that eventually he will have to step down. And when that happens he wants
to leave Russia in the strongest state possible (that is what differs him from
Trump, who only cares about his personal wealth and popularity, and Trump’s
enablers, who only care about remaining in power). That is why Putin will never
return Crimea to Ukraine. Putin has a very long term strategy (as a part of
this strategy he replaced an old communist religion/ideology with an even older Russian orthodox religion, so freedom
of thinking is not coming to Russia any soon). After Bolshevik's coup in 1917
no country would trade with Russia. But eventually money started to talk;
businesses started to deal with Russia. Sooner or later this will happen again.
At the worst, current politicians will eventually retire and new ones will not
be taking Crimea so deeply to a hart.
American
Democratic strategists should start learning from Putin, i.e. they should start
doing what the title suggests – developing a long-term strategy (not strategery).
To
everyone who considers himself/herself as a solder for progress I would say:
* Want
to make a difference? Be different.
* Want
to change the world? First, change yourself.
Conclusion:
There are many signs
indicating the degradation of the WMAE in the last 30 years. Theoretically,
there is a chance that the people who are currently in the power will be able
to bend American democracy and prolong their reign for several more decades
(“1984”). If that happens, the American leadership in the world would
definitely go to the end (the American decline will inevitably lead to the loss
of its great status). But the Republicans and their puppet master do not care
about that. Their motto is "Après
nous, le déluge". They
prefer to rule in a declined America than being removed from power in a strong
America. So, there is no doubt in mine mind that the process of the
WMAE degradation will continue. The question is – will
they drag the whole Country down with them?
Once in
a while I tell my students my view on something outside of physics. I do not
give an advice, I rather offer a question. This is what I said (more or less)
after the 2016 election.
Watch
out!
America
is in a very unstable situation. America is at a fork. No one knows what will
happen and how it will end (and not just in America, but in the whole world;
the phase transition is happening all over the world, and no one knows where
will it lead).
If you
want to make sure that your future, and the future of your family will be
bright, you have to be engaged, you have to pay attention to the events.
Do not
trust anyone, question everyone, think for yourself (BTW: the essence of the scientific way of thinking).
If
America would become “American Russia” or “Russian America” it would not affect
my life at all. I have seen it; I know what it’s like. I could even move back
to Russia. It would not make much difference anymore, but I could have a
comfortable life using my American dollars, making some extra by teaching
English or math and physics in English (as I tell my students, always have a
backup plan, and a backup plan for the backup plan).
I would
be fine.
But
what would YOU do if that would happen?
There are many parameters used by economists, sociologists, politicians to assess the overall state of the society. For me, the society is in a good state when the majority of its people feel themselves more or less happy. In the end, the missions of the government - from my point of view - is to help people to feel happy about their life, because that means people feel fulfilled, successful, confident in the future. And the simplest way to assess the general state of unhappiness is to look at the rate of a suicide in a country. According to data, since 2001 the total number of suicides in the U.S. has been steadily growing.
We live in the degradation phase.
Why is it happening?
Everyone who still has this question should re-read this post.
Or read this book: https://youtu.be/tPk9HSLagVg
Appendix II
I hope you understand, I have more examples. Some additional are on this political blog: http://www.the3dforce.us/ - lots of posts and the matter.
Appendix III
Some Shorties (a.k.a. tweets):
It sounds like tautology, but simple things are simple.
I write on #education http://www.Cognisity.How and #politics http://www.the3dforce.us = 2 sides of the same coin.
But to keep myself sane practice only one (between the #votes) I don't need reading again and again new
revelations about #Trump and #Republicans to vote against.
I don't trust in ability of #Democrats to deliver the needed social changes I
don't trust in willingness of #Republicans to make those I don't see any other
strong #political force So, I will vote against #GOP But isn't the time come for creating 3d force? http://www.the3dforce.us/2017/04/3dparty.html
youtu.be/tPk9HSLagVg
Agree or
disagree, but spend 30 (thirty! I know, I know) minutes to watch it. Would also
help setting up many small round tables with your friends (or enemies) to
discuss. May give a boost to some ideas.
1
2 That's an exaggeration
1 Better be ready to the worst-case scenario and be happy it does not happen than hope for happy ending and be crashed
2 Nah, too much work
To Michael
Moor: per your question
1. Stop emotions
2. Start thinking
3. Start reading - at least one hour every day -
or all your energy is empty
4. In November vote against #Republicans
5. Be ready to nothing good any soon
6. Begin realization that neither party will
bring the solution
7. Keep thinking
8. Keep reading
9. Start reorganize
After the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh
The transcripts
of the short video made as the reaction
to the Supreme Court Hearings
Hello,
I'm
doctor Valentin Voroshilov.
I am
making this video in a traffic on my way to work.
It’s
been a while since my last video commentary, but the situation with the Supreme
Court hearings forces me to make the following statement.
Democrats
are gutless idiots.
I've
been waiting to hear a statement from Chuck Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi, or Senator
Sanders, or Senator Warren, or from new stars of the Democratic party, saying
something like this.
“I,
Chuck Schumer promise you that Brett Kavanaugh will not be a Supreme Court
Justice.
In
current circumstances, he may be confirmed because Republicans have lost any
moral limits, they cheat, they lie and deceive, they bend rules.
But
I, Chuck Schumer, promise you that we, Senate and House Democrats, will not
stop never ever until we will impeach Brett Kavanaugh for lying under oath.
President
Trump in not forever, and the FBI investigation can and will be done as
thorough as it needs to be done.”
Well,
evidently democrats are not smart enough and not brave enough to make such a
statement.
They
still live in the era when politics was done by competing ideas. But that era
is dead. It died 2 years ago. These days politics is done be the competition of
characters.
And
this is what no single Democrat demonstrates so far.
Thank
you.
And thank you, World,
for our existence.
Appendix I
By electing Donald Trump America marked the end of the era of American exceptionalism. There is nothing new - from the point of view of human history - in electing an opportunist who rides a wave of populism addressing emotions of an angry mob. This process has a name "elite degradation".
Appendix II
I know that calling Democrats "gutless idiots" is not nice, and may even be not polite.
So, why do I use strong language?
To make a point. To stress the striking difference between how Chuck Schumer, et. all, represent themselves ("smart and fearless fighters") and what their actions actually tell about them.
Of course, I do not use such language in my everyday life, I follow general social conventions. But I believe that many people confuse what means "being polite" and "being nice".
Appendix III
On February 21, 2017, I wrote an open letter two four top Democrats, where I laid out the strategy for countering out Donald Trump. If that strategy would have been adopted, we would not have to push Democrats for an impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice. In followup publications I explained why my strategy has not been adopted.
Appendix I
By electing Donald Trump America marked the end of the era of American exceptionalism. There is nothing new - from the point of view of human history - in electing an opportunist who rides a wave of populism addressing emotions of an angry mob. This process has a name "elite degradation".
Appendix II
I know that calling Democrats "gutless idiots" is not nice, and may even be not polite.
So, why do I use strong language?
To make a point. To stress the striking difference between how Chuck Schumer, et. all, represent themselves ("smart and fearless fighters") and what their actions actually tell about them.
Of course, I do not use such language in my everyday life, I follow general social conventions. But I believe that many people confuse what means "being polite" and "being nice".
Appendix III
On February 21, 2017, I wrote an open letter two four top Democrats, where I laid out the strategy for countering out Donald Trump. If that strategy would have been adopted, we would not have to push Democrats for an impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice. In followup publications I explained why my strategy has not been adopted.
The
Kavanaugh confirmation will give a boost to anti-Trump forces. But what does it
tell about a force if it needs to be boosted by something awful in order
to start acting?
I still hope that in November Democrats will take the Congress back. However, I am positive that if that happens, they will make a very wrong conclusions from that victory. They will think that people again love Democrats more than Republicans. In realty, it would only mean that people finally hate Democrats less than Republicans. And this is why I predict that even if Democrats will take back the Congress, they will not be able to demonstrate to American people anything positive - action-wise (remember the Bush-era?). And because of that, they will be crashed in 2020.
I still hope that in November Democrats will take the Congress back. However, I am positive that if that happens, they will make a very wrong conclusions from that victory. They will think that people again love Democrats more than Republicans. In realty, it would only mean that people finally hate Democrats less than Republicans. And this is why I predict that even if Democrats will take back the Congress, they will not be able to demonstrate to American people anything positive - action-wise (remember the Bush-era?). And because of that, they will be crashed in 2020.
Because loudly screaming nice ideas
is NOT enough any more.
People need ACTIONS!
But thinking so far ahead is something what
Democrats (almost) never do. Here is the evidence.
1st the GOP came for gerrymandering.
The Democrats did
nothing.
Then the Republicans came for Voter ID.
The Democrats did
nothing.
Next Conservatives came for lower level judges
The Democrats did
nothing.
Then Christians came for across Country local TV
networks.
The Democrats did
nothing.
And now misogynists came for a Supreme Court
Justice.
And the Democrats
still do nothing.
Because
screaming is NOT acting.
But on November 6 we have to vote against any GOP candidate,
hence for Democrats.
However, on the next day (!) we have to start asking our
beloved Democrats - WTF?!
And start looking for the replacements.
Because if not drastically changed, this road leads to "Hail Our God Given
Dictator".
Read how rich philanthropists failed democracy (from “Inside
Philanthropy”).
No comments:
Post a Comment