Over the last month or two a number of radical right Trump supporters have been commenting here with increasing frequency. I had to ban one for name calling and insulting people. That came after two warnings not to do that.
But there's other concerns. One is the smug arrogance of some Trump supporters that manifests as complete disregard for how other people may feel about the president's rhetoric and actions. It appears that, at least for online interactions, most of his supporters (~97% ?) revel in trying to provoke emotional responses from people who oppose the president. To me, that amounts to open contempt for people in disagreement. In my opinion, it is offensive and more importantly, socially damaging.
The attitude of open contempt to the political opposition is exactly the attitude that America's enemies are now working full time to foment among Americans. Based on what I have read about how democracies fall to tyrants, fomenting the kind of disrespect and contempt we now see among most Trump supporters is exactly what America's enemies want to achieve. Like Trump, our enemies hate transparency, a free press, political opposition (Trump's ally and mentor Putin poisons and murders his opposition), democracy and the rule of law and want to destroy both and replace that with corrupt tyranny. Under that kind of tyranny, the law is whatever the tyrant says it is at the time the tyrant says it.
Another concern about the president's supporters is their almost complete rejection of facts that show his failures, lies, hypocrisy, corruption, bigotry, divisiveness and contempt for the rule of law and free press. Even the most obvious facts are either deflected, rejected or downplayed into irrelevance, e.g., "well, if Obama or Hillary did it, Trump can do it too," or "Trump doesn't lie," or "that lie isn't important." Defenses of Trump are usually not based on facts. When there is some fact basis, the logic that the president's supporters apply is usually incoherent and indefensible. Rarely is a logically solid, fact-based argument brought to bear in the president's defense.
Should it be tolerated?: The question is obvious, why tolerate this kind of disrespectful treatment? What value, if any, does it add to public discourse? America's enemies, including Russia and China, very much want Americans to be so distrustful and angry at each other that they stop talking. That makes dehumanizing the opposition easier. That makes it easier for the tyrant to rise to power and kill our fragile democracy and its necessary rule of law.
It is now obvious and undeniable that many of the president's supporters are gleeful at the distress and fear that both Trump and the smug arrogance and insulting attitudes that many or most of his supporters display. They rejoice in the distress and concerns of political opposition. What the hell good does it it to tolerate that kind of closed-minded poison?
On the other hand, I do not want to play into the hands of America's enemies. That includes the president. In one survey of experts, he is ranked as the most polarizing US president ever in addition to also ranking as the least great of all US presidents. In my opinion, those things make him an enemy of America and its values, democracy and laws. Concern about not playing into the hands of our enemies is what has driven my tolerance so far.
What is the best course of action? Continued tolerance of what is increasingly intolerable? Or, in the face of incoherent logic, denial of facts and/or refusal to show fact sources, less tolerance? Most support for the president comes in the form of unsupported, usually irrational opinion. There is no rational basis to discuss an opinion when the opinion holder refuses to divulge their fact sources or their logic. Why tolerate that level of intentional intellectual disengagement?
Or, do I misread the situation and there is much I misunderstand? Or, am I too intolerant as it is now? Is our democracy and the rule of law under attack from the inside and the outside?
Any thoughts?
B&B orig: 7/29/19
Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive science, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
No comments:
Post a Comment