A collision: The Hegseth dustup, communications theory and pragmatic rationalism

Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980)

Communications media philosopher

This is really wonky, but I find it fascinating. A comment here yesterday about the MAGA idiot Pete Hegseth and other MAGA elites stupidly breaching national security sparked this post. 

NOTE: Nothing in this blog post is intended to shift any blame or responsibility whatsoever from the MAGA morons involved in the national security breach to any form of social media. All blame and responsibility is with Pete Hegseth and the other MAGA morons for breaching national security and djt, Hegseth and all the other morons for lying to us about it and denying actual facts. Social media may have been a non-trivial contributing factor in impairing the judgment of everyone involved, but that does not absolve them of their outrageous failure and lies to cover it up.

Comment: I'm trying to stay off for awhile, but this Hegseth dust up is an irresistible example of what annoys me most. The Screen.

Hegseth and his bros were talking on mildly secure Signal about a military attack. Did it mess up the attack? No. Were they saying anything critical to national defense? No. Did using an open app installed on otherwise secure devices create a hackers dream?..
The issue here should be the use of the internet at all.

As John Stewart said on 3/24 internet/social media is a machine. Interactive Media is a machine Designed in laboratories to change the behavior and rewire the brains of those who engage it. It is a programmed machine that programs those who use it, no matter the users intended use.
. It is NOT a conduit for speech like an old phone, and free speech has nothing to do with this problem.
He says it better than I do.
The machine takes your input, every nuance of your life on or off social media, in your car, everywhere all the time. and crafts a specific and personalized response to get you to think and do what they want.
But mention that and people invariably say, "well what do you want me to do?, The net is essential to everything. It cannot be shut down, I need it.." And they are right.
Hegseth, and the rest of the gang, are not the problem. They are there because the social media created Trump and MAGA. The media , divided us, and taught us to fear, and sold us lie after lie and we drank it all down like an abused child begging, clinging to the leg of the parent beating them to death. .
The message on the medium is not the message. The medium is the message.
The Medium is the message.
The medium is the Message.

Response: Pxy (pro-search and deep research modes):

Q1: What does the Medium is the message mean?

A1: "The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan in 1964. It means that the form of communication (the medium) itself has a significant impact on how the message is perceived and understood, often overshadowing the actual content of the message. The shift from oral culture to print-based ones changed societal focus from auditory to visual. Understanding this concept is crucial in today's rapidly evolving digital landscape, as it helps us anticipate and potentially shape the effects of new communication technologies on our culture and society.

Q2: Exactly why is understanding this concept crucial in today's rapidly evolving digital landscape? What is the social science data on this point?

A2: McLuhan’s axiom “the medium is the message” asserts that communication technologies—not just their content—reshape human behavior, social structures, and cultural norms. In the digital age, this principle remains critically relevant, as platforms like social media, search engines, and streaming services fundamentally alter how information is processed, identities are formed, and power is distributed. Empirical research reveals that digital mediums amplify polarization, reshape cognitive processes, and create systemic inequities in digital literacy. Understanding these effects is essential for fostering informed citizenship, mitigating misinformation, and ensuring equitable participation in a technology-driven world.

Is that about right? I think it is.

The issue here should be the use of the internet at all. .... Hegseth, and the rest of the gang, are not the problem. They are there because the social media created Trump and MAGA. The media , divided us, and taught us to fear, and sold us lie after lie and we drank it all down like an abused child begging, clinging to the leg of the parent beating them to death.

If I understand your analysis, which I might not, social media has had effects significantly more harmful than beneficial to society, knowledge generally, government, democracy, human rationality, etc. (good things generally). If that's your argument, we are in agreement. I think I have been arguing the same thing about social media for years, at least ~15, maybe ~20.

But I articulate the same (similar? overlapping?) concept differently. I don't anchor my arguments to McLuhan's insight, which I do not dispute. My anchor is human cognitive biology, social behavior and pragmatic rationalism, a pro-rationality, morals-based, anti-biasing, anti-ideology ideology (a meta-ideology according to Pxy).

Stepping back how does McLuhan fit into pragmatic rationalism , assuming it fits at all? I asked Pxy:

Q3: In what ways, if any, does the meta-ideology (anti-biasing, anti-ideology ideology) called pragmatic rationalism as described here, https://dispol.blogspot.com/2024/12/wonk-alert-perplexity-tinkering-with.html , fit with McLuhan's insight? Or, are the two concepts non-overlapping? Take steps to reduce errors from sycophancy and other sources of AI error.

A3: Pragmatic rationalism—an anti-biasing, anti-ideology framework emphasizing empirical evidence and cognitive self-awareness—intersects with Marshall McLuhan’s media theory in their shared focus on how cognitive environments shape human reasoning. While McLuhan’s axiom “the medium is the message” analyzes how communication technologies restructure perception and social organization, pragmatic rationalism seeks to counteract distortions introduced by ideological frameworks and cognitive biases. The two concepts converge in their recognition of systemic influences on cognition but diverge in their assumptions about human agency and the role of technological determinism. Empirical studies of digital polarization and algorithmic bias illustrate how McLuhan’s insights about media environments necessitate pragmatic rationalism’s methodological defenses against irrationality.

Conclusion: Complementary Lenses for a Fractured Media Landscape
Pragmatic rationalism and McLuhan’s media theory offer complementary diagnostics for contemporary epistemic crises. While pragmatic rationalism provides tools to counteract cognitive biases, McLuhan’s insights reveal why such biases emerge from media environments themselves. Together, they suggest a dual approach: reforming both individual reasoning and the media architectures that shape it. However, unresolved tensions about agency and determinism highlight the need for further research into how anti-biasing frameworks can adapt to rapidly evolving media ecologies.

Future directions might explore neuroplasticity-informed media design—creating platforms that align with pragmatic rationalism’s goals while respecting McLuhan’s warnings about technological subliminality.

Dang, that turned out to be a really interesting rabbit hole. Now I have a better feel for McLuhan. Pragmatic rationality as a tool to reform reasoning and McLuhan as as a warning. I like that a lot.

Germaine: Irrationality fighter . . . . 

. . . . and snarling watchdog of the public interest

Robert Reich on the rise of oligarchy, kleptocracy and wealth & power politics

At ~6:53-8:10, Robert Reich discusses the ongoing rise of kleptocratic oligarchy in America. At ~11:10-11:50 Reich argues that the oligarchs are fighting against democracy, both in the US and abroad.

If I recall right, I've raised warnings about the American and global rise of anti-democratic kleptocracy and/or plutocracy (oligarchy) probably about 600 times in blog posts or in my Disqus comments here. I've also warned hundreds of times about the rise of anti-democratic, kleptocratic dictatorship and kleptocratic Christian theocracy in American politics. In all cases, the main goals of the various kinds of authoritarianism in play are accumulating more wealth and power for the elites. That is also a point I made hundreds of times here. In essence, Reich makes all the same arguments himself.

Arguably, Reich sounds somewhat like me. Same concerns, remarkably similar language. Reich almost certainly came to his beliefs and opinions independently from me. If so, then his reality and my reality were arrived at via different pathways, based on different experiences. In science, arriving at the same understanding by different kinds of research is called consilience. I wonder is Reich and I are an example of consilience in politics.[1]

Q: In your opinion, if Reich does sound somewhat like me, does that help, hurt or do nothing to my credibility in warning about the rise of kleptocratic, radical right American authoritarian wealth & power politics?

Thanks to milo for mentioning this video.

Footnote:

1. Q: Is there a known phenomenon of consilience in politics, meaning different people independently of each other arrive at the same or quite similar perceptions of political reality and political belief?

 

A: Yes, there is a known phenomenon in politics that aligns with the concept of consilience, where different individuals or groups independently arrive at similar perceptions of political reality and political beliefs. This convergence of political beliefs can be observed through several lenses: 

1. In politics, this can manifest when various groups or individuals, despite their different backgrounds, come to similar conclusions about political events, policies, or ideologies due to the convergence of evidence from multiple sources. (evidence- and reason-based politics = pragmatic rationalism)

4. There is evidence suggesting that cognitive reflection (analytical thinking) can lead to more skepticism towards political statements, but it can also amplify partisan biases. This interaction can result in a convergence of beliefs among those with similar levels of cognitive reflection and political alignment. (hence the need for anti-biasing -- pragmatic rationalism = an anti-biasing, anti-ideology meta-ideology)

6. The rise of broadcast media and interest-group advertising has changed how political information is disseminated, potentially leading to a convergence of political beliefs among viewers or readers who are exposed to similar narratives.

 

Wonk alert: Perplexity tinkering with pragmatic rationalism

This post is really wonky. I want a place to save this, so this blog post is it. I just discovered that at least one of my links to a Perplexity search lead to nothing, i.e., the Q&A were simply gone. I have no idea why. Fortunately I posted the lost Perplexity Q&A here, so I still have access to it at that blog post. I just cannot access it at Perplexity itself.

Two links to the following new set of Q&A about pragmatic rationalism - I do not know how I wound up with two links:

https://www.perplexity.ai/page/analyzing-germaine-s-political-.YPHnAiwTsGoGDoOMBtNgw

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/based-on-the-politics-expresse-ylnWlloYShGZVyMhzKIrJA

Q1: Based on the politics expressed at Dissident Politics, https://dispol.blogspot.com/ , is Germaine at that site far left, left, centrist or something else in his political leaning or ideology? Germaine claims to adhere to what he calls pragmatic rationalism, which he characterizes on the basis of cognitive biology and social behavior as an anti-biasing, anti-ideology ideology, e.g., https://dispol.blogspot.com/2019/06/pragmatic-rationalism-anti-biasing-anti.html and https://dispol.blogspot.com/2019/12/pragmatic-rationalism-short-simple.html .

A1: Germaine, the author of Dissident Politics, does not fit neatly into traditional political categories such as far left, left, or centrist. Instead, he identifies with pragmatic rationalism, a philosophy he describes as an anti-biasing, anti-ideology ideology based on cognitive biology and social behavior. This approach aims to minimize biases and ideological influences in decision-making, focusing on rational analysis and empirical evidence.

Key Points of Germaine's Pragmatic Rationalism:

Anti-Biasing: Germaine emphasizes the importance of recognizing and mitigating cognitive biases that can cloud judgment and decision-making processes.

Anti-Ideology: He critiques the dogmatic adherence to political ideologies, suggesting that such adherence can lead to irrational and biased outcomes.

Cognitive Biology: His philosophy is grounded in understanding human cognition and behavior, aiming to align political and social decisions with biological and psychological realities.

Empirical Evidence: Decisions should be based on observable facts and data rather than ideological commitments. [that's only partly correct - decisions will be based on that plus personal morals, biases, loyalties to a variable extent because that cannot be avoided - perfectly rational politics is not possible for humans, but self-awareness helps reduce reducible irrationality, but to some degree "irrationality" cannot be completely eliminated and if that was possible, humans would not be human]

Given these principles, Germaine's political stance can be described as:

Non-Traditional: He does not align with conventional political spectrums but rather seeks to transcend them through a rational, evidence-based approach.

Pragmatic: His focus is on what works in practice, rather than what fits into a particular ideological framework.

Skeptical of Ideologies: He views ideologies as potentially harmful when they become dogmatic or when they ignore empirical evidence. [that's a key point: ideologies foster and rationalize reality disconnects and reason flaws when empirical evidence and/or sound reasoning is inconvenient]

In summary, Germaine's political leaning or ideology at Dissident Politics is best characterized as pragmatic rationalism, which positions him outside the typical left-right political spectrum, focusing instead on a method of analysis that seeks to be as unbiased and rational as possible.

Q2: Germaine relies on his understanding of cognitive biology, social behavior and the moral philosophy of lying and deceit ( https://dispol.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-lying-moral-choice-in.html ) to derive pragmatic rationalism as an evidence-based, pro-democracy, pro-public interest political ideology or mindset. At this link, https://dispol.blogspot.com/2024/10/pragmatic-rationalism-explained-by.html , Perplexity search referred to pragmatic rationalism as a meta-ideology. Is it a meta-ideology?

A2: Germaine's pragmatic rationalism can indeed be considered a meta-ideology. Here's why:

Transcends Traditional Ideologies: Pragmatic rationalism does not align with conventional political ideologies but rather seeks to provide a framework for evaluating and navigating them. It aims to be a method of analysis that transcends the biases and dogmas inherent in traditional political thought.

Focus on Rationality and Evidence: It emphasizes rational analysis, empirical evidence, and cognitive biology to inform political and social decisions, positioning itself as a higher-order approach to understanding and addressing political issues.

Anti-Biasing and Anti-Ideology: By explicitly aiming to be anti-biasing and anti-ideology, pragmatic rationalism critiques and seeks to mitigate the influence of ideological biases, making it a meta-ideology that critiques and evaluates other ideologies.

Pro-Democracy and Public Interest: Germaine's approach is described as pro-democracy and pro-public interest, suggesting that it seeks to serve the broader societal good by promoting rational decision-making processes.

In summary, pragmatic rationalism, as articulated by Germaine, functions as a meta-ideology by providing a framework for evaluating and navigating political ideologies, focusing on rationality, evidence, and the public interest, while explicitly critiquing and aiming to mitigate the biases inherent in traditional political thought.

Q3 and 4: Pragmatic rationalism is based on Germaine's understanding of aspects of cognitive biology that can lead people to false beliefs, especially in the face of demagoguery and propaganda deceit and emotional manipulation. Factoring prominently into his thinking, he points to human cognitive traits such as unconscious biases, mental heuristics, prejudices, self-esteem, self-identity etc., and aspects of human social behavior, e.g., family, group or tribe loyalty, strictures of social institutions and sociological phenomena as Germaine discussed here https://dispol.blogspot.com/2020/03/book-review-invitation-to-sociology.html . Pragmatic rationalism also asserts core moral values of (i) fidelity to facts, true truths and sound reasoning, even when they are inconvenient, (ii) support for secular democracy, including reasonable compromise, and (iii) a dominant focus of service to the public interest over special interests., i.e., rebalancing power from special interests to the public interest. The goal of pragmatic rationalism is to formulate a meta-ideology or mindset that is designed to reduce human susceptibility to demagoguery, irrational emotion-fomenting propaganda, crackpot reasoning and the like. What else could pragmatic rationalism include to improve the effectiveness of the pragmatic rationalist meta-ideology or mindset?

A4: To improve the effectiveness of pragmatic rationalism as a meta-ideology or mindset, several additional elements could be incorporated:

1. Critical Thinking and Media Literacy:

Incorporate Critical Thinking Frameworks: Pragmatic rationalism could benefit from integrating established critical thinking frameworks that help individuals evaluate information critically. This includes teaching people to recognize logical fallacies, understand cognitive biases, and assess the reliability of sources 2.

Media Literacy: Promote media literacy to help individuals discern between factual reporting, opinion pieces, and propaganda. This would involve understanding how media shapes narratives and the importance of seeking out diverse sources of information 2.

2. Emotional Intelligence and Empathy:

Emotional Awareness: Encourage the development of emotional intelligence to recognize and manage one's own emotions and those of others. This can help in understanding how emotions are manipulated in propaganda and demagoguery 2.

Empathy Training: Foster empathy to understand different perspectives, reducing the likelihood of falling into ideological echo chambers and promoting more constructive dialogue 4.

3. Self-Reflection and Ideological Awareness:
Self-Reflective Practices: Implement practices that encourage individuals to reflect on their own ideological beliefs, understanding how personal experiences, upbringing, and environment shape their worldview 4.

Meta-Ideological Awareness (MIA): As suggested by the concept of MIA, pragmatic rationalism could include self-reflective questions about how personal ideologies affect interpretations of information, promoting a more detached and nuanced approach to political and social issues 2.

4. Ethical Decision-Making:

Ethical Frameworks: Integrate ethical decision-making models that emphasize the importance of considering the broader implications of actions, not just immediate practical outcomes. This could involve principles from utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics to guide decision-making beyond mere expediency 1.

Moral Reasoning: Encourage the development of moral reasoning skills to navigate complex ethical dilemmas, ensuring decisions are not only pragmatic but also morally sound 1.

5. Community Engagement and Dialogue:

Promote Dialogue: Foster environments where open, respectful dialogue is encouraged, allowing for the exchange of ideas and the challenging of one's own beliefs in a constructive manner 4.

Community-Based Learning: Implement community-based learning initiatives where individuals can engage with diverse groups, promoting understanding and reducing tribalism 2.

6. Continuous Learning and Adaptation:

Lifelong Learning: Encourage a mindset of continuous learning and adaptation, recognizing that knowledge and understanding evolve over time. This includes staying informed about new research in cognitive science, sociology, and political theory 4.

Feedback Loops: Establish mechanisms for feedback and self-correction, ensuring that pragmatic rationalism remains a dynamic and evolving approach rather than a static ideology 5. [great idea - need to cogitate on how to do that]

7. Institutional Reforms:

Educational Reforms: Advocate for educational systems that teach critical thinking, media literacy, and ethical reasoning from an early age, embedding pragmatic rationalism into the educational curriculum 2.

Political Reforms: Support reforms that promote transparency, accountability, and public interest in political processes, reducing the influence of special interests 3.

By incorporating these elements, pragmatic rationalism can become a more robust meta-ideology, better equipped to navigate the complexities of modern political and social landscapes, reduce susceptibility to manipulation, and foster a more informed, empathetic, and rational public discourse.

Q7: You suggest establishing mechanisms for feedback and self-correction, ensuring that pragmatic rationalism remains a dynamic and evolving approach rather than a static ideology. How can one do that?

A7: To ensure that pragmatic rationalism remains a dynamic and evolving approach, several mechanisms can be implemented:

1. Feedback Loops:

Government Responsiveness: Instead of focusing solely on feedback loops, emphasize government responsiveness as a broader concept. This involves not just responding to citizen feedback but integrating it throughout the entire policy and governance cycle 1.

Citizen Engagement: Encourage active citizen participation in policy-making, ensuring that their feedback is not just heard but acted upon, fostering a sense of inclusion and accountability1.

Visibility and Traceability: Design policies with characteristics that make the government's role in providing benefits visible and traceable, enhancing public trust and understanding of policy impacts 3.

2. Self-Correction Mechanisms:

Political Evaluation: Implement regular evaluations of political processes and outcomes to identify areas for improvement and correction 2.

Political Competition: Foster a competitive political environment where parties and politicians are incentivized to adapt and improve based on public feedback and electoral outcomes 2.

Freedom of Speech: Protect and promote freedom of speech to allow for open critique and discussion of policies, enabling self-correction through public discourse 2.

3. Policy Feedback Theory:

Policy Characteristics: Design policies with characteristics that facilitate positive feedback loops, such as longer durations of benefits, immediate delivery, centralized and streamlined policy delivery, and minimal administrative burden 3.

Target Populations: Consider the social construction and power dynamics of target populations when designing policies to ensure inclusivity and responsiveness 3.

4. Civil Society Engagement:

Building Power: Civil society organizations should strategically build power among target populations to influence policy and alter existing power dynamics 3.

Messaging and Organizing: Coordinate messaging and organizing strategies to shift policy discourse and public perceptions, facilitating long-term policy wins 3.

5. Continuous Learning and Adaptation:

Lifelong Learning: Encourage a culture of continuous learning and adaptation, recognizing that knowledge and understanding evolve over time 3.

Feedback Loops in Education: Integrate feedback loops into educational systems to teach critical thinking, media literacy, and ethical reasoning from an early age 3.

6. Institutional Reforms:

Transparency and Accountability: Advocate for reforms that promote transparency, accountability, and public interest in political processes, reducing the influence of special interests 3.

Responsive Governance: Cultivate a whole different set of attitudes and behaviors among government actors and citizens to foster responsive governance 1.

By incorporating these mechanisms, pragmatic rationalism can evolve into a more robust and adaptive meta-ideology, ensuring that it remains relevant and effective in addressing the complexities of modern political and social landscapes.

Rational populism, is that a real thing?

I've been in an introspective mindset for about 4-5 months. This one has lasted a lot longer than my past bouts of re-thinking my thinking. The appeal or pragmatic rationalism or rational politics to the public is extremely low. That appears to be mostly because it is too reality- and reason-tethered, cognitively way too hard and not nearly enough self-affirming fun. 

I tried the Bluesky social media, but it isn't a place for serious politics. Also, there's no interest there in rational politics. 

What about rational populism? It sounds like an oxymoron, but what do I know? I thought that populism wasn't a bulwark of rationality. Perplexity:

Q: How can a person act like a populist?

A: To act like a populist, one would typically adopt the following behaviors and characteristics:

1.  Present yourself as the voice of "the people" against a corrupt elite. 

2. Use simple, direct language and short slogans to appeal to a broad audience.

3. Engage in provocative or "bad-mannered" behavior that breaks political norms.
4. Criticize established institutions, including the media, academia, and government.
5. Promote an "us vs. them" mentality, often targeting minorities or outsiders.
6. Make bold promises and offer simple solutions to complex problems.
7. Claim to represent the "silent majority" and dismiss opposing views as illegitimate.
8. Use social media and public rallies to communicate directly with supporters.
9. Emphasize your outsider status, even if you come from a privileged background.
10. Perpetuate a sense of crisis or urgency to justify unconventional actions.

It's important to note that these behaviors are often criticized for undermining democratic norms and institutions.

Hm. I'm pretty much on board with 1, 4, 8, and 9. I don't know how to do 2.  Points 3, 5, 6 and 7 suck. I won't do those things, at least not intentionally. 10, justifying unconventional actions, sounds like the opposite of democracy, i.e., authoritarianism.

So no, rational populism isn't a real thing. I'm not a populist, rational or irrational. 

Also from the same Perplexity search:

Rhetorical Techniques:

Use phrases like "drain the swamp" or attack the "liberal elite." Employ an "anti" stance - anti-politics, anti-intellectualism, or anti-elite. Adapt your message to current crises or societal changes.

Remember that populism can manifest across the political spectrum, from left-wing figures like Bernie Sanders to right-wing leaders like Donald Trump. The key is to present yourself as the authentic voice of the people against a corrupt establishment, regardless of your specific policy positions.

Post election analyses: One narrative about what just happened

Dozens of narratives about what just happened and why are floating around out there. Many more will probably be forthcoming. The narratives from radical right authoritarians, self-professed MAGA “conservatives” are quite different from those coming from non-MAGAlandia. I plan to post at least two non-MAGAland narratives to give people a sense of the kind of thinking that is going on outside MAGAlandia. This one is by Ben Rhodes, formerly in the Obama administration. Tomorrow I'll post Masha Gessen's narrative. 

In a NYT opinion Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser to Barack Obama, offers his take on the election (not paywalled):

[In 2019] I met with a [Hong Kong pro-democracy] government official preparing to resign and told him I was writing a book about the rise of authoritarian nationalism. “The nationalism in the U.S. and Europe is somewhat different,” he told me. “Yours started with the financial crisis in 2008. That’s when liberalism started to lose its appeal, when people saw this wasn’t working. The narrative of liberalism and democracy collapsed. This spilled over into China, too. This is when China started to think — should we really follow a Western model?” We were sitting in a hotel lounge, the invisible forces he described surrounding us: capitalism, but not democracy; cultural elites cloistered away from the working class. “The nationalist movements in East and West were both a response to the collapse of the Western model,” he added.

Everything I’d experienced told me he was right. Eight years serving in the Obama White House after the financial crisis felt like swimming upstream, against the currents of global politics. A radicalized Republican Party rejected liberal democracy at home, mirroring far-right leaders like Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary who spoke about installing “illiberal democracy” (a polite term for “blood and soil” nationalism) across Europe. In Russia, Vladimir Putin set out to undermine — if not dismantle — the liberal order helmed by the United States. In China, Xi Jinping began to shift Beijing’s strategy from rising within that order to building a separate one, drained of democratic values.

In the West, neoliberalism — that blend of free trade, deregulation and deference to financial markets — hollowed out communities while enriching a global oligarchy. Meanwhile, a homogenized and often crass popular culture eroded traditional national and religious identities. After 9/11, the war on terror was embraced by autocrats such as Mr. Putin, who used it as a frame to justify power grabs while forever wars fueled mass migration. The financial crisis came through like a hurricane, wrecking the lives of people already struggling to get by while the rich profited on the back end. Then social media’s explosion offered a vehicle to spread grievance and conspiracy theories, allowing populist leaders to radicalize their followers with the precision of an algorithm.  

The playbook for transforming a democracy into a soft autocracy was clear: Win power with a populist message against elites. Redraw parliamentary districts. Change voting laws. Harass civil society. Pack courts with judges willing to support power grabs. Enrich cronies through corruption. Buy up newspapers and television stations and turn them into right-wing propaganda. Use social media to energize supporters. Wrap it up in an Us versus Them message: Us, the “real” Russians or Hungarians or Americans, against a rotating cast of Them: the migrants, the Muslims, the liberals, the gays, George Soros and on and on.  

Yet now Mr. Trump has decisively won back the presidency. I would never claim to have all the answers about what went wrong, but I do worry that Democrats walked into the trap of defending the very institutions — the “establishment” — that most Americans distrust. As a party interested in competent technocracy, we lost touch with the anger people feel at government.  

Yes, this is unfair: Republican policies from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush did far more than Democrats to create this mess. But Mr. Trump’s crusade against the past elites of his own party — from the Bush family to Mitch McConnell — credentialed him with a public hungry for accountability, while the Harris campaign’s embrace of Dick Cheney conveyed the opposite message.  

Donald Trump has won the presidency, but I don’t believe he will deliver on his promises. Like other self-interested autocrats, his remedies are designed to exploit problems instead of solving them, and he’s surrounded by oligarchs who want to loot the system instead of reforming it.  

Out of the wreckage of this election, Democrats must reject the impulse to simply be a resistance that condemns whatever outrageous thing Mr. Trump says. While confronting Mr. Trump when we must, we must also focus on ourselves — what we stand for, and how we tell our story. That means acknowledging — as my Hong Kong interlocutor said — that “the narrative of liberalism and democracy collapsed.” Instead of defending a system that has been rejected, we need to articulate an alternative vision for what kind of democracy comes next. 

The idea that the narrative of liberalism and democracy collapsed strikes me as having a lot of truth in it. The idea that a Chinese official in Hong Kong watching the collapse of democracy there makes sense. Maybe his US outsider position made it easier to see what probably most Americans cannot easily accept. Worse, the forces arguing for liberalism and democracy are themselves significantly undermined by special interest power and wealth, which in my opinion are inherently authoritarian and inherently pro-corruption.

The question Rhodes raises is this: What are the alternative visions for what kind of democracy comes next? I’d like to think it is a tolerant democracy that is at least modestly more uncoupled from left-right politics and more honestly focused on serving the public interest in a different mental framework (pragmatic rationalism maybe?). But we have to deal with the poisonous power of dark free speech and toxic social media, and the unshakable false realities they create. It’s not clear to me that a new vision can compete and win against that monstrosity. I think MAGA will probably have to implode on its own before a new vision of democracy has a chance to regain its footing.

Germaine's Quest update: Bluesky, pragmatic rationalism and the communication problem

I have a real problem. Today I saw an article that said that lots of Trump opponents are leaving X for Bluesky. I immediately researched and found that Bluesky, which is still puny compared to X and Facebook, allows anonymity. I see that as an opportunity. I signed up under the moniker Germaine2 because Germaine was taken. 

That's me on Bluesky, no posts yet

Not sure what to do next, but I'll figure it out

What I wanted to do was start a channel, or whatever it is called there, focused on rational politics based on pragmatic pragmatism. That led me to Perplexity and a long series of questions about how to do that, what to emphasize and whether pragmatic rationalism even makes a lick of sense. What I got back was a huge mess of complexity, but mostly encouraging.

To help me, the input data I fed to Perplexity was my incredibly long, August 2015 post on self-criticisms of pragmatic rationality and my responses thereto: Objective politics: Criticisms and responses - https://dispol.blogspot.com/2015/08/objective-politics-criticisms-and.html

The answer I got back from Perplexity was that in essence what I wanted to do to describe pragmatic rationalism is a fool's errand because (unless I misunderstand, which I might) Bluesky posts have a 300 word limit: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-can-a-new-person-on-bluesk-V8b9vMAsQYihRUMm5zBTDw

The Q&A following my initial Q to Perplexity is massive. Probably longer than my 2015 self-criticism and answer blog post. But, being a persistent cuss, I don't care that what I want to do will necessarily be imperfect. I want to do it in defense of secular democracy, civility, civil liberties, the rule of law and transparent, honest, competent government.

I'll re-engage with this problem tomorrow. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong side of the tree, but maybe not. 

Regardless, I am looking for new ways to defend America from impending tyranny and kleptocracy, Maybe this is one.

And there is your update for the day.

Checking under the hood: Exploring the limits of AI or artificial intelligence

After several months of use I learned enough about the AI program called Perplexity to start asking important questions about its own limitations, i.e., the limitations of AI. Some commenters here have pointed out that AI has significant limitations that makes it unreliable. That is a valid criticism. To address that, I asked:

Q: I have been searching on Perplexity for several months now, mostly related to politics, political issues and the biological/social sciences of politics. What I see as key weaknesses is AI's inability to exert human judgment and necessary context to analysis of complex questions about politics and the influences of cognitive biology and social behavior on political reasoning, belief formation and behavior. Do you concur with that assessment? Is that assessment reasonably complete, or am I missing other known problem areas for AI?

A: Your assessment of AI's limitations in analyzing complex political and social issues is astute and aligns with many expert opinions on the current state of AI technology. You are correct in identifying AI's inability to exert human judgment as a key weakness. AI systems, including those used in search and analysis, are fundamentally based on algorithms and data processing. They lack the nuanced understanding and contextual awareness that human judgment provides, especially in complex domains like politics and social behavior.

Your point about AI's struggle with necessary context is also well-founded. Political and social issues often require a deep understanding of historical, cultural, and situational contexts that AI systems currently struggle to fully grasp. 

While your assessment is reasonably complete, there are a few other known problem areas worth considering:

Bias and Discrimination: AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate or amplify existing biases present in their training data, leading to skewed analyses or unfair conclusions in political and social contexts.

Lack of Transparency: The "black box" nature of many AI algorithms makes it difficult to understand how they arrive at certain conclusions, which is particularly problematic in sensitive political analyses.

Difficulty with Abstraction and Generalization: AI often struggles with abstract thinking and generalizing concepts across different contexts, which are crucial skills in political and social analysis.

Inability to Capture Human Subjectivity: AI systems may miss the subjective experiences, feelings, and empathy that often play a significant role in political and social dynamics.

Overreliance on Historical Data: AI's reliance on historical data can lead to a perpetuation of past patterns and biases, potentially missing emerging trends or novel situations in the political landscape.

The other question I posed in that same search is this:

Q2: As far as I can tell, there is only one mostly objective factor that is, or should be, important in politics, namely empirical facts. Although a fact is a mostly (completely?) objective thing, facts in politics are often bitterly and intractably disputed. How does AI deal with those disputes? Is there anything else important in politics that is mostly or completely objective, e.g., pure logic. And how does AI deal with the gray area between fact and opinion or belief, i.e., the point at which facts alone are insufficient to arrive at a belief and one has to extrapolate from facts to form a fact-based belief. An example would be a belief that Trump is a deeply corrupt authoritarian based on what is known about him so far. Obviously, that belief is bitterly and intractably contested,. Nonetheless, I firmly believe it is true, or at least more true than false, based on all the evidence available to the public so far.

A2: Your observation about the centrality of empirical facts in politics and the challenges surrounding them is astute. .... AI systems, including those used for political analysis, face significant challenges when dealing with disputed facts:

1. Data Dependency: AI models are trained on available data, which may include conflicting information on disputed facts. This can lead to inconsistent or biased outputs.

2. Lack of Real-Time Fact-Checking: Most AI systems don't have the capability to independently verify facts in real-time, relying instead on their training data.

3. Difficulty in Contextual Understanding: AI often struggles to fully grasp the nuanced context surrounding disputed facts in politics.

4. Amplification of Existing Biases: AI systems can inadvertently amplify biases present in their training data, potentially exacerbating factual disputes.

Other Objective Factors in Politics

While empirical facts are indeed crucial, there are other elements in politics that can be considered relatively objective:

1. Logical Consistency: The internal consistency of arguments and policies can be objectively assessed using formal logic.

2. Statistical Data: Quantitative data, when properly collected and analyzed, can provide objective insights into political issues.

3. Legal Frameworks: Constitutional and legal structures provide an objective framework for political processes.

4. Historical Precedents: While interpretations may vary, historical events and precedents offer a factual basis for political discourse.

Perplexity goes on to address how AI navigates the gray area between fact and opinion, commenting that "it is particularly challenging for AI." That's what I figured. Regarding my example of asking if calling Trump a deeply corrupt authoritarian is true, that too is particularly challenging. Specifically, Perplexity can't get the job done. It cites problems of (i) data interpretation, (ii) an evolving information landscape, (iii) subjectivity in definitions, i.e., "Terms like "deeply corrupt" or "authoritarian" can be subjectively defined, making it difficult for AI to make definitive assessments", and (iv) bias in training data.

I also did a 3rd Q&A about doing politics in good faith, which I claimed I do. Perplexity said I was engaged in good faith politics, but of course it had to rely on the reasons I gave for my belief that I do politics in good faith. But again, AI has trouble with good faith on its own, just as I expected. AI isn't human. Good faith, along with judgment and nuanced assessment of context are uniquely human things in politics. At least least for now.

In conclusion, AI does have serious limits. No doubt about it. I am aware of those limits and openly admit they exist. Interestingly, it turns out that the approach that AI takes to try to deal with politics and the messy human condition turns out to be about the same approach I adhere to in the framework of pragmatic rationalism. Specifically, (1) heavy emphasis on the criticality of empirical facts, (2) sticking with logical consistency as best I can, which isn't always possible, (3) reliance on statistics and poll data when they are available, knowing that they could be in error, (4) looking for human mental and social factor context in historical precedents, e.g., Hitler's 1923 putsch in Munich compared to Trump's 1/6/21 coup attempt. 

In the latter case, I got Perplexity to go from saying that Hitler in Munich was generally not comparable to Trump in DC in 2021, to saying it generally was comparable. I got the revised answer by telling Perplexity to take into account the mindsets and political goals and tactics of Hitler and Trump. That flipped the AI analysis. But I made Perplexity flip like that in good faith because I hold a strong good faith that both Hitler and Trump operated with frighteningly similar authoritarian mindsets, goals and tactics despite major historical differences between the two events. 

A useful historical precedent or not?

Q: Is it credible to believe that Germaine acts in good faith, or is he just a practiced manipulator of facts, reasoning and/or whatever else might put him in the category of acting bad faith?

Criticisms of Germaine; Why resort to authority over personal opinion?

In the last couple of weeks I have received a fair amount of explicit or implicit criticisms. If I recall right they boil down to six things:

1. Arrogance in how I express myself
2. Seeing the world in black and white, maybe part of the arrogance problem
3. Relying too much on experts to guide my opinions
4. Being way too alarmist about various authoritarian threats to American democracy, the rule of law, and civil liberties from Trump and the MAGA movement (kleptocratic autocracy, plutocracy and Christian theocracy)
5. Being too biased or unreasonable by being trapped in partisan identity politics 
6. Being way too partisan in favor of extreme liberalism, although the labels socialist or communist have not yet popped up

Those criticisms are sincere and come from people of good will, so I take them seriously. In short, they blow me away. I’ve apparently been seriously blind to my own flaws. I thought I was basically the opposite of criticisms #1 and #2. Regarding #4, I thought that I was very careful to lay out a lot of evidence to support my deep fears about America turning into some form of a bigoted, authoritarian kleptocracy. Criticism #5 baffles me because I don’t know what identity I am trapped in.

However, there is both truth and misunderstanding behind criticism #6. I am very partisan from in favor of pragmatic rationalism and its core moral values. But pragmatic rationalism is not liberalism or politically left. It is something else. I thought it was mostly centrist. Assuming I was an exemplar of pragmatic rationalism and being usually in accord with majority public opinion about most things with poll data, centrism felt like a reasonable label. However, Perplexity convinced me I am not a centrist. Instead, Perplexity gave what I believe is a more accurate description of my brand of politics:  

“Pragmatic rationalism, as presented by Germaine, aims to transcend conventional political labels and ideologies. It focuses on using cognitive biology and social behavior insights to counteract biases and promote more rational decision-making in politics and policy. 

While Germaine may touch on issues that align with various points on the political spectrum, his overall framework appears to be an attempt to create a meta-ideology that critiques and aims to improve upon traditional political thinking.

Given this information, it would be most accurate to describe Germaine’s political stance as: Unconventional/Alternative: Rather than fitting into established categories like far left, left, or centrist, Germaine’s pragmatic rationalism represents an attempt to forge a new approach to politics based on cognitive science and rational analysis.”

In my opinion, that nails it. That is me, and I am partisan about it. 

Q: What other criticisms reasonably apply to Germaine and/or pragmatic rationalism?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Personal opinion vs. expert opinion 

This post raises the question, as one critic put it about criticism #3, “why debate if it comes down to dueling AUTHORITIES to dismiss personal analysis and verification. .... why debate seriously if one cannot produce their own analysis and verification, relying on dueling authorities, dismissing each other as posters...or worse, assigning authority based on partisan and identity bias?”

Accompanying that question was a personally concerning assertion of insult, “I'll say it again: what if I show extreme investing success vs Suzie Orman or Robert Kiyosaki, being called a clown relative to them. And by the way...that is EXACTLY what some more or less have said in our community .... asserting I’m a clown vs their authorities...this from some posters perceived to be authoritative by many members of this community.”

Maybe unreasonable reliance on expert opinion is a big personal blind spot. And I very much I hope I did not call the commenter a clown because it is insulting. If I did, I’m truly sorry.

Rethinking the line of argument that commenter has been asserting here for a long time, I can see how arguing that successful active investing can be a significant source of personal wealth. That seems to be a solid truth. What I have no feeling for at all is (1) how one can reliably do that (the commenter makes it sound fairly easy), and (2) how to translate personal financial success into a political force that would stand in defense of morally vastly superior pluralist, secular democracy** to some form of morally rotted corrupt authoritarianism. 

** Yes, democracy over authoritarianism evinces solid partisanship and my moral logic. I am a partisan.

For me, there is a big disconnect between the goal of pragmatic rationalism, namely counteracting biases and promoting more rational decision-making in politics and policy. How to bridge that gap? Not all successful stock market investors will be pro-democracy. Some will be pro-authoritarian. What glue is there to tie financial success with democracy?

Hence my deep confusion about what role successful investing would have as a political strategy or mindset. But I do often adopt the opinions of what I believe are well-meaning, honest experts in various aspects of politics because I am not an expert. I know that experts are often or usually wrong in their predictions, a situation that is so well documented that I consider it to be a fact, not a debatable truth (book review 1, book review 2, book review 3).

Q1: What am I missing here by not seeing major connections between secular democracy politics and personal success in finance? I think I am missing something, but cannot put a finger on it.

Q2: How often should individual analysis and opinion trump expert analysis opinion, sometimes, usually, all the time, etc.? 

Pragmatic rationalism explained by someone other than Germaine

Well, OK, something other than Germaine. Perplexity say this about Germaine’s politics:

Q: Based on the politics expressed at Dissident Politics, is Germaine at that site far left, left, centrist or something else in his political leaning or ideology? Germaine claims to adhere to what he calls pragmatic rationalism, which he characterizes on the basis of cognitive biology and social behavior as an anti-biasing, anti-ideology ideology, e.g., here.

A: Based on the content at Dissident Politics, Germaine's political ideology does not fit neatly into traditional left-right categories. He advocates for what he calls “pragmatic rationalism,” which he describes as an anti-biasing, anti-ideology approach.

Pragmatic rationalism, as presented by Germaine, aims to transcend conventional political labels and ideologies. It focuses on using cognitive biology and social behavior insights to counteract biases and promote more rational decision-making in politics and policy. This approach suggests that Germaine's political leanings are:

1. Non-traditional: Rejecting standard left-right categorizations 

2. Evidence-based: Emphasizing scientific understanding of human cognition and behavior 

3. Pragmatic: Focusing on practical outcomes rather than ideological purity

While Germaine may touch on issues that align with various points on the political spectrum, his overall framework appears to be an attempt to create a meta-ideology that critiques and aims to improve upon traditional political thinking.

Given this information, it would be most accurate to describe Germaine’s political stance as: Unconventional/Alternative: Rather than fitting into established categories like far left, left, or centrist, Germaine's pragmatic rationalism represents an attempt to forge a new approach to politics based on cognitive science and rational analysis.

Dang! Germaine really thought he was a centrist because when he looks at opinion polls about various policies, he is agrees with majority opinion most of the time, maybe about 75%. Darned Germaine, self-deluded as usual. . . . . grumble, grumble . . . . . . 

Ooh, wait!! Pragmatic rationalism is a meta-ideology? I like that! Wait, what is a meta-ideology?

Q: What is a meta-ideology?

A: A meta-ideology is a higher-order or overarching ideological framework that provides the basis for other ideologies or ideological debates. Key aspects of meta-ideology include: 

1. It acts as a foundational system of ideas that shapes how other ideologies are formed and understood.

2. Meta-ideology posits that ideologies are coherent systems of ideas based on a few core assumptions about reality, which may or may not have a factual basis.

3. It views ideologies as neither inherently right nor wrong, but rather as intellectual strategies for categorizing and making sense of the world.

4. Meta-ideology examines the structure, form, and manifestation of ideologies, rather than advocating for any specific ideological position.

5. It can provide a common ground or framework within which different ideological perspectives can engage in dialogue.

6. Liberalism has been described as acting like a meta-ideology in some contexts, as it can incorporate and express alternative ideological positions through its versatile conceptual structure.

7. A meta-ideological approach aims to transcend rigid ideological thinking and foster more nuanced, empathetic understanding across different viewpoints.

8. It encourages self-awareness about one's own ideological assumptions and constructs, promoting a more reflective approach to political and social issues.

In essence, a meta-ideology provides a higher-level perspective on ideologies themselves, examining how they function, interact, and shape our understanding of politics and society.

Germaine really likes points 3, 5, 7 and 8.

Chapter review: Morality

The 2021 book, An Introduction to the Cognitive Science of Religion: Connecting Evolution, Brain, Cognition, and Culture, is a college undergraduate textbook by Claire White. Chapter 8 is entitled Morality. of As the book’s title indicates, research on morality and religion is multidisciplinary. My main interest is the science of morality related to politics and what progress the field has made in the last ~25 years since I became aware of the high importance of morality. 

From what I can tell, the field has not progressed much. What progress there is seems to be a modest increased understanding by some researchers at how little they know compared to what they used to think they knew. But that is not all bad. Dispelling misunderstandings is necessary for researchers to progress by reassessing their research and data.

Some points White makes about current beliefs among experts:

• Morality is believed to have arose from the human need to cooperate for survival, a human cognitive trait that is believed to predate religion. Children show signs of moral understanding and behavior at an early age, indicating that moral impulses are at least partly hard wired early on.

• White and experts are unable to define morality, which arguably (in my opinion) makes it an essentially contested concept: “Although scholars differ in how they conceptualize the term morality, it is used here in a broad sense too refer to standards or principles about right or wrong conduct. .... Scholars seem to circumvent the definitional problems of studying morality by investigating ‘prosociality’ to mean behavior that furthers the interests of a particular group. Yet scholars are seldom explicit about what, precisely, their use of the term prosociality designates. The lack of upfront conceptualizations is especially problematic because, depending on which definition is used, the same behavior can be labeled as prosocial or not. For instance, murder and even genocide can be viewed as prosocial according to the evolutionary conceptualization of the term because they [at least sometimes] facilitate success in intergroup competition.” 

• Theists and non-theists show some overlap in moral beliefs, but religious social and moral influences sometimes makes theist morality manifest differently compared to non-theists. Specifically, theists tend to be less trustful of members of other religions, and even more distrustful of non-theists. Theists tend to direct their moral impulses and behaviors to members of their group. That sometimes leads to social division. By contrast, non-theists tend to apply their moral values universally to all people. Presumably the non-theist moral mindset and behavior tends to be less socially divisive, but White does not comment specifically on that point in Chapter 8.

White discusses one bit of possible progress, namely a view by some experts that morality is not a cognitive unitary whole, but instead moral judgments and beliefs are fragmented into different moral domains or values. Responses to those values are triggered by different things and weighed differently by different individuals. This line of thinking goes back to 2004 when Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) was initially proposed. MFT hypothesized the existence of several basic moral domains or values that constituted care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and later liberty/oppression. Values of equality and proportionality were added to MFT in 2023. Different people displayed sensitivities to, or even degrees of rejection of, those moral values in their reasoning, beliefs and behaviors. 

An overlapping variant of MFT that White calls Morality Fractionation has been proposed to broaden the MFT concept to includes lots of moral values or domains. MFT constitutes one specific implementation or example of the broader concept of morality fractionation. Both convey the general idea that distinct moral values, domains or mental modules exist.

My suspicion is that some or many individual moral values or domains at least partly overlap with other moral values or domains. If so, sensitivity to, or rejection of, one moral value may be able to influence a person's reaction to the triggering of a different value. That is a very messy state of affairs if it is real.

Germaine’s commentary & hubris

The cognitive science of morality still struggles with simply describing and understanding what morality is. As best I can tell, cognitive science is nowhere close to having any authoritative, or at least near-universal, prescriptive theory of how people ought to make moral judgments, much less what judgments should be under various circumstances. My suspicion is that this goal will turn out to be something that humans can never achieve. If nothing else, (1) essentially contested concepts, (2) differing personal and cultural norms, and (3) dark free speech, all stand squarely in the way of a universal moral theory.

There are a few semi-universal beliefs that White mentions, i.e., don’t murder or steal, but in my opinion that is infantile in its shallowness. It is inadequate, to put it mildly. My sense of White, maybe significantly reflecting the mindsets of experts generally, is that her mind is trapped by her academic circumstances and the cramped, constraining sociology and history of the cognitive science of morality. Assuming most experts want to improve and/or sustain a happy and peaceful human condition, I suspect that the human history of morality blinds experts to what the most important moral values actually are in modern societies. The experts keep looking back to the apes and young children. Instead they need to look at least as hard, probably a lot harder, at modern adults as individuals or in groups, tribes, nations and political mindsets. Yes, political mindsets. (I'll circle back to this assertion shortly)

Despite science’s limited knowledge and excruciatingly slow progress, I find that White’s overview of morality in chapter 8 is rather comforting. I strongly suspect that morality fractionation is on the right track and MFT is a part of the story, maybe a big part. But I admit to having serious bias in favor of the more recent morality fractionation hypothesis. What bias?

Two kinds of bias. First, the same bias that I asserted (without evidence) most experts have, i.e., a general desire to improve and/or sustain a happy and peaceful human condition. I bet if a survey was done, at least 95% of experts would agree with that assertion, larded with essentially contested concepts as it is. If that is true, and I bet it is, then there is no choice but to consider fundamentally different political mindsets as a central focus of the cognitive science of morality. What different political-moral mindsets? Pro-democracy and pro-authoritarian. Politics and morality cannot be separated. That is an inherent part of the human condition.

My second bias is that the moral foundations of pro-democracy and pro-authoritarianism are fundamentally different. Generally speaking, and as supported by human history, including the modern American MAGA movement, democracy exists and sustains itself only on the basis of reasonable acceptance of facts, true truths, sound reasoning and reasonable compromise (polluted with biases and moral judgments as those factors may be). All major forms of authoritarianism I am aware of, autocracy, plutocracy and theocracy, are opposed to or reject reasonable compromise, and facts, true truths, and sound reasoning, especially when they are inconvenient. 

From that point of view, and in view of the morality fractionation hypothesis, there is good reason to think that (i) support for reasonable compromise, and (ii) fidelity to facts, true truths, and sound reasoning (less irrational) are all core moral political values, separately or overlapping.

Yeah, that is hubris, but I think is it basically correct. My pragmatic rationalism anti-ideology ideology easily fits into the morality fractionation hypothesis. Fitting it into MFT is messier, but probably doable. It is possible that in time data from new research will collapse MFT and the morality fractionation hypothesis back into the earlier unitary morality hypothesis. But at present, that strikes me as unlikely. 

For better or worse, we’re still awfully ignorant. But, we ought to have a better grasp of the cognitive science of morality in another 20-30 years. Of course, I said that in 2017 in my original review of S.M. Liao’s 2016 book, Moral Brains: The Neuroscience of Morality. (review reposted here in 2019).

Is it just me, or is the science of morality in a slowed time warp? . . . . Is morality science something humans can even coherently study? . . . . . grumble, grumble . . . . . . 🤨 

One commentator about the joy of being MAGA; Miscellaneous

NYT columnist David French opines (not paywalled) on how he currently sees the enormous appeal of DJT to the MAGA rank and file. French lives in rural Tennessee, surrounded by MAGA people, so he has a metric buttload (50 butt-tons) of relevant personal experience. He writes:

To understand MAGA, we have to understand the joy and sense of belonging that the movement bestows upon its adherents. .... The lie that Haitian immigrants are eating pets — appeal to his followers’ “sense of gleeful transgression.”

If you’re on the outside, your experience with MAGA is all of the anger projected outward. So you see MAGA as almost entirely an angry movement.

MAGA likes inflicting pain on its political enemies. It likes and enjoys creating these ridiculous and absurd memes. It loves to provoke people who are on the outside. It’s part of the joy of this MAGA movement that can include this extreme aggression online.

The people who are in on the joke [Haitians eating dogs and cats in Springfield Ohio], the core MAGA people who are pushing the memes out, look, if it’s true, great. If it’s not true, who cares? They’re having a good time.

Clip of TikTok: I don’t know about you, but I’m Voting Donald Trump, baby.

Clip of Donald Trump Jr.: “You know, honestly, I’m waiting for Merrick Garland to indict my father for being part of an assassination. You know, that’s what’s next.”

Jesse Watters: “It’s a conspiracy.”

They’re trashing our body politic. They’re wrecking, in many ways, the G.O.P., but they are having a good time and hey, the people they’re making mad, they don’t like them anyway.

And you might think for a minute that, well, wait, this can’t go on forever. Surely, surely the majority of Republicans, when they know they’ve been had, when they know these are lies, will stop paying attention to these memes. They’ll reject this method.

And the really sad answer is that the Republican response to Jan. 6 and the Big Lie showed us the tolerance that Republicans have for dishonesty and for lying if it is directed against their hated Democratic enemies. (emphasis added)

The opinion touches on two other joyful MAGA crackpot memes, one of which is exuberant fun with non-existent election fraud now that early voting has started in some places.

So, there we have it from one commentator: MAGA folks are just having fun and don't care about truth. Since they don't like the rest of us anyway, so why should they give a fig about truth or lies? It's all just good clean fun at our expense. C'mon people, lighten up!

French: They’re wrecking, in many ways, the G.O.P. 

Response: What?? The GOP has been wrecked in many ways at least since 2016. Wrecked puts it waaay too mildly. Blown to smithereens is closer to the mark.

Once again an uncontrollable compulsion to ask about moral responsibility for adult American citizens bubbles up from the bowels of my unconsciousness.  

Q: If what French writes is mostly correct, and most of the MAGA rank and file (i) really is having joyous fun at our expense and at the expense of targeted groups, e.g., falsely accused Haitian immigrants who are allegedly illegal immigrants eating people's dogs and cats, (ii) does not like us, (ii) does not care about truth or lies, and (iv) will vote for the lying, fornicating, pussy-grabbing, kleptocratic dictator-thug and convicted felon DJT, are these MAGA folks just good, honest people and patriots who deserve our respect and good will? Or, it is time to call a spade a spade, and openly speak the actual truth that most of the MAGA rank and file is bigoted, pro-dictator and a dangerous but joyful enemy of American democracy, and people like you and me who oppose DJT and his radical kleptocratic authoritarianism? 

Q: Once again, is Germaine off his rocker, over the top, insanely deluded by identity politics, hoodwinked by pragmatic rationalist hyper-partisanship, or otherwise beguiled and missing the mark?

Darned Germaine and his double darned pragmatic rationalism . . . . grumble, grumble . . . . . darn it.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

A peanut from the gallery commenting on the faux horror of dogs and cats being eaten in Ohio: The campaign seems to have stumbled into a strange unintended message: “Let’s go to war with Taylor Swift to stop Haitians from eating dogs.” At least that's less worrisome than their other stated goals. (good point, peanut)

WaPO: Why Big Tobacco is betting on Trump -- As the industry fights a ban on menthol cigarettes, a Reynolds American subsidiary has become the largest corporate donor to the main pro-Trump super PAC  (good 'ole brass knuckles capitalism -- it supports a dictator-kleptocrat as long as its profits are protected and to hell with public health, honest government, democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law, the environment, etc.)

WaPo: Hezbollah leader says device attacks are an ‘act of war,’ as Israeli warplanes fly over Beirut -- In his first remarks since thousands of electronic devices exploded across the country, Hasan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah suffered “a major blow,” but that his forces would not stop attacking Israel as long as the war in Gaza continued -- “The enemy transgressed all boundaries and redlines,” Nasrallah said in a widely anticipated speech Thursday evening local time about the attacks, which killed at least 37 people and injured nearly 3,000 when pagers, walkie-talkies and other devices exploded simultaneously on Tuesday and Wednesday across Lebanon. The attacks were “a major assault on Lebanon, its security and sovereignty, a war crime — an act of war,” he added, and they dealt an “unprecedented blow” to Hezbollah and Lebanon. (Hm, the stench of another new war is in the air . . . . Hezbollah complaining about transgressing all boundaries and redlines? Ha, that's the pot calling the kettle black -- leaders in the Middle East are all stupid, spoiled, corrupt monsters)

WaPo on demagogic dictatorship: Putin wants Russia’s youth to become ultranationalist patriots. Many are all in. -- Young Russians are embracing Kremlin propaganda, reshaping the Ukraine war narrative with ultranationalist views and seeing themselves as patriotic truth defenders.  (Hm, the stench of fascism is in the air . . . . Putin is turning Russian children into vicious monsters -- once again, witness the power of dark free speech)

Enthusiastic little Russian patriots training

to genocide (the verb) the Ukrainians to death

The Independent: Trump claims audience ‘went crazy’ for him at his debate with Harris – but there was no audience -- Donald Trump appeared on Fox News show Gutfeld! to talk about his September 10 debate with Kamala Harris -- Trump referred to the nonexistent audience. “And the audience was absolutely– they went crazy,” he said.
 (good 'ole Faux News, always a reliable source of bullshit, lies, slanders, crackpottery and more lies and slanders, just like DJT is a good source for the same)

Salon: Georgia's abortion ban killed a young mother. The Christian right now blames the victim -- Anti-choice activists argue that if Amber Nicole Thurman had submitted to forced childbirth, she'd still be alive -- Republicans and Christian right activists don't want to take responsibility for the loss of this healthy young mother of a 6-year-old boy. Instead, they're casting blame on everyone else: the doctors in the Georgia hospital, abortion providers in North Carolina, and, though they will deny doing so, they're blaming Thurman herself. Thurman chose abortion. They're blaming her choice for her death. (I bet that forced birth supporters knew this day was coming and had their response to blame the dead woman planned in advance -- they knew the day would come when they would need to try to get ahead of criticism of their brutal forced birth laws -- good  'ole Christian nationalism, its as cruel and brutal as it is kleptocratic)

LGBQT Nation writes about the authoritarian MAGA wealth and power movement going from He did not say what he said, to Us MAGA politicians did not do what we just did: GOP senator rages at CNN host because she correctly said his party blocked the IVF protection bill -- He claimed that the IVF bill would give fertility treatments to trans women in his bizarre and angry rant x (Good grief! Treating trans women? The horror, the horror . . . . .)

Memory lane: Those were simpler,

happier times

Happy days: A supreme court 

nominee hearing in the US senate