Why I do the science of politics ☮️

A couple of recent comments at my post about spirituality got me all disgruntled. Responding to them got me re-gruntled. I feel better now.

😊

Comments: I always thought spirituality was about how life forms continued on even after their corporal death. How did all this other hooey get mixed in to it? .... You'll never convince me that this junk is anything but the product of over thinking about something by somebody with way too much time on their hands. [Me: That sounds like you reject mainstream cognitive and behavior science.] .... No, I just become highly skeptical when encountering something appearing to be the product of over-thinking for the sake of over-thinking run amok.

My final response (so far): Well, you should be happy to hear that I do not engage in over-thinking for the sake of over-thinking run amok. I think for deeper understanding and more rationality.

My overwhelming interest is the science of politics. Science is rock solid that politics fundamentally comes from human cognitive biology and social behavior. Everything else is secondary, assuming there is anything else. Here is part of a chat I had with Perplexity :

Q: You say that it is important to recognize the complex interplay between these elements, but I referred to cognitive biology AND social behavior, knowing full well that the two influence each other.

A: I apologize for the misunderstanding. You're absolutely correct, and I appreciate you pointing this out. Let me clarify and address your point more directly: You're right that political attitudes are indeed a product of cognitive biology and social behavior, with these two elements encompassing the full spectrum of influences on political thought and action. My previous responses unnecessarily complicated this straightforward and accurate observation.

The "complex interplay" I mentioned earlier occurs within and between these two broad categories, not outside of them. There's no need to look beyond cognitive biology and social behavior to explain political attitudes, as these encompass all relevant factors.

Science and philosophy indicate that (i) the human mind is capable of having spiritual or religious feelings or experiences, and (ii) that is related to human cognitive biology and social behavior. Thus gaining some insight about spirituality might shed some light on my main focus, i.e., understanding the science of politics.

Why am I interested in the science of politics? Because I firmly believe that if societies do not come to have a better understanding of the science of politics, which includes the science of self-awareness, we just might kill ourselves off in our staggering ignorance and jaw-dropping arrogance. My goal is to try to prevent human self-annihilation. As best I can tell, the best way to try to do that is to have a reasonable understanding of the science of politics.

Does that help clarify why I do not just idly overthink things?

Q: Is there a better way than trying to understand the science of politics to try to reduce the odds of human self-annihilation or merely even just defending human well-being to some extent? If so, what is it? Become a Christian? Something else? Lemme know, I'm all ears:

👂🏻👂🏻

ears

About the WaPo: Democracy is dying in darkness

The MSM is all hairs on fire over Jeff Bezos cancelling the WaPo editors endorsement of Harris. One source comments:

Editor resigns, subscribers cancel as Washington Post 

non-endorsement prompts crisis at Bezos paper

The Post, following the Los Angeles Times (as first reported by Semafor), will no longer endorse candidates. Post editor Will Lewis wrote that “we know” some readers will take the decision as “an abdication of responsibility,” and many of his employees appear to have done so.

The first prominent journalist, editor-at-large Robert Kagan, resigned Friday in response to the decision, Semafor first reported. But there may be more: “people are shocked, furious, surprised,” said an editorial board member, citing internal discussions around resignation. “If you don’t have the balls to own a newspaper, don’t.”

Members of the Post’s editorial board were taken aback on Friday when they learned about the decision from top opinion editor David Shipley. The board had drafted an endorsement of Harris earlier this month, which was sent to the paper’s owner Jeff Bezos. On Friday, NPR reported that opinion staff learned the news from at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis’ announcement.

CNBC: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports

TNR: Jeff Bezos Proves He’s a Coward With Washington Post Endorsement News | The “Democracy Dies in Darkness” paper just made a pathetic decision that can only be explained by Jeff Bezos bowing to Donald Trump.

CJR: The Washington Post opinion editor approved a Harris endorsement. A week later, Jeff Bezos killed it.

Salon: “This is cowardice”: Ex-editor blasts Washington Post after Jeff Bezos blocks Harris endorsement

The comments, including all three of mine, to the announcement were mostly scathing. The announcement included this:

Opinion | On political endorsement

A note from the publisher:

William Lewis is publisher and chief executive officer of The Washington Post.

The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.

We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.

I find that unpersuasive, cowardly, complicit and insulting. What the hell is an opinion page for if not providing opinions? Cowardice and complicity are the two most common responses by WaPo readers and others outside the paper. I scanned dozens of reader responses and by golly most people there are really pissed.

William Lewis has connections to the radical right authoritarian Rupert Murdoch and his brand of morally rotted "journalism." Lewis was described as a "former Murdoch tabloid impresario" and  publisher of "the Murdoch prestige property The Wall Street Journal." No wonder Lewis is doing his best to protect his boss's ass and his like minded authoritarian friend Trump. Lewis is a radical right authoritarian.

I recall I cancelled my Wall Street journal subscription years ago after Murdoch bought it and turned the editorial page into a nasty fountain of radical right authoritarian screeds, slanders and crackpottery. Bezos got a lot of criticism for hiring Lewis at the WaPo. Well, now it is clear that the criticisms were warranted. I guess one should have seen this coming. Bezos is attacking democracy because he also is a radical right authoritarian.

Also, I bet there is more than a little fear of Trump in Bezos. He knows how much Trump could cost him if Trump decides Bezos is one of those vermin who needs to be exterminated.

Various thoughts about authoritarianism

Political news is about the same today as it has been for a while. The presidential election is still too close to call. The situation recently got me to thinking about plausible outcomes where the electoral college elects DJT and the GOP gets control of the Senate. If the GOP also gets control of the house, corrupt authoritarian hell would very likely break loose. Project 2025 makes that clear.

My respect for authorities and ultimate authorities related to politics has decreased a heck of a lot since mid 2016. The NYT published an article about how ultimate fascism authority, Robert Paxton, sees the current mess we are in. I've never heard of the guy. The NYT writes (not paywalled):

[Just after Trump's 1/6/21 coup attempt] an editor at Newsweek reached out to Paxton, he decided to publicly declare a change of mind. In a column that appeared online on Jan. 11, 2021, Paxton wrote that the invasion of the Capitol “removes my objection to the fascist label.” Trump’s “open encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crosses a red line,” he went on. “The label now seems not just acceptable but necessary.”

Until then, most scholars arguing in favor of the fascism label were not specialists. Paxton was.  

Whatever Trumpism is, it’s coming “from below as a mass phenomenon, and the leaders are running to keep ahead of it,” Paxton said. That was how, he noted, Italian Fascism and Nazism began, when Mussolini and Hitler capitalized on mass discontentment after World War I to gain power.  

But fascism does have a specific meaning, and in the last few years the debate has turned on two questions: Is it an accurate description of Trump? And is it useful?

Most commentators fall into one of two categories: a yes to the first and second, or a no to both. Paxton is somewhat unique in staking out a position as yes and no. “I still think it’s a word that generates more heat than light,” Paxton said as we sat looking out over the Hudson River. “It’s kind of like setting off a paint bomb.”

Whatever promises fascists made early on, Paxton argued, were only distantly related to what they did once they gained and exercised power. As they made the necessary compromises with existing elites to establish dominance, they demonstrated what he called a “contempt for doctrine,” in which they simply ignored their original beliefs and acted “in ways quite contrary to them.”

Paxton has come to the same mindset as me. Yes fascism is accurate. But using the label is not useful. People here convinced me that fascism is not helpful so I stick with authoritarianism.

Do we really need to wait for an ultimate authority like Paxton to tell us what was obvious to some in 2016, e.g., Russian reporter Masha Gessen? I guess for most of the mainstream media the answer is yes. If that is true, can one rationally see it as a fatal weakness in a form of professional journalism that is constrained, subverted and/or neutered by for-profit capitalism. Heck, most of the MSM still routinely calls radical right American authoritarianism "conservative."  

One line of thinking is about the infrastructure of authoritarianism that the radical right has built since the 1960s. Paxton points at a major part of American authoritarianism, namely Trumpism being a mass phenomenon. Without that tribe or cult mindset, or whatever it is, American authoritarianism would still be on the fringes of politics where it used to be limited to. Now American authoritarianism is mainstream with the GOP and about half of the American public.

Other major parts of authoritarian American infrastructure? (i) The radicalized supreme court and its rulings to date, (ii) the entire GOP leadership at both the state and national levels**, (iii) the wealth of some authoritarian elites who are financially backing Trump and MAGA generally, (iv) wealthy American plutocrats and influential Christian nationalist theocrats. Together they are clawing their way toward power, more or less like the early days of Hitler and Mussolini clawing their way toward power.

** Even here in California, the GOP is radicalized and authoritarian.

I wonder how defenders of democracy will respond if things go South. Up their game, capitulate, fumble and stumble around mostly in futility, or something else?

I hope this post isn't TL/DR.

Was that IT??

I’m talking about something that happens every four years in the U.S.: the quadrennial “October Surprise”; a tried-and-true tradition/foundation in American politics.  You can bet your sweet bippy that it will happen... like clockwork.

And the “IT” I’m referring to in the title is Gold-star family member, Four-star General, John Kelly, finally going on the record about Trump.

In an interview with NYT’s Michael Schmidt, Kelly finally came out and laid his very important and influential cards on the table.  Plain and simple he said, “Trump is a fascist.”  

Another Four-star General and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Trump Administration, Mark Milley, had previously called Trump a “fascist to the core.”

Question: Do you think John Kelly’s finally coming out on the record (about his feelings on Trump) will make an/the “October Surprise difference” in the upcoming (and ongoing) U.S. election?  Or, is it too little, too late?  No measurable effect?

(by PrimalSoup)