And also spatial bandwidth : an awareness that other countries do things differently. What seems impossible in one is taken as normal and inevitable in others; exotic is a relative state. Trump is a baffling symptom of a mode of thought I am completely unable to empathise with. Neither are hundreds of millions of others - Europeans, Americans and others alike. Unless there is a truly bizarre American condition, this means Trump is a result of social factors which are not unavoidable (misinformation, lack of education, lack of material resources, lack of social justice, tribalism, lack of opportunities for advancement, etc.), but are difficult to prevent. Luckily for you lot I'm on mobile so it's hard to go on a long rant. :P
It is hard to imagine a time more completely presentist than our own, more tethered to the immediate; and is hard to imagine a person more exemplary of our presentism than the current president of the United States.
Donald Trump is a creature of the instant, responsive only and wholly to immediate stimulus – which is why Twitter is his exclusive medium of written communication, and why when he speaks he cannot stick to a script. In this respect he differs little from anyone who spends a lot of time on social media; the social media ecosystem is designed to generate constant, instantaneous responses to the provocations of Now.
We cannot, from within that ecosystem, restore old behavioural norms or develop new and better ones. No, to find a healthier alternative, we must cultivate what the great American novelist Thomas Pynchon calls “temporal bandwidth” – an awareness of our experience as extending into the past and the future.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/16/temporal-bandwith-social-media-alan-jacobs
Huh, don't get me started on the Tangerine Tyrant.
ReplyDeleteConservatism in the American and European model is a political philosophy designed to foster abuse. That is why it is hard to comprehend.
ReplyDeleteIt is best to think of Trump as a charlatan. Etymology originally from Italian, ciarlare , to babble.
ReplyDeleteTrump as well as our two previous presidents are one reason I consider myself a citizen of the world who happens to reside in the US. Many, possibly even myself, might consider me unlucky.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus The last one was alright.
ReplyDeleteRuth Mckay - In truth, Obama is a sociopath. I all but called him such in early 2008 in my well researched blog posts from my long defunct political blog.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus maybe, but he's not president now, so I think we need to keep our eyes on the dangerous obvious danger in front of us.
ReplyDeleteOnce it's taken care of, then we can go back to arguing the relative merits of the lesser dangers posed by more ordinary politicians.
Daniel Taylor - Obama is anything but an "ordinary politician". He brought the US Empire to its knees. Trump is bad. I agree. However, there is a huge difference between a narcissistic jackass and a sociopath. To be clear, Trump is the former. We cannot just bring him down. We have to take down his entire regime.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus I think Obama will be remembered as the American Empire's last gasp between G.W. Bush and Trump. He strengthened our alliances, broadened trade, and supported the American system much like Clinton did, generating massive prosperity.
ReplyDeleteThe place where Clinton and Obama failed was in not making sure that the prosperity was shared.
Bush and especially Trump have destroyed America's standing in the world, Trump even going so far as to open trade war with or closest military allies.
Apart from their diplomatic failings, the Republican Party has shown deep moral corruption in their support for these men and their policies.
But please, tell me how bad the black man was.
twitter.com - Daniel Nayeri on Twitter
ReplyDeleteDaniel Taylor - You are flat out wrong about Obama. The real unemployment rate was at about 40% in 2016. The numbers you hear in the news are total garbage. Peruse this site if you want the real numbers: eig.org/dci. They have improved since, but Trump defi does not deserve the credit. Also, the trade deals were horrible. It would take more than I care to type in a comment to explain it and I'm known for verbose comments.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the economy, you obviously didn't pay attention to people like Jim Rickards and David Stockman. The US Empire is crumbling. It has been since at least 2015.
For the record, I'm an economically liberal Libertarian per politicalcompass.org.
eig.org - 2017 Distressed Communities Index - Economic Innovation Group
nytimes.com - The Real Jobless Rate Is 42 Percent? Donald Trump Has a Point, Sort Of
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor - Read about Economic Innovation Group's methods. The NYT article is a bit misleading. Honestly, I'm surprised that Trump was semi-conscious of the real numbers.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus nonetheless, the American economy as a whole gained. As did our diplomatic standing in the world.
ReplyDeleteThen Two Scoops comes along and decides to pick a trade war with Canada.
Daniel Taylor - I hate to say it, but you are wrong. There's no sense in me explaining because you are obviously a fan of Obama and will not be dissuaded.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus I could say the exact same thing to you, you are obviously biased against Obama, and it is blinding you to the nature of what's before your eyes.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Taylor - Definitely not the case with me. I am well researched regarding Obama. If you want a taste of just how well researched, you can start here: progthinker.blogspot.com - Obama - The Great Deceiver
ReplyDeleteIgnore the verbiage within the link. It was originally a placeholder post. The correct title appears below and was written by me in March 2008.
David Lazarus results speak louder than armchair analysis. The results of the Obama administration were the best for the US as a whole since the '90's. If it weren't for the Republican insistence on wealth redistribution to the rich it would have been the best for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI don't care if he ate puppies in his spare time, he did a good job, and I'm not looking to hang out with him for fun.
So why do you care that I recognize the quality of his work?
Daniel Taylor - I wholeheartedly disagree that they were better. Like I said, the real unemployment rate was 40% back in 2016. Furthermore, Obama invaded Afghanistan and Syria. Neither of which were any threat to our national security. To make matters worse, the military, under his command, killed innocent civilians 30:1 over extremists through "targeted" drone strikes. He and some of our allies also forced regime change in Libya and Egypt. Again, neither country was a threat to our national security. The US almost single-handedly destabilized the entire Middle East and is largely responsible for the EU's refugee crisis.
ReplyDeleteSo, tell me again how Obama did such a good job? I think the evidence points to the opposite. Nevertheless, let's get the OP's view on the topic as someone who is not a USian. Rhys Taylor - What are your thoughts?
David Lazarus The labor force participation rate never dropped below 63%, so any claim of over 40% unemployment is relying on doctored numbers.
ReplyDeleteLabor force participation did drop in the wake of the 2008 housing bubble crash, but it stabilized during Obama's term and has yet to improve under Trump.
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Obama did get us decent health care insurance reform, didn't start any new wars, and didn't engage in trade wars with our closest allies.
By comparison to the current administration so far his term was glorious sanity, even if he falls short when compared to Eisenhower or Johnson.
Daniel Taylor - Again, I point you to Economic Innovation Group's independent data.
ReplyDeleteeig.org - 2017 Distressed Communities Index - Economic Innovation Group
I'll bet that you'll get different numbers if you dig deep into the BLS data. I was getting around 25% a few years ago by digging deep before I discovered EIG.
Re: Obamacare - I disagree. Premiums went up and benefits went down. The real bottom line on the healthcare issue is that the US is the only industrialized nation without a single payer system. To me, that says a lot about just how much (little) our government cares about its citizens.
David Lazarus I am less than interested in validating EIG's numbers for myself. Independence only matters to the extent that I am able to evaluate the bias of the organization in question.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ACA (also known as RomneyCare in Massachusetts where the state-level testing of the idea happened), it improved coverage for people who needed the coverage.
It's not a perfect plan, and it's a reflection of what happens when you try to treat Republicans as honest, but it's still an improvement on "your insurance company will drop you as soon as you get an expensive illness".
Daniel Taylor - OK. Speaking of validating, did you do such with BLS's numbers? Or are you just accepting them at face value?
ReplyDeleteOK. So, more people are covered and you allegedly cannot be dropped. It was at the expense of higher premiums, higher out of pockets costs (including higher copays) and lower benefits. Thus, I am failing to see where Obamacare has helped the majority of citizens; especially when many large corporations stopped offering coverage to certain types of employees as soon as Obamacare became law.
David Lazarus I generally trust career bureaucrats. They may be wrong, but they are usually wrong in a consistent and well documented manner (unlike private lobbying organizations, who tend to hide how they are "adjusting" their numbers).
ReplyDeleteThe ACA helped me personally when my wife almost lost her vision due to multiple retinal detachments requiring surgery on both eyes and resulting in her being unable to work for several years due to it not happening all at once.
We had to change insurance during that time, and due to the ACA the new insurance company was not able to deny us benefits.
Daniel Taylor - Like I said, you've made up your mind. Nothing anyone says to the contrary is going to change it despite the evidence to the contrary. So, I'm out.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Obamacare has effected my family just the opposite. We are heavily in debt due to some major hospitalizations over the past several months. This is largely due to much higher max out of pocket. Thanks to Obamacare and the economy (which is still suffering), we're going to be in debt for a long time.
Again, I'm out.
Well, since you asked, the view across the pond from my social circle (heavily biased towards left wing liberals), is more or less as follows. I'll give you the unfiltered view without any attempt at objectivity. This is our opinion, not necessarily what the facts are.
ReplyDeleteObama would have been a truly great president, not the Messiah though an honourable, decent chap, but was thwarted by Republican lunatics. So far as we can tell, Republicans appear to be the sort of villains you get in a pantomime or a James Bond movie. We see Obama as someone basically trying to do the right thing but constrained by the system, with roughly half of the population apparently being quite, quite mad. We think he would have made a great Tory Prime Minister, with Obama policies being basic standard Tory level of right wing leanings (as opposed to being basically Communist as some Americans see them). We weren't keen on Libya but kindof accepted it as necessary. The issue of drone strikes doesn't come up very much - we're not fans, but they don't really bother us.
I can't really speak as to how much Obama did or not not improve the economy; my feeling would be that it was positive but that's not really something I have much of an opinion on.
As for increasing Americas standing in the world, that is an unquestionable yes. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Obama increased America's reputation and made us all like the place a lot more.
Finally on jobs, I simply don't believe the 40% unemployment claim. I tried to dig through the site (a little - was pressed for time today) as to how they derive the numbers, but I couldn't find much detail. That claim doesn't tally with either other figures, anything in my social networks, or actually visiting the place. I don't find it remotely credible.
Also I'd like to thank you both for having such a civil discussion about a controversial topic. A rare thing on the internet indeed.
Rhys Taylor - Unfortunately, Obama's Pied Piper tactics seemed to work on much of the EU. I'll admit that he was a good speaker. However, I saw through him.
ReplyDeleteAs for unemployment, I'm in the trenches. Believe me, I've done my due diligence. As of mid 2016, those number were definitely true. It has since dropped to about 28%. However, I absolutely do not give Trump any credit for that. I think it's merely the bounce back after having a true sociopath leave office. Again, I got a figure of about 25% back in 2015 doing my own digging on the BLS site. Real digging. I spent hours looking a numbers. Even that level of unemployment is unacceptable from an "ensuring the safety of the citizens" perspective.
As you know, I all but called Obama such in 2008. My suspicion was confirmed by someone whose business it was to do psychological profiling. He had multiple degrees in different areas of psychology. Including, of course, post graduate. Thus, I trust his assessment.
I won't deny that I used to be a hot head, but it didn't really accomplish anything. Keeping things to a simmer even when we disagree will at least keep others from completely shutting you out and might inspire them to look into things further to see if what they believe is truly correct. On that note, I'm not always right, but I've done my due diligence on Obama.
Thanks for replying. I'm off to the pool.
David Lazarus I guess my point was poorly made. Even if everything you say about Obama is true, and at least some of it is, he's still going to go down in history as a better president than either his predecessor or successor.
ReplyDeleteWell if nothing else the above discussion demonstrates the perhaps obvious (but important) reality that an increased "bandwidth" won't help without a common set of facts. Much has been rightly said about bullshitting - not caring about the facts. There's been less discussion of people who genuinely care deeply about the facts but simply disagree. Maybe the hardest epistemological problem of all is what to do when logical, objective, analytical, critical, well-informed people disagree. We tend to assume that such people must inevitably reach the same conclusions... I am not convinced this is always the case. I'm not saying that this discussion does necessarily meet all of those criteria, mind you.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it was interesting to hear some conflicting perspectives but I'm off to make pretty pictures of galaxies now. You guys can keep going if you want.
Daniel Taylor - Yes, unfortunately, Obama will be remembered as better than both GWB and Trump even if only because he could give better, more convincing speeches. Let's leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor - I care very much about the facts. Just because some seemed to be conflicting doesn't make them any less true.
Anyway, let's stop here and move on.
Rhys Taylor well, it's pretty clear that me and David disagree on the validity of certain information sources, which I think guarantees that even with the same logic we will come to different conclusions, and I'm pretty sure we aren't even using the same logic.
ReplyDeleteSuch is life.