I live in rural upstate NY I see a whole lot of working-class anger here. Many people not finding a decent paying job and working two 29-hour jobs struggling like crazy to survive. They are under enormous financial pressures and when a politician says I am your warrior, I am your champion many sadly fall for it. I am a working-class guy who has done hard labor contracting for over 40 years. Your discussion is interesting, but I think you may lack the constant exposure of being immersed in the everyday working-class struggles to survive. Do you know anyone working two jobs with a mouth full of cavities and missing teeth that cannot go to a dentist? Do you know anyone with such a limited food budget that they buy cheap junk food since processed food by calorie is less expensive? And they go for the quick high of lots of sugar and cigarettes because their world is so tough, and they are looked down on by many. They are really scared and angry and don't underestimate what they will grasp for. The Democratic Party used to serve them and now serves the professional classes, big pharma and the financial industry The vacuum left by the Democrats is filled with blustery woke talk and no real actions from the Republicans who are now by and large hard right. The progressive wing of the Democrats has been squelched by the corporate interest channeling its power thru the DNC which won't even allow a Presidential debate. So, in America you have only two parties neither serving the working class. I also think your discussion does not cover the change from industrial capitalism to now financial capitalism in America where things aren't made here anymore and raking people over with high interest is the quickest way to make a fortune. People are drowning in debt and still going backwards. It is beyond sad, and my wife and I feel so bad seeing so many suffering people. The flip side is upstate NY has many lakes where cottage values are in massive real estate bubbles, and it is like the roaring 20s around the lakes with absolutely no recognition of the countless struggling people living just a few miles away from lakes.
We didn’t get this way because of the Democrats. This income inequality began with the Reagan administration. It scares me that the GOP has been able to lie to people and that Americans believe what they hear from a demagogue. We buy into Trump’s nonsense because we have no grasp on history - American or world history. As Howard Zinn said - when you don’t know history it’s easy for politicians to lie to you. We might as well have been born yesterday. This notion that the Democrats have sold out the working class to big Pharma, etc is nonsense. Working class people turn to Republicans who have done everything they could to gut organized labor. I’d love to know what the right has done to assist the working class. The answer is zero. But Donald Trump is the new working class hero? Before you ask - monthly I decide whether I pay my utilities or buy food. I am poor and suffer the consequences as a result. I can’t for the life of me understand how any poor person votes for the GOP. And why anyone believes the lies they spew.
We do have people like you describe in my country, but our minimum wage is much higher than your measley $15 odd. When a government changes, and/or new policies are introduced, it takes time for them to take effect. I believe that over time, the destruction of the unions, pay inequity, and low taxes for the very wealthy all contribute to this poverty. The auto workers strike currently in the US is an example of this, with the bosses making 350% more than workers. A $40 million salary is utterly ridiculous. I hope they get a fair and equitable settlement. The strongest institution in any country should be it's families, but when parents are forced to work the long hours you discussed above, family life suffers.
I'm a white working class woman, I agree with so many of your points. However, I find many 'angry white working class men' fail to realize they're not the first or only people to suffer economic hardship. For generations, wclass white men have been the first to be hired, the highest paid & the last to be fired vs Black wclass ppl or white wclass women. For the first time in generations, white wclass men are experiencing a fraction of the economic instability & hardship that Black ppl & wclass women face. But instead of the steady progressive political & social change Black ppl & women have wrought via decades of committed ongoing political activism...white wclass men are out there with swastikas, automatic rifles & slogans about 'burn it all down' & 'hang Mike Pence'. Anger about economic disparity & injustice is a great basis for social change. However there's a tendency to coddle white wclass men & justify/rationalize their current strain of violence, destructiveness, racism & misogyny. Trump, ffs! They're propping up Trump, who is a known rapist ("sexual abuser"), racist & xenophobe. This demonstrates that many white males can't tell the difference between anger & violence, & see no need to discover the difference because we live in a culture that condones white male violence. Your Black wclass coworkers aren't voting for Trump. Your Black wclass coworkers have a legit beef about the centuries of injustice their communities have faced....but they're still not voting for Trump. What on earth could make it ok for white wclass men (and women!) to vote for him?
I am a 74 year old woman. I’ve always been a progressive. I’m feeling more and more alone. I’d hoped never to see the trend toward fascism and racism I witness today.
I’m 52, lived on West Coast most of my life but moved to a small town in Arkansas, I thought I had found my home and a place in my community…until 2016. People have threaten to shoot me with many more minor threats and lots of people have just acted like we didn’t have BBQ at each other house. All because I wouldn’t sit quietly while they said some of the most racist and abhorrent things, I called them out on the racist jokes. Oh, and I thought Trump was the criminal morally corrupt monster that he is! I have been horrified that there is so many Americans who behave and think like this and have no compassion for others who weren’t exactly like them. Never knew this was who they really were. It’s fine though, I absolutely do not need nor miss people who’s values are so below mine! Garbage took itself out!!
What the hell would you expect to happen when you import millions of third world men who skyrocketed crime and strained the already tired welfare system. People's attitudes harden when they see people looking like X dragging their country and culture down.
Let’s not forget that algorithmic engagement has been manipulated/ driven by marketed data. And to miss how certain news can be spread like wildfire on social media is to miss that it does in fact have huge influence; this is exactly how people become suspicious of mainstream news, where events can then appear under-reported or biased or not presented at all
Legacy media is driven by those who provide their funding....who control to large extent what & how news is reported! Much is hidden, much is politically motivated....very difficult to get anything in depth & from varied views! I would never use Twitter....or support the cult leader, Donald Trump.....but I do want more depth, varied views, the truth with my choice of sources as evidence based! I am not a conspiracy theorists...but Do Not Want to passively believe Lies (which we are fed constantly) ! My only social media is you tube !
You should interview ex NYT employee Chris Hedges. He actually has substance on this topic. Stopped listening at 26 minutes as I found this banal, surface, and frankly, rather intellectually lazy. Now granted, I'm from the US, not Europe and not global. The guest starts by blaming Trump, but Trump is only a symptom here of a half-century of "The Southern Strategy" combined with "The Powell Memo" and trickle-down Reaganomics-- which is what has result in a half-century of stagnant and declining wages for working Americans. (And thus, for instance, they can't pay off their student loans.) I know Thatcher did the same in the UK. Not one word of this. In the US we also have the myth this is somehow generational with the "boomers" being the problem. But there are PLENTY of youngsters marching in tiki torch parades and not too many oldsters. So this, "old people reacting to gay marriage" also sounds like intellectual laziness. Then... there is the propaganda of the corporate oligarchs--- it is THIS that results in the nationalism, the authoritarianism, and the blaming of immigrants, or Blacks or Jews for their lousy quality of life (Reaganomics) rather than the oligarchs. And the attacks on those with Gender Dysphoria is totally recent, and is just simply a new target. In the US this is a medical condition listed in the DSM-5. Any conversation not touching on that is ignorance, and that is all I've heard since the Republicans started targeting them just seemingly a few months ago. This guest ignores, or is unaware of powerful forces pushing us towards this-- by design-- since at least the Reagan years. She seems to pretend this all just kind of happened and because old people are mad over gay marriage. Not one word about corporate fascist propaganda and global(?) trickle-down Reaganomics destroying the middle class in all these countries. Instead, there is armchair psychologizing about "disorientation" but no recognition of the forces actually causing it that have been working on people for decades.
And hey, the democrats helped this out. They will debate culture war bullet points all day. But do they ever try to roll back any of the tax cuts for the wealthy? When was the last time democrats did anything to help the working class? Trump was elected, in my opinion, because Hilary was a horrible candidate. Everyone knew exactly what she is , a corporate democrat. Would be more if the same. So many took a chance on trumpy. And when Bernie was on his way to winning the Democratic primaries they pulled ole Joe out of mothballs to stop any chance at real change. I'm pretty much done with democrats. I see where they really stand. 46:16
Some good points but you're rushing to judgement; it is worth listening to more than 26 minutes. Maybe you just don't like mouthy women! It's not unknown that some don't.
Seriously the biggest factor in Trump's election was racial resentment, which is a direct result of the southern strategy you mentioned: blaming black people for everything that's wrong in society. Plenty of democrats have also engaged in the same race baiting tactics like the Clintons and Biden, but 95% of black people still vote for democrats which signals to conservatives that black people are still their "enemy". In addition, fascism and racism time and time again allies itself with the ruling elite of capitalists because they would rather the blame for economic woes be placed on racial minorities (who have no real political power) rather than themselves who actually control how profits get distributed. Moreover, American society in particular is still extremely segregated, especially at the local level where taxes of minorities in cities are used to subsidize the disproportionately higher costs of suburban whites. Services in cities like schools, transportation, etc are chronically underfunded while white neighborhoods are always well funded at the expense of racial minorities. So whites are inclined to vote conservative because they want to keep the system of unequal exchange and exclusion of racial minorities. There's no mention of any of this in this podcast which like you said is intellectually lazy
@@jillfryer6699 She's not "mouthy" at all she's lazy. She's minimizing the deep seeded hatred of racial minorities that is a staple of right wing politics as a factor that drives people to vote for them. It's as lazy as saying that the Nazis only gained support in Germany because of the great depression and not because it was a deliberate campaign by both the Nazis and the German capitalists to blame economic problems on Jews, socialists, women's rights, and the newly birthed democracy of the Weimar Republic.
@@jillfryer6699 Seriously? I name a scholar, give reasons and what you come up with is some cheap accusation of sexism? You can take a hike with that nonsense, but it certainly shows something about your character-- none of it good. Plus, you don't know what "mouthy" means as she wasn't even remotely "mouthy". And listening to 1/3 of it is hardly "rushing". Having said that, if you would like to share anything of substance from the 2/3 I didn't listen to then you just might redeem yourself. But I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for that.
This concept has always been how I saw it: disorientation. That, for example, the older people just barely beginning to get comfortable with Ellen being gay were suddenly required to accept Bruce Jenner as a woman. But where I was really educated by this podcast was in terms of seeing this similar dynamic in other countries. I had assumed that European nations were more sophisticated on these topics. Thank you so much for explaining this from a global perspective.
That is the part that is confusing to me. These “older people” were part of the most rebellious, norm breaking generation in US history. They marched and even died for the advancement of civil rights. I never thought so many of them would become like they are now. Did someone put something in the water?
@@aliannarodriguez1581 Most of them didn`t march and there was a huge opposition to these changes at the time as well. It`s like people looking back on today saying "But everybody stood up against the war in Gaza" because there is students at some universities protesting about that right now.
@@anthill1510 Fair point about the college protests but there really was a seismic shift that occurred in society at that time and those who were in the teens and twenties in the late 60s were at the leading edge. The draft was an existential threat to young men so they in particular probably felt they had little to lose in rejecting society. The hippie movement was extremely wide spread though, it wasn’t just happening on college campuses. And you can see how ubiquitous the changed sexual attitudes were by looking at any period TV show. The drug experimentation also became extremely wide spread at that time. People initially thought that being from a “good family” would protect their children from the lure of drugs, and that was an attitude that had to change quickly. But it’s a fair question to ask what percentage of young people at that time really shared the changing views about race and gender equality, environmental protection, etc. that were part of the movement.
I have detected an increasing level of anxiety among intellectual elites who once saw their role as being advocates for the oppressed and the marginalized, even as they earned a very comfortable living from their perch among the establishment. They are now afraid of the classes they thought they represented. They see that they are losing their power, and they are fighting against this. They feel rejected by those who they assumed would bow to their superiority. Populism is the reaction to the lie intellectuals have been telling the oppressed. This has coincided with increased inequality, while the elites profited from the increased role of government. Populism is returning democracy to where it belongs, in the hands of the people. What is happening now are birthing pains. What happens next will be very interesting. Let the idols fall.
You speak of intellectuals. No, they are not intellectuals, they are party shills, corporate shills. Intellectuals don't join these imperial think tanks. Intellectuals aren't power hungry, they're in universities, talking about some niche topic or specialized in a conference or classroom, they're writing books, studying. Intellectuals are not running this empire. Look at the corporate control of government. It's not too much government, it's not enough democracy. Remember, bribing candidates is still legal in the US. That's what "campaign finance" is: BRIBERY.
Progressive policy is having unintended consequences. Inflation, high business turnover, poor job mobility, and poor housing affordability. Yes, we can be progressive, but I don't think progressive policy is advancing the human condition when it's widening the wealth gap unintentionally. Center right politics still has a place in our society, and when progressives demonize moderate Republicans or mix them up with right wing populists, it really just makes the problem worse. And so, the only way out is with third party politics.
Let's do it in a more sensible way than Trump. Figure out what you want and advocate for it. You will probably find a lot of distance between you and trump...
@@jeffmeyer9319 No. Not true. It's political. Politics is POWER. We concentrate our power into our elected officials. We can DEFEAT Republicans in elections. By electing Democrats we can pass good laws that tax the rich more (the Republicans voted in the multi-millionaires and billionaires tax cuts, so Democrats can vote in higher *marginal* tax rates). Also - no one needs a billion dollars. Billionaires are total policy failures. And if they must have billions of dollars, fine, then they can pay more taxes. Let them make all the money they want as long as they pay their fair share of taxes. Vote for Democrats for Higher wages, unions, social security, Medicare, healthcare, environmental protections, infrastructure, net neutrality, rule of law, civil rights, voting rights, and Liberty and justice for all. Democrats govern better!
no it's stealing, monopolism, insider trading, bribing politician, hiding profits, not paying taxes and much more and most importantly it's SIN bud which GOD in heaven will deal with in the JUDGEMENT...."woe unto the rich" .."it's hard for a rich man to enter into heaven"...any questions?
One crucial point to stress for me is that when authoritarian regimes promise safety and stability, they are either flat out lying or are promising something they cannot deliver. I think this point needs to be stressed when arguing with those who support them, since it does not demand they change their values. When someone's position amounts to "I'm wiling to give up some of my liberties for safety" telling them they should prefer freedom firstly demands some sort of heroism from them and secondly implicitly agrees with the dichotomy the dictator is trying market himself on: authoritarianism = safety, democracy = less safety. In reality authoritarian regimes have a horrible track record of safety, of course. You're probably at the mercy of dictator's corrupt inner circle, crime may be abundant due to poverty authoritarianism often brings, not to mention you could be drafted in some bullshit war the dictator started for self-enlargement. If what you want is safety and stability, go with democracy instead of depending on whims and abilities of a single man.
Both sides are pissed off, and moving away from the “non-answers” that compromise and democracy has to offer. In other words, everybody wants to rule, and make wishful thinking real…and authoritarianism does that. And while the knee-jerk reaction is “ew!”, keep in mind, this is how your job is structured, how our military is structured…a top down approach. As a liberal, if I had total power I would remove the electoral college and plurality voting, on day one. This will never happen in the USA as structured. Because of these two points, this is why the USA is listed as a “flawed democracy” on the Democracy Index. Something Putin enjoys pointing out. If we’re a “full” or true (representative) democracy…I would be in full support of it, but it’s not.
electoral college makes the whole setup a fascist regime. imho. a joke on the electors. 'to hell with you suckers and your preferred candidates! You'll vote for what we give you or you wont vote at all'. Its not a problem unique to the USA. @@Bat_Boy
I am sure you were against mandating experimental injections and lock down. The lock down left are the actual totalitarian authoritarians. Biden and Trump are both thoroughly corrupt tools of the elite corporate criminals.
@@thefance4708 The issue with authoritarian movements is that they are 'democratic' only until the moment arrives when they are powerful enough to dismantle the mechanisms of democracy to cement their permanent rule - and at that moment they no longer represent ANY people, only their own leadership which historically becomes quickly and deeply corrupt, such as we see with Putin's regime.
I am 65 and American. I have never seen the USA less racist and less homophobic and less mysogonistic than it is today. We have actually made tremendous progress in accepting people of different identities.
@@mjeffn2 what is the backlash and regression you are referring to? In my life we have had a black president who served two terms. We allow gay people to associate freely and marry. We have people of all races, sexual orientations, nationalities, religions doing business together. Going to schools, churches, jobs and social events together. We even have laws protecting individual rights of identity groups so that they have a fair shot at getting the housing, jobs, schooling and the overall quality of life they prefer. This is rare in today’s world on other continents. And almost unheard of anywhere in past history.
I saw someone else make the argument that this could all be related to climate change. In crisis some people prefer to deny there is a crisis and look up to authoritarians who give you a scapegoat to blame all your problems on.
I tend to agree, although we have counter examples of where we’ve risen address the existential crisis. I suspect the difference here was the enormous amount of oil company money that was poured into peddling disinformation to the public and electing politicians that would disavow it. Top oil company executives are very intelligent and highly educated people. They know what they have done. I’ve often wondered how those executives, who are human beings with families, can face themselves in their final years knowing that they have likely guaranteed the destruction of every bright and beautiful thing their money bought them and doomed their grandchildren to hell on earth.
A dense, erudite, examination of the crisis we are in just now. As an ordinary, retired engineer, also struggling on fixed pension, though fairly safe, I can feel it. The appeal of the strong man (usually men) who can fix the unquestioned flaws all democracies face in the open (Dictatorships can hide/dispose of problems for a long time) But the inherent corruption they invariably bring will not be successful for the majority. All those condemning the system that, yes, does need serious reform, and asking for extreme solutions, must consider, do we really want Putin's Russia; Maduro's Venezuela, Orbán's Hungary...maybe Somalia, Yemen (Strong religion) Haiti (no government? No problem?) Please, be careful; most of Ukraine enjoyed a pretty stable, normal life - it can disappear surprisingly quickly.
Bingo. The embrace of right-wing ideas will fail. It has failed hundreds of times in history and invariably leads to death and destruction. It’s very scary that it’s rising across the world while we simultaneously face the existential threat of ecological collapse and climate instability. We are headed for a sad, ugly, miserable future if we don’t course-correct soon.
The major political shift I've seen is the relationship between the individual and the party. It used to be, which party closely aligns with my individual values. Today I see people looking to the parties as something to pledge their allegiance to. With that allegiance comes a bundle of positions, identities and ethics associate with and dictated from above.
Most people don't even have the experience of basic civics, like standing up and advocating for a policy on how to improve their local community. Government feels distant and inscrutable instead of being the responsibility of every citizen. Democracy is not just an ideal, it is a method which we seem to have abandoned, from board game clubs to discord servers. We are content mostly to be led by an appointed meritocracy of experts (or people who care enough to run for office), and it is telling that your knee-jerk reaction is probably to ask "is there any other way of doing things"? Yes, it's called democracy, it involves a lot of debating which a lot of people think is a waste of time. Fun fact, the US President's title is a fairly generic term. Tennis clubs had presidents. John Adams threw a whole fit about trying to make it sound more grandiose, but Washington was clear that he wanted to simply be known as Mr. President, and the term stuck.
@@andywomack3414 Exactly. Responsibility in Neo-Liberalism was handed over to economic elites. And we were all told everything would be better. Well, surprise...
@@Magnulus76I see it changing now. I'm a factory worker. People are really starting to wise up. I hope so. Change is coming. It's up to the billionaires if it's by ballot box or ammo box 😊
The problem is tribalism. It is thinking of "us vs. them." Regardless of left or right, a story is presented with some sort of hook or controversy to grab attention. That in itself is not an issue. The issue is profiting from stoking and flaming continued controversy and divisiveness. Remember "clicks, likes, shares, views"-all of these are monetized. We are far more likely to be similar than we think. But that thought does not sell stories.
Unless you have people from different cultures. In west hitting women or anyone isn't ok. In middle east that's not so clear. In Afghanistan or Pakistan nobody cares if you slap your wife.
I just listened an hour and a half of us and them. Ezra pounding his dull guest to “please agree to blame who I blame.” Ezra swears he is a liberal but he is a Thatcherite.
Exactly! And "Us vs Them" is not new to human societies either. We have been using this in various ways for thousands of years. Humans survive better within groups than on our own. But in a world of limited resources, we also use the power of our groups to secure access to the resources we need to survive and try to exclude others from access so we can hoard. How do we get everyone on board with that exclusion process? Us vs. Them narratives. Us vs Them is rooted in psychological projection and is fear-based behavior. So in the USA, we have used this to allow some (mostly WASP males) to survive at the expense of others (women, immigrants, native Americans, POC, etc). Trump represents someone who has no boundaries or morals, so allows his supporters to feel he has the power to bring this ugliness back while liberals have worked to undo it. It is immoral, but their fear will blind them to this truth. Unfortunate.
@@searchforserenity8058 You could start by noticing there are plenty of resources, we could even support more population. Allocation and distribution is the problem. But I thought everyone knew this. So this is eye opening.
@@searchforserenity8058 Trump's primary voterbase isn't comprised of the WASP gentry. It's comprised of the white working class who've been shafted by deindustrialization. Conflating all U.S. born Caucasians as privileged is one of the cardinal sins of the liberal-left's narrative. Uh oh! Perhaps your monopoly on "truth" isn't as ironclad as you thought. Unfortunate. Time for a little soul searching, and maybe a revisit of U.S. history.
Hi Ezra, I’m new to the podcast (the Steve Kotkin episode got my attention). But I’m thrilled with the work you are doing! You are knowledgeable about the subjects discussed and ask extremely thoughtful questions. I’ve finished 5 episodes in the past few weeks and feel you deliver a thorough, informative, and thought provoking experience. Cheers to you for being a great journalist and a real asset to your profession! My hat is off to you for being so respectful to your guests, while still asking hard questions.
Kotkin is a hack like every other crook at Hoover with their disgusting Christian fascist totty, Condi Rice, at the helm. Nail is the least ideologue/deranged hack of the bunch which in itself tells you everything you need to know about the Hoover institution, The seat of America's most regressive plutocracy.
It's absolutely shocking to me they don't see how labeling someone as racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. etc. is going to turn them off. They make it a self fulfilling prophecy
Where do you live? In the midwest of the US we have lost all our manufacturing and labor has been crushed. The response of the right is to blame this on immigrants and minorities. This is a lot easier to understand than macro economic factors. For example, now working class women have to work just to maintain their level in society. For professional educated women this great, the world is better for them. But working class women are not excited about working at Walmart. This is a huge decline in living standards. The failure of the left to help working class people is the issue.🐝🐝
Considering most Midwest states (OH, IN, WI, IA) vote in Republican government I would have to ask these women, who voted for Trump, why they vote against their own interests?
After Sanders had been ditched who was there speaking up for their interests? Noone. Trump provided a temporary feelgood buzz. I wouldn't begrudge anyone that little thing in this world.@@markwilliams2620
What interests do you think they’re against? Now working class women have to work just to maintain their level in society. Makes no sense whatsoever. But , let’s assume it does somewhere. Why are working women exempt in working to keep their status? Men aren’t ! You stop working, you don’t earn income and you’re falling behind. It was democrats and lack of thinking to believe that you double the workforce and you don’t cut your pay in half. Democrats told women to work, cutting the wages of men across the country. Easy common sense things here. The right doesn’t blame immigrants or minorities on us manufacturing lose. If leftist say this, they’re lying. Republicans blame democrats for the collapse of manufacturing. Some even understand the issue is multi faceted and no matter what small shifts in policy or presidents, the manufacturing sector in this nation had an amazing advantage over everyone else in the world. It wasn’t going to last forever. Democrat economic illiteracy accelerated the process of manufacturing declining. It wasn’t sustainable for much longer anyway. Some say trickle down economics is the culprit. Utter nonsense and complete rubbish. Had that model not been in place, democrats would’ve landed the nation in an depression that would be worse than the 30s. That didn’t happen and democrats still after all these presidents and time eras still haven’t developed an awareness of what economic sanity looks like. Democratic voters vote for policies from the 1930s
I see parallels here with what happened in Germany in the 1920s. There was a very strong movement to social liberalism in the 1920s, look at Berlin with it's art movements and it's gay scene. In the early 1930s there was a backlash led by Hitler's National Socialist Workers party, it branded modern art as degenerate , persecuted gay people, Jews etc. and harked back to 'true German values' and they targeted the young with mass propaganda and indoctrination. The economic situation after the 1929 crash also helped fuel the right wing. As we know now this movement was extraordinarily powerful and mobilized the whole country toward catastrophic war.
The economic woes affected germany before 1929. a quick search yields that hyperinflation hit germany hard between 1921 and 1923, BEFORE the great depression. largely due to the payments germany was forced to make to pay damages to other countries for losing the war. the resulting nationalism makes sense to an extent, but people were in survival mode for a while leading up to the rise of the nazi party.
I think to the point of the influence of social media's impact on these extreme political movements is that many whose views have been polarized toward these extremes, paid absolutely no attention to any news or politics before the advent of SM. I don't think it can be overstated.
I think it was the case with every invention that allowed spreading ideas. Guttenberg press, radio, or TV were always creating experts with new ideas to get their following.
Great point! And we have the billionaire a-hole in musk, who buys into a major sm company as a means to pedal his anti government control hate as a means to further spread hate and distrust in institutions. Think of the inordinate amount of influence that musk and murdoch alone have on the US population. Due to their wealth and control of media.
exactly, Trump is a milquetoast small government liberal that ran as a Republican because the DNC was too systemically corrupt to run fairly in (not that the GOPe isn't either but it's not as solidified so he a better chance than with the superdelegate system). Most people want "normal". The current status quo is NOT normal and people are finally waking up to that.
Disorientation comes from many factors, all being driven by the PACE of change. Accelerating change is causing massive social psychological disruption and disorientation. Our institutions are shaken by this problem - the pace of change is outrunning our cultural, political and economic structures and their ability to evolve. Of course these generational trends are significant, as well as the inevitable cultural backlashes, but driving the overwhelming disruption shaking personal and societal health.
This is a long interview of a scholar whose depth and breadth of knowledge is noteworthy. As you go through the interview, you will see the themes of technology and overwhelming change emerge in their discussions. I often think that the best strategy a leader in the West could propose, is to acknowledge and observe monthly ‘time-outs’ for an entire country or group of countries, that would agree to just slow down and let go of the rat race for a day or so. From the President on down, just agree to take a day for sanity. We have a calendar that does not always align with even numbers of weeks or months. Let’s set aside a few days each year to forego the madness for a few hours. Lots of ways to think about implementing it, but let’s see if we can begin to grab the throttle and pull back a notch or two. I think other cultures already do this, through their customs and holidays. Let’s try to emulate those traditions.
Have you considered that the far right is thriving and expanding so quickly is because you keep labelling more and more people far right because you keep moving more and more radically left.
This would be a great primer for people who don't know anything, or those who were born yesterday, perhaps high school students. How is it possible to be alive and not know this stuff already?
@@liveleigh She goes back to the Sixties, which falls in line with her age. Just strange that a simple recapitulation of well-worn, basic tropes would be taken for novel.
@@robertalenrichter She doesn't even really do that as there is no discussion of the economic impact of Reagan and Thatcher on the working class and middle class in various countries.
I was looking for something a little more current as well, but she did finally get to more of that in the later stages of the interview. I guess I was craving more of a simple cause and effect as well, and she didn’t really provide that. I suppose that’s fair, you would expect someone who has real expertise to have a very nuanced assessment and she did. The most chilling moment came at the very end, when she said that the increased numbers of younger people voting in the future might not matter if current democratic norms were successfully eroded before then.
That's what it looks like in terms of traditional political/democratic success but we need to be very vigilant. Canada especially is concerning right now and they have A LOT of help from super rich people + radicalized right wing groups here in the US. While these movements aren't very popular that's part of what helps aid their ability to grab power - they aren't taken seriously and although they may only have 20-30% of the population, that makes it easier to organize and concentrate efforts. Basically yes, the surge to power has waned and even been thoroughly countered back to a degree but we MUST NOT fool ourselves into thinking they'll take that as a sign to give up on fascist tactics and be content to try appealing to people democratically lol
@@sempressfi I am not an alarmist, but I hear that. When you have a shrinking group of people who used to be in control or thought themselves in control but now they are marginalized, they have a tendency to strike out in frustration.
@@sempressfi Luckily, Canadian apathy and citizens who are willing to speak out (shout out to my local NDP candidate who shut down a far right candidate hard, yeah we Canadians can get mildly defensive of our multiculturalism) are mostly dealing with the fringe right. It's the conservatives who are learning from the Republicans that I'm most worried about. A paper coup, as it were, a silent power grab enabled by apathy.
As a Canadian I’m utterly terrified of the wackos taking over the Conservative Party. Goofy wannabe Trumpster are rising in the polls with the aid of the (so called liberal) media. When you factor in the power fossil fuel industry in Alberta, Canada looks very scary right now.
Follow the money; donations speak volumes. Here in the U.K. we had a burst of Russian and Chinese donations…to political think tanks and to ministers themselves! we’ve had US Evangelicals too! Now we’re courting Saudi investment. I can understand investment until it becomes influence and turning a blind eye…these investments need the highest standards of transparency. Older gens will always look back and imagine the good old days, but politicians can and do drive these populist notions, out & out lie with false narratives. If the money isn’t there, you can be sure certain types of politician will pivot on a dime and drop the populist narrative
But the right in fact do not care about the people to whom they pander. What they are retailing is a bogus essentialism, which is a metaphor at best. It is bound to fail - not that it is too weak to make a real mess. I think it will fail because it appeals, cynically, to people's misplaced sense of concreteness as to who they think they "really" are.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Who are these people really? Deracinated individual global consumers whose identities are just commodities they purchase, I guess. You're bound for success.
Liberalism is dead. People still call themselves liberal just like God is dead and we still have Christians. We do not have new ism for society with larger populations reiterating or already retired and voting and small populations working and paying taxes and being outvoted. It's all about economy, folks.... We would end up with socialism or fasgism where taxpayers will be always outvoted by those that receives social assistence/retirement. It is in the numbers and not ideologies.
Another book recommendation: Strangers In Their Own Land, by Arlie Russell Hochschild. Excellent book for the American context. The author is a liberal sociologist from the very left-wing Bay Area who spends almost a year living with people in very conservative rural Louisiana and just writes about her interactions with them, their traditions, their thought processes, etc. A great book to get a sense of all the micro ways in which these political developments happen, on a human, person-to-person level.
Agreed, a very insightful look into the American culture and the rural mind. There is the curious phenomenon of why people would vote against their own self interest.
That is a stupid book. Hochschild makes the whole thing a lot more complicated than it really is. People vote Republican because of abortion and guns, and because they think blacks are a bunch of idiots. But Hochschild can't bear to talk about that.
“What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. Every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet - Liberal - as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.” -
And what are the Heralds of the people fighting over? A matter of convenience in abortion and less than 1% of the population in the trans community.@@paulgauthier7033
As a climate activist and science teacher (background in ecology and evolutionary biology), this is honestly, my greatest fear. We have climate chaos descending on us and humanity is taking it all the wrong way. Instead of examining our hyper-consumption, colonialism, sense of economics, (and other Stupid human Tricks)... too many people are doubling down on their cognitive bias, prejudices, and bigotry. It's human nature to seek the easy way out and so here comes the "Strong Man" promising it, "just give me power" he says. It's my ultimate sadness because I see this species choosing to go down the hard way of turning on each other instead of cooperating on upholding all of life and its diversity.
So you live in a passive house of less than 1,500 feet? Are you a minimalist? Do you shop within a 15 minute self imposed city? Many right wingers do and they still like Trump. It’s more about morals and traditional values, excessive unfettered immigration at the cost of our tax dollars than anything else. Now go study evolutionary psychology and you’ll figure it out.
Well if you're a "science teacher" I would hope you have the competence and honesty to point out FIRST AND FOREMOST that ALL OF THE PREDICTED CLIMATE CHANGES ARE BIGGER THAN THE MARGINS OF THE ERRORS OF THE SO-CALLED STUDIES -- and, in other words, CLIMATE PREDICTIONS HAVE NO BASIS EVEN IN THEIR OWN STUDIES AND ARE BEYOND MEANINGLESS. And I would hope you have the subject knowledge and elementary scientific knowledge to realize that CO2 levels and temperature ARE NOT RELATED if you ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE FACTS OVER GEOLOGICAL TIME. Dr. Patrick Moore, Ph.D., one of the founders of Greenpeace, makes that abundantly clear in his lengthy, detailed, authoritative demonstration of the the facts over properly-representative periods of time. The ONLY reason some hysterics are yapping about CO2 and temperature being related is because TOO LITTLE TIME SPAN (only about 600,000 years) is being looked at by the hysterics, power seekers, dilettantes, and acclaim seekers involved. ALSO I hope you point out that vast majority of the scientists, school teachers, power seekers, pathological cases, and arm chair claimers of moral superiority ARE NOT TRAINED IN CLIMATE. AND ALSO, I HOPE YOU ARE A GOOD ENOUGH TEACHER TO WARN STUDENTS that all the hysteria translates to big budgests, big salaries, glamorous lifestyles, prestige positions, speaking tours, opportunities to manipulate and exploit, and endless opportunities for nothings and nobodies to claim moral and intellectual superiority by passing on dishwater-grade knee-jerk reactions to band wagon journalism and that there is no motivation in journalism or school teaching to actually search for the truth -- quite the contrary, truth seeking about climate is one of the forms that is punished these days, including in the so-called "educational" system. Check out Dr. Tim Ball, Ph.D. A REAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST and he'll straighten you out about some of the garbage being thrown around in the climate catastrophe racket. If you're a "science teacher" you'd make a real contribution by learning how to debunk climate hysteria and learning how to show your students how to look at the studies and see their meaninglessness, and how to see all the manipulation in the media and in social culture. That's what is needed but it's not often that school teachers actually muster the guts to search for the truth, IF they actually have the ability.
You pontificate about it being "human nature to seek the easy way out" BUT ARE YOU INCLUDING SLOPPY-THINKING PARROTS OF BASELESS, UNSCIENTIFIC HYSTERICAL CLIMATE DOGMA as an easy way that lots of people are taking, rather than working hard at seeking the truth???? What is easier for you, dishing out the pablum you read and hear in the dogma-mongering media, or sitting down and grinding over the hard science that would show you, or anyone, how THE MARGINS OF ERROR IN THE HYSTERIA CALCULATIONS ARE BIGGER THAN THE PREDICTIONS? I suggest most school teachers just take the easy, lazy, under-educated, unlearning route and simply, unthinkingly spout climate hysteria for the sake of preserving their own comfort zones and easy, cheap claims of being morally and intellectually superior.
Ezra Klein wrote a column for the NY Times entitiled- "Let’s Launch a Moonshot for Meatless Meat" April 24, 2021 First paragraph-"I’m a vegan, but I’m also a realist. There’s no chance humanity is going to give up meat, en masse, anytime soon. That said, we can’t just wish away the risks of industrial animal agriculture. If we don’t end this system, soon, terrible things will happen to us and to the planet. Terrible things are already happening." Switching to a fully plant based diet is the single most effective measure for each of us to minimize our environmental footprint, according the lead author of the most comprehensive study on the environmental impact of food production on our environment. Here is a quote from an article by "The Independent:- "According to the most comprehensive analysis of farming’s impact on the planet, plant-based food is most effective at combatting climate change. Oxford University researcher Joseph Poore, who led the study, said adopting a vegan diet is “the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth.” “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he explained, which would only reduce greenhouse gas. Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy,” he added.” -Interview of Joseph Poore, Environmental Science Researcher, University of Oxford. Joseph Poore switched to a plant based diet after seeing the results of the study.
@@someguy2135 Let's hope all those plants get enough carbon dioxide. Do we have enough? And they'll need a lot of water, and they'll put a lot of water into the atmosphere, more of the number 1 greenshouse gas. And would they need a lot of fertilizer? Was fertilizer part of Dr Poore's model of sustainability?
@dellwright1407What can be asserted without justification can in turn be dismissed without justification. If that person doesn't feel the need to argue, make a proper case about anything, and just spews some empty non-statement as "she's so wrong it's scary", that's not only just an opinion, but an unjustified hunch by some random person on the internet who doesn't even feel the need to convince anyone about anything. So, we have no reason whatsoever to even consider it, because we literally don't have any reason to do so provided by this person in the first place.
It is so much easier to blame all of your problems or society’s problems on a group of people or person even than to self reflect and realize that things in your country are f’ed in the A.
It's easy to point out problems; it's much harder to point out why those problems exist and even harder still to come up with solutions for those problems. Things being "f'ed in the A" don't just emerge mysteriously from the aether and laying the blame for them at the feet of a particular group can be necessary provided it's done as part of a process to deal with the issues and not just to complain.
@@goatwatch5375so your argument was a covert way to blame all of society's problems on one small group (thE FAr RighT) by arguing that they refuse to "reflect" and take responsibility.... For all of society's problems? Priceless.
As a socialist, I found this video exceedingly boring and lacking an explanation of why the far right is thriving across the globe. All they seem to be saying is some people got mad about progressive cultural issues and there is a backlash because they feel left out. One quote I found comical, laughable, was when the guest said that people can agree to disagree on economic issues or come to a compromise, but the cultural issues are the sticking points. Excuse me? Agree to disagree on economic issues or come to a compromise? That is not what is happening in the US. I guess if you make 100,000 a year, maybe you see it what way. But there are working class people everywhere who also have ideas about how society is being run. They are deemed ignorant, whether they're right wing, left wing, or non voting. Economic issues are affecting large swaths of people in countries around the world. Working class, even middle class people, have every reason to distrust the elites of whatever political stripe when they see that very popular economic policies are not enacted by political leaders (Medicare for All for example, Medicare negotiating for all drug prices, federally protected vacation time, parental leave, etc.) Then lately all economic problems in the US are blamed on Putin, or even on how the American voters just don't realize how great Biden has been for the economy. They need to listen to the experts explain how well things are going under Biden (or under Trump). In short, this video seems to barely touch on economics. How on earth can you avoid discussing that? These people are just listing off things that have happened recently without apparently explaining any overarching trend. They mention racism and immigration repeatedly, which are factors, but please, study some Marxism for once. (To be honest, I didn't finish listening to the video, so I missed some of the economic discussion, but it is shameful to leave economics out until toward the end of the video, really.) Okay, I've heard the gist now of the economic piece. They want us to vote for trusted technocrats to competently manage economic crises until everyone is happy again and then we can turn our attention to cultural issues. Poverty in the US has been bad for decades. I don't think people trust "disinterested technocrats" as anything but corporate and political party shills. Get with the program is what they say.
People mistrust Marxists not because they advocate a fairer distribution of wealth, but because they put ideology over observable facts JUST LIKE RELIGION. The universities have been laid waste by the adoption of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory and post modernism which never solves problems because it never engages with the facts concerning those problems. You wisely advocate for economics to be addressed, but why not use econometrics rather than ideology? In this regard, socialists are exactly like neoliberals.
Interesting content but your guest really does sound as if she’s explaining to a group of pre-schoolers. “Now children, settle down, take out your crayons, today we’re going to draw a fascist…”
Thank you. This discussion has helped me better understand the political and cultural changes that seem to be moving so fast. I especially appreciate the long view and the international views. I like history, especially medieval. This discussion will lead me to a more current body politic.
I will comment before watching the video, for comparison purposes. There are multiple factors. One common thread is immigration, legal or otherwise. It triggers a deep-seated fear of loss of cultural identity. People are very sentimental about themselves. It also triggers racial bias, if the immigrants are non-white. It triggers class fears of downward mobility, since the immigrants are generally poorer. It triggers fear of increased crime. Shameless right-wing politicians magnify these fears, the better to pander to the bigotry and fear. Another factor is globalizing of the world economy, and outsourcing of jobs to cheap, foreign labor. This is largely simply a case of unfettered capitalism is action, assisted by a shrinking world with improved communication and transportation. But right-wing politicians can feed a more conspiracy-oriented story of a secret, shadowy "elite" that has a sinister plot for domination and profiting from misery, RIght-wing politicians are professionals at scapegoating, even if the real "villains" are as likely as not from their own camp. Another factor is reactionary backlash against the progress of gays, blacks and women. The white, male Christian traditional power structure sees the demographic trend of its own eroding power, so is increasingly willing to turn to fascism and undermining of democracy, They spread hate propaganda furiously toward that end. Another factor is the growth of social media and information bubbles. Mainstream media has as been to the benefit of status quo, yet had to be half-way "responsible". The new media jungle does not. It is far more partisan, more extreme, more hateful, and also allowing people far more easily to filter out all information that does not confirm their own biases. Now, what did the video say?
This conversation seemed like a recitation of mostly obvious points: social change can leave older people feeling disoriented, mainstream parties have lost their dominance etc. I agree with Ezra Klein that social media is a HUGE factor, and it's very strange that Pippa Norris dismissed this. I think the problem, maybe not perfectly articulated by Klein, is that she's often repeating the mainstream narrative of why populist parties became popular -- but that narrative can itself end up being heavily influenced, distorted -- in some cases created out of thin air -- by the media. For instance social media can greatly amplify, beyond all rhyme and reason, the perception of "woke leftists" taking over society or immigrants streaming across the border. It's also propelled the spread of conspiracy theories and alternative narratives that favor populist parties. And maybe most fundamentally, it gave these outsider politicians a foot in the door in the first place. Certainly the rise of far-right ideologies happened on the internet, and often served as a vanguard for populist parties. I assume there's some greater insight in Norris' book which is reportedly heavy on data to make its point...but I have no idea how you'd ever quantify the view that social media doesn't have a big impact. What she mentioned in this podcast, the fact that many people still say they get their news from TV, certainly doesn't make that case!
I didn't think we said enough to answer the question "Why now?" How did we end up with a generation (globally) who wield enormous political power but still see themselves as the "out group"?
That’s pretty scary, because even back in 1994 reports were being written for the military predicting that many countries would be overwhelmed by massive waves of refugees fleeing famines resulting from climate change. That’s not classified information by the way.
Jared Diamond would say that when resources are few and people many, "tribes" form to either secure already gotten gains or take what others have already accumulated. In any such tribe, potential leaders step forward to focalize mass intent. Candidates tell potential followers various stories (epistemo-ontological entanglement / propaganda) intended to motivate and vindicate unified tribal activities. (The candidate with the most motivating story becomes tribal leader.) Today, inflation is a sign that resources are in decline. Meanwhile, those who have much also appear to be accumulating even more of what resources remain available. January 6th was a "torches and pitchforks" leading indicator. Any people who wish to avoid tribal conflict must find a way to create a full spectrum opportunity society while also ensuring that existential needs are met for all citizens. It may be as simple and as complicated as that...
Well, if the public has been economically declining since the early 1970s (eg, based on real wages) and wealth inequality has increased, and govt spending as a percent of GDP has increased and money printing and debt have increased and asset prices have increased faster than real economy growth...... Then it suggests that resources are scarce because they are being concentrated largely related to policy decisions. So maybe addressing that would be an interesting start. And then replacing divisive media and brain dead education with useful information that people can use to trade with each other might be an interesting idea, too.
@@OurNewestMember The game of "ACESIIACES" assumes the four suits of the card deck represent "modalities of consciousness". It assigns Spades to those who, at best, only give in order to get (transactionalists). Diamonds to "Thinkers", Hearts to "Creatives" and Clubs to "Humanitarians". There are far too few of the latter and far too many playing the game as "spadesters"...
Coming from that world I had similar experiences but also escaped the pain as she did. Christianity taught me to stop fighting, drinking, and cowing in shame. I left the anti-intellectual life for college and graduate work in psychology. I also left bitterness and blaming behind and pursue providing therapy and recovery for addicts and their families around the world.
It is a lie that after WWII women left the workforce in droves. The female labor participation rate actually stayed the same and increased throughout the 50s. There was a brief recession and unemployment bump in the late 40s as veterans began to return, but Betty Freidan was not speaking to a general consensus of how most homemakers felt. In fact when polled around the same time as the feminine mystique, many SAHMs reported high levels of satisfaction and busy lives, rather than the bored unfulfilling existence Friedan claimed most women had. The decline of religion also misses the critical element of the decline of extended and nuclear family arrangements happening first. Mary Eberstadt has written a great deal about that. So far, two big misnomers within the first 10 minutes.
I put it down to the end of communism. Liberals and reactionaries always hated each other, it was only the threat of communism that created a mutual enemy to cleave them together. In many ways we're going back to the pre-Marxist Victorian age, with an endless battle between the forces of reaction and the forces of liberalism, with the latter hardly guaranteed to win. Or if it does win, only forced into making concessions to conservatives. I know the west likes to believe its liberal achievements were all part of some inevitable teleological process, but the presence of communism played a huge part, in the civil rights movement, the women;s movement, even in the foundation of western democracy, That is inadvertently, as the spectre of communism gave western liberals leverage, as in better concede to us moderates or the militants are taking over. Remember the Cold War at the time, was never framed in terms of god vs atheism; nationalism vs internationalism; socialism vs capitalism - it was defined as liberal democracy vs communist totalitarianism. But once communism was beaten, an older more ancient, more primitive dichotomy rose from the ashes. The forces of reaction becoming the main antagonism against liberalism. A return of an age-old dichotomy that first erupted in Yugoslavia, and then slowly but surely spread out to envelop most of the world. Basically liberal democracy has become a victim of its own success. Reagan's defeat of communism, negating the very antithesis that was allowing the western liberal hegemony to dominate much of the world. It's not that the forces of reaction ever disappeared, it's just their target was first and foremost communism, While communism was strong, it sucked all the far right's energy and emphasis away from the liberal establishment. Once communism was negated as a serious threat, the new target slowly but surely became liberalism again, just as in the 19th century. In fact, more and more - democracy itself is even becoming challenged. The forces of reaction of course fought virulently against democracy throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as suffrage was deemed ungodly and anarchic. We may be returning to that world. that is if Marxism does not make a serious comeback.
I think you're right about the power that a totalitarian communist threat had in uniting moderates and reactionaries and therefore enabling sweeping reforms but I think it's quite disrespectful to the human yearning for freedom to solely attribute the rise of democracy to this. For example, was there a communist threat when the US constitution was written, when Parliaments were first being formed in medieval Europe or even when the Athenians organised into an assembly democracy or did communism force the end of slavery in America? Also, it seems like a stretch to me to attribute major achievements like universal sufferage, civil rights and labour union successes primarily to communism when it can be explained by people realising society is opening up and they want to make sure it goes all the way to include them i.e. democratic momentum. In my opinion the fundamental driver of democratic success is simply people wanting to govern themselves and therefore there is no need for a revival of Marxism to keep the project going. Although, I must admit it would make cohesion more likely.
@@bordedup546 All those democracies were limited, for instance slaves, women couldn't vote. Or like in the UK where you could only vote if you owned property, which basically excluded 80 percent of the population. Universal suffrage only came about in the UK in 1919, I think maybe events in Russia concentrated the minds of the great and the good in London. Democracy as we know it today only came into being in the 20th century, every man and woman no matter their social standing getting the right to vote, . And sure slavery was abolished, but democracy and the constitution played a huge part in preserving it, and then created segregation. And lest we forget, the US committed genocide under the constitution The US never became a real democracy until the civil rights movement in the 60s when poor illiterate black people were allowed to vote without any tests But sure progress was made by liberalism in terms of civil rights, that is within the west among white wealthy people, but not in economic rights for the poor, such as rights to education, rights to housing, pensions etc they only happened after the advent of communism. Also the move by the West to end imperialism, only got going post WW2. Vast social progress was made in the west in the post war period, that all seemed to start being clawed back with the rise of Gorbachev in the 80s when it became obvious the Soviets wanted out of the great ideological battle. The west wasted no time in drawing back the social contract, slashing welfare, raising retirement ages, drafting in anti-union laws, privatizing utilities and of course cutting taxes for the wealthy etc etc. The west also began a new phase of imperialism, looking to expand neo liberalism to the entire world. And now we are faced with irregular democracy, or even growing calls to overthrow democracy. Blatant gerrymandering, the use of identity to deter working class votes. All the tricks of the 19th century coming back to life. Which is probably going to get worse, until communism starts making a comeback again. It's a basic Hegelian triad - capitalism thesis; communism antithesis - social democracy synthesis. Once the antithesis disappears, so does the synthesis.
@@JAMAICADOCK Well I never claimed my examples were of full democracy, only of expansions of democracy. Therefore democratic expansion is entirely possible without communism to compete with, ancient Athens being the starkest example. You say that universal sufferage happened after the 1917 revolution but plenty of steps were taken to increase the size of the electorate before women were allowed. That is because this process began far before communism was around to somehow initiate it. Also you only said communism might've had an effect on womens suffrage but I already argued that the momentum of democratising more of the population, started by the creation of parliamentary institution in Western Europe in the medieval ages, leading upto it would've had a much clearer impact. I will also argue this for the civil rights movement. Also, I highly disagree with your characterisation that "the West" cut back it's social contract towards the end of the cold war. Firstly because "the West" isn't a thing, it's a collection of independent democracies. Therefore it's not true that every single Western country became less interested in their welfare state. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where the welfare state and power of labour unions grew regardless. There is more than America to "the West". My main issue with your argument is that is implies that democracies aren't about improving the lives of their citizen and only the threat of an ideology that focuses on the working class is able to force them to do so. That somehow democracy is a facade of progress that lets itself go once it doesn't face a threat of an alternative that promises progress. That sounds like an extension of communist dogma in itself to me: we weren't able to deliver on our promises to our citizens but we are the only reason that democracies began to fulfill these promises to their citizens since our wonderful ideology forced them to. I also find it pretty ridiculous given the multitude of contradicting examples. However, I will concede that an external threat makes cohesion towards shared goals of improvement easier and more urgent but not that these things would've been impossible without. Also I don't mean to say I dislike or have any animosity towards you, just that I passionately and respectfully disagree with your argument because it's easy for people to take things the wrong way over the internet
@@bordedup546 We talking about social democracy right, not the magna carta. - that aristocrats wanted protection from a tyrannical king, is not progress in any modern sense of the word. The US constitution allowed genocide, slavery, segregation, and massacres of striking workers - so not much to brag about. And sure trade unions and chartists were demanding universal suffrage all over the world, but generally got killed for their troubles. Paris Commune for instance/ apart from liberal Switzerland everywhere else brutally suppressed universal suffrage, and Switzerland only really embraced universal suffrage because it full of wealthy bankers and farmers so really had nothing to lose.. The game changer was 1917, modern social democracy in the west flows from that event, and the return to neo liberal 19th century capital flows from the end of the cold war. And all countries have rolled back their social contracts - some more than others, but all have, and will continue to roll back their social contracts, until revolution becomes a reality again. Social democracy was a mirage, a castle in the air as Marx called it. Basically gilded cage to lock western workers, which was probably unsustainable over the long run, given it relies on the rich to pay for the welfare of the poor. Which Marx believed the rich wouldn't do, Mind you it was probably Marx that compelled them to pay up, as they trembled at the spectre of communism,
@@JAMAICADOCK I'm talking about the history of democracy as a whole because you can't explain the existence of modern social democracies without it. The Magna Carta was a tremendous moment of progress, as was the US Constitution, as was the first parliament in Spain, as were each of the steps taken on the long road to universal suffrage, and so were the assembly democracies of the ancient world. Modern democracies didn't spawn out of thin air thanks to communism, they are the culmination of a long slog beginning all the way back in ancient Mesopotamian assemblies. For most of its history, democracy couldn't be considered modern or fair like in today's social democracies but they were what facilitated its creation, which you mistakenly attribute solely to communism. I haven't read much about it (and I probably will now), but I'm certain that communism helped hasten the development of social democracies. Nonetheless, it's obvious to me that the momentum required to create them comes from people that strived towards it for millennia and the institutions they left behind, not a few decades of Soviet communism. Taken from this perspective social democracy isn't a mirage or a castle in the sky, it's the modern-day incarnation of a grand political project for self-governance spanning history itself. Democracy can be subverted and destroyed from the inside but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I mean, just look around you. If Marx and other communists (perhaps yourself?) spent more time thinking about concepts like the rule of law and institution building they would realise that despite how evil and corrupt humanity can be, we can learn to govern ourselves equitably without the need to submit ourselves to utopian dogma and the tyrannical dictators that claim legitimacy from it. Also, could you please provide further evidence for the claim that all democracies began to roll back their social contracts as soon as the Soviet Union looked likely to lose the cold war? Perhaps a book or an article or something, since that's quite literally contrary to the reality that I live in every day.
Nothing grows in Texas. Not much in Iraq either. Rivers wrecked with dams and garbage. You'd weep just seeing a photo. Cradle of civilization. Fertile crescent, till quite recently.
There are 2 corporate parties in America. The choice is between fascism classic and rainbow fascism and both parties want to stifle debate around reforming the capitalism that allows them to dominate our lives and removes civic control in favor of one oligarchy or another. Neither supports a strong middle class, open debate, and social tolerance. The working class are keeping everyone in this country alive but if they look to the right for better wages, you chastize them for not following the correct oligarchy, instead of actually improving their living standards when you have the power to. The oligarchs like this broken system and they control these parties and they are ineffectual because they want them that way.
This is probably a bit extreme, but both parties certainly favor capitalism and the status quo. The far-right ALSO favors capitalism, which makes it even more dangerous.
Misplaced anger. But when the handouts to rich corporations or the rich themselves, the same people do exactly nothing. They say nothing. I guess normal people just want an actual representative government that looks out for them, but no one else... it doesn't work that way, but what we have now is reps looking out for the rich.... which is themselves ...
The tone of their vioces is so arrogant and the delivery style so condescending (not to mention the assumed moral superiority) i had to turn it off. I really tried, i like to listen to all sides but i don't watch the 700 club for the same reason.
How do you think insights like "they are reacting to us being degenerate, soft handed parasitical, communist, cross dressers who have flooded their countries with people who do not share their culture all while taking over every institution so we can scream at them about how awful they are." Would go over?
That's not even responsive to my simple ask. Why are you so defensive? Maybe you are unaware of the examples of authoritarianism from the Left. Furthermore, the guest's point weren't all that pointed, kind of boilerplate anyway.
@@furmanodell Probably not "responsive" because I'm not Ezra. Also, you clearly don't know what "defensive" is. I am _dismissive_ because it is such a lame and typical effort by a Republican to appear as if what they are doing is somehow in the realm of normal. It isn't. In the US it is the Republicans and only the Republicans who attempted a coup, are overtly anti-democracy, in favor of a religious-based authoritarianism. It is only the Republicans who attack other American citizens seeking to deny and restrict not only their rights, but even their access to needed healthcare. It is only the Republicans who seek to impose their goofy religious beliefs on everyone else. It is only the Republicans who don't even have a political platform and have ejected simply every single "value" and "principle" they've espoused for decades.
I thought the point was a lamentation of authoritarianism. And I'm like, hey Ezra, are you really lamenting that? Because the Left has its examples too. A lot of them. The move away from Leftism is not surprising given the one party rule the Left has had on Europe for many, many decades. Oh and Meloni isn't far right, that's utterly ridiculous. Here policies are pretty centrist.
If you want to understand the rise of the right, I suggest you ignore Ezra Klein and read an article that was in the March 10, 2016 issue of the New York Review of Books about the fact that Denmark is refusing to let in any more Muslim immigrants. The Danish politicians say, basically, "We let in 300,000 Muslim immigrants several years ago, and all they did was sit on welfare and commit crimes. We are not going to let in any more." But Ezra Klein and his buddies refuse to talk about that.
Because it effectively doesn't exist in the US? Zero political power or representation at any level of US government, from local to federal. Maybe ~2% to 5% at most of the US would be identified as actually leftist. Zero money behind it. Zero real organization or power behind it. The US left is an ineffectual, non-existing, joke. The left absolutely exists, but not in the US. This shows how effective the DNC is at their job, which is to squash and/or assimilate any grassroots leftism as it arises. name a single anti capitalist legislator in the last 50 years. Some semi literate is going to comment "Bernie." lmao. Ah yes the "radical leftist" that votes with the center right Dems about 100% of the time. Good stuff. The left is an ineffectual, irrelevant, barely to non existing butt of a joke that no one takes seriously.
Because some seem to think that “far left” = anything Matt Walsh would disagree with. I can’t speak for Europe, because I’m an American. But the entire American political establishment - both major parties - is solidly right of center. The closest thing America has to a “left” is some people embracing, and possibly pushing fringe social issues. What right-wingers would call “the cult of woke”. But even the “woke” movement is solidly entrenched in corporate capitalism (Bud Lite, anyone?) - which makes it … definitely not far left. But as far as a left of any real political and economic substance, it simply doesn’t exist. When there’s a leading candidate of a substantially powerful movement pushing for collective ownership of the means of production, then we can talk about an American “far left”. Until then, every time I hear “far left” or “socialists”, I’m reminded of that line from the classic movie “The Princess Bride” - “You keep using that word, but I’m not sure you know what it means.”
Once again, Canada which has always held a unique political, economic and social place in the world has been left out of this so called international debate. We are not 'Americans' nor are we Brits. Your ignorance is astounding.
I think more than a few Americans would define define the Canadian system, if transplanted to the United States, as Marxist. The same Americans would similarly define Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, and so on as being "Marxist". The problem is, most Americans do not know what Marxism is. It's just a buzz word to them, devoid of any real meaning besides a convenient name for the bad guys!
I've been thinking about this phenomenon for a while. Being center-right and having studied economics, I tried (naturally) to find the answer here. Various theories of cycles that inevitably lead to a weakening of society, inward looking and radicalization of the left/right. But it's all rather overcomplicated and even within socioeconomics, long cycle theories are quite controversial. In the end, though, the answer seems to lie elsewhere. Compared to "cycles" it is relatively simple and in a way logical. It is a kind of "tribal behaviour". In a framework, the equation goes like this: the internal cohesion of a society is determined by external threats. If the external threat is relatively high, the group (society) tends to exhibit a higher degree of altruism. Conversely, if a society lives in peace for a long period of time, internal cohesion begins to break down and the society becomes radicalized. This is why we have seen radicalization especially after the end of the Cold War. The rest of it - Trump, the progressive left, the radical right - is just an oscillation that grows with each political cycle until something happens. What can happen? However, low birth rates, high levels of internal conflict and low cohesion will inevitably lead to the West being replaced by another group - be it China, Muslims or Indians - unless something changes.
American football and the "allegiance" to their "teams" even to the point of violence. Some of these sports are a training ground for mindless following.
We always hear people bemoaning the fact that the Center can't hold, but why doesn't the Center itself moderate and work with the Left-wing when the Far Right is a threat? Let's not be under the misapprehension that centrism is necessarily a moderate political stance - if you cling to a hard-core centrist stance, you're no moderate. So what causes the Center to often shun peaceful, progressive left-wing movements when they'd often find themselves in a large majority if they simply ceded ground on some economic issues?
Wtf center are you talking about? Roughly half of them will join peaceful, progressive left-wing movements. And in large part they have already ceded on economic issues -- that's why they're not on the left or on the right. This sounds like a vague complaint that "the center" has viewpoints that aren't the left.
From a 10,000 year perspective, authoritarian governance dominates human history. Democracy appeared briefly in Athens, reappeared in the West in 18th century, and dominated the next 300 years. The current trend back to authoritarianism has the force of history and human instincts.
@@Patriot1789 You think average voter is informed or even cares how they vote? The pattern that repeats is rise of liberty and courage. through revolution and blood democratic society is achieved. When people figure out they can vote themselves into public treasury apathy sets in and as people become more dependent on government authoritarianism raises its head. Most people vote left for safety net. Not because they love poor people. They love themselves and want themselves covered. *Back into bondage you go weak people*
I think this is a bit simplistic. Athens was only possible because the institution of assemblies were built and developed by the Mesopotanians for centuries before and eventually culminated in Athens. In the same way that the centuries of institution building in medieval Europe of Parliaments culminated in the 18th democratic revolution. Even after the 18th century institutions were further developed to universialise democracy i.e. womens right to vote, civil rights, etc... To put briefly, even if it appears that the world has mostly been authoritarian, democratic institutions are always building in the shadows. This should bring us hope that new institutions will form even faster while democracy is in the light to wade of new trends of authoritarianism. Nothing is guarenteed, history is extremely contingent
@@bordedup546 I don't think the first steps were anything special. They are just attributed to mesopotamian civilizations because that's where we can first pin point them. Semi democratic system naturally arises in a tribal settings. The chief has to listen to the other men or they will gang up on him. The real struggle is to maintain understanding of why the flow of ideas and opinions is the life blood of democratic society. There is no democracy without freedom of speech. Even today we have delusional or simply evil people thinking censoring opinions is something that can co exist with democratic system. The problem with democratic system is that people are retarded and nobody is fit to be a master.
Well, one could also say that from 200,000 year perspective we lived in small, egalitarian groups where group cohesion was far more important than a single authoritarian leader. The force of history is definitely real since we spent most of it in monarchies and hence have to deal with thousands of years worth of storytelling about how amazing that structure is, however evolutionary we have tendencies for both hierarchical and egalitarian systems and it's only us which tendencies we'll feed.
Apart from ignoring a certain part of the population and alienating them politically, socially and economically, I think disinformation has a lot to do with the rise of this ilk of politician; also the platforms from which disinformation is spread.
31:05 This resistance to changes in society boils down to their feelings about their own mortality. If u resist change, resist progression, then b a caveman. Here’s an example: I graduated nursing school at 24. In every clinical setting where we ‘practiced’ nursing w/ our professor, everything was handwritten. Computers had not come into healthcare for charting, etc yet. Now we’re newly licensed nurses working in a hospital so afraid we’re going to get something wrong and do harm. Right about that time, the hospital announces nurses will b getting laptops on carts, no more handwritten charting. There will b training classes for each nurse until they are completely comfortable. New nurses: “ugh I’m still learning how this whole nursing stuff works but ok; we have to move forward w/ technology.” Those who had been nurses for 10, 15 yrs: “No! I’m not doing that! How do they expect me to learn that stuff?! I’ll quit or just retire before I learn a computer!” It was ridiculous then, but looking back, 25 yrs later, it was just plain kicking & screaming bc they were afraid (still ridiculous too!). Learn or get left behind. Do u like driving and not having to ride a horse or walk? Indoor plumbing? Picking & choosing progression that ONLY u like or understand is selfishness to the nth degree and NOT how society works. Additionally, Trump’s intentions for winning office was NEVER about ‘the people’ or bringing back the old, archaic ways. It was what HE could gain by the position. Period. Knowledge is the most important thing u can attain in life; it cannot b taken away from you. Dumbing down society, telling ppl not to get an education is so they can use u to achieve their goals.
Did you know universities are talking about bringing back handwritten work for assessment because the degree of online cheating, plagiarism, buying results is wrecking the value of the system's qualifications? With nurses, you need to be as literate as possible to use computers to best advantage. I've seen some bad notes and I wonder whether having to do them on laptops or ipads would be better? It might.
@@NightsideOfParadise Yep, social ideas in a sense are like mutations, some are positive but the vast majority is just deleterious, and a portion of them can become a cancer and evolve to metastases, many social "progressive" ideas of today are basically "social cancer".
This was interesting, but it seemed to put identity front and center and see economics as kind of a sideline (after the post-war shift, that is). But, I mean since the decline of unions and the rise of supply-side economics, with the shrinking middle class, flat or falling wages (as prices for essentials skyrocket), lost benefits, job insecurity, and the concomitant "deaths of despair," maybe the accent is off. I mean, in some (very broad) sense the 2016 election was kind of Depression-era like. You had a candidate like Hoover, who didn't have answers to economic inequality and all of the above (Clinton, who in response to Trump's "Make America Great Again," said that America was already great. Ouch. Tone deaf). And you had two outside responses - the FDR (Sanders) and the Mussolini (Trump). The problem was that the Dems just couldn't let Sanders win. He had huge rallies, and some of his supporters ended up voting for Trump, just as some former Obama voters did. So, telling the story with the economics on the side may be just as blind as Clinton was in response to Trump. THE GUEST YOU REALLY NEED TO INTERVIEW IS TOM FRANK, or Thom Hartmann, or both.
Well she did say that the jury was still out in her mind on that issue, even though she was currently leaning away from it as the major driver. This might be where her European perspective gives her a bigger picture view than our own. While I’ve been leaning into the economic argument too, she makes some interesting points.
Would it be a good feature on UA-cam comments that you can only comment on a video if you've watched at least 80% of it? If this was the case, at least when reading comments you could be sure that the person (or bot) has watched/listened to most/all of it and not just read the title or description.
The Muqaddimah - an introduction to history , written by the Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun in 1377 ( translated by Frank Rosenthal , Princeton University Press, 1967, pp 105 to 111) observes that the prestige of a ruling class normally lasts 4 generations after which time the ruling class looses the common group feeling of those being ruled. Group feeling produces the feeling to protect onself and press ones claims. So the idea of generational divide is much older than than our modern form of democratic government.
Until the 1990s I got my opinions from the newspapers and centrist news magazines such as Time and Newsweek. I was basically apolitical and centrist, as I thought both sides made good points and I did not feel confident I could prove either side wrong. But beginning in the late 1980s I had early access to Usenet -- the ancestor of the Internet's World Wide Web. So I had discussion boards upon which I could bounce ideas. When the gun control issue came up, through Usenet I learned of facts, books and published papers that the mainstream media was ignoring. I began to realize that, though my mainstream media sources tried to _sound_ neutral and objective, they had a narrative and an agenda they were trying to push -- and did not shrink from misapplying irrelevant statistics and citing liars as credible authorities. I was so outraged and felt so humiliated at having so long been punked by them that I committed to do whatever I could to see that they and whoever took the gun control side would fail. Therefore, in the Presidential elections of both 2016 and 2020, however much I opposed Trump in the primaries I voted for him in the general election. If fascism returns, it will be the fault of moderates for being dishonest on this issue and not offering me a better pro-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms alternative.
But the democrat party never has even tried to take your guns. You were lied to by the Right. If you pay attention to what is actually being legislated you'll see even Obama did more to protect gun rights than remove them. Thanks for helping spread the rise of fascism, voting for Dump.
Trump was always about himself: "I alone can fix this". His pandemic media performance was about how great his administration was doing, with little attention of how people were suffering with symptoms and the loss of loved ones. I heard him say that he had done more for Christianity than anyone since Jesus. Thus he was placing himself above the saints. His refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential tops the list, even though there are more things. He called that election, "the biggest crime in American history". But that is all about him, and no one else. So in short Trump thinks he is God/god. But I think you are too hard on the rest of humanity. Humans are of limited capacity. Each 'expert' tries to find simple solution for the complex situations, of humanity in general. . Those experts are not lying. Each is trying to take the facts they know, and make life better. Hopefully you are doing the same, and plan to leave your world a better place.
The TLDR for those who didn’t want to read: “I was a moderate and considered differing opinions and then went online and became radicalized by right-wing ideologues. Now I happily vote for authoritarianism and have a misguided understanding of politics at my own peril”.
@@andrewzcolvin It wasn't the right wing that radicalized me; it was the moderate liberals. The gun control movement was telling lies and impugning honest people's honesty. And the mainstream media was helping them do it. I became radicalized because of their behavior, not because of the other side. Hell, I'd be the first to admit that Trump is an unethical egoistic asshole, and that lots of Republicans are stupid and ignorant. But my priority is to keep smart people from being rewarded for dishonesty. And, because I believe most Democrats would prefer that good people have to submit to robbery to avoid death -- than for robbers to die if they don't give up robbery (or go to prison).
"What is he nature of their appeal?" You need look no further than the fact that the only alternative they are given is the people who amde this podcast. Ironic, isn't it?
"What is best in life?" The old man in the wine-soaked yurt asked of the warriors around him. Conan answers, "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!" 1983. I saw that when I was 17 and I would giggle as I watched it become a generational catchphrase.
For those who believe in the cyclic nature of history like Plato, Ibn Khaldun and nowadays Turchin, it is no big surprise. There is an evident pattern to this. The rationalizations of those who make and influence the decisions, the competing interpretations that one is confronted with in the media and that the generally ignorant but with fertile imagination imbued public then consumes, hardly ever manages to explain the phenomena. If we really understood it, we might not be today living in the monkey world of environmental destruction and super destructive nuclear warheads aimed by men and sometimes women in some huge tribe at other men and women and children of another tribe. These tribes are as amorphous and as ready to change allegiances and partners as easily as the clouds change their shapes on a windy day. I think we can be technical wizards but are doomed to have as much power over our destiny as the ants or bees or the forgiving plants. Therefore it sure was a surprise when a simple strand of genetic code (COVID virus) united us for a moment but also sent the nuclear physicist as well as the politician like Putin scurrying for shelter. A simple strand of a code. But it was a short reprise, not without finger pointing. It will be soon forgotten. Human hubris has reached new heights as many nations are collecting and spending their surplus on the new toys of destruction, the intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads and drones. So far hardly any accident that could spell our doom has occurred but the mathematical probability is only increasing in time.
There is a clear pattern to these political shifts. However, this phenomena is not explained by any of the following: The rationalizations of policymakers and influencers. Influence from the media with its competing interpretations. The way the public consumes these rationalizations and influence. These do not explain the situation. If we really understood the situation, perhaps things would be better. We wouldn't be living in a world of environmental destruction and tribes armed with nuclear weapons. These are not real tribes, but amorphous ever-changing allegiances. We are not in control. We can be technical wizards, but we are doomed to lose control of our destiny. We have as little control as ants, bees, or plants. I took the liberty of re-writing your first part to demonstrate how much more clear things are when you take the time to chunk them, instead of trying to pack every idea and nuance you might have into one sentence. I really wanted to understand what you were saying and this is how I do it: I am a pedant.
@@thefance4708 You caught me. That was wishful thinking rather than a fact. A better example would be the small pox eradication, which was astoundingly successful.
An apartment in Maplewood opened up in my price range. I'm going to see it tomorrow. It is $725 so I'm hoping it is enough out of the $650 range to NOT be totally disgusting. I called the electric and gas company and the utilities are very low. I can afford it on what I make now. I've talked to the property manager twice now. I love her. She's an Indian woman. I think I'm just going to go for it. I HAVE to get out of the house immediately. I'm praying I can be out by august 1. AND I'll be 10 minutes from my office and 10 minutes from Kirkwood.
Sometimes, a society examines a set of new ideas, and it decides to reject them. The champions of those new ideas will label this rejection as reactionary populism, believing that newer always means superior. However, newer is not always better. This is especially true with regard to social arrangements. Plenty of new ideas from the 1960s and 1970s were responsible for individual and social harm.
That sounds perfectly reasonable, and if you were talking about LSD and open marriages I think you would have a good example of something that was tried and rejected once the party was over. However, equality, tolerance and kindness are not new ideas. I’m actually very confused about why LGBQT people are suddenly being persecuted. What are we suddenly afraid of? And poor people? Aren’t we supposed to help the poor? And if you want to argue that immigration is a problem for the economy or some other practical reason, make those arguments. It’s a complex issue and a debate can be had. But demonizing terrified families fleeing in fear of their lives, why do that? Ten years ago the most conservative people I knew were uncomfortable with immigration in general but they felt sorry for the immigrants themselves and admired their work ethic. That’s completely changed.
Immigration has changed because of the vast number of illegals pouring into the nation. If you think this is good , then explain why? If they won’t fight for their home , then why the f would we want them here? Lgbt people aren’t being persecuted. That’s a lie ! play the victim card so long and by in so hard that you think push back is persecution. There’s a perfect example of corrupt thinking
You use the word revolutionary even in quotes as if a citation which it isn't. The words powerful and crucial are used not revolutionary. And then you state state that the points aren't revolutionary. Of course these points were made by others, that's how rational thinking works. People analyse things and naturally often make similar points based on that analysis. I would even state that when she made points that weren't made by others
I see a lot of people commenting on how generally low the minimum wage is in the USA. I am 63 and have done hard labor doing concrete, roofing, carpentry, etc... When I was 30, I went with my wife to work in Australia doing construction and the minimum wage there in 1990 was around $14/hour. About what a lot of working-class Americans are working for today. That was over 30 years ago! America builds billionaires, it's what we manufacture anymore, totally at the expense of the working class. It is like the game of monopoly when only a few players have control of the entire board. And also, the corporation began first in the USA and has devolved into a quite virulent form by now. Between the billionaire class and the corporate new feudal lords wages are terrible for many, and democracy only exist generally just in words not actions. The elites have pumped massive propaganda into the minds of many Americans and when I say to an average worker, we need politicians that raise our wages and lower the cost of living I get looks like I landed from Mars and have three eyes. The depth of the propaganda is immense, and Noam Chomsky once said America is by far the most propagandized people in the world. Fox "News" in rural areas has dominated and won. My own father r.i.p. became so propagandized in his later years that I could not carry much of a conversation with him. He died of cancer, and I stood by him most Sundays for 5 years with him blaring Fox "News" and I could not get much of a conversation with him. Fox News and other similar outlets have turned the anger working class people have and directed almost exclusively against themselves. I remember seeing the common man and women in Ecuador when Becktel tried to monopolize their water not allowing rainwater collection. The people rioted and won. Most with little to no education. WHY haven't the Americans rioted by now? Please tell me what you think. Thank you in advance! Another person commented on the inequality against women and people of color in USA and that has been very true.
I like your podcast, very good and informative but you talk about the rise of the right as a dilemma. to many the rise of the left has been a dilemma too but you would not describe it thus. an oppositional position isn't a dilemma its normal. the world has always been divided between conservative and progressive. the left appear see the right as evil and themselves as righteous, that is no basis to find a degree of harmony. there are enough examples in history to show neither left or right have a monopoly on righteousness. what dilemma?, yours or they're s? cos they see you as the dilemma just as much as you see them, it's not useful language in the context of where the US finds itself..
Its weird how the American people feeling 40% of gdp going to govt, and govt running healthcare, is something they don't want is seen as the people acting weird. As late as 1990 govt only spent 30% and stayed out of healthcare. The US pre1930 had govt do nothing, but now we made govt spend a lot and be the main way to get stuff and make profit, so now control of govt is worth yelling about and screaming. . . . Politics is louder cuz govt has become important, I wish it weren't.
I live in rural upstate NY I see a whole lot of working-class anger here. Many people not finding a decent paying job and working two 29-hour jobs struggling like crazy to survive. They are under enormous financial pressures and when a politician says I am your warrior, I am your champion many sadly fall for it. I am a working-class guy who has done hard labor contracting for over 40 years. Your discussion is interesting, but I think you may lack the constant exposure of being immersed in the everyday working-class struggles to survive. Do you know anyone working two jobs with a mouth full of cavities and missing teeth that cannot go to a dentist? Do you know anyone with such a limited food budget that they buy cheap junk food since processed food by calorie is less expensive? And they go for the quick high of lots of sugar and cigarettes because their world is so tough, and they are looked down on by many. They are really scared and angry and don't underestimate what they will grasp for. The Democratic Party used to serve them and now serves the professional classes, big pharma and the financial industry The vacuum left by the Democrats is filled with blustery woke talk and no real actions from the Republicans who are now by and large hard right. The progressive wing of the Democrats has been squelched by the corporate interest channeling its power thru the DNC which won't even allow a Presidential debate. So, in America you have only two parties neither serving the working class. I also think your discussion does not cover the change from industrial capitalism to now financial capitalism in America where things aren't made here anymore and raking people over with high interest is the quickest way to make a fortune. People are drowning in debt and still going backwards. It is beyond sad, and my wife and I feel so bad seeing so many suffering people. The flip side is upstate NY has many lakes where cottage values are in massive real estate bubbles, and it is like the roaring 20s around the lakes with absolutely no recognition of the countless struggling people living just a few miles away from lakes.
This is on point.
We didn’t get this way because of the Democrats. This income inequality began with the Reagan administration. It scares me that the GOP has been able to lie to people and that Americans believe what they hear from a demagogue. We buy into Trump’s nonsense because we have no grasp on history - American or world history.
As Howard Zinn said - when you don’t know history it’s easy for politicians to lie to you. We might as well have been born yesterday.
This notion that the Democrats have sold out the working class to big Pharma, etc is nonsense. Working class people turn to
Republicans who have done everything they could to gut organized labor.
I’d love to know what the right has done to assist the working class. The answer is zero. But Donald Trump is the new working class hero?
Before you ask - monthly I decide whether I pay my utilities or buy food. I am poor and suffer the consequences as a result. I can’t for the life of me understand how any poor person votes for the GOP. And why anyone believes the lies they spew.
We do have people like you describe in my country, but our minimum wage is much higher than your measley $15 odd. When a government changes, and/or new policies are introduced, it takes time for them to take effect. I believe that over time, the destruction of the unions, pay inequity, and low taxes for the very wealthy all contribute to this poverty. The auto workers strike currently in the US is an example of this, with the bosses making 350% more than workers. A $40 million salary is utterly ridiculous. I hope they get a fair and equitable settlement.
The strongest institution in any country should be it's families, but when parents are forced to work the long hours you discussed above, family life suffers.
@@susanhemmingsen9168"Your measly $15 odd"
In most states in the US, minimum wage is still less than half that.
I'm a white working class woman, I agree with so many of your points.
However, I find many 'angry white working class men' fail to realize they're not the first or only people to suffer economic hardship. For generations, wclass white men have been the first to be hired, the highest paid & the last to be fired vs Black wclass ppl or white wclass women.
For the first time in generations, white wclass men are experiencing a fraction of the economic instability & hardship that Black ppl & wclass women face. But instead of the steady progressive political & social change Black ppl & women have wrought via decades of committed ongoing political activism...white wclass men are out there with swastikas, automatic rifles & slogans about 'burn it all down' & 'hang Mike Pence'.
Anger about economic disparity & injustice is a great basis for social change. However there's a tendency to coddle white wclass men & justify/rationalize their current strain of violence, destructiveness, racism & misogyny. Trump, ffs! They're propping up Trump, who is a known rapist ("sexual abuser"), racist & xenophobe.
This demonstrates that many white males can't tell the difference between anger & violence, & see no need to discover the difference because we live in a culture that condones white male violence.
Your Black wclass coworkers aren't voting for Trump. Your Black wclass coworkers have a legit beef about the centuries of injustice their communities have faced....but they're still not voting for Trump. What on earth could make it ok for white wclass men (and women!) to vote for him?
I am a 74 year old woman. I’ve always been a progressive. I’m feeling more and more alone. I’d hoped never to see the trend toward fascism and racism I witness today.
I’m 61 and even though I live in a small town, I have found a wonderful little circle of progressive friends.
If you think there`s more racism now than there was in the 1950s-1990s you must already be suffering from Senile Dementia aka Alzheimers.
I’m 52, lived on West Coast most of my life but moved to a small town in Arkansas, I thought I had found my home and a place in my community…until 2016. People have threaten to shoot me with many more minor threats and lots of people have just acted like we didn’t have BBQ at each other house. All because I wouldn’t sit quietly while they said some of the most racist and abhorrent things, I called them out on the racist jokes. Oh, and I thought Trump was the criminal morally corrupt monster that he is! I have been horrified that there is so many Americans who behave and think like this and have no compassion for others who weren’t exactly like them. Never knew this was who they really were. It’s fine though, I absolutely do not need nor miss people who’s values are so below mine! Garbage took itself out!!
What the hell would you expect to happen when you import millions of third world men who skyrocketed crime and strained the already tired welfare system. People's attitudes harden when they see people looking like X dragging their country and culture down.
Half the country is progressive…. Trust me you’re not alone.
Let’s not forget that algorithmic engagement has been manipulated/ driven by marketed data. And to miss how certain news can be spread like wildfire on social media is to miss that it does in fact have huge influence; this is exactly how people become suspicious of mainstream news, where events can then appear under-reported or biased or not presented at all
Legacy media is driven by those who provide their funding....who control to large extent what & how news is reported! Much is hidden, much is politically motivated....very difficult to get anything in depth & from varied views! I would never use Twitter....or support the cult leader, Donald Trump.....but I do want more depth, varied views, the truth with my choice of sources as evidence based! I am not a conspiracy theorists...but Do Not Want to passively believe Lies (which we are fed constantly) ! My only social media is you tube !
You should interview ex NYT employee Chris Hedges. He actually has substance on this topic. Stopped listening at 26 minutes as I found this banal, surface, and frankly, rather intellectually lazy. Now granted, I'm from the US, not Europe and not global. The guest starts by blaming Trump, but Trump is only a symptom here of a half-century of "The Southern Strategy" combined with "The Powell Memo" and trickle-down Reaganomics-- which is what has result in a half-century of stagnant and declining wages for working Americans. (And thus, for instance, they can't pay off their student loans.) I know Thatcher did the same in the UK. Not one word of this. In the US we also have the myth this is somehow generational with the "boomers" being the problem. But there are PLENTY of youngsters marching in tiki torch parades and not too many oldsters. So this, "old people reacting to gay marriage" also sounds like intellectual laziness. Then... there is the propaganda of the corporate oligarchs--- it is THIS that results in the nationalism, the authoritarianism, and the blaming of immigrants, or Blacks or Jews for their lousy quality of life (Reaganomics) rather than the oligarchs. And the attacks on those with Gender Dysphoria is totally recent, and is just simply a new target. In the US this is a medical condition listed in the DSM-5. Any conversation not touching on that is ignorance, and that is all I've heard since the Republicans started targeting them just seemingly a few months ago.
This guest ignores, or is unaware of powerful forces pushing us towards this-- by design-- since at least the Reagan years. She seems to pretend this all just kind of happened and because old people are mad over gay marriage. Not one word about corporate fascist propaganda and global(?) trickle-down Reaganomics destroying the middle class in all these countries. Instead, there is armchair psychologizing about "disorientation" but no recognition of the forces actually causing it that have been working on people for decades.
And hey, the democrats helped this out. They will debate culture war bullet points all day. But do they ever try to roll back any of the tax cuts for the wealthy? When was the last time democrats did anything to help the working class? Trump was elected, in my opinion, because Hilary was a horrible candidate. Everyone knew exactly what she is , a corporate democrat. Would be more if the same. So many took a chance on trumpy. And when Bernie was on his way to winning the Democratic primaries they pulled ole Joe out of mothballs to stop any chance at real change. I'm pretty much done with democrats. I see where they really stand. 46:16
Some good points but you're rushing to judgement; it is worth listening to more than 26 minutes. Maybe you just don't like mouthy women! It's not unknown that some don't.
Seriously the biggest factor in Trump's election was racial resentment, which is a direct result of the southern strategy you mentioned: blaming black people for everything that's wrong in society. Plenty of democrats have also engaged in the same race baiting tactics like the Clintons and Biden, but 95% of black people still vote for democrats which signals to conservatives that black people are still their "enemy". In addition, fascism and racism time and time again allies itself with the ruling elite of capitalists because they would rather the blame for economic woes be placed on racial minorities (who have no real political power) rather than themselves who actually control how profits get distributed.
Moreover, American society in particular is still extremely segregated, especially at the local level where taxes of minorities in cities are used to subsidize the disproportionately higher costs of suburban whites. Services in cities like schools, transportation, etc are chronically underfunded while white neighborhoods are always well funded at the expense of racial minorities. So whites are inclined to vote conservative because they want to keep the system of unequal exchange and exclusion of racial minorities.
There's no mention of any of this in this podcast which like you said is intellectually lazy
@@jillfryer6699 She's not "mouthy" at all she's lazy. She's minimizing the deep seeded hatred of racial minorities that is a staple of right wing politics as a factor that drives people to vote for them. It's as lazy as saying that the Nazis only gained support in Germany because of the great depression and not because it was a deliberate campaign by both the Nazis and the German capitalists to blame economic problems on Jews, socialists, women's rights, and the newly birthed democracy of the Weimar Republic.
@@jillfryer6699 Seriously? I name a scholar, give reasons and what you come up with is some cheap accusation of sexism? You can take a hike with that nonsense, but it certainly shows something about your character-- none of it good. Plus, you don't know what "mouthy" means as she wasn't even remotely "mouthy". And listening to 1/3 of it is hardly "rushing". Having said that, if you would like to share anything of substance from the 2/3 I didn't listen to then you just might redeem yourself. But I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for that.
Thank you so much for all of the work and research that went into this podcast. I listened while making lunch on a Saturday morning.
This concept has always been how I saw it: disorientation. That, for example, the older people just barely beginning to get comfortable with Ellen being gay were suddenly required to accept Bruce Jenner as a woman. But where I was really educated by this podcast was in terms of seeing this similar dynamic in other countries. I had assumed that European nations were more sophisticated on these topics. Thank you so much for explaining this from a global perspective.
That is the part that is confusing to me. These “older people” were part of the most rebellious, norm breaking generation in US history. They marched and even died for the advancement of civil rights. I never thought so many of them would become like they are now. Did someone put something in the water?
@@aliannarodriguez1581 Most of them didn`t march and there was a huge opposition to these changes at the time as well. It`s like people looking back on today saying "But everybody stood up against the war in Gaza" because there is students at some universities protesting about that right now.
@@anthill1510 Fair point about the college protests but there really was a seismic shift that occurred in society at that time and those who were in the teens and twenties in the late 60s were at the leading edge. The draft was an existential threat to young men so they in particular probably felt they had little to lose in rejecting society. The hippie movement was extremely wide spread though, it wasn’t just happening on college campuses. And you can see how ubiquitous the changed sexual attitudes were by looking at any period TV show. The drug experimentation also became extremely wide spread at that time. People initially thought that being from a “good family” would protect their children from the lure of drugs, and that was an attitude that had to change quickly. But it’s a fair question to ask what percentage of young people at that time really shared the changing views about race and gender equality, environmental protection, etc. that were part of the movement.
I have detected an increasing level of anxiety among intellectual elites who once saw their role as being advocates for the oppressed and the marginalized, even as they earned a very comfortable living from their perch among the establishment. They are now afraid of the classes they thought they represented. They see that they are losing their power, and they are fighting against this. They feel rejected by those who they assumed would bow to their superiority.
Populism is the reaction to the lie intellectuals have been telling the oppressed. This has coincided with increased inequality, while the elites profited from the increased role of government. Populism is returning democracy to where it belongs, in the hands of the people. What is happening now are birthing pains. What happens next will be very interesting. Let the idols fall.
Wow, well said!
The intellectual elites are doing just fine. They're not anxious or worried for themselves. They'll be fine no matter who gets elected.
You speak of intellectuals. No, they are not intellectuals, they are party shills, corporate shills. Intellectuals don't join these imperial think tanks. Intellectuals aren't power hungry, they're in universities, talking about some niche topic or specialized in a conference or classroom, they're writing books, studying. Intellectuals are not running this empire. Look at the corporate control of government. It's not too much government, it's not enough democracy. Remember, bribing candidates is still legal in the US. That's what "campaign finance" is: BRIBERY.
Progressive policy is having unintended consequences. Inflation, high business turnover, poor job mobility, and poor housing affordability. Yes, we can be progressive, but I don't think progressive policy is advancing the human condition when it's widening the wealth gap unintentionally. Center right politics still has a place in our society, and when progressives demonize moderate Republicans or mix them up with right wing populists, it really just makes the problem worse. And so, the only way out is with third party politics.
Let's do it in a more sensible way than Trump. Figure out what you want and advocate for it. You will probably find a lot of distance between you and trump...
We need to address the vast income inequality in this country that wasn’t created by the younger generation.
This is capitalism, it's what you get.
@@jeffmeyer9319 No. Not true. It's political. Politics is POWER. We concentrate our power into our elected officials.
We can DEFEAT Republicans in elections. By electing Democrats we can pass good laws that tax the rich more (the Republicans voted in the multi-millionaires and billionaires tax cuts, so Democrats can vote in higher *marginal* tax rates).
Also - no one needs a billion dollars. Billionaires are total policy failures. And if they must have billions of dollars, fine, then they can pay more taxes. Let them make all the money they want as long as they pay their fair share of taxes.
Vote for Democrats for Higher wages, unions, social security, Medicare, healthcare, environmental protections, infrastructure, net neutrality, rule of law, civil rights, voting rights, and Liberty and justice for all. Democrats govern better!
Also inheritage.. it's insane.
no it's stealing, monopolism, insider trading, bribing politician, hiding profits, not paying taxes and much more and most importantly it's SIN bud which GOD in heaven will deal with in the JUDGEMENT...."woe unto the rich" .."it's hard for a rich man to enter into heaven"...any questions?
And also remember that most of us old people did not create it either. Please understand that it is a few that did this too all of us.
One crucial point to stress for me is that when authoritarian regimes promise safety and stability, they are either flat out lying or are promising something they cannot deliver. I think this point needs to be stressed when arguing with those who support them, since it does not demand they change their values. When someone's position amounts to "I'm wiling to give up some of my liberties for safety" telling them they should prefer freedom firstly demands some sort of heroism from them and secondly implicitly agrees with the dichotomy the dictator is trying market himself on: authoritarianism = safety, democracy = less safety. In reality authoritarian regimes have a horrible track record of safety, of course. You're probably at the mercy of dictator's corrupt inner circle, crime may be abundant due to poverty authoritarianism often brings, not to mention you could be drafted in some bullshit war the dictator started for self-enlargement. If what you want is safety and stability, go with democracy instead of depending on whims and abilities of a single man.
Both sides are pissed off, and moving away from the “non-answers” that compromise and democracy has to offer. In other words, everybody wants to rule, and make wishful thinking real…and authoritarianism does that. And while the knee-jerk reaction is “ew!”, keep in mind, this is how your job is structured, how our military is structured…a top down approach. As a liberal, if I had total power I would remove the electoral college and plurality voting, on day one. This will never happen in the USA as structured.
Because of these two points, this is why the USA is listed as a “flawed democracy” on the Democracy Index. Something Putin enjoys pointing out. If we’re a “full” or true (representative) democracy…I would be in full support of it, but it’s not.
electoral college makes the whole setup a fascist regime. imho. a joke on the electors. 'to hell with you suckers and your preferred candidates! You'll vote for what we give you or you wont vote at all'. Its not a problem unique to the USA. @@Bat_Boy
I am sure you were against mandating experimental injections and lock down. The lock down left are the actual totalitarian authoritarians. Biden and Trump are both thoroughly corrupt tools of the elite corporate criminals.
yet another instance of conflating liberalism with democracy. zzz.
@@thefance4708 The issue with authoritarian movements is that they are 'democratic' only until the moment arrives when they are powerful enough to dismantle the mechanisms of democracy to cement their permanent rule - and at that moment they no longer represent ANY people, only their own leadership which historically becomes quickly and deeply corrupt, such as we see with Putin's regime.
I am 65 and American. I have never seen the USA less racist and less homophobic and less mysogonistic than it is today. We have actually made tremendous progress in accepting people of different identities.
As a 68 year old I’m curious about the context behind your statement? Is it an excuse for the backlash and regression?
I am curious what you mean specifically when you use the phrase"backlash and regression"? I prefer specifics.
@@endoalley680 Okay, I can do that but in what context? What is the context surrounding your initial post?
Yes. There is a lot of time and energy wasting beat up and distraction about those matters, from the MSM, mainly.
@@mjeffn2 what is the backlash and regression you are referring to? In my life we have had a black president who served two terms. We allow gay people to associate freely and marry. We have people of all races, sexual orientations, nationalities, religions doing business together. Going to schools, churches, jobs and social events together. We even have laws protecting individual rights of identity groups so that they have a fair shot at getting the housing, jobs, schooling and the overall quality of life they prefer. This is rare in today’s world on other continents. And almost unheard of anywhere in past history.
I saw someone else make the argument that this could all be related to climate change. In crisis some people prefer to deny there is a crisis and look up to authoritarians who give you a scapegoat to blame all your problems on.
I tend to agree, although we have counter examples of where we’ve risen address the existential crisis. I suspect the difference here was the enormous amount of oil company money that was poured into peddling disinformation to the public and electing politicians that would disavow it. Top oil company executives are very intelligent and highly educated people. They know what they have done. I’ve often wondered how those executives, who are human beings with families, can face themselves in their final years knowing that they have likely guaranteed the destruction of every bright and beautiful thing their money bought them and doomed their grandchildren to hell on earth.
A dense, erudite, examination of the crisis we are in just now. As an ordinary, retired engineer, also struggling on fixed pension, though fairly safe, I can feel it.
The appeal of the strong man (usually men) who can fix the unquestioned flaws all democracies face in the open (Dictatorships can hide/dispose of problems for a long time) But the inherent corruption they invariably bring will not be successful for the majority.
All those condemning the system that, yes, does need serious reform, and asking for extreme solutions, must consider, do we really want Putin's Russia; Maduro's Venezuela, Orbán's Hungary...maybe Somalia, Yemen (Strong religion) Haiti (no government? No problem?)
Please, be careful; most of Ukraine enjoyed a pretty stable, normal life - it can disappear surprisingly quickly.
Bingo. The embrace of right-wing ideas will fail. It has failed hundreds of times in history and invariably leads to death and destruction. It’s very scary that it’s rising across the world while we simultaneously face the existential threat of ecological collapse and climate instability. We are headed for a sad, ugly, miserable future if we don’t course-correct soon.
The major political shift I've seen is the relationship between the individual and the party. It used to be, which party closely aligns with my individual values. Today I see people looking to the parties as something to pledge their allegiance to. With that allegiance comes a bundle of positions, identities and ethics associate with and dictated from above.
Most people don't even have the experience of basic civics, like standing up and advocating for a policy on how to improve their local community. Government feels distant and inscrutable instead of being the responsibility of every citizen.
Democracy is not just an ideal, it is a method which we seem to have abandoned, from board game clubs to discord servers. We are content mostly to be led by an appointed meritocracy of experts (or people who care enough to run for office), and it is telling that your knee-jerk reaction is probably to ask "is there any other way of doing things"? Yes, it's called democracy, it involves a lot of debating which a lot of people think is a waste of time.
Fun fact, the US President's title is a fairly generic term. Tennis clubs had presidents. John Adams threw a whole fit about trying to make it sound more grandiose, but Washington was clear that he wanted to simply be known as Mr. President, and the term stuck.
This is a result of the bipartisan acceptance of supply side economic policy.
@@andywomack3414 Exactly. Responsibility in Neo-Liberalism was handed over to economic elites. And we were all told everything would be better. Well, surprise...
@@Magnulus76I see it changing now. I'm a factory worker. People are really starting to wise up. I hope so. Change is coming. It's up to the billionaires if it's by ballot box or ammo box 😊
partisanism is the historical norm. it's the comparative homogeneity of the Post WWII era that begs for explanation.
The problem is tribalism. It is thinking of "us vs. them." Regardless of left or right, a story is presented with some sort of hook or controversy to grab attention. That in itself is not an issue. The issue is profiting from stoking and flaming continued controversy and divisiveness. Remember "clicks, likes, shares, views"-all of these are monetized. We are far more likely to be similar than we think. But that thought does not sell stories.
Unless you have people from different cultures. In west hitting women or anyone isn't ok. In middle east that's not so clear. In Afghanistan or Pakistan nobody cares if you slap your wife.
I just listened an hour and a half of us and them. Ezra pounding his dull guest to “please agree to blame who I blame.” Ezra swears he is a liberal but he is a Thatcherite.
Exactly! And "Us vs Them" is not new to human societies either. We have been using this in various ways for thousands of years. Humans survive better within groups than on our own. But in a world of limited resources, we also use the power of our groups to secure access to the resources we need to survive and try to exclude others from access so we can hoard. How do we get everyone on board with that exclusion process? Us vs. Them narratives. Us vs Them is rooted in psychological projection and is fear-based behavior.
So in the USA, we have used this to allow some (mostly WASP males) to survive at the expense of others (women, immigrants, native Americans, POC, etc). Trump represents someone who has no boundaries or morals, so allows his supporters to feel he has the power to bring this ugliness back while liberals have worked to undo it. It is immoral, but their fear will blind them to this truth. Unfortunate.
@@searchforserenity8058 You could start by noticing there are plenty of resources, we could even support more population. Allocation and distribution is the problem. But I thought everyone knew this. So this is eye opening.
@@searchforserenity8058 Trump's primary voterbase isn't comprised of the WASP gentry. It's comprised of the white working class who've been shafted by deindustrialization. Conflating all U.S. born Caucasians as privileged is one of the cardinal sins of the liberal-left's narrative.
Uh oh! Perhaps your monopoly on "truth" isn't as ironclad as you thought. Unfortunate. Time for a little soul searching, and maybe a revisit of U.S. history.
Hi Ezra, I’m new to the podcast (the Steve Kotkin episode got my attention). But I’m thrilled with the work you are doing! You are knowledgeable about the subjects discussed and ask extremely thoughtful questions. I’ve finished 5 episodes in the past few weeks and feel you deliver a thorough, informative, and thought provoking experience. Cheers to you for being a great journalist and a real asset to your profession! My hat is off to you for being so respectful to your guests, while still asking hard questions.
Kotkin is a hack like every other crook at Hoover with their disgusting Christian fascist totty, Condi Rice, at the helm. Nail is the least ideologue/deranged hack of the bunch which in itself tells you everything you need to know about the Hoover institution, The seat of America's most regressive plutocracy.
Askin hard questions to who?😂
Are they really far-right, though? Or just poor people left behind by both Left and Right? Labeling them far-right is very convenient.
It's absolutely shocking to me they don't see how labeling someone as racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. etc. is going to turn them off. They make it a self fulfilling prophecy
"Tolerance and apathy are the last values of a dying society." -Aristotle
Where do you live? In the midwest of the US we have lost all our manufacturing and labor has been crushed. The response of the right is to blame this on immigrants and minorities. This is a lot easier to understand than macro economic factors. For example, now working class women have to work just to maintain their level in society. For professional educated women this great, the world is better for them. But working class women are not excited about working at Walmart. This is a huge decline in living standards. The failure of the left to help working class people is the issue.🐝🐝
Considering most Midwest states (OH, IN, WI, IA) vote in Republican government I would have to ask these women, who voted for Trump, why they vote against their own interests?
After Sanders had been ditched who was there speaking up for their interests? Noone. Trump provided a temporary feelgood buzz. I wouldn't begrudge anyone that little thing in this world.@@markwilliams2620
What interests do you think they’re against?
Now working class women have to work just to maintain their level in society.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
But , let’s assume it does somewhere.
Why are working women exempt in working to keep their status? Men aren’t !
You stop working, you don’t earn income and you’re falling behind.
It was democrats and lack of thinking to believe that you double the workforce and you don’t cut your pay in half.
Democrats told women to work, cutting the wages of men across the country. Easy common sense things here.
The right doesn’t blame immigrants or minorities on us manufacturing lose. If leftist say this, they’re lying.
Republicans blame democrats for the collapse of manufacturing. Some even understand the issue is multi faceted and no matter what small shifts in policy or presidents, the manufacturing sector in this nation had an amazing advantage over everyone else in the world. It wasn’t going to last forever.
Democrat economic illiteracy accelerated the process of manufacturing declining. It wasn’t sustainable for much longer anyway.
Some say trickle down economics is the culprit. Utter nonsense and complete rubbish. Had that model not been in place, democrats would’ve landed the nation in an depression that would be worse than the 30s. That didn’t happen and democrats still after all these presidents and time eras still haven’t developed an awareness of what economic sanity looks like.
Democratic voters vote for policies from the 1930s
@@markwilliams2620 it's pretty arrogant and unoriginal to assume that you know what is better for people than they do for themselves.
I see parallels here with what happened in Germany in the 1920s. There was a very strong movement to social liberalism in the 1920s, look at Berlin with it's art movements and it's gay scene. In the early 1930s there was a backlash led by Hitler's National Socialist Workers party, it branded modern art as degenerate , persecuted gay people, Jews etc. and harked back to 'true German values' and they targeted the young with mass propaganda and indoctrination. The economic situation after the 1929 crash also helped fuel the right wing. As we know now this movement was extraordinarily powerful and mobilized the whole country toward catastrophic war.
The economic woes affected germany before 1929. a quick search yields that hyperinflation hit germany hard between 1921 and 1923, BEFORE the great depression. largely due to the payments germany was forced to make to pay damages to other countries for losing the war. the resulting nationalism makes sense to an extent, but people were in survival mode for a while leading up to the rise of the nazi party.
What a terrific interview. Thanks 👌
I think to the point of the influence of social media's impact on these extreme political movements is that many whose views have been polarized toward these extremes, paid absolutely no attention to any news or politics before the advent of SM. I don't think it can be overstated.
Right. SM did alot to mobilize the low information voter that previously sat at home and watched wrasslin' and NASCAR.
I think it was the case with every invention that allowed spreading ideas. Guttenberg press, radio, or TV were always creating experts with new ideas to get their following.
@@Magnulus76left-wing bigots are the best bigots.
Great point! And we have the billionaire a-hole in musk, who buys into a major sm company as a means to pedal his anti government control hate as a means to further spread hate and distrust in institutions. Think of the inordinate amount of influence that musk and murdoch alone have on the US population. Due to their wealth and control of media.
I'll save you all a listen.
Step 1: Re-label everything centrist as "Far Right"
Step 2: WHY IS THE FAR RIGHT THRIVING?!?!?
exactly, Trump is a milquetoast small government liberal that ran as a Republican because the DNC was too systemically corrupt to run fairly in (not that the GOPe isn't either but it's not as solidified so he a better chance than with the superdelegate system). Most people want "normal". The current status quo is NOT normal and people are finally waking up to that.
😂 😂😂
Disorientation comes from many factors, all being driven by the PACE of change. Accelerating change is causing massive social psychological disruption and disorientation. Our institutions are shaken by this problem - the pace of change is outrunning our cultural, political and economic structures and their ability to evolve. Of course these generational trends are significant, as well as the inevitable cultural backlashes, but driving the overwhelming disruption shaking personal and societal health.
This is a long interview of a scholar whose depth and breadth of knowledge is noteworthy. As you go through the interview, you will see the themes of technology and overwhelming change emerge in their discussions. I often think that the best strategy a leader in the West could propose, is to acknowledge and observe monthly ‘time-outs’ for an entire country or group of countries, that would agree to just slow down and let go of the rat race for a day or so. From the President on down, just agree to take a day for sanity.
We have a calendar that does not always align with even numbers of weeks or months. Let’s set aside a few days each year to forego the madness for a few hours. Lots of ways to think about implementing it, but let’s see if we can begin to grab the throttle and pull back a notch or two. I think other cultures already do this, through their customs and holidays. Let’s try to emulate those traditions.
Have you considered that the far right is thriving and expanding so quickly is because you keep labelling more and more people far right because you keep moving more and more radically left.
This would be a great primer for people who don't know anything, or those who were born yesterday, perhaps high school students. How is it possible to be alive and not know this stuff already?
The pity is she only knows history from 20 years ago.
She doesn't know why any of it existed before that.
@@liveleigh She goes back to the Sixties, which falls in line with her age. Just strange that a simple recapitulation of well-worn, basic tropes would be taken for novel.
@@liveleigh I am so glad someone else picked up on that! I found this so surface and intellectually weak and lazy.
@@robertalenrichter She doesn't even really do that as there is no discussion of the economic impact of Reagan and Thatcher on the working class and middle class in various countries.
I was looking for something a little more current as well, but she did finally get to more of that in the later stages of the interview. I guess I was craving more of a simple cause and effect as well, and she didn’t really provide that. I suppose that’s fair, you would expect someone who has real expertise to have a very nuanced assessment and she did. The most chilling moment came at the very end, when she said that the increased numbers of younger people voting in the future might not matter if current democratic norms were successfully eroded before then.
Obviously, it can't be our fault.
The right as a whole is dying in Australia. Looking at why this is happening might be useful. (and soon in the UK and Canada)
That's what it looks like in terms of traditional political/democratic success but we need to be very vigilant. Canada especially is concerning right now and they have A LOT of help from super rich people + radicalized right wing groups here in the US. While these movements aren't very popular that's part of what helps aid their ability to grab power - they aren't taken seriously and although they may only have 20-30% of the population, that makes it easier to organize and concentrate efforts.
Basically yes, the surge to power has waned and even been thoroughly countered back to a degree but we MUST NOT fool ourselves into thinking they'll take that as a sign to give up on fascist tactics and be content to try appealing to people democratically lol
@@sempressfi I am not an alarmist, but I hear that. When you have a shrinking group of people who used to be in control or thought themselves in control but now they are marginalized, they have a tendency to strike out in frustration.
Well, if that's true, they will certainly have problems. The only hope for humanity is the Far Right; the Left is just nuts.
@@sempressfi Luckily, Canadian apathy and citizens who are willing to speak out (shout out to my local NDP candidate who shut down a far right candidate hard, yeah we Canadians can get mildly defensive of our multiculturalism) are mostly dealing with the fringe right.
It's the conservatives who are learning from the Republicans that I'm most worried about. A paper coup, as it were, a silent power grab enabled by apathy.
As a Canadian I’m utterly terrified of the wackos taking over the Conservative Party. Goofy wannabe Trumpster are rising in the polls with the aid of the (so called liberal) media. When you factor in the power fossil fuel industry in Alberta, Canada looks very scary right now.
Follow the money; donations speak volumes. Here in the U.K. we had a burst of Russian and Chinese donations…to political think tanks and to ministers themselves! we’ve had US Evangelicals too! Now we’re courting Saudi investment. I can understand investment until it becomes influence and turning a blind eye…these investments need the highest standards of transparency. Older gens will always look back and imagine the good old days, but politicians can and do drive these populist notions, out & out lie with false narratives. If the money isn’t there, you can be sure certain types of politician will pivot on a dime and drop the populist narrative
But the right in fact do not care about the people to whom they pander. What they are retailing is a bogus essentialism, which is a metaphor at best.
It is bound to fail - not that it is too weak to make a real mess.
I think it will fail because it appeals, cynically, to people's misplaced sense of concreteness as to who they think they "really" are.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Who are these people really? Deracinated individual global consumers whose identities are just commodities they purchase, I guess. You're bound for success.
Liberalism is dead. People still call themselves liberal just like God is dead and we still have Christians. We do not have new ism for society with larger populations reiterating or already retired and voting and small populations working and paying taxes and being outvoted. It's all about economy, folks.... We would end up with socialism or fasgism where taxpayers will be always outvoted by those that receives social assistence/retirement. It is in the numbers and not ideologies.
all those words and nothing said
Another book recommendation: Strangers In Their Own Land, by Arlie Russell Hochschild. Excellent book for the American context. The author is a liberal sociologist from the very left-wing Bay Area who spends almost a year living with people in very conservative rural Louisiana and just writes about her interactions with them, their traditions, their thought processes, etc. A great book to get a sense of all the micro ways in which these political developments happen, on a human, person-to-person level.
Agreed, a very insightful look into the American culture and the rural mind. There is the curious phenomenon of why people would vote against their own self interest.
Thanks. Sounds fascinating. Added to my reading list.
That is a stupid book. Hochschild makes the whole thing a lot more complicated than it really is. People vote Republican because of abortion and guns, and because they think blacks are a bunch of idiots. But Hochschild can't bear to talk about that.
@@TheParadoxDestroyerHave you considered that maybe these folks understand 'their own interests' better than you do?
@@TheParadoxDestroyer why do they vote against their own interests?
I would also suggest that the left look in the mirror and its fantasies as well.
“What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. Every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet - Liberal - as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.” -
And what are the Heralds of the people fighting over? A matter of convenience in abortion and less than 1% of the population in the trans community.@@paulgauthier7033
@@paulgauthier7033 No, more like open borders and eliminating the police.
As a climate activist and science teacher (background in ecology and evolutionary biology), this is honestly, my greatest fear. We have climate chaos descending on us and humanity is taking it all the wrong way. Instead of examining our hyper-consumption, colonialism, sense of economics, (and other Stupid human Tricks)... too many people are doubling down on their cognitive bias, prejudices, and bigotry. It's human nature to seek the easy way out and so here comes the "Strong Man" promising it, "just give me power" he says. It's my ultimate sadness because I see this species choosing to go down the hard way of turning on each other instead of cooperating on upholding all of life and its diversity.
So you live in a passive house of less than 1,500 feet? Are you a minimalist? Do you shop within a 15 minute self imposed city? Many right wingers do and they still like Trump. It’s more about morals and traditional values, excessive unfettered immigration at the cost of our tax dollars than anything else.
Now go study evolutionary psychology and you’ll figure it out.
Well if you're a "science teacher" I would hope you have the competence and honesty to point out FIRST AND FOREMOST that ALL OF THE PREDICTED CLIMATE CHANGES ARE BIGGER THAN THE MARGINS OF THE ERRORS OF THE SO-CALLED STUDIES -- and, in other words, CLIMATE PREDICTIONS HAVE NO BASIS EVEN IN THEIR OWN STUDIES AND ARE BEYOND MEANINGLESS. And I would hope you have the subject knowledge and elementary scientific knowledge to realize that CO2 levels and temperature ARE NOT RELATED if you ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE FACTS OVER GEOLOGICAL TIME. Dr. Patrick Moore, Ph.D., one of the founders of Greenpeace, makes that abundantly clear in his lengthy, detailed, authoritative demonstration of the the facts over properly-representative periods of time. The ONLY reason some hysterics are yapping about CO2 and temperature being related is because TOO LITTLE TIME SPAN (only about 600,000 years) is being looked at by the hysterics, power seekers, dilettantes, and acclaim seekers involved. ALSO I hope you point out that vast majority of the scientists, school teachers, power seekers, pathological cases, and arm chair claimers of moral superiority ARE NOT TRAINED IN CLIMATE. AND ALSO, I HOPE YOU ARE A GOOD ENOUGH TEACHER TO WARN STUDENTS that all the hysteria translates to big budgests, big salaries, glamorous lifestyles, prestige positions, speaking tours, opportunities to manipulate and exploit, and endless opportunities for nothings and nobodies to claim moral and intellectual superiority by passing on dishwater-grade knee-jerk reactions to band wagon journalism and that there is no motivation in journalism or school teaching to actually search for the truth -- quite the contrary, truth seeking about climate is one of the forms that is punished these days, including in the so-called "educational" system. Check out Dr. Tim Ball, Ph.D. A REAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST and he'll straighten you out about some of the garbage being thrown around in the climate catastrophe racket. If you're a "science teacher" you'd make a real contribution by learning how to debunk climate hysteria and learning how to show your students how to look at the studies and see their meaninglessness, and how to see all the manipulation in the media and in social culture. That's what is needed but it's not often that school teachers actually muster the guts to search for the truth, IF they actually have the ability.
You pontificate about it being "human nature to seek the easy way out" BUT ARE YOU INCLUDING SLOPPY-THINKING PARROTS OF BASELESS, UNSCIENTIFIC HYSTERICAL CLIMATE DOGMA as an easy way that lots of people are taking, rather than working hard at seeking the truth???? What is easier for you, dishing out the pablum you read and hear in the dogma-mongering media, or sitting down and grinding over the hard science that would show you, or anyone, how THE MARGINS OF ERROR IN THE HYSTERIA CALCULATIONS ARE BIGGER THAN THE PREDICTIONS? I suggest most school teachers just take the easy, lazy, under-educated, unlearning route and simply, unthinkingly spout climate hysteria for the sake of preserving their own comfort zones and easy, cheap claims of being morally and intellectually superior.
Ezra Klein wrote a column for the NY Times entitiled- "Let’s Launch a Moonshot for Meatless Meat"
April 24, 2021 First paragraph-"I’m a vegan, but I’m also a realist. There’s no chance humanity is going to give up meat, en masse, anytime soon. That said, we can’t just wish away the risks of industrial animal agriculture. If we don’t end this system, soon, terrible things will happen to us and to the planet. Terrible things are already happening."
Switching to a fully plant based diet is the single most effective measure for each of us to minimize our environmental footprint, according the lead author of the most comprehensive study on the environmental impact of food production on our environment.
Here is a quote from an article by "The Independent:- "According to the most comprehensive analysis of farming’s impact on the planet, plant-based food is most effective at combatting climate change. Oxford University researcher Joseph Poore, who led the study, said adopting a vegan diet is “the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth.”
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he explained, which would only reduce greenhouse gas. Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy,” he added.” -Interview of Joseph Poore, Environmental Science Researcher, University of Oxford.
Joseph Poore switched to a plant based diet after seeing the results of the study.
@@someguy2135 Let's hope all those plants get enough carbon dioxide. Do we have enough? And they'll need a lot of water, and they'll put a lot of water into the atmosphere, more of the number 1 greenshouse gas. And would they need a lot of fertilizer? Was fertilizer part of Dr Poore's model of sustainability?
She's so wrong it's scary.
@dellwright1407What can be asserted without justification can in turn be dismissed without justification. If that person doesn't feel the need to argue, make a proper case about anything, and just spews some empty non-statement as "she's so wrong it's scary", that's not only just an opinion, but an unjustified hunch by some random person on the internet who doesn't even feel the need to convince anyone about anything. So, we have no reason whatsoever to even consider it, because we literally don't have any reason to do so provided by this person in the first place.
It is so much easier to blame all of your problems or society’s problems on a group of people or person even than to self reflect and realize that things in your country are f’ed in the A.
Our that your country is a poison to the rest of the world - like the USA
Like the far right.
@@SuperBlooper057 That was my whole point. 😂
It's easy to point out problems; it's much harder to point out why those problems exist and even harder still to come up with solutions for those problems. Things being "f'ed in the A" don't just emerge mysteriously from the aether and laying the blame for them at the feet of a particular group can be necessary provided it's done as part of a process to deal with the issues and not just to complain.
@@goatwatch5375so your argument was a covert way to blame all of society's problems on one small group (thE FAr RighT) by arguing that they refuse to "reflect" and take responsibility.... For all of society's problems? Priceless.
It’s so interesting to hear democrats’ thought processes as they try and consistently fail to understand the normal voter.
Various factual errors too: Corbyn got more votes than Starmer!
As a socialist, I found this video exceedingly boring and lacking an explanation of why the far right is thriving across the globe. All they seem to be saying is some people got mad about progressive cultural issues and there is a backlash because they feel left out. One quote I found comical, laughable, was when the guest said that people can agree to disagree on economic issues or come to a compromise, but the cultural issues are the sticking points. Excuse me? Agree to disagree on economic issues or come to a compromise? That is not what is happening in the US. I guess if you make 100,000 a year, maybe you see it what way. But there are working class people everywhere who also have ideas about how society is being run. They are deemed ignorant, whether they're right wing, left wing, or non voting. Economic issues are affecting large swaths of people in countries around the world. Working class, even middle class people, have every reason to distrust the elites of whatever political stripe when they see that very popular economic policies are not enacted by political leaders (Medicare for All for example, Medicare negotiating for all drug prices, federally protected vacation time, parental leave, etc.) Then lately all economic problems in the US are blamed on Putin, or even on how the American voters just don't realize how great Biden has been for the economy. They need to listen to the experts explain how well things are going under Biden (or under Trump). In short, this video seems to barely touch on economics. How on earth can you avoid discussing that? These people are just listing off things that have happened recently without apparently explaining any overarching trend. They mention racism and immigration repeatedly, which are factors, but please, study some Marxism for once. (To be honest, I didn't finish listening to the video, so I missed some of the economic discussion, but it is shameful to leave economics out until toward the end of the video, really.) Okay, I've heard the gist now of the economic piece. They want us to vote for trusted technocrats to competently manage economic crises until everyone is happy again and then we can turn our attention to cultural issues. Poverty in the US has been bad for decades. I don't think people trust "disinterested technocrats" as anything but corporate and political party shills. Get with the program is what they say.
People mistrust Marxists not because they advocate a fairer distribution of wealth, but because they put ideology over observable facts JUST LIKE RELIGION. The universities have been laid waste by the adoption of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory and post modernism which never solves problems because it never engages with the facts concerning those problems. You wisely advocate for economics to be addressed, but why not use econometrics rather than ideology? In this regard, socialists are exactly like neoliberals.
A rare, sensible comment among a sea of garbage. Thank you for taking the time to write this.
Interesting content but your guest really does sound as if she’s explaining to a group of pre-schoolers. “Now children, settle down, take out your crayons, today we’re going to draw a fascist…”
Thank you. This discussion has helped me better understand the political and cultural changes that seem to be moving so fast. I especially appreciate the long view and the international views. I like history, especially medieval. This discussion will lead me to a more current body politic.
Fascinating. Thank you.
I will comment before watching the video, for comparison purposes.
There are multiple factors. One common thread is immigration, legal or otherwise. It triggers a deep-seated fear of loss of cultural identity. People are very sentimental about themselves. It also triggers racial bias, if the immigrants are non-white. It triggers class fears of downward mobility, since the immigrants are generally poorer. It triggers fear of increased crime. Shameless right-wing politicians magnify these fears, the better to pander to the bigotry and fear.
Another factor is globalizing of the world economy, and outsourcing of jobs to cheap, foreign labor. This is largely simply a case of unfettered capitalism is action, assisted by a shrinking world with improved communication and transportation. But right-wing politicians can feed a more conspiracy-oriented story of a secret, shadowy "elite" that has a sinister plot for domination and profiting from misery, RIght-wing politicians are professionals at scapegoating, even if the real "villains" are as likely as not from their own camp.
Another factor is reactionary backlash against the progress of gays, blacks and women. The white, male Christian traditional power structure sees the demographic trend of its own eroding power, so is increasingly willing to turn to fascism and undermining of democracy, They spread hate propaganda furiously toward that end.
Another factor is the growth of social media and information bubbles. Mainstream media has as been to the benefit of status quo, yet had to be half-way "responsible". The new media jungle does not. It is far more partisan, more extreme, more hateful, and also allowing people far more easily to filter out all information that does not confirm their own biases.
Now, what did the video say?
Nonsense. Typical leftist dribble.
This conversation seemed like a recitation of mostly obvious points: social change can leave older people feeling disoriented, mainstream parties have lost their dominance etc. I agree with Ezra Klein that social media is a HUGE factor, and it's very strange that Pippa Norris dismissed this. I think the problem, maybe not perfectly articulated by Klein, is that she's often repeating the mainstream narrative of why populist parties became popular -- but that narrative can itself end up being heavily influenced, distorted -- in some cases created out of thin air -- by the media.
For instance social media can greatly amplify, beyond all rhyme and reason, the perception of "woke leftists" taking over society or immigrants streaming across the border. It's also propelled the spread of conspiracy theories and alternative narratives that favor populist parties. And maybe most fundamentally, it gave these outsider politicians a foot in the door in the first place. Certainly the rise of far-right ideologies happened on the internet, and often served as a vanguard for populist parties.
I assume there's some greater insight in Norris' book which is reportedly heavy on data to make its point...but I have no idea how you'd ever quantify the view that social media doesn't have a big impact. What she mentioned in this podcast, the fact that many people still say they get their news from TV, certainly doesn't make that case!
I didn't think we said enough to answer the question "Why now?" How did we end up with a generation (globally) who wield enormous political power but still see themselves as the "out group"?
Hi Erza, good to hear and your upcoming life in success.
As long as centrist parties don't get tougher on immigration. European far right isn't going anywhere. This is THE issue for voters at the moment.
As long as immigration continues to worsen the the crime rates and standard of living you can be sure that's exactly what is going to happen.
That’s pretty scary, because even back in 1994 reports were being written for the military predicting that many countries would be overwhelmed by massive waves of refugees fleeing famines resulting from climate change. That’s not classified information by the way.
Jared Diamond would say that when resources are few and people many, "tribes" form to either secure already gotten gains or take what others have already accumulated. In any such tribe, potential leaders step forward to focalize mass intent. Candidates tell potential followers various stories (epistemo-ontological entanglement / propaganda) intended to motivate and vindicate unified tribal activities. (The candidate with the most motivating story becomes tribal leader.) Today, inflation is a sign that resources are in decline. Meanwhile, those who have much also appear to be accumulating even more of what resources remain available. January 6th was a "torches and pitchforks" leading indicator. Any people who wish to avoid tribal conflict must find a way to create a full spectrum opportunity society while also ensuring that existential needs are met for all citizens. It may be as simple and as complicated as that...
Well, if the public has been economically declining since the early 1970s (eg, based on real wages) and wealth inequality has increased, and govt spending as a percent of GDP has increased and money printing and debt have increased and asset prices have increased faster than real economy growth...... Then it suggests that resources are scarce because they are being concentrated largely related to policy decisions.
So maybe addressing that would be an interesting start.
And then replacing divisive media and brain dead education with useful information that people can use to trade with each other might be an interesting idea, too.
@@OurNewestMember The game of "ACESIIACES" assumes the four suits of the card deck represent "modalities of consciousness". It assigns Spades to those who, at best, only give in order to get (transactionalists). Diamonds to "Thinkers", Hearts to "Creatives" and Clubs to "Humanitarians". There are far too few of the latter and far too many playing the game as "spadesters"...
Why are the wealthiest counties in the US surrounding D.C.?
Don't worry; they're using the money to protect you
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Thank you!
As a European, she got so much of this wrong. Take everything she said about Europe with a boatload of salt people.
Say more?
What did she get wrong?
As a European, I would also like to know what she gets wrong about Europe?
Coming from that world I had similar experiences but also escaped the pain as she did. Christianity taught me to stop fighting, drinking, and cowing in shame. I left the anti-intellectual life for college and graduate work in psychology. I also left bitterness and blaming behind and pursue providing therapy and recovery for addicts and their families around the world.
Far right?
Oh dear.
It is a lie that after WWII women left the workforce in droves. The female labor participation rate actually stayed the same and increased throughout the 50s. There was a brief recession and unemployment bump in the late 40s as veterans began to return, but Betty Freidan was not speaking to a general consensus of how most homemakers felt. In fact when polled around the same time as the feminine mystique, many SAHMs reported high levels of satisfaction and busy lives, rather than the bored unfulfilling existence Friedan claimed most women had.
The decline of religion also misses the critical element of the decline of extended and nuclear family arrangements happening first. Mary Eberstadt has written a great deal about that.
So far, two big misnomers within the first 10 minutes.
I put it down to the end of communism. Liberals and reactionaries always hated each other, it was only the threat of communism that created a mutual enemy to cleave them together.
In many ways we're going back to the pre-Marxist Victorian age, with an endless battle between the forces of reaction and the forces of liberalism, with the latter hardly guaranteed to win. Or if it does win, only forced into making concessions to conservatives.
I know the west likes to believe its liberal achievements were all part of some inevitable teleological process, but the presence of communism played a huge part, in the civil rights movement, the women;s movement, even in the foundation of western democracy,
That is inadvertently, as the spectre of communism gave western liberals leverage, as in better concede to us moderates or the militants are taking over.
Remember the Cold War at the time, was never framed in terms of god vs atheism; nationalism vs internationalism; socialism vs capitalism - it was defined as liberal democracy vs communist totalitarianism.
But once communism was beaten, an older more ancient, more primitive dichotomy rose from the ashes. The forces of reaction becoming the main antagonism against liberalism.
A return of an age-old dichotomy that first erupted in Yugoslavia, and then slowly but surely spread out to envelop most of the world.
Basically liberal democracy has become a victim of its own success. Reagan's defeat of communism, negating the very antithesis that was allowing the western liberal hegemony to dominate much of the world.
It's not that the forces of reaction ever disappeared, it's just their target was first and foremost communism, While communism was strong, it sucked all the far right's energy and emphasis away from the liberal establishment.
Once communism was negated as a serious threat, the new target slowly but surely became liberalism again, just as in the 19th century. In fact, more and more - democracy itself is even becoming challenged. The forces of reaction of course fought virulently against democracy throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as suffrage was deemed ungodly and anarchic.
We may be returning to that world. that is if Marxism does not make a serious comeback.
I think you're right about the power that a totalitarian communist threat had in uniting moderates and reactionaries and therefore enabling sweeping reforms but I think it's quite disrespectful to the human yearning for freedom to solely attribute the rise of democracy to this. For example, was there a communist threat when the US constitution was written, when Parliaments were first being formed in medieval Europe or even when the Athenians organised into an assembly democracy or did communism force the end of slavery in America? Also, it seems like a stretch to me to attribute major achievements like universal sufferage, civil rights and labour union successes primarily to communism when it can be explained by people realising society is opening up and they want to make sure it goes all the way to include them i.e. democratic momentum. In my opinion the fundamental driver of democratic success is simply people wanting to govern themselves and therefore there is no need for a revival of Marxism to keep the project going. Although, I must admit it would make cohesion more likely.
@@bordedup546 All those democracies were limited, for instance slaves, women couldn't vote.
Or like in the UK where you could only vote if you owned property, which basically excluded 80 percent of the population. Universal suffrage only came about in the UK in 1919, I think maybe events in Russia concentrated the minds of the great and the good in London.
Democracy as we know it today only came into being in the 20th century, every man and woman no matter their social standing getting the right to vote, .
And sure slavery was abolished, but democracy and the constitution played a huge part in preserving it, and then created segregation. And lest we forget, the US committed genocide under the constitution
The US never became a real democracy until the civil rights movement in the 60s when poor illiterate black people were allowed to vote without any tests
But sure progress was made by liberalism in terms of civil rights, that is within the west among white wealthy people, but not in economic rights for the poor, such as rights to education, rights to housing, pensions etc they only happened after the advent of communism. Also the move by the West to end imperialism, only got going post WW2.
Vast social progress was made in the west in the post war period, that all seemed to start being clawed back with the rise of Gorbachev in the 80s when it became obvious the Soviets wanted out of the great ideological battle.
The west wasted no time in drawing back the social contract, slashing welfare, raising retirement ages, drafting in anti-union laws, privatizing utilities and of course cutting taxes for the wealthy etc etc. The west also began a new phase of imperialism, looking to expand neo liberalism to the entire world.
And now we are faced with irregular democracy, or even growing calls to overthrow democracy. Blatant gerrymandering, the use of identity to deter working class votes. All the tricks of the 19th century coming back to life.
Which is probably going to get worse, until communism starts making a comeback again.
It's a basic Hegelian triad - capitalism thesis; communism antithesis - social democracy synthesis. Once the antithesis disappears, so does the synthesis.
@@JAMAICADOCK Well I never claimed my examples were of full democracy, only of expansions of democracy. Therefore democratic expansion is entirely possible without communism to compete with, ancient Athens being the starkest example. You say that universal sufferage happened after the 1917 revolution but plenty of steps were taken to increase the size of the electorate before women were allowed. That is because this process began far before communism was around to somehow initiate it. Also you only said communism might've had an effect on womens suffrage but I already argued that the momentum of democratising more of the population, started by the creation of parliamentary institution in Western Europe in the medieval ages, leading upto it would've had a much clearer impact. I will also argue this for the civil rights movement.
Also, I highly disagree with your characterisation that "the West" cut back it's social contract towards the end of the cold war. Firstly because "the West" isn't a thing, it's a collection of independent democracies. Therefore it's not true that every single Western country became less interested in their welfare state. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where the welfare state and power of labour unions grew regardless. There is more than America to "the West".
My main issue with your argument is that is implies that democracies aren't about improving the lives of their citizen and only the threat of an ideology that focuses on the working class is able to force them to do so. That somehow democracy is a facade of progress that lets itself go once it doesn't face a threat of an alternative that promises progress. That sounds like an extension of communist dogma in itself to me: we weren't able to deliver on our promises to our citizens but we are the only reason that democracies began to fulfill these promises to their citizens since our wonderful ideology forced them to. I also find it pretty ridiculous given the multitude of contradicting examples. However, I will concede that an external threat makes cohesion towards shared goals of improvement easier and more urgent but not that these things would've been impossible without. Also I don't mean to say I dislike or have any animosity towards you, just that I passionately and respectfully disagree with your argument because it's easy for people to take things the wrong way over the internet
@@bordedup546 We talking about social democracy right, not the magna carta. - that aristocrats wanted protection from a tyrannical king, is not progress in any modern sense of the word.
The US constitution allowed genocide, slavery, segregation, and massacres of striking workers - so not much to brag about.
And sure trade unions and chartists were demanding universal suffrage all over the world, but generally got killed for their troubles. Paris Commune for instance/ apart from liberal Switzerland everywhere else brutally suppressed universal suffrage, and Switzerland only really embraced universal suffrage because it full of wealthy bankers and farmers so really had nothing to lose..
The game changer was 1917, modern social democracy in the west flows from that event, and the return to neo liberal 19th century capital flows from the end of the cold war.
And all countries have rolled back their social contracts - some more than others, but all have, and will continue to roll back their social contracts, until revolution becomes a reality again.
Social democracy was a mirage, a castle in the air as Marx called it. Basically gilded cage to lock western workers, which was probably unsustainable over the long run, given it relies on the rich to pay for the welfare of the poor.
Which Marx believed the rich wouldn't do, Mind you it was probably Marx that compelled them to pay up, as they trembled at the spectre of communism,
@@JAMAICADOCK I'm talking about the history of democracy as a whole because you can't explain the existence of modern social democracies without it. The Magna Carta was a tremendous moment of progress, as was the US Constitution, as was the first parliament in Spain, as were each of the steps taken on the long road to universal suffrage, and so were the assembly democracies of the ancient world. Modern democracies didn't spawn out of thin air thanks to communism, they are the culmination of a long slog beginning all the way back in ancient Mesopotamian assemblies. For most of its history, democracy couldn't be considered modern or fair like in today's social democracies but they were what facilitated its creation, which you mistakenly attribute solely to communism.
I haven't read much about it (and I probably will now), but I'm certain that communism helped hasten the development of social democracies. Nonetheless, it's obvious to me that the momentum required to create them comes from people that strived towards it for millennia and the institutions they left behind, not a few decades of Soviet communism. Taken from this perspective social democracy isn't a mirage or a castle in the sky, it's the modern-day incarnation of a grand political project for self-governance spanning history itself. Democracy can be subverted and destroyed from the inside but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I mean, just look around you. If Marx and other communists (perhaps yourself?) spent more time thinking about concepts like the rule of law and institution building they would realise that despite how evil and corrupt humanity can be, we can learn to govern ourselves equitably without the need to submit ourselves to utopian dogma and the tyrannical dictators that claim legitimacy from it.
Also, could you please provide further evidence for the claim that all democracies began to roll back their social contracts as soon as the Soviet Union looked likely to lose the cold war? Perhaps a book or an article or something, since that's quite literally contrary to the reality that I live in every day.
Nothing is grown in America, are you kidding me? What about critical thinking? Another superficial intelectual
Nothing grows in Texas. Not much in Iraq either. Rivers wrecked with dams and garbage. You'd weep just seeing a photo. Cradle of civilization. Fertile crescent, till quite recently.
By “far right” do you mean normal people who aren’t “far left”?
Reading the comments here. People really don't seem to have any idea what's going on in the mind of the "collective consciousness of right".
Liberals are close minded yet they claim to be open minded. They claim to preach for compassion yet they are filled with hate themselves…
I'm sorry I can't see the response.
There are 2 corporate parties in America. The choice is between fascism classic and rainbow fascism and both parties want to stifle debate around reforming the capitalism that allows them to dominate our lives and removes civic control in favor of one oligarchy or another. Neither supports a strong middle class, open debate, and social tolerance. The working class are keeping everyone in this country alive but if they look to the right for better wages, you chastize them for not following the correct oligarchy, instead of actually improving their living standards when you have the power to. The oligarchs like this broken system and they control these parties and they are ineffectual because they want them that way.
This is probably a bit extreme, but both parties certainly favor capitalism and the status quo. The far-right ALSO favors capitalism, which makes it even more dangerous.
Misplaced anger. But when the handouts to rich corporations or the rich themselves, the same people do exactly nothing. They say nothing. I guess normal people just want an actual representative government that looks out for them, but no one else... it doesn't work that way, but what we have now is reps looking out for the rich.... which is themselves ...
The younger generation is post materialistic?
LOL
Right? The exact opposite is the case in the US.
The tone of their vioces is so arrogant and the delivery style so condescending (not to mention the assumed moral superiority) i had to turn it off. I really tried, i like to listen to all sides but i don't watch the 700 club for the same reason.
I'm surprised this is a "best of" episode. The guest's observations on generational change, social media, and so on seem relatively banal.
How do you think insights like "they are reacting to us being degenerate, soft handed parasitical, communist, cross dressers who have flooded their countries with people who do not share their culture all while taking over every institution so we can scream at them about how awful they are." Would go over?
Excellent, thank you.
Hey Ezra, how about doing a podcast about authoritarianism from the Left? The examples are endless.
Oh please. What a banal effort at a "bothsides" false equivalence. So lazy.
That's not even responsive to my simple ask. Why are you so defensive? Maybe you are unaware of the examples of authoritarianism from the Left. Furthermore, the guest's point weren't all that pointed, kind of boilerplate anyway.
@@furmanodell Probably not "responsive" because I'm not Ezra. Also, you clearly don't know what "defensive" is. I am _dismissive_ because it is such a lame and typical effort by a Republican to appear as if what they are doing is somehow in the realm of normal. It isn't. In the US it is the Republicans and only the Republicans who attempted a coup, are overtly anti-democracy, in favor of a religious-based authoritarianism. It is only the Republicans who attack other American citizens seeking to deny and restrict not only their rights, but even their access to needed healthcare. It is only the Republicans who seek to impose their goofy religious beliefs on everyone else. It is only the Republicans who don't even have a political platform and have ejected simply every single "value" and "principle" they've espoused for decades.
The point is that it is the far right that is gaining in popularity, especially in Europe, not the far left.
I thought the point was a lamentation of authoritarianism. And I'm like, hey Ezra, are you really lamenting that? Because the Left has its examples too. A lot of them. The move away from Leftism is not surprising given the one party rule the Left has had on Europe for many, many decades. Oh and Meloni isn't far right, that's utterly ridiculous. Here policies are pretty centrist.
If you want to understand the rise of the right, I suggest you ignore Ezra Klein and read an article that was in the March 10, 2016 issue of the New York Review of Books about the fact that Denmark is refusing to let in any more Muslim immigrants. The Danish politicians say, basically, "We let in 300,000 Muslim immigrants several years ago, and all they did was sit on welfare and commit crimes. We are not going to let in any more." But Ezra Klein and his buddies refuse to talk about that.
Ever notice that there is no such thing as "far left" as far as the media is concerned? I wonder why that is?
Ever heard of Antifa?
Because it effectively doesn't exist in the US? Zero political power or representation at any level of US government, from local to federal. Maybe ~2% to 5% at most of the US would be identified as actually leftist. Zero money behind it. Zero real organization or power behind it. The US left is an ineffectual, non-existing, joke. The left absolutely exists, but not in the US. This shows how effective the DNC is at their job, which is to squash and/or assimilate any grassroots leftism as it arises. name a single anti capitalist legislator in the last 50 years. Some semi literate is going to comment "Bernie." lmao. Ah yes the "radical leftist" that votes with the center right Dems about 100% of the time. Good stuff. The left is an ineffectual, irrelevant, barely to non existing butt of a joke that no one takes seriously.
I bet they get paid by the same benefactors!
Because some seem to think that “far left” = anything Matt Walsh would disagree with.
I can’t speak for Europe, because I’m an American.
But the entire American political establishment - both major parties - is solidly right of center.
The closest thing America has to a “left” is some people embracing, and possibly pushing fringe social issues. What right-wingers would call “the cult of woke”.
But even the “woke” movement is solidly entrenched in corporate capitalism (Bud Lite, anyone?) - which makes it … definitely not far left.
But as far as a left of any real political and economic substance, it simply doesn’t exist.
When there’s a leading candidate of a substantially powerful movement pushing for collective ownership of the means of production, then we can talk about an American “far left”.
Until then, every time I hear “far left” or “socialists”, I’m reminded of that line from the classic movie “The Princess Bride” - “You keep using that word, but I’m not sure you know what it means.”
@@mytmouse57 The indoctrination has failed on you, serf. You are a bad/failed American. Back to the symbolic gulag.
Thank you, very insightful.
Once again, Canada which has always held a unique political, economic and social place in the world has been left out of this so called international debate. We are not 'Americans' nor are we Brits. Your ignorance is astounding.
I think more than a few Americans would define define the Canadian system, if transplanted to the United States, as Marxist. The same Americans would similarly define Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, and so on as being "Marxist". The problem is, most Americans do not know what Marxism is. It's just a buzz word to them, devoid of any real meaning besides a convenient name for the bad guys!
Nice silo if you can keep it.
I've been thinking about this phenomenon for a while. Being center-right and having studied economics, I tried (naturally) to find the answer here. Various theories of cycles that inevitably lead to a weakening of society, inward looking and radicalization of the left/right. But it's all rather overcomplicated and even within socioeconomics, long cycle theories are quite controversial.
In the end, though, the answer seems to lie elsewhere. Compared to "cycles" it is relatively simple and in a way logical. It is a kind of "tribal behaviour". In a framework, the equation goes like this: the internal cohesion of a society is determined by external threats.
If the external threat is relatively high, the group (society) tends to exhibit a higher degree of altruism. Conversely, if a society lives in peace for a long period of time, internal cohesion begins to break down and the society becomes radicalized. This is why we have seen radicalization especially after the end of the Cold War.
The rest of it - Trump, the progressive left, the radical right - is just an oscillation that grows with each political cycle until something happens.
What can happen? However, low birth rates, high levels of internal conflict and low cohesion will inevitably lead to the West being replaced by another group - be it China, Muslims or Indians - unless something changes.
Its about the terrible mistakes of obama not punishing the banks
American football and the "allegiance" to their "teams" even to the point of violence. Some of these sports are a training ground for mindless following.
Of course. Haven't you heard? "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton"?!!
Brilliant conversation
We always hear people bemoaning the fact that the Center can't hold, but why doesn't the Center itself moderate and work with the Left-wing when the Far Right is a threat?
Let's not be under the misapprehension that centrism is necessarily a moderate political stance - if you cling to a hard-core centrist stance, you're no moderate. So what causes the Center to often shun peaceful, progressive left-wing movements when they'd often find themselves in a large majority if they simply ceded ground on some economic issues?
Because fascists better serve the class interests of the bourgeoisie than the left.
Wtf center are you talking about? Roughly half of them will join peaceful, progressive left-wing movements. And in large part they have already ceded on economic issues -- that's why they're not on the left or on the right.
This sounds like a vague complaint that "the center" has viewpoints that aren't the left.
Poverty. It’s very simple.
It has nothing to do with poverty, it's the mass immigration and the crime it brings.
From a 10,000 year perspective, authoritarian governance dominates human history. Democracy appeared briefly in Athens, reappeared in the West in 18th century, and dominated the next 300 years. The current trend back to authoritarianism has the force of history and human instincts.
There’ s nothing inevitable about authoritarians. People think tha5 a strongman has more and better solutions to. Their confusions and discontent.
@@Patriot1789 You think average voter is informed or even cares how they vote?
The pattern that repeats is rise of liberty and courage. through revolution and blood democratic society is achieved. When people figure out they can vote themselves into public treasury apathy sets in and as people become more dependent on government authoritarianism raises its head. Most people vote left for safety net. Not because they love poor people. They love themselves and want themselves covered.
*Back into bondage you go weak people*
I think this is a bit simplistic. Athens was only possible because the institution of assemblies were built and developed by the Mesopotanians for centuries before and eventually culminated in Athens. In the same way that the centuries of institution building in medieval Europe of Parliaments culminated in the 18th democratic revolution. Even after the 18th century institutions were further developed to universialise democracy i.e. womens right to vote, civil rights, etc... To put briefly, even if it appears that the world has mostly been authoritarian, democratic institutions are always building in the shadows. This should bring us hope that new institutions will form even faster while democracy is in the light to wade of new trends of authoritarianism. Nothing is guarenteed, history is extremely contingent
@@bordedup546 I don't think the first steps were anything special. They are just attributed to mesopotamian civilizations because that's where we can first pin point them. Semi democratic system naturally arises in a tribal settings. The chief has to listen to the other men or they will gang up on him.
The real struggle is to maintain understanding of why the flow of ideas and opinions is the life blood of democratic society. There is no democracy without freedom of speech. Even today we have delusional or simply evil people thinking censoring opinions is something that can co exist with democratic system.
The problem with democratic system is that people are retarded and nobody is fit to be a master.
Well, one could also say that from 200,000 year perspective we lived in small, egalitarian groups where group cohesion was far more important than a single authoritarian leader. The force of history is definitely real since we spent most of it in monarchies and hence have to deal with thousands of years worth of storytelling about how amazing that structure is, however evolutionary we have tendencies for both hierarchical and egalitarian systems and it's only us which tendencies we'll feed.
Apart from ignoring a certain part of the population and alienating them politically, socially and economically, I think disinformation has a lot to do with the rise of this ilk of politician; also the platforms from which disinformation is spread.
31:05 This resistance to changes in society boils down to their feelings about their own mortality. If u resist change, resist progression, then b a caveman. Here’s an example:
I graduated nursing school at 24. In every clinical setting where we ‘practiced’ nursing w/ our professor, everything was handwritten. Computers had not come into healthcare for charting, etc yet.
Now we’re newly licensed nurses working in a hospital so afraid we’re going to get something wrong and do harm. Right about that time, the hospital announces nurses will b getting laptops on carts, no more handwritten charting. There will b training classes for each nurse until they are completely comfortable. New nurses: “ugh I’m still learning how this whole nursing stuff works but ok; we have to move forward w/ technology.” Those who had been nurses for 10, 15 yrs: “No! I’m not doing that! How do they expect me to learn that stuff?! I’ll quit or just retire before I learn a computer!”
It was ridiculous then, but looking back, 25 yrs later, it was just plain kicking & screaming bc they were afraid (still ridiculous too!).
Learn or get left behind. Do u like driving and not having to ride a horse or walk? Indoor plumbing? Picking & choosing progression that ONLY u like or understand is selfishness to the nth degree and NOT how society works.
Additionally, Trump’s intentions for winning office was NEVER about ‘the people’ or bringing back the old, archaic ways. It was what HE could gain by the position. Period.
Knowledge is the most important thing u can attain in life; it cannot b taken away from you. Dumbing down society, telling ppl not to get an education is so they can use u to achieve their goals.
You confused change with progress.
Most new ideas are bad.
Did you know universities are talking about bringing back handwritten work for assessment because the degree of online cheating, plagiarism, buying results is wrecking the value of the system's qualifications? With nurses, you need to be as literate as possible to use computers to best advantage. I've seen some bad notes and I wonder whether having to do them on laptops or ipads would be better? It might.
@@NightsideOfParadise Yep, social ideas in a sense are like mutations, some are positive but the vast majority is just deleterious, and a portion of them can become a cancer and evolve to metastases, many social "progressive" ideas of today are basically "social cancer".
When you use the word, Woke, you're talking to yourself. It doesn't exist.
How about an episode about Far Leftists like Ezra Klein?
Ezra Klein is hardly a "far leftist:" He's just a solid journalist.
@howardhilliard9286
What a joke. Ezra is center-left at best.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it and those who don't teach history intends to repeat it.
If you call it "far right", you don't understand anything.
"it"
NO MISS, WE DON'T WANT NO AUTOCRACY. NO THANK YOU.
This was interesting, but it seemed to put identity front and center and see economics as kind of a sideline (after the post-war shift, that is). But, I mean since the decline of unions and the rise of supply-side economics, with the shrinking middle class, flat or falling wages (as prices for essentials skyrocket), lost benefits, job insecurity, and the concomitant "deaths of despair," maybe the accent is off. I mean, in some (very broad) sense the 2016 election was kind of Depression-era like. You had a candidate like Hoover, who didn't have answers to economic inequality and all of the above (Clinton, who in response to Trump's "Make America Great Again," said that America was already great. Ouch. Tone deaf). And you had two outside responses - the FDR (Sanders) and the Mussolini (Trump). The problem was that the Dems just couldn't let Sanders win. He had huge rallies, and some of his supporters ended up voting for Trump, just as some former Obama voters did. So, telling the story with the economics on the side may be just as blind as Clinton was in response to Trump. THE GUEST YOU REALLY NEED TO INTERVIEW IS TOM FRANK, or Thom Hartmann, or both.
@@paulgauthier7033 They most certainly are not
@@paulgauthier7033 At least the right questions are examined.
Well she did say that the jury was still out in her mind on that issue, even though she was currently leaning away from it as the major driver. This might be where her European perspective gives her a bigger picture view than our own. While I’ve been leaning into the economic argument too, she makes some interesting points.
@paulgauthier7033 marx wrote about a lot of new and good ideas. However, what was good was not new, and what was new was not good.
Thank you for helping rRe you.
Would it be a good feature on UA-cam comments that you can only comment on a video if you've watched at least 80% of it? If this was the case, at least when reading comments you could be sure that the person (or bot) has watched/listened to most/all of it and not just read the title or description.
The Muqaddimah - an introduction to history , written by the Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun in 1377 ( translated by Frank Rosenthal , Princeton University Press, 1967, pp 105 to 111) observes that the prestige of a ruling class normally lasts 4 generations after which time the ruling class looses the common group feeling of those being ruled. Group feeling produces the feeling to protect onself and press ones claims. So the idea of generational divide is much older than than our modern form of democratic government.
Until the 1990s I got my opinions from the newspapers and centrist news magazines such as Time and Newsweek. I was basically apolitical and centrist, as I thought both sides made good points and I did not feel confident I could prove either side wrong.
But beginning in the late 1980s I had early access to Usenet -- the ancestor of the Internet's World Wide Web. So I had discussion boards upon which I could bounce ideas. When the gun control issue came up, through Usenet I learned of facts, books and published papers that the mainstream media was ignoring. I began to realize that, though my mainstream media sources tried to _sound_ neutral and objective, they had a narrative and an agenda they were trying to push -- and did not shrink from misapplying irrelevant statistics and citing liars as credible authorities.
I was so outraged and felt so humiliated at having so long been punked by them that I committed to do whatever I could to see that they and whoever took the gun control side would fail. Therefore, in the Presidential elections of both 2016 and 2020, however much I opposed Trump in the primaries I voted for him in the general election. If fascism returns, it will be the fault of moderates for being dishonest on this issue and not offering me a better pro-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms alternative.
Go you. I miss the adventurous quality of meeting and discussion from earlier internet days.
But the democrat party never has even tried to take your guns. You were lied to by the Right. If you pay attention to what is actually being legislated you'll see even Obama did more to protect gun rights than remove them.
Thanks for helping spread the rise of fascism, voting for Dump.
Trump was always about himself: "I alone can fix this". His pandemic media performance was about how great his administration was doing, with little attention of how people were suffering with symptoms and the loss of loved ones. I heard him say that he had done more for Christianity than anyone since Jesus. Thus he was placing himself above the saints. His refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential tops the list, even though there are more things. He called that election, "the biggest crime in American history". But that is all about him, and no one else. So in short Trump thinks he is God/god.
But I think you are too hard on the rest of humanity. Humans are of limited capacity. Each 'expert' tries to find simple solution for the complex situations, of humanity in general. . Those experts are not lying. Each is trying to take the facts they know, and make life better. Hopefully you are doing the same, and plan to leave your world a better place.
The TLDR for those who didn’t want to read: “I was a moderate and considered differing opinions and then went online and became radicalized by right-wing ideologues. Now I happily vote for authoritarianism and have a misguided understanding of politics at my own peril”.
@@andrewzcolvin It wasn't the right wing that radicalized me; it was the moderate liberals. The gun control movement was telling lies and impugning honest people's honesty. And the mainstream media was helping them do it. I became radicalized because of their behavior, not because of the other side. Hell, I'd be the first to admit that Trump is an unethical egoistic asshole, and that lots of Republicans are stupid and ignorant. But my priority is to keep smart people from being rewarded for dishonesty. And, because I believe most Democrats would prefer that good people have to submit to robbery to avoid death -- than for robbers to die if they don't give up robbery (or go to prison).
Very interesting ideas, it explains some of my questions about contemporary politics. I have to listen to this another time.
just remember it is heavily biased in favour of the leftwing perspective. and the comment section is even worse in that regard.
"What is he nature of their appeal?"
You need look no further than the fact that the only alternative they are given is the people who amde this podcast.
Ironic, isn't it?
The concentration of ads in this piece is overwhelming.
She paints a picture of insightful theories.
Shocking, but realistic! 😮😮😮
"What is best in life?" The old man in the wine-soaked yurt asked of the warriors around him.
Conan answers, "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"
1983. I saw that when I was 17 and I would giggle as I watched it become a generational catchphrase.
This woman’s voice is really tiring to listen to ..like she’s reading us a child’s story…
Generational dysphoria and disorientation? Now that's brilliant!
A.G.
For those who believe in the cyclic nature of history like Plato, Ibn Khaldun and nowadays Turchin, it is no big surprise.
There is an evident pattern to this. The rationalizations of those who make and influence the decisions, the competing interpretations that one is confronted with in the media and that the generally ignorant but with fertile imagination imbued public then consumes, hardly ever manages to explain the phenomena. If we really understood it, we might not be today living in the monkey world of environmental destruction and super destructive nuclear warheads aimed by men and sometimes women in some huge tribe at other men and women and children of another tribe. These tribes are as amorphous and as ready to change allegiances and partners as easily as the clouds change their shapes on a windy day.
I think we can be technical wizards but are doomed to have as much power over our destiny as the ants or bees or the forgiving plants.
Therefore it sure was a surprise when a simple strand of genetic code (COVID virus) united us for a moment but also sent the nuclear physicist as well as the politician like Putin scurrying for shelter. A simple strand of a code. But it was a short reprise, not without finger pointing. It will be soon forgotten.
Human hubris has reached new heights as many nations are collecting and spending their surplus on the new toys of destruction, the intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads and drones. So far hardly any accident that could spell our doom has occurred but the mathematical probability is only increasing in time.
There is a clear pattern to these political shifts. However, this phenomena is not explained by any of the following: The rationalizations of policymakers and influencers. Influence from the media with its competing interpretations. The way the public consumes these rationalizations and influence. These do not explain the situation. If we really understood the situation, perhaps things would be better. We wouldn't be living in a world of environmental destruction and tribes armed with nuclear weapons. These are not real tribes, but amorphous ever-changing allegiances. We are not in control. We can be technical wizards, but we are doomed to lose control of our destiny. We have as little control as ants, bees, or plants.
I took the liberty of re-writing your first part to demonstrate how much more clear things are when you take the time to chunk them, instead of trying to pack every idea and nuance you might have into one sentence.
I really wanted to understand what you were saying and this is how I do it: I am a pedant.
@@calebmorgan6939 you're welcome!
odd that you think the response to COVID was bipartisan.
@@thefance4708 You caught me. That was wishful thinking rather than a fact. A better example would be the small pox eradication, which was astoundingly successful.
An apartment in Maplewood opened up in my price range. I'm going to see it tomorrow. It is $725 so I'm hoping it is enough out of the $650 range to NOT be totally disgusting. I called the electric and gas company and the utilities are very low. I can afford it on what I make now. I've talked to the property manager twice now. I love her. She's an Indian woman. I think I'm just going to go for it. I HAVE to get out of the house immediately. I'm praying I can be out by august 1. AND I'll be 10 minutes from my office and 10 minutes from Kirkwood.
Sometimes, a society examines a set of new ideas, and it decides to reject them. The champions of those new ideas will label this rejection as reactionary populism, believing that newer always means superior. However, newer is not always better. This is especially true with regard to social arrangements. Plenty of new ideas from the 1960s and 1970s were responsible for individual and social harm.
That sounds perfectly reasonable, and if you were talking about LSD and open marriages I think you would have a good example of something that was tried and rejected once the party was over. However, equality, tolerance and kindness are not new ideas. I’m actually very confused about why LGBQT people are suddenly being persecuted. What are we suddenly afraid of? And poor people? Aren’t we supposed to help the poor? And if you want to argue that immigration is a problem for the economy or some other practical reason, make those arguments. It’s a complex issue and a debate can be had. But demonizing terrified families fleeing in fear of their lives, why do that? Ten years ago the most conservative people I knew were uncomfortable with immigration in general but they felt sorry for the immigrants themselves and admired their work ethic. That’s completely changed.
There more to society than the part of society you agree with, fucko.
Immigration has changed because of the vast number of illegals pouring into the nation. If you think this is good , then explain why?
If they won’t fight for their home , then why the f would we want them here?
Lgbt people aren’t being persecuted. That’s a lie !
play the victim card so long and by in so hard that you think push back is persecution. There’s a perfect example of corrupt thinking
Who put all the commas in the British AI voice script?
These seem like the same points I’ve heard from others. What’s the “ revolutionary theory” ?
You use the word revolutionary even in quotes as if a citation which it isn't. The words powerful and crucial are used not revolutionary. And then you state state that the points aren't revolutionary.
Of course these points were made by others, that's how rational thinking works. People analyse things and naturally often make similar points based on that analysis.
I would even state that when she made points that weren't made by others
I see a lot of people commenting on how generally low the minimum wage is in the USA. I am 63 and have done hard labor doing concrete, roofing, carpentry, etc... When I was 30, I went with my wife to work in Australia doing construction and the minimum wage there in 1990 was around $14/hour. About what a lot of working-class Americans are working for today. That was over 30 years ago! America builds billionaires, it's what we manufacture anymore, totally at the expense of the working class. It is like the game of monopoly when only a few players have control of the entire board. And also, the corporation began first in the USA and has devolved into a quite virulent form by now. Between the billionaire class and the corporate new feudal lords wages are terrible for many, and democracy only exist generally just in words not actions. The elites have pumped massive propaganda into the minds of many Americans and when I say to an average worker, we need politicians that raise our wages and lower the cost of living I get looks like I landed from Mars and have three eyes. The depth of the propaganda is immense, and Noam Chomsky once said America is by far the most propagandized people in the world. Fox "News" in rural areas has dominated and won. My own father r.i.p. became so propagandized in his later years that I could not carry much of a conversation with him. He died of cancer, and I stood by him most Sundays for 5 years with him blaring Fox "News" and I could not get much of a conversation with him. Fox News and other similar outlets have turned the anger working class people have and directed almost exclusively against themselves. I remember seeing the common man and women in Ecuador when Becktel tried to monopolize their water not allowing rainwater collection. The people rioted and won. Most with little to no education. WHY haven't the Americans rioted by now? Please tell me what you think. Thank you in advance! Another person commented on the inequality against women and people of color in USA and that has been very true.
I like your podcast, very good and informative but you talk about the rise of the right as a dilemma. to many the rise of the left has been a dilemma too but you would not describe it thus. an oppositional position isn't a dilemma its normal. the world has always been divided between conservative and progressive. the left appear see the right as evil and themselves as righteous, that is no basis to find a degree of harmony. there are enough examples in history to show neither left or right have a monopoly on righteousness. what dilemma?, yours or they're s?
cos they see you as the dilemma just as much as you see them, it's not useful language in the context of where the US finds itself..
Its weird how the American people feeling 40% of gdp going to govt, and govt running healthcare, is something they don't want is seen as the people acting weird. As late as 1990 govt only spent 30% and stayed out of healthcare. The US pre1930 had govt do nothing, but now we made govt spend a lot and be the main way to get stuff and make profit, so now control of govt is worth yelling about and screaming. . . . Politics is louder cuz govt has become important, I wish it weren't.
This is not a conversation. This is a woman reading prepared presentations.