That may well be true, but I think it was more a case of liberals trying to be clever and appeal to more authoritarian principles.
My pet theory is that a lot of religious and political differences can have cognates in people’s psychology and differences in the kind of arguments that will be persuasive.
I’m not going to make any value judgements about which is better – it doesn’t matter, because the voting population will be made up of both (although I doubt it’s anything like as discrete as that). If parties want to appeal to voters for the opposition, they’re going to have to see which of their own arguments are not persuasive, and why. Jonathan Haidt talks about the values of loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation that are more emphasised in conservatism, while care/harm, liberty/oppression and fairness/cheating are more universal ideals. I think where we do need to find common ground is to see these fairly fundamental differences as less of a threat, and more of a neurological difference without any particular value attached to it. We may well see the real world consequences as damaging, but we can also recognise that there are gut reasons why we could see things very differently.
(I am aware that Jonathan Haidt’s views are fairly controversial, but I think there’s some truth to them in this issue).
A few off the top of my head in additon to Gessen’s excellent ones:
Mock entrenched authority whenever the opportunity presents itself – authoritarians and their followers are fine with being hated and feared, but they can’t countenance being laughed at.
Do your part to protect democratic institutions – they may not save us from authoritarians, but we have a shot at saving them. Authoritarians have a natural antipathy to the institutions that support Western liberal democracy, so we must support our free press, our colleges and universities, our scientists, and the net-neutral Internet from the depredations about to be visited upon them.
Do not succumb to despair and false equivalency – that only encourages apathy. Only one party in our duopoly rejects science, social justice, and good governance. Only one party chips away at the separation between church and state, glorifies anti-intellectualism, and panders to bigots. The impulse to “reform” in that party led to the Teabaggers and the election of someone who’s doubled down on all of the above. If the Democratic party is corrupt and compromised (and it is) that does not mean it is even close to being as corrupt and compromised as the GOP (it isn’t) nor does it mean it can’t be repaired.
[quote=“gracchus, post:83, topic:89311”]
Only one party in our duopoly rejects science, social justice, and good governance. Only one party chips away at the separation between church and state, glorifies anti-intellectualism, and panders to bigots. The impulse to “reform” in that party led to the Teabaggers and the election of someone who’s doubled down on all of the above. If the Democratic party is corrupt and compromised (and it is) that does not mean it is even close to being as corrupt and compromised as the GOP (it isn’t) nor does it mean it can’t be repaired.[/quote]
Oh. That’s wonderful. Quoting you on that if that’s OK.
MMM - I am pretty sure you missed the point of that meme. This is a meme with in a meme. Or maybe I am missing your point.
The original image was from when ever - probably 4 years ago - in which people were shitting on Obama, and the Democrats were like “STFU, he got elected. Stop acting like you’re a true patriot and acknowledge him.” They weren’t appealing to authoritarian principles, they are rubbing salt in wounds.
Four years later, the table has turned, the Democrats are now the ones bitching, and someone re-posts this old meme to show how hypocritical the Democrats are.
And really, everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to politics. So that is some common ground we can start from, maybe.
I was referring to the time it was first sent around - if a democrat is willing to follow the same principles during a republican presidency, fine. Obama and Sanders have both wished Trump success in the next presidential term, provided his actions support greater freedom (I’m not sure whether Clinton did or not).
In many ways I think a less authoritarian phrasing isn’t bad - active acknowledgement of positive elements of the opposition and support of policies that are not harmful, while hoping that the current president is successful and doesn’t fall flat on his face could reduce the polarisation of politics to some degree. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the republicans are making it very hard to do that.
Vipissana and zazen-style meditation come to mind, but anything that will ground you and make you both more resilient. Sitting and just sitting for fifteen minutes, twice a day, can make a big difference in your everyday life.
If you’re just starting out, don’t worry about ‘emptying your mind’. Your mind is going to be hyperactive, even more so with nothing to do. Your thoughts are going to rise to the top of your mind, each with its own particular buoyancy. Some will rise up more quickly than others. And when they reach the surface? Just let them go.
Another analogy I like to use is that of guests in a foyer. Some guests will quietly enter and make their way through. Some will loiter. Some will be drunken and obnoxious. Some will walk around muttering. If this sounds more like an asylum than a foyer, welcome to the human mind.
I think one of the major differences between 2008/2012 and 2016 is back then the Republicans were questioning Obama’s legitimacy as President (eg: birth certificate) and not necessarily his stated positions on policy. This time around the Dems are outraged over the things that Trump has actually said that he wants to do.
I do not see protesting a Trump administration as hypocrisy at all.
I guess I don’t see calling for respect of the process and office necessarily authoritarian. Respect for the office doesn’t mean you bend over or have to agree with everything they do nor agree with policies etc. But yes, I have heard 8 years of FBHO from certain groups and I am confident that if he encouraged Americans to take deep breaths for health some of them would pass out from holding their breath. I was hoping if things switched, that it wouldn’t be as bad, but it looks like it’s just a mirror image…
“Yes, but he really IS bad this time!” Eh, yes and no. I mean I agree Trump is a worse person than Obama, but I am talking about perception and fear and it is the same - even if their feelings don’t have as much validity logically - they are still feeling those things. And as one may know, telling someone they shouldn’t feel that way doesn’t work.
Well, you might not be remembering, but yes, I heard a lot of criticism on what Obama planned to do, though much of it didn’t pan out. Things like closing Gitmo proved to be more problematic than one would think. A lot of the early speculation and fear surrounding when Obama was first elected turned out to be just that. I am hoping that is what pans out here.
And let me chime in at the end of that excellent set of suggestions to offer my own, single piece of advice:
Stay healthy. Keep your regular gym schedule. Take frequent walks, and with friends and family if they’re close. Ride your bike and learn the lay of your city, the fastest routes to and from your house. Get some sunshine. Eat fresh vegetables and grow them if you are able and willing. Share those vegetables and the food produced from them. Make new friends.
Right now it feels like we’re all locked into those first few moments of Joe & the Volcano, grey skies, tepid coffee, and I could go on to make a really confusing metaphor about Tom Hanks, the movie Big, and totalitarianism, but instead I’ll just say, stay active and illegitimi non carborundum.
