lookin

They endorsed sleepy Joe Biden? That's deplorable! They’re not sound on climate either I bet they’re not even Americans They’ve been going downhill for a hundred years Ever since that fake theory of relativity Einstein, Schmeinstein They're a bunch of dopes I’m canceling my subscription

As I've belabored in another thread, I think our main problem is a large destabilizing minority of authoritarian followers. I think they're somewhere around a third of the population, have latched on to Trump as their "leader", and are motivated primarily by fear - which Trump knows how to stoke. And I believe such authoritarian followers have been with us since the beginning of time and that they will be with us till the end of time. By definition, these authoritarian followers want simple answers, so "debate" is not something they want to engage in. I'm coming to the conclusion, reluctantly, that the best way to reach them is to provide them with the authoritarian leadership they require while redirecting their fear toward something more useful. As Hitler and his propagandists taught German authoritarian followers to fear the Jews and communists, Trump and his propagandists have taught their authoritarian followers to fear brown-skinned folks and "leftists". In hindsight, what the German authoritarian followers should have been fearing was Hitler's willingness to sacrifice their lives in pursuit of Aryan world dominance. And, with a bit of foresight, what American authoritarian followers should be fearing is Trump's willingness to sacrifice their lives in pursuit of primarily white American world dominance. Or, as he calls it, "Make America Great Again". For the average Trump follower, Trump's focus on world dominance has not improved their lives, security, or wellbeing in any meaningful way. As a result of his so-called leadership, fewer of them have jobs or health insurance and they are less welcome in other parts of the world. With nearly 200,000 Americans dead since March, we are nearly halfway to the number of lives lost in World War II and, without a miracle, I expect we'll reach that grim milestone within another few months of Trump's "leadership". So, my stab at answering the OP's question would be to reach out to the authoritarian followers among us and help them realize that what they should be fearing is Trump and his enablers who are leading them to a loss of life greater than during World War II, to a financial meltdown worse than the Great Depression, and to a loss of world political status that took their ancestors a century or more to build. Like Hitler, Trump is leading them day-after-day toward death and destruction. I think the Democrats need to put forward a government modeled after that of Konrad Adenauer, one that can de-Trump America, one that makes life better for even the most down-and-out Americans and one that can, through skilled diplomacy, return our country to a place of influence - rather than "domination" - in the world. Germany's authoritarian followers didn't disappear overnight and neither will ours. So, as long as they're with us, I think they need to become part of the solution and not part of the problem. While it won't be a piece of cake, I take some comfort in that fact that every time authoritarian followers have been co-opted to bring down a society, they have subsequently been co-opted to help restore it. Assuming they remain alive to do so.

As promised, a few thoughts on how to deal with authoritarian followers. Step one for me is always to try to put myself in their shoes, as fully as I'm able. This part of the process is not one of "winning" and judgement needs to take a back seat to understanding. While it feels uncomfortable to immerse myself in simplistic thinking, it's something I need to do for eventual enlightenment. And I need to be empathetic to the "fear of the other" that motivates an authoritarian follower. I don't have to agree with it, especially since my life experiences have shown me that it's unwarranted. But I do have to imagine that I haven't had those life experiences and that the "other" is someone who can and will harm me. I also have to pretend that my own thought processes are insufficient and that I need to trust someone else to do my thinking for me. From that exercise, I've concluded that "debating" authoritarian followers will not be productive. By definition, they're not wired to hold competing thoughts, let alone debate them. They want simplistic answers and they avoid complexity. All I'll get in return is repetition of the thought their "leader" has implanted. The resulting frustration on both sides could stop the process in its tracks. And that does seem to be where most folks give up and say things like the only solution is to "defeat them". That may be one solution, but it's not a reliable one. Authoritarian followers will not just up and disappear. They never have. They'll be back again, perhaps with a new and more dangerous "leader". I'm also beginning to conclude that dealing with their fear, particularly fear of "the other", is necessary. When I say "deal with their fear", I don't mean make it go away. By definition, authoritarian followers are motivated by fear of "the other". I'm coming to the conclusion that the best I can do is to try to persuade them to fear something more relevant that what they fear today. For example, fear of South American immigrants who pick our crops, prepare our food, build our houses and care for our seniors is a fear without benefit. Fearing the folks who help us all build our society is counterproductive to our wellbeing. On the other hand, helping them redirect their fear to a would-be despot who will strip away their social safety net and eventually their lives or the lives of their loved ones might be a valid approach. Perhaps I can help them realize that "the other" who should frighten them is not Dona Teresa who takes care of their grandparents but Donald Trump who takes care of himself and will toss them aside, just as he has tossed so many others aside. Clearly, this is a work in progress and I'll stop here with hopes that others will weigh in.

Always a pleasure when you get the bit between your teeth, @stevenkesslar. I know the discussion is going to advance. If that's where Dean ends up, I agree with you that we need a lot more than that. I went back to the thread I began at Daddy's a year ago and I'll stand by it, in particular some of the basics: Authoritarianism has long been understood to encompass a set of personality traits strongly associated with aversion to difference and desire for conformity to prevailing social norms and proper authority. Though many scholars have linked authoritarianism to many attitudes and traits, a handful stand out: a general moral, political and social intolerance, an aversion to ambiguity and a related desire for clear and unambiguous authority. From a study of authoritarianism, here are some of the things that popped out for me: On any given day, about a quarter of the population can be classified as having fairly extreme authoritarian values. They want simple solutions, even to complex problems. Authoritarians tend to be religious, especially those who adopt a literal interpretation of the Bible. After religion, the next strongest predictor of authoritarianism is reduced education, specifically the lack of a college degree. Those without one are much more likely to be authoritarians than those who have a college degree. The twenty-five percent figure, as well as the degree of authoritarianism, fluctuate over time and one of the biggest factors driving the shift is the level of perceived threat. A higher level of perceived threat will bring more folks into an authoritarian mindset and make folks who are already there more extreme in their views. During the Cold War, there wasn't much difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in terms of their share of authoritarians. Once that external threat was removed, however, Republicans went looking for another one, found a threat in the form of Willie Horton, and proceeded to become the party that knew how to scare authoritarians and then offer to make them feel more secure. In 1992, authoritarians skewed seven points toward the Republican party. By 2004, it was twenty points. In 1992, economic issues were very important to voters, Republican and Democratic. The desire for authoritarianism was much less than the desire for a livable income. But by 2004, authoritarianism had twice the effect on voters as did economic issues. In the year since that post, I've thought a lot more about the authoritarian follower and why we need to understand them and find a way to keep them from bringing down our society, which, if history is any guide, they have the ability to do. Authoritarian followers also, under certain conditions, have the ability to preserve our society which is why I believe there is a genetic component to authoritarianism that makes sure it persists through the generations. (And shows up in other species.) Imagine, for example, an outside threat to our society where immediate and lockstep obedience to a single leader is the only thing that will keep us from being overrun. Think War of the Worlds as an example. Just because we've been lucky enough not to be invaded by aliens during our lifetimes doesn't mean we won't be and there may come a time when blind obedience is necessary for survival. So Ma Nature, in all her wisdom, makes sure we have among us those who will do little else but look for outside threats and blindly follow orders when they appear. The downside of having such authoritarian followers in our midst is we have to keep them occupied when we are not under assault. Otherwise, they can be coopted by ill-intentioned "leaders" who will exploit them for nefarious purposes. Which, I believe, we are seeing now. From what I understand and, as you say, I don't think authoritarian followers are interested in debate. Debate is for folks who can hold competing ideas in their heads and weigh them one against the other. Authoritarian followers are wired to avoid complexity; they want a single idea. And, unlike you, they want someone who will tell them what that idea is and what to do about it. Of course, for this discussion, I am myself using simplistic arguments. Between authoritarian followers and non-authoritarian-followers there will be shades of gray. But one way to harden the positions of authoritarian followers is to stoke their fears. Which all effective authoritarian leaders know how to do, cf "murderers, rapists and bad hombres". So, knowing that these folks will be among us in significant numbers (about a third of us, I think) and for all time to come and, given that we can't "debate" them out of existence, how do we make sure they aren't coopted by malevolent authoritarian "leaders", like Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones and Donald Trump to destroy themselves and perhaps the rest of us along with them? That's what I've been spending the past year or so trying to figure out. I'll try to share some preliminary thoughts in a later post.

Much obliged to you, @stevenkesslar, for the shoutout and particularly for keeping the issue of authoritarianism alive. I couldn't get much traction on the subject either here or at Daddy's. Which is a disappointment, as I think Trump's base of authoritarian followers will have more impact on the election and on the future of our democratic institutions than will any three-point lead in the polls. As I've posted before, I think a ten-point lead on election day will be necessary to get enough folks off their asses to fight for our democracy on our own home front should Trump refuse to leave office. It's been a puzzle to me how reluctant we are to even perceive, let alone attend to, the destabilizing influence a large minority of authoritarian followers can have on democratic institutions. It may have to do with how committed authoritarian followers can be. Recently I watched a documentary on Hitler's last days in the bunker when he told his secretary and other office workers to make a run for it. As they made their way through what remained of the German forces still guarding central Berlin, they watched as German soldiers were shot and killed by other German soldiers who accused them of dishonoring their oath to the Fürher. And this was after they knew that Hitler had already killed himself. Recently read an article that puts the case as strongly as I've ever seen. The Trumps are Gaslighting a Collapsing America Ever Wondered How Authoritarianism Happens? Exactly Like This. The author, whom I've never read before, thinks the threat of Trump's refusing to leave office, even after losing the election, is so strong that it would be a mistake to wait until November 3rd to get rid of him. He thinks the solution is for five million U. S. citizens to march on Washington now and refuse to leave until Trump resigns. Glad to see the increasing discussion of authoritarianism in the last few months and especially the last few weeks. Relative to what we should be doing, I think we're still sleepwalking. But even hearing the word regularly in the mainstream media is a step up from where we have been. I had long thought that the Holocaust and the destruction of Germany in World War II would be a lesson that would remain with us for generations but, for some reason, we seem to forget about the deadly destruction of authoritarianism very predictably and apparently very quickly. "Drink the Koolaid" has morphed into a toss away line only two generations after a thousand authoritarian followers killed themselves and their children by doing so on the instructions of a single loon. Appreciate your linking the John Dean book and his interview with Amy Goodman. He apparently has a recommendation for how to deal with authoritarian followers, but none of the reviews mentioned what it was. I remain a firm believer that we do need to engage with authoritarian followers and find a way to absorb them into our society. As I believe there's a genetic component to authoritarianism, I don't believe it will go away. And, unless we want to let it bring down our society on a regular basis, we'll have to find a way to incorporate it. Glad to see so many of my Forum homies still thinkin' and still postin'. For some reason, my off-board activities have ramped up during the pandemic and it's been too much of a stretch to follow both sites or even both political forums. But it does my heart good to see everyone engaging so thoughtfully during this critical time.

Enemies and Hecklemen, I’d like to introduce Grim Milestone, acting press liaison for the President’s new Perfect Storm Pandemic Panel, and he’s here to deflect any questions you may have.

More than you know, though the return of a couple of missing pages would not go unnoticed.

My grand daughter says this annoys her Daddy; but it has great volume and she loves it. By Mrs.R. on May 15, 2014 No buts about it.

“Brad broke the first rule of American politics: under promise and over deliver,” [Rick Wilson] told the Guardian. “Brad’s survival now depends on the good offices of his patrons inside the Trump camp, and [Ivanka and Kushner] are already signaling their displeasure to the media. This could be big. I've long believed (and posted endlessly) that Brad Parscale's used of micro-targeted and misleading use of social media was the primary (if not only) reason Trump was able to turn a popular vote loss into an electoral college win in 2016. Since then, the Trump campaign has virtually merged with the RNC campaign and the tactics used by Parscale have been expanded and refined. It's why I believe the Democratic challenger will need at least a sustained ten-point lead to blunt Parscale's manipulation of the electorate. With him out of the picture, I'm not sure the Trump/Republican campaign has anyone left who could do what he did. Here's hoping that, once again, Trump's volatility and need to blame someone for his own failures will cause him to get rid of one of the few people left who knows what he's doing. And the sooner the better. PS: If you ask me, Rick Wilson has been one of the most prescient of the Trump-watchers.

Well he fooled me. Even though he's well away from the nearest audience member, he's still in a room with plenty of virus droplets likely to be floating around. He must have convinced himself he won't be breathing any in. At least a million people didn't show up. Nor 19,000 people judging from all the empty seats in the bleachers. Apparently Brad Parscale is blaming the protesters, who have been very well behaved from what I've read, but he's the guy who I expect was in charge of bringing in the rubes. And he didn't. I bet somebody's gonna get unmasked tonight.

Trump the Dog Whistler sure wants to do the rally, but I've had this nagging suspicion that Trump the germophobe is looking for a way out. If he walks into a closed space with twenty thousand screaming Oklahomans, he's got to know that at least some of them are asymptomatically infectious. Everybody in there is signing a waiver in case they pick up the virus, so he's got to know that he could pick up the virus. If he goes in there without a mask and does his usual call-and-response for an hour or two, I'll admit I've misjudged him. A medical pile on would give him the cover he needs to pull the plug. All that's missing is someone to blame. http://www.dailymagazine.news/news-images/295003d8e4f588abb08a1f951a852606-690-0-N.jpg

36 if you count the Politics Forum.

Personally, I'm a big fan of boycotts and Chik-fil-A gave me my hardest test yet. I kept hearing how great it was but also how many bad causes they sent their money to. I sure didn't want them forwarding any of my money. As you might expect, it was nearly impossible to find one in the liberal Bay Area so it was only when I visited family back East that the conflict became real. A few years ago, I got as close as their parking lot but was saved by the fact that it was Sunday and they were closed. I toyed with the idea of poking around in the dumpster for a free sample but apparently I was not the only one with this idea. Fast forward to last year when I learned that, not only were they donating to pro-gay causes, they had also just opened up twenty miles away across from my Costco. A week later, I found myself in a long line waiting for my Deluxe Combo, large fries and a chocolate Hand-Spun shake, whatever the hell that means. Now, at long last, I can report that it was anything but worth the wait. Not to me anyway. The chicken was OK, but no better than KFC. The "biscuit" was only a little fluffier than cardboard and a bit less flavorful. The french fries were likewise bland, and a pickle no more goes with chicken than a feather boa goes with board shorts. It was the milkshake that was most disappointing and, had I bothered reading the ingredients first, I'd never have ordered it. Whole milk and nonfat dry milk, sugar, cream, water, contains less than 1% of: whey, mono and diglycerides, corn starch, guar gum, carrageenan, calcium sulfate, cellulose gum, brown sugar, natural and artificial flavor, natural flavor, salt, caramel color, beta-carotene (color), annatto (color), chocolate syrup (cane sugar, corn syrup, water, cocoa, natural vanilla flavor) At the very least, I'd have asked them to serve the guar gum, carageenan, calcium sulfate, cellulose gum, mono and diglycerides and artificial flavor on the side so that I could add them to taste. Don't get me wrong. I've had worse fast food. The spicy mutton curry at Little Taste of Calcutta, for example, kept me toilet-bound for three days but the price was right and my table came with its own fly swatter. So, for me anyway, the boycott merely delayed the inevitable and Chik-fil-A is officially off my list for culinary, if no longer political, reasons. They could hire RuPaul as a car hop and I still wouldn't go back.

Honestly! Some days I think I should just stay up in my turret. (Thanks, guys! It's been ten years since I posted this one over at the other site and I never thought I'd be able to trot it out again. )

Reminds me of this old wheeze: Sam and Max pass on the street and start bragging about their summer vacations. “Two weeks at Grossinger’s this year”, says Sam, “in a deluxe room with extra bed - both king size. We signed up for the golf also, two days a week. By Friday, every shot was a hole in one!” “That’s nothing”, says Max. "This year we went to Rome. Esther’s brother got us a room overlooking the Vatican.” “The Vatican?”, says Sam. “Next you’ll be telling me you met the Pope!” “Of course we met the Pope”, says Max. “We got the First Class Tour through the private quarters, complete with two glasses of schnapps. It turns out he’s a very nice man. Her, we didn’t care for.”

Thanks for the thoughtful response, @Caeron. I think what @RockHard and I are both trying to say is that there's room in a good deal for both parties to come out winners. I care about myself a lot and a peaceful environment with lots of smiles around matters much more to me than the ability to shit on other people. (I say this with some modest authority, but that's a post for another forum. ) I think folks who believe they become winners by turning other folks into losers are setting a very low bar for a happy life. Anyone who's had the experience of cutting a deal with all winners will know that life is much better without the "losers" trying to get even.

Couldn't agree more, OZ. I've never felt that Black Lives Matter means that white lives don't matter. What it's always meant to me is that black lives seem not to have mattered in the past and now it's time that they do. As far as I can tell, those who hear Black Lives Matter and then parrot All Lives Matter or White Lives Matter are folks with a zero-sum viewpoint. They think that, if a black life matters more, then a white life must matter less. Personally, I don't believe that's true, nor have I ever been a fan of zero-sum thinking. Like our President, I enjoy making deals but, unlike our President, I don't enjoy zero-sum deals where, in order for me to win, the other person has to lose. Maybe that's what his life experiences have taught him but it's sure not what my life experiences have taught me. I've found that, if I've got a deal where the other person is a loser, there's still more work to do. A deal where there's a loser is unstable. The "loser" is going to be unhappy and will be looking for a do-over at best and revenge at worst. Much better for both parties to end up with a smile on their face. For me, it's always been a matter of increasing the size of the pie so that both parties get a bigger slice. It may take a little more work, but it's well worth the effort. Even if it takes a lot more work, it's well worth the effort. Who wants to be surrounded by disgruntled colleagues? And even if I come out of a deal with a little bit less than I otherwise might, it's worth it to have partners who are content and who will look forward to doing another deal in the future. My white self has certainly got enough privilege throughout my life that I can afford to get by with a little less in the future so that my black partner can get a better deal than he has in the past. The payoff of mutual support, stability and, inshallah, friendship is well worth any conceivable shift in the balance. More than dislike of those who believe that a zero-sum deal is the only kind there is, I'm saddened that their life experiences have given them a win-lose mindset. My hope is that life will be kinder to them in the future. And that they will be kinder and more generous to others.

Good gosh! Here's hoping she won't suddenly pop up out of the tub one day.

I never fail to glory in his antics terpsichorean.

So what am I, chopped liver?

What the hell?? I sure hope those are coffee beans!

That's my take also. Trump is an authoritarian leader and there are more waiting in the wings when his time has passed - always have been, always will be. Our problem, in my opinion, is authoritarian followers. Rather than comparing Trump and Hitler, I've long been more interested in comparing Weimar Germans with today's U. S. citizenry. And it's pretty clear that, like a sizable portion of Third Reich Germans, our citizens today are willing to follow someone who does their thinking for them and will promise them protection from outside forces: the "other". The more their fears of the "other" are stoked, the more tightly they'll cleave to their "leader". And they will act - and vote - against their own interests. You can see this pattern repeated under Hitler, who had loyal followers even as firestorms swirled around them. You can see it in the bodies on the ground in Jim Jones' Guyana. And you can see it in the Trump followers voting to do away with their own health insurance. As far as I can tell, there's a genetic component to authoritarianism, in addition to learned behavior. I believe this because of its historical persistence in the human race, and its appearance in many other social species. And I believe that there are times in the evolution of the human species when human survival may depend on the willingness of large parts of the species to blindly follow an authoritarian "leader". From what I've read, there's a persistent 30% - 40% of humans who are hard-wired to be unquestioning followers. And I believe that's why Trump has such a persistent base. His authoritarian followers want things made simple, they want to be protected from the "other", they want to "believe", and they will sacrifice their own interests to do so. I also believe that, while the Republican party, as currently constituted, may attract more than its share of authoritarian followers, the Democratic party has some too. My bet is that some of Sanders' most loyal supporters fit the mold, in particular the ones who would rather vote for Trump than for Biden or Warren. I've posted about some of these beliefs elsewhere, and I'm still trying to learn everything I can about these folks. I think that, while authoritarian "followers" may be necessary at certain times in human evolution and the gene will persist, this is not one of those times. There are more important human qualities that are needed now - some also with genetic components - such as altruism, empathy and compassion. How to help bring these qualities forward, while pushing authoritarian obedience to the background, is what takes up much of my attention these days. Sorry for the rant, yet thanks for the opportunity to do so.

Has anyone seen RockHard? He left early this morning In a little dinghy And with two of the cabin boys He said he was homesick for his villa David better check the silverware I'll go tell AdamSmith Where is he? Up on the poop deck, where else?