What's new

Was Trump inevitable due to American Universities?

When I initially joined Jazzfanz more than 10 years ago, I was quite conservative. Many of the posters challenged my viewpoints and exposed me to different ways of thinking that were outside my insulated bubble. As I listened to my heart instead of what I had been told my whole life, my thinking changed dramatically. So thanks to social media for that. I have been guilty now, though, of feeling that I've evolved and my views are more enlightened, which inevitably leads to feeling those I've "left behind" are not as informed and aware as I now am. Smug, indeed. While I tend to not beat people over the head with my opinions too much, I haven't been completely proud of myself this election cycle. We are all in this together, and each person deserves respect.

Ugh, now I feel a little smug because I'm being so reasonable. It's hard to be a human.

I get what you say.

Point is modern liberalism seem to have no acceptance of critical thinking. They have no empathy for those they continuously attempt to frame as The Other. They are attempting to create a outcast society and suppress critical thought. "Be like us or we will treat you with slave mentality" should be the motto.
 
So either you read the article through HEAVILY colored glasses or you didn't read it. Fair enough. Don't let any other opinions get in the way of your dogma.

I didn't read the article, just the paragraph you cited. My comments are based on that.
 
Here is another interesting article. Richard Rorty pretty much dead on predicted this election and succinctly sums up why Trump rose to the top.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philosopher-predicted-rise-of-trump-like-figure-in-98-book-215658929.html

“[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers — themselves desperately afraid of being downsized — are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for — someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots.…

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past 40 years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion.… All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.”
 
I hadn't seen this posted yet. Another article on the creation of Trump.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/how-the-left-created-donald-trump-214472
IMO that is a brilliant assessment of what happened. While I was not a Trump supporter, my general feelings about the left and their tactics are well encapsulated in that article. Surprisingly, the media and the Democratic leadership do not seem to have learned much at all from these election results. For example, take a look at the dramatically different coverage of the Trump transition team on FOX v.s. MSNBC. The latter is constantly laughing and shuddering about the buffoonery of the incoming administration by criticizing every move they make, while the former is pointing out the inconvenient truth that the transition team is actually ahead of schedule in comparison to other recent changes in American government (including Obama).

Its as if they are unable to see what is actually happening because it is almost completely obscured by what they believe ought to be happening. This statement applies to both their feelings about the competence of liberal thought, and incompetence of conservative thought. IMO most left-leaning commentators are still almost entirely incapable of seeing that the right has some very good points, and that the vast majority of the right is not nearly as bigoted as their opponents are constantly trying to brand them as being.
 
IMO that is a brilliant assessment of what happened. While I was not a Trump supporter, my general feelings about the left and their tactics are well encapsulated in that article. Surprisingly, the media and the Democratic leadership do not seem to have learned much at all from these election results. For example, take a look at the dramatically different coverage of the Trump transition team on FOX v.s. MSNBC. The latter is constantly laughing and shuddering about the buffoonery of the incoming administration by criticizing every move they make, while the former is pointing out the inconvenient truth that the transition team is actually ahead of schedule in comparison to other recent changes in American government (including Obama).

Its as if they are unable to see what is actually happening because it is almost completely obscured by what they believe ought to be happening. This statement applies to both their feelings about the competence of liberal thought, and incompetence of conservative thought. IMO most left-leaning commentators are still almost entirely incapable of seeing that the right has some very good points, and that the vast majority of the right is not nearly as bigoted as their opponents are constantly trying to brand them as being.

What did you expect? Liberals are alarmists. They want to scare you into believing the pseudoscience.
 
Found this interesting...

Small wonder, then, that a recent ACTA-commissioned survey found that less than half of college graduates knew that George Washington was the commanding general at Yorktown; that nearly half didn’t know that Theodore Roosevelt was important to the construction of the Panama Canal; that more than one-third couldn’t place the Civil War in a correct 20-year span or identify Franklin Roosevelt as the architect of the New Deal; that 58 percent didn’t know that the Battle of the Bulge occurred in World War II; and that nearly half didn’t know the lengths of the terms of US senators and representatives.

This is all nice to know but it's basically trivia. How about teaching basic civics in the lower grades?

What are the three branches of government, what do they do, what are checks and balances? what your congressman does, what your senator does...etc.

Due to partisan politics we are now approaching a year without proper balance of power in the federal government - God help us if we had another Bush v. Gore. Why people aren't outraged about this can only be due to the lack of understanding of all of the above and more.
 
This is all nice to know but it's basically trivia. How about teaching basic civics in the lower grades?

What are the three branches of government, what do they do, what are checks and balances? what your congressman does, what your senator does...etc.

Due to partisan politics we are now approaching a year without proper balance of power in the federal government - God help us if we had another Bush v. Gore. Why people aren't outraged about this can only be due to the lack of understanding of all of the above and more.

Good post
 
Why teach real history when your goal is to scare kids in to thinking global warming is goin to destroy the planet an that there is no differences between men an women?

Yes, that's what is happening in colleges across the US:rolleyes:

This would be perfect parody if you weren't so serious.
 
When I initially joined Jazzfanz more than 10 years ago, I was quite conservative. Many of the posters challenged my viewpoints and exposed me to different ways of thinking that were outside my insulated bubble. As I listened to my heart instead of what I had been told my whole life, my thinking changed dramatically. So thanks to social media for that. I have been guilty now, though, of feeling that I've evolved and my views are more enlightened, which inevitably leads to feeling those I've "left behind" are not as informed and aware as I now am. Smug, indeed. While I tend to not beat people over the head with my opinions too much, I haven't been completely proud of myself this election cycle. We are all in this together, and each person deserves respect.

Ugh, now I feel a little smug because I'm being so reasonable. It's hard to be a human.

There is smugness related to certainty about things that are debatable and where 'reasonable people' can disagree. Some things, however, do not fall into this category, such as whether all law abiding members of society merit equal civil rights and liberties, whether science policy should be based on actual science or poltiical ideology, whether women should be free to make decisions about their own reproductive health, whether racism is a good or bad thing, whether police and other powerful institutions need to be monitored and their power curtailed, whether members of a mainstream religion should be subject to state surveillance merely due to religious membership, etc., etc. In some of these cases, there can be legitimate discussions about the means to achieve goals and the tradeoffs to get there, but not on the fundamental underlying principle.
 
There is smugness related to certainty about things that are debatable and where 'reasonable people' can disagree. Some things, however, do not fall into this category, such as whether all law abiding members of society merit equal civil rights and liberties, whether science policy should be based on actual science or poltiical ideology, whether women should be free to make decisions about their own reproductive health, whether racism is a good or bad thing, whether police and other powerful institutions need to be monitored and their power curtailed, whether members of a mainstream religion should be subject to state surveillance merely due to religious membership, etc., etc. In some of these cases, there can be legitimate discussions about the means to achieve goals and the tradeoffs to get there, but not on the fundamental underlying principle.


Dude not disagreeing with your stating certain common decency type issues would hopefully be agreed upon, but to play devils advocate can you see that even ever so slightly the language you've used to lay out the issues you feel are no brainers are already assuming that people should agree with your definition with regard to some of these issues ?? (which btw is fine, you've expressed yourself very well, persuasive and respectful) To be clear i have sympathies to both sides of politics, and i wish there were more rational debating of just the issues, including the definitions of the words used to frame such issues.

It's the extension of viewing someone who disagrees with your viewpoints even down to what some of those definitions mean, to viewing those people as having something wrong with them, automatically labelling them as racist, bigoted, etc without trying to understand what they really are saying that this article is about. I am no Trump supporter, and of course there are racists etc but the abusive rhetoric thrown at those who disagree with them (which of course comes from both sides) that seems to be prevalent from the left that this article is keying in on.
 
I think Fox News, fake news on social media, the baggage Clinton carries, and the spectacle that is trump won't he election. There are a lot of dumb voters who think that he cares about them and not about merely enriching Trump's business. But ultimately, I think the combination of propaganda, anti-establishment sentiments (which Clinton and all of his baggage clearly is part of), and the uniqueness of trump won it.
 
Before we bash the schools, teachers, and students, let's understand something: history and critical thought has been deemphasized for decades now in both K-12 education and higher. Today it's all about standardized tests and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math). The private sector (and politicians) have demanded this and the education community has responded. So why should kids know much history when it isn't even emphasized anymore?
 
I plagiarised this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

Excerpt:

"I took a list of all 981 U.S. counties1 with 50,000 or more people and sorted it by the share of the population that had completed at least a four-year college degree. Hillary Clinton improved on President Obama’s 2012 performance in 48 of the country’s 50 most-well-educated counties. And on average, she improved on Obama’s margin of victory in these countries by almost 9 percentage points, even though Obama had done pretty well in them to begin with...

"Now here’s the opposite list: The 50 counties (minimum population of 50,000) where the smallest share of the population has bachelor’s degrees...These results are every bit as striking: Clinton lost ground relative to Obama in 47 of the 50 counties — she did an average of 11 percentage points worse, in fact. These are really the places that won Donald Trump the presidency, especially given that a fair number of them are in swing states such as Ohio and North Carolina. He improved on Mitt Romney’s margin by more than 30 points in Ashtabula County, Ohio, for example, an industrial county along Lake Erie that hadn’t voted Republican since 1984."
 
Here is one of the best articles I have read about the descent of the left and the rise of Trump.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

A New York Times article from last September that went viral only recently: Crying Wolf, Then Confronting Trump. It asks whether Democrats have “cried wolf” so many times that nobody believes them anymore. And so:
When “honorable and decent men” like McCain and Romney “are reflexively dubbed racists simply for opposing Democratic policies, the result is a G.O.P. electorate that doesn’t listen to admonitions when the genuine article is in their midst”.
I have a different perspective. Back in October 2015, I wrote that the picture of Trump as “the white power candidate” and “the first openly white supremacist candidate to have a shot at the Presidency in the modern era” was overblown. I said that “the media narrative that Trump is doing some kind of special appeal-to-white-voters voodoo is unsupported by any polling data”, and predicted that:
If Trump were the Republican nominee, he could probably count on equal or greater support from minorities as Romney or McCain before him.
Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. You can read the Washington Post article, Trump Got More Votes From People Of Color Than Romney Did, or look at the raw data (source)


Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.

Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on. [EDIT: see counterpoint, countercounterpoint]

The media responded to all of this freely available data with articles like White Flight From Reality: Inside The Racist Panic That Fueled Donald Trump’s Victory and Make No Mistake: Donald Trump’s Win Represents A Racist “Whitelash”.

I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. It’s a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.

I avoided pushing this point any more since last October because I didn’t want to look like I was supporting Trump, or accidentally convince anyone else to support Trump. I think Trump’s election is a disaster. He has no plan, he’s dangerously trigger-happy, and his unilateralism threatens aid to developing countries, one of the most effective ways we currently help other people. I thought and still think a Trump presidency will be a disaster.

But since we’re past the point where we can prevent it, I want to present my case.

I realize that all of this is going to make me sound like a crazy person and put me completely at odds with every respectable thinker in the media, but luckily, being a crazy person at odds with every respectable thinker in the media has been a pretty good ticket to predictive accuracy lately, so whatever.

There is way more than this snippet. Well worth the read.
 
Back
Top