Type <esc> to abort (fwd)

[Alan Sondheim]

Jon writes -

I don't want to deny the importance of fear and anger, or the surveys
which seem to demonstrate that a large number of Americans seem to have
realised that the 'ruling groups' largely do not care about them.

However, for me, it seems that to vote for Trump, a person must have to
have a cosmology in which authoritarianism and hinted violence makes sense
(as it did in Weimar Germany). It must seem like a possible solution,
rather than an incoherent response which makes even greater disruption and
suffering more likely. If you think the latter, then you will not vote for
him. A non-authoritarian person's loyalties to the Republicans may keep
them from voting Democrat, but they won't vote for Trump, and they won't
accept the idea that Trump is not as bad as he appears (as people did with
George W.).

-- I think your analysis is flawed here; a person need not have a
"cosmology" at all in any sense. Trump absorbs; it's very different than
it looks from a distance. Trump offers solutions to anger, speaks in
basically one-syllable words, comes across as a father figure, authority,
who's giving it so to speak to any cosmology at all.

Sometimes people who point to the surveys of perceptions about the ruling
groups, use this to explain why Sanders has become so popular, despite him
being almost completely ignored by the mainstream media until relatively
recently. However, choosing to solve problems through supporting Sanders
does not seem an authoritarian response. It may (i don't know) be equally
impractical, but it is not authoritarian. Consequently, authoritarianism
is not the only possible response to US problems.

-- No, it's the response of a great many Amerians. Of of course this is a
highly diverse country.

So why are the Republicans apparently more enamoured of authoritarians? as
Trump does seem to be popular with Republican voters. They do claim to be
the party of religion. And their religion tends to be authoritarian with
an authoritarian God. Their vision of the cosmos is one in which power
makes right. They are a party which loves the military and its authority.
They are the party of science denial. The authority of faith again. They
are virulent espousers of 'free market' ideology, also only backed by
faith and power. They always seem to agitate to put more people in prison,
or to execute them - which has to be a marker of authoritarianism.

-- Good grief, Trump isn't religious, Cruz and Rubio claim to be, and it
makes no difference at all. And the Rep. party itself is split; it's not
"the" party of anything, any more than the democrats are. Trump is
carrying a lot of people who never voted before, etc.

I am reminded recently of an article i read recently in which a lawyer
recommended something like that if you were for the defense then, unless
the accused was an authoritarian christian, you should try and remove
fundamentalists from the jury on the grounds that they would convict
'others', almost irrespective of the evidence, because their cosmology,
their God, justified such punative behaviours and made them natural.
(Sorry i can't remember the article's name or author)

-- This just isn't the U.S. I know at all, nor the current political
discourse. It's not religious, it's not cosmological, even the idea of the
authoritarian dissolves in many places w/ Trump. It's not authority, it's
anti-authority, it's Burning Man writ large and catastrophic (in the
literal sense, veering chaotically).

Nobody necessarily has to mention God, they just have to have something
similar to the kind of authoritarian cosmology, reinforced by
authoritarian religions and promulgated widely in their society, for Trump
to make sense - to be a 'saviour'.

-- It's not this, it's not a religious discourse. That's Goebbel's
Michael, not the U.S.

Which takes me back to the original point. There is little evidence I have
seen that Trump is particularly worse than the other Republican
candidates. Indeed I have read articles by republicans saying he is
practically mainstream, other than in his apparent lack of religion.

-- Come closer.

I also read yesterday that he supported Planned Parenthood, which means he
does not believe the misinformation campaign that has been being run by
mainstream Republicans. He is able to look at real evidence to an extent.
So this may also indicate he is better than those who can't. It does not,
however, mean he should be elected!

-- He supports some parts of PP, not it in its entirety and has never
disavowed the doctored tapes.

jon

-- Alan

[Jonathan Marshall]

sorry about the delay here, just preoccupied. Hope this makes more sense....

Post by Alan Sondheim

Post by Alan Sondheim
However, for me, it seems that to vote for Trump, a person must have to
have a cosmology in which authoritarianism and hinted violence makes sense

(as it did in Weimar Germany).... [snip]

Post by Alan Sondheim
-- I think your analysis is flawed here; a person need not have a
"cosmology" at all in any sense.

Part of the problem of my being unclear might be the word i'm using.
I don't think cosmologies have to be coherent or worked out, or that they
cannot be primarily emotional, or feeling based, simply that
people generally have ways of sense making. and that the sense making of those
who support Trump would seem to allow that his responses make sense for them.
Given my cosmology, for example, they do not make sense at all.

I'm trying to figure out, however badly, how it is that he makes sense
to people, rather than seeming completely implausible or disastrous -

and I don't think feeling angry, or abandoned is enough to explain that. As I
suggested, it could also explain the appeal of Sanders, who does not seem
particularly authoritarian.

Post by Alan Sondheim
Trump absorbs; it's very different than
it looks from a distance. Trump offers solutions to anger, speaks in
basically one-syllable words, comes across as a father figure, authority,
who's giving it so to speak to any cosmology at all.

So in my terms he expresses patriarchy, and authority. It also seems
he has an image of success, or control of fate, and business savvy
(however much this is false).

The big deal is why does that combination have an appeal, to the people it appeals to?

My suggestion is that it makes sense within particular cosmologies, and not in
others. His incoherence may allow more projection, so that more people who
resonate with patriarchy and authority can see him as promising what
they want, but that is only a problem if cosmologies have to be coherent.

[snips]

Post by Alan Sondheim

Post by Alan Sondheim
So why are the Republicans apparently more enamoured of authoritarians? as
Trump does seem to be popular with Republican voters. They do claim to be
the party of religion. And their religion tends to be authoritarian with
an authoritarian God. Their vision of the cosmos is one in which power
makes right. They are a party which loves the military and its authority.
They are the party of science denial. The authority of faith again. They
are virulent espousers of 'free market' ideology, also only backed by
faith and power. They always seem to agitate to put more people in prison,
or to execute them - which has to be a marker of authoritarianism.

-- Good grief, Trump isn't religious,

No indeed. He does not have to be. The ideology already provides for an
almighty authority figure, and he acts as that figure does. Irrationally,
promising damnation to opponents, and miraculous success to followers,
without any logic or plan.... other than the mystique of his 'ability'.

Post by Alan Sondheim
And the Rep. party itself is split; it's not
"the" party of anything, any more than the democrats are.

I'd have to say i'm not sure that the Republican party is without
principles. They may be incoherent, but it seems to me, that
whenever Republicans have been shouting at me, they have been:

1) Supporting the military might of the US and/or
2) Denying climate, or other, science or the need to act, and/or
3) Praising business or 'free markets' as the solution and/or
4) Praising the authority and necessity of their version of God.

it is (in my obviously limited experience) extremely rare for anyone
claiming to be republican to deny all four of these positions. And relatively
uncommon for them to deny even one of them. (Apart from atheist libertarians
who may deny God and the necessity of government based military spending, and
they often claim not to be Republican)

Clearly the democrats are not immune to authoritarianism, but it seems less
marked, not as central and they are less likely to make all four of the above points,
or even more than one.

A guy in the local paper was arguing last week that the English speaking
right had managed to join two incompatible positions
ie love of free markets and authoritarian religion, and the join was
breaking down.
All that kept them together were the 'culture wars' and they were becoming
less and less appealing to the electorate in Australia, (I've no idea about the US).

Post by Alan Sondheim
Trump is carrying a lot of people who never voted before, etc.

Sure but they presumably identify with the Republican Party or they
would not be voting in the Republican primaries?
(Although I've heard a theory that supporters of Clinton are supporting
Trump because they figure he will loose against her. This seems implausible)

Post by Alan Sondheim
it's not cosmological, even the idea of the
authoritarian dissolves in many places w/ Trump. It's not authority, it's
anti-authority, it's Burning Man writ large and catastrophic (in the
literal sense, veering chaotically).

Perhaps, an authoritarian approach has to be opposed to other forms of authority
or it could not convince, and not rule uninterrupted?

Post by Alan Sondheim

Post by Alan Sondheim
Which takes me back to the original point. There is little evidence I have
seen that Trump is particularly worse than the other Republican
candidates. Indeed I have read articles by republicans saying he is
practically mainstream, other than in his apparent lack of religion.

-- Come closer.

I've looked, as best as I can, and Rubio and Cruz do not seem particularly
trustworthy, or multi-focused in terms of authority, in terms of denial of crises,
in terms of fantasies, or in terms of finding scapegoats to blame and persecute.
they don't seem less militaristic, they don't seem less in favour of tax cuts and
subsidies for the wealthy, they don't seem less prone to support corporate supremacy.
They may be more 'rational' in some respects, but they may be being less open.

They also seem to support the four points above.

I'm not advising people to vote for Trump, but simply to look at the other
Republican candidates.
Trump could be both the model Republican of the current day, as well as a
potential disaster.

jon



UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.

Think. Green. Do.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.