(Your Age is Your Politics, Narrative Formation, Moving Past Morality, JUNTA NOW!, Nationalism is Hero Worship, Brand Capture in Politics (tm), Who is Your Political Sugar Daddy? God Isn't a Liberal)
Since the possibility of manipulation by mass media became too obvious to ignore, elites have felt it incumbent upon them to make sure the masses were given the benefit of professional technocratic management. In all regions, including Russia and the West, leaders have been resorting to manipulative narratives, aka, noble lies. Naturally these consist of tapestries where feel good impressions are interwoven with public fears and hatreds, much in the same way that morality tales are told to children to guide their behavior.
Against this tribal backdrop, there is critical thinking and historical study, both of which tend to subvert manufactured national narratives, and introduce that clarity so undesired by the elites trying to manage by propaganda.
I thought that we missed a great opportunity when BLM iconoclasty was popular. Instead of tearing the statues down, I proposed instead to have a second plaque installed opposite the ones already in place. The idea would be to have a "red team" document the worst things that could be said, in opposition to the praise provided by the "green team's" plaque. With a little luck, people might read both plaques, and the cognitive dissonance would stimulate a much more dissonant and realistic appreciaation of history. Instead, this idea PO'd everyone with whom I discussed it.
FWIW, in my mind, the political health of the masses is reflected in the extent to which individual thinking of the masses is able to override elite narratives. Especially if they run around PO'd. I think the proper operation of politics is a ferment all sorts of ideas, to an extent where propagandists never are able to react quite quickly enough for their narrative to catch up with what the masses are thinking. We're obviously a long way off.
Does Trump have a winning personality? I never felt that he did. I liked most of his platform, his planks. But I preferred Rand Paul and his father as people. They seem more real. The only time I really liked Trump was in his harsh dealings w/ liberal reporters. He cut the bastards no slack. Acted like a tough guy against the enemy. Sweet! But in other social situations I've seen him came off like an uniformed blowhard. Putin doesn't come off like that. He has some class, occasional charm, actual gravitas.
There was telling commentary by an English far right politician, Martin somebody. He watched Trump's limo pass thru the crowd that was assembling in DC to support him. Trump didn't get out and do any hand-shaking or attempt an impromptu speech. Didn't try to rally the troops. He stayed inside the limo w/ the window rolled up on his way to the golf course. This is not a man of the people.
What are the law, and the feeling of the populace regarding gun possession? Having a gun in the wilder, more scarcely populated regions should be a necessity, while I guess in cities they are probably banned as they are in Europe.
Re militarism: I think your image of military behavior is a bit on the idealistic side.
Generals like Franco or Pinochet don't exude an air of competence as much as cigar-smoke-filled chambers of corruption.
Napoleon was competent militarily, but that led to a win-or-(eventually)-lose mindset that naturally evolved into overreach, that didn't prove to be very constructive for the French long-term.
I agree that Bismark probably came close to your ideal of a miltary statesman, who not only unified Germany, but made great advances for its people and infrastructure. But that eventually had negative repercussions, when no competent successor followed him, with the skill to manage the brinksmanship that made B's programs successful.
I actually like the idea of a lawyer/spook like Putin, who has an understanding of how things ought to be done, and a familiarity with how people try to game things. But maybe his success is simply due to a quality that all great leaders have, namely, great leadership ;-)
Since the possibility of manipulation by mass media became too obvious to ignore, elites have felt it incumbent upon them to make sure the masses were given the benefit of professional technocratic management. In all regions, including Russia and the West, leaders have been resorting to manipulative narratives, aka, noble lies. Naturally these consist of tapestries where feel good impressions are interwoven with public fears and hatreds, much in the same way that morality tales are told to children to guide their behavior.
Against this tribal backdrop, there is critical thinking and historical study, both of which tend to subvert manufactured national narratives, and introduce that clarity so undesired by the elites trying to manage by propaganda.
I thought that we missed a great opportunity when BLM iconoclasty was popular. Instead of tearing the statues down, I proposed instead to have a second plaque installed opposite the ones already in place. The idea would be to have a "red team" document the worst things that could be said, in opposition to the praise provided by the "green team's" plaque. With a little luck, people might read both plaques, and the cognitive dissonance would stimulate a much more dissonant and realistic appreciaation of history. Instead, this idea PO'd everyone with whom I discussed it.
FWIW, in my mind, the political health of the masses is reflected in the extent to which individual thinking of the masses is able to override elite narratives. Especially if they run around PO'd. I think the proper operation of politics is a ferment all sorts of ideas, to an extent where propagandists never are able to react quite quickly enough for their narrative to catch up with what the masses are thinking. We're obviously a long way off.
Does Trump have a winning personality? I never felt that he did. I liked most of his platform, his planks. But I preferred Rand Paul and his father as people. They seem more real. The only time I really liked Trump was in his harsh dealings w/ liberal reporters. He cut the bastards no slack. Acted like a tough guy against the enemy. Sweet! But in other social situations I've seen him came off like an uniformed blowhard. Putin doesn't come off like that. He has some class, occasional charm, actual gravitas.
There was telling commentary by an English far right politician, Martin somebody. He watched Trump's limo pass thru the crowd that was assembling in DC to support him. Trump didn't get out and do any hand-shaking or attempt an impromptu speech. Didn't try to rally the troops. He stayed inside the limo w/ the window rolled up on his way to the golf course. This is not a man of the people.
What are the law, and the feeling of the populace regarding gun possession? Having a gun in the wilder, more scarcely populated regions should be a necessity, while I guess in cities they are probably banned as they are in Europe.
Re militarism: I think your image of military behavior is a bit on the idealistic side.
Generals like Franco or Pinochet don't exude an air of competence as much as cigar-smoke-filled chambers of corruption.
Napoleon was competent militarily, but that led to a win-or-(eventually)-lose mindset that naturally evolved into overreach, that didn't prove to be very constructive for the French long-term.
I agree that Bismark probably came close to your ideal of a miltary statesman, who not only unified Germany, but made great advances for its people and infrastructure. But that eventually had negative repercussions, when no competent successor followed him, with the skill to manage the brinksmanship that made B's programs successful.
I actually like the idea of a lawyer/spook like Putin, who has an understanding of how things ought to be done, and a familiarity with how people try to game things. But maybe his success is simply due to a quality that all great leaders have, namely, great leadership ;-)
Interesting idea.... the military in key positions.