What you do think is the number one issue facing us at the moment?

[Yazata]

I didn't want to make this a poll, so you can pick your own issue.

For me, I'd say that the biggest problem facing the United States is how it's rapidly turning into an increasingly totalitarian one-party state. By that I mean how the federal civil service is populated overwhelmingly by adherents of one political party, and how everything from the intelligence agencies to the court system are being weaponized, Putin-style, against perceived political enemies. To say nothing of the partisan control of higher education and the "news" (actually opinion) media. We have the attempts to censor social media, the plague of "wokeness" infesting even private institutions...

For me, I'll say populism.

There's no way that I can agree with that.

For me, "populism" is an often perjorative synonym for 'democracy'. It's the idea that people decide for themselves how they would like to live their lives and what direction they would like their communities to take. Then they elect representatives who promote the agendas of those who elected them in the halls of power. The essence is that decision-making is bottom up, arising from the will of the people.

It's opposed to what we might call neo-aristocracy, where the self-defined "superior" people up on top make all the decisions that are then enforced on all the "little" people down below. That's precisely why the American Revolution was fought, in hopes of escaping from that kind of system so prevalent in Europe.

That's why I'm proud to call myself a "populist".

I'd definite that as as anti-intellectual movement or emotion over facts and reality.

Is there really a superior neo-aristocratic class ("intellectuals") able to discern 'facts', 'truth' and 'reality' while the common herd are blind to them? That raises obvious philosophical questions. It's very reminiscent of Plato's totalitarian "philosopher kings" (those trained to perceive the eternal Forms/ideas in the mind of God) and his opposition to democracy in the Republic. Do we really want to be ruled by a self-appointed and self-perpetuating elite with total control over our lives while we have no say in the matter? (As we saw with the Marxist "vanguard party", whose rule was supposedly justified by its mastery of Marxist theory and hence the inevitable unfolding of history?)

It's even worse when we realize that most of our disagreements aren't really about questions of 'fact' and 'reality' at all, they are about opinions and value-judgments, ethical questions where there's probably no objective truth of the matter to be found. Our disagreements are about what kind of world we want to live in. When it comes to issues of 'right' and 'wrong', when we start throwing around words like 'should' (which presupposes an agreed goal), we seem have abandoned the realm of expertise for the realm of intuitions.

I'd consider both Trump (obviously) and Biden as populists rather than as traditional centrists.

I agree about Trump. His brilliance in 2016 was recognizing that none of the rest of the candidates were speaking to many of the issues that a very large segment of the voters considered most important and really wanted addressed. While reflexively-elitist Hillary simply dismissed those voters (whose votes she sorely needed) as "deplorables".

So despite his New York City billionaire roots, Trump emerged as the Voice of the People. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

 

[Magical Realist]

Yazata said; So despite his New York City billionaire roots, Trump emerged as the Man of the People. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” H.L. Mencken

 

[Sarkus]

For me, I'd say that the biggest problem facing the United States is how it's rapidly turning into an increasingly totalitarian one-party state. By that I mean how the federal civil service is populated overwhelmingly by adherents of one political party, and how everything from the intelligence agencies to the court system are being weaponized, Putin-style, against perceived political enemies.

Which "one party" are you suggesting the state is becoming? The one that governs the White House? Or the one with the majority in Congress? Which party do you see as trying to make it a one-party state? Which party do you see as being totalitarian, given that you say that it is turning into such while the Democrats are in the White House but the Republicans rule (ineffectively, perhaps) Congress. Or is it the right-wing bias of the SCOTUS you're referring to?
Basically, it's not at all clear who you're laying the blame at, what the actual root cause is, or evem what you see as examples of what you're describing.

Just so I'm clear, are you suggesting, for example, that Trump's issues in court, his appearances for fraud, his civil suits brought by E Jean Carroll, his election interference, the accusations of insurrection levelled against him, are the result of weaponising the judicial system?
If not, what do you example as the weaponisation of the court system?

Do you, for example, see the overturning of Roe v Wade, and the return of the question of abortion to the individual states as an example of a totalitarian regime, or as a good thing, or both/neither?

And what examples can you provide of "wokeness" infesting private institutions? Again, just so I understand what you're actually saying. Do you think that private institutions should be able to discriminate if they want, for example?


As for Trump being a "populist", I would say that he campaigned as one, but simply gaslighted and conned his way to their votes. He didn't and doesn't care about them at all. A populist is one that actually does things for the people, speaks for the people, and not simply reverts to type when in power.
Unfortunately he has a cult of personality around him that projects a populist persona that hides his dictatorial intentions, and his right-wing narcissistic politics (i.e. anything that will personally make him more money and fame).

 

[Seattle]

For me, I'd say that the biggest problem facing the United States is how it's rapidly turning into an increasingly totalitarian one-party state. By that I mean how the federal civil service is populated overwhelmingly by adherents of one political party, and how everything from the intelligence agencies to the court system are being weaponized, Putin-style, against perceived political enemies. To say nothing of the partisan control of higher education and the "news" (actually opinion) media. We have the attempts to censor social media, the plague of "wokeness" infesting even private institutions...



There's no way that I can agree with that.

For me, "populism" is an often perjorative synonym for 'democracy'. It's the idea that people decide for themselves how they would like to live their lives and what direction they would like their communities to take. Then they elect representatives who promote the agendas of those who elected them in the halls of power. The essence is that decision-making is bottom up, arising from the will of the people.

It's opposed to what we might call neo-aristocracy, where the self-defined "superior" people up on top make all the decisions that are then enforced on all the "little" people down below. That's precisely why the American Revolution was fought, in hopes of escaping from that kind of system so prevalent in Europe.

That's why I'm proud to call myself a "populist".



Is there really a superior neo-aristocratic class ("intellectuals") able to discern 'facts', 'truth' and 'reality' while the common herd are blind to them? That raises obvious philosophical questions. It's very reminiscent of Plato's totalitarian "philosopher kings" (those trained to perceive the eternal Forms/ideas in the mind of God) and his opposition to democracy in the Republic. Do we really want to be ruled by a self-appointed and self-perpetuating elite with total control over our lives while we have no say in the matter? (As we saw with the Marxist "vanguard party", whose rule was supposedly justified by its mastery of Marxist theory and hence the inevitable unfolding of history?)

It's even worse when we realize that most of our disagreements aren't really about questions of 'fact' and 'reality' at all, they are about opinions and value-judgments, ethical questions where there's probably no objective truth of the matter to be found. Our disagreements are about what kind of world we want to live in. When it comes to issues of 'right' and 'wrong', when we start throwing around words like 'should' (which presupposes an agreed goal), we seem have abandoned the realm of expertise for the realm of intuitions.



I agree about Trump. His brilliance in 2016 was recognizing that none of the rest of the candidates were speaking to many of the issues that a very large segment of the voters considered most important and really wanted addressed. While reflexively-elitist Hillary simply dismissed those voters (whose votes she sorely needed) as "deplorables".

So despite his New York City billionaire roots, Trump emerged as the Voice of the People. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

You like populism, and Trump, but your first paragraph about what is most wrong with the US, is due to populism.

Populism isn't the best of democracy. It's a perversion of democracy by appealing to ignorant, self-servicing politicians like Huey Long (historical reference) and now Trump. Democracy and Trump bear no relationship to each other.

 

[C C]

For me, I'd say that the biggest problem facing the United States is how it's rapidly turning into an increasingly totalitarian one-party state. By that I mean how the federal civil service is populated overwhelmingly by adherents of one political party, and how everything from the intelligence agencies to the court system are being weaponized, Putin-style, against perceived political enemies. To say nothing of the partisan control of higher education and the "news" (actually opinion) media. We have the attempts to censor social media, the plague of "wokeness" infesting even private institutions...

And that's one imbalance that the quota regimes have zero interest in addressing or fixing.

It arguably mattered less in the old days because the Party was more of a mixture, with not only conservatives, but the glaring paradox of extremist Southern Democrats. And in terms of retrospective relativism, the Establishment of the 1960s and prior was certainly "center-right" compared to the Establishment[1] of today, which long since adopted the counterculture. Journalists were also more skeptical of intellectuals back then, rather than walking in lockstep with humanities scholars.

I agree about Trump. His brilliance in 2016 was recognizing that none of the rest of the candidates were speaking to many of the issues that a very large segment of the voters considered most important and really wanted addressed. While reflexively-elitist Hillary simply dismissed those voters (whose votes she sorely needed) as "deplorables".

So despite his New York City billionaire roots, Trump emerged as the Voice of the People. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

I feel that a quarter of those proclaiming in surveys or head counts that they are voting for Trump are actually just expressing their disapproval of the Establishment. They can't accomplish that by admitting they will be voting for Biden in the end, or will not be voting at all. As a result, the "polls" (where Trump leads) are kind of illusionary.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] The "establishment" being administration, academia, MSM journalism, the entertainment industry, etc (as well as many high-tech corporations at least superficially posturing and catering to the Great Postcolonial Shaming of the horrible and unjust Western tradition.)
_