Teachers tend to be stupider than those employed in the subject-areas they specialize in. That's why pedagogues should focus on doing their job- viz. imparting some basic skills in that area- and keep silent on political issues.
Eight years ago, two stupid Professors of useless shite, Benjamin Justice and Jason Stanley, wrote
On March 4, 1801, President Thomas Jefferson
a slave owner who would later advocate the invasion and annexation of Canada to which many Loyalists had fled
delivered one of the nation’s finest inaugural addresses, after participating in one of its most politically divisive election cycles.
I suppose the authors are hinting that Jeff won because he was pro immigration.
Seeking common ground in an inherently unstable democratic republic, the author of the Declaration of Independence urged his audience:
Let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which
mankind so long bled and suffered,
Slavery and genocide against First Nations, however, was fine. Also, at a later point (in a case involving Mormon polygamy) the Bench ruled that though, thanks to Jefferson, opinion was tolerated, actions flowing from that opinion were not protected.
we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions….
Like that of the Loyalists
Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.
Jeff had been an ally of Adams and served as his Veep.
What were the necessary principles of American government that transcended the vast diversity of American life?
For Jeff, this involved putting down slave insurrections and killing the Native American and grabbing his land. Also, why not annex Canada?
The first on Jefferson’s list—and on the list of most democratic theorists ever since—was political equality:
not for women, Blacks and the indigenous population. Still, Jeff was pro-immigration.
“Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political,” he explained.
But not Loyalists who might want to return and reclaim their property.
Not yet equality for those whose brutal enslavement powered the economy (and his own personal fortune), nor yet for women, or the poor, or countless others, but nevertheless a principled equality that allowed for reasoned deliberation among citizens.
Or just pi-jaw to seem like a nice guy and attract votes.
Even today, when the logic of democracy has propelled our society to a more inclusive (and still yet unjust and unequal) place, we take for granted that first, fundamental principle: that democracy can flourish only when democratic deliberation is guided by a norm of reasonableness.
Nonsense! Biden was incapable of saying anything sensible. Still, he was likeable. The fact is, democracy flourishes when people vote in a self-interested manner. Thus 'preference aggregation' is about letting 'noise' cancel itself out as far as possible, so what remains is 'signal'. Nevertheless, there can still be doubt as to what the 'signal' actually is. With hindsight, American voters were never really interested in exporting Democracy or Human Rights or whatever stupid shit led to the squandering of Blood and Treasure in places like Vietnam or Afghanistan.
To be reasonable in one’s conduct towards others is not the same as being guided by the facts (although facts are certainly important). It is rather about being open
to other perspectives, the perspectives of one’s co-citizens.
No. To be reasonable in one's conduct is to act in such a manner that others understand your reason for acting the way you do. If the reason is a prudent type of self-interest, people feel they can predict your actions and thus are more comfortable with you ceteris paribus. On the other hand, a guy who is influenced by the 'perspectives of co-citizens' may not be predictable or reliable. You want your plumber to fix the toilet as quickly as possible so as to get paid. You don't want him to lecture you on the Kabbalah because he thinks you are in need of spiritual enlightenment.
The norm of reasonableness has a long history in democratic political thought.
No. It is stupid shit introduced by nutters like Rawls. The previous idea was that people should act, and vote, on the basis of enlightened self-interest. True, they may also talk in an idealistic or pious manner but that was just window dressing.
The best known contemporary formulation is that of John Rawls, who maintains that people are reasonable when they propose standards for cooperation that are reasonable and justifiable for everyone to accept.
It is not reasonable for me or you to do any such thing. People are content if we just do the fucking job we are paid to rather than propose a new theory of Justice. Rawls was teaching worthless shite and thus people expected him to try to shit higher than his arsehole.
Reasonable people are also ready to discuss the fair terms that others propose, and abide by the results of reasonable deliberation.
No they aren't. Only a lunatic will listen to me if I start banging on about my theory of Justice rather than do the job I am paid to do.
Reasonableness requires respect for the opinions of others and a willingness to discuss them.
In which case, neither of these two cretins are reasonable. If you don't believe me, try calling them up in the middle of the night and see if they are willing to discuss your proposal for a new Capital Gains Tax regime which is based on teasing thin people for not having put on weight.
Policy designed to apply fairly to everyone requires deliberation that takes everyone’s perspective into account.
In which case, no policy can be designed till everybody has been heard from. In the US, this will take approximately three thousand years even if everybody only gets five minutes to state their views.
Jefferson’s point is that the stability of democracy as a system depends upon a well constituted state, one in which the people are not sealed off from the perspectives of their co-citizens by fear, panic, or hatred.
The stability of a state of any sort does depend on it being 'well constituted'. Jeff may have feared being killed by a slave or 'Indian' insurrection or the return of British troops in 1812.
A general belief that Jews are out to deceive will undermine reasonable public discourse, for example, because it will lead citizens to discount the actual perspective of their Jewish co-citizens.
Sadly, this is not the case. A country can get rid of minorities while remaining stable. America did not cease to thrive just because it was extremely racist to non-Whites.
In such a society, it would be no surprise to discover anti-Semitic policies.
There were periods when anti-Semitism flourished in England without any anti-Semitic policies being implemented. I believe the same was true of large portions of the US at different times.
We now face an election in which one of the leading candidates, Donald Trump, is using fear, panic, and division to attract support.
Stanley has a hysterical fear and hatred of Trump. So what? We don't care that the man is a lunatic because he teaches useless shite and has no power or influence.
A CNN/ORC poll from May 29–31 registered Trump at 3 percent support.
It was 36 percent. Trump went on to win the Presidency and gain complete control of his party.
In his speech on June 16 announcing his candidacy, Trump made the following, now infamous, statement: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
If Kamala loses, it will be because of immigration. Biden really shat the bed on this issue.
Instead of being punished for such divisive and offensive speech, however, Trump was rewarded.
Stanley was not punished for divisive and offensive speech against Trump. He was merely laughed at.
The next CNN/ORC poll, from June 26–28, had Trump at 12 percent, behind Jeb
Bush (19 percent). A poll conducted from July 22–25 had Trump leading the GOP pack with 18 percent, and subsequent polls established him as the frontrunner. Trump’s lead became commanding after his suggestion that Muslims be banned from visiting the United States.
Whereas Biden banned plenty of important people, who were interested in keeping China at a distance, from entering the USA. This helped China and made enforcement of various types of sanctions more difficult.
Still, it is a fact that Trump doesn't seem to be mentioning his Executive Orders in this respect which Biden overturned. I suppose he has the sense to see that now America isn't killing Muslims, there is little point in appearing Islamophobic.
Trump’s campaign is notable not only for its messages, but for its media. With over 5.5 million Twitter followers and 4.5 million Facebook fans, his campaign is unmatched in its mastery of social media.
The bigger problem was Hilary's horrible personality.
He has sidestepped more traditional vehicles, eschewing expensive television advertising, for example, for low-cost, low-production videos on Instagram, Vine, Youtube and
Periscope.
He used available technology. How naughty of him!
His messages reach followers instantly and are then rebroadcasted in seconds by a devoted phalanx of followers.
It must be said, the Dems learned their lesson and retaliated in like terms.
Aggressive tweets reach millions of followers unfiltered, contributing to the speed with which his words attract attention and shift the polls. He is out-pacing Republican rivals while paying a fraction of their costs.
Because he was smarter. When in office, he actually delivered for his core constituency. His SCOTUS picks were a gift which kept giving.
Despite the appearance of showmanship, however, his constant real-time use of these
media is systematic and coordinated.
Being systematic is bad. Did you know that Hitler was very coordinated? That's why he didn't put his shoes on his hands.
His pioneering use of these new communications media has been compared by many commentators to FDR’s use of radio in his fireside chats and JFK’s television charisma.
Sadly, by 2015, Radio and Television had disappeared from America. That's why Hilary lost.
The medium and the message are fully integrated, and this integration is critical to Trump’s rejection of reason giving and reason taking.
What fucking 'reason giving' did Hilary do? I don't recall, but it must have been shit.
He keeps up a steady stream of boasts, insults, and policy assertions almost entirely insulated from thoughtful public analysis.
What secured him victory, or so Hilary thought, was FBI director, Comey's letter re. Emails from her private server. Comey was appointed by Obama. Trump got rid of him but his attempt to get revenge gained him nothing.
The self-proclaimed “Hemingway of 140 characters” has fully occupied and fortified his position in the social media landscape, a place where sober, idea-driven conservative rivals flounder.
Because they were shit. Whatever happened to Paul Ryan?
When he is caught making false statements, he either denies or doubles down, and is held to
no account within his media platform.
But Trump delivered. We didn't expect him to, but he did.
His statements in televised debates thus far have been extensions of his Twitter persona; challengers are fended off not for the quality of their ideas, but through invective.
Because they truly were shit. Trump delivered and may do so again.
While traditional media such as network television and newspapers have always had political agendas, Trump has broken the rules that tethered candidates to at least moderate claims of public reason.
No. He was against immigration. He still is. This is why he might take back the White House.
For a while, commentators chalked up Trump’s campaign to “sideshow” political theater, in which the un-serious entertainer provokes rather than promises.
Trump promised and, up to a point, did deliver. Biden shat the bed. That's what revived Trump's political fortunes.
In July 2015, the Huffington Post announced that henceforth it would put coverage of the Trump campaign in its Entertainment section.
Come to think of it, there was a time when people read the Huff Post. I wonder why.
By December, New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks compared Trump to that “pink carpet” that you ogle at in a furniture store before returning to the more sober carpets that you actually buy to go with the rest of your décor.
You buy a dark colored carpet because you walk on it and get it dirty. Nobody walks on Trump.
However, after Trump called for the “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” Arianna Huffington announced that her website would now put Trump back in Politics,
because the fucker might win and Huff Post would look stooooopid.
calling his campaign “an ugly and dangerous force.”
Arianna was considered a lunatic in the UK when she palled around with Bernard Levin and sang the praises of Esalen.
Any doubts about Trump’s commitment to a very serious and deliberate form of political theater (not a side show, but the main event) were cleared when his campaign released its first television ad on January 4, 2016. The transcript is a series of statements that he has made before, interspersed with ALL CAPS script on the screen: “I’m Donald Trump and I approve this message” The politicians can pretend it’s something else But Donald Trump calls it radical Islamic terrorism [IT’S RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM] That’s why he’s calling for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until we can figure out what’s going on. [TEMPORARY BAN ON MUSLIMS ENTERING U.S.] He’ll quickly cut the head off of ISIS [CUT THE HEAD OFF OF ISIS] And take their oil. And he’ll stop illegal immigration by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for. [STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION] “We will make America great again.”
America had spent a lot of money killing Muslims. Clinton and Obama had been 'deporters in chief'. Trump was saying he would do stuff that was already being done. Hilary got her messaging wrong, though it appeared she would gain a comfortable victory without having to do very much.
The ad includes assertions that are ridiculous. It incites hostility against people who are different in ethnicity or religious beliefs from most Americans
whom America was already killing or deporting en masse.
—illegal immigrants and foreign Muslims. How will we make America great?
Trump explained that America would do stuff that was in its national interest. What's wrong with that?
By naming and excluding undesirables, or, in the case of ISIS, butchering them.
ISIS only came into existence because America was butchering or torturing lots of Iraqis. With hindsight, America needed to prop up some sort of effective Sunni force because the alternative, which has come to pass, was Iranian domination of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen etc.
What betrays Trump’s spectacle as very serious indeed, however, is the emotional and dehumanizing imagery he uses to accompany the words.
When killing Muslims you need to pretend to respect the fuck out of them.
The initial image of President Obama and Hillary Clinton during the words “the politicians” is then switched to grim photos of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino shooters, foregrounding scenes of a body on a stretcher.
A Pakistani origin couple. Muslim Americans welcome strict rules against radicalized people (in this case the wife) entering the country.
The ad then flips to the proposed ban on Muslims, which moves from scenes at an immigration point to men in ski masks and indistinct Arabic writing. The next shot is a warship firing missiles and aerial footage of explosions. The most disturbing, however, is the Mexican wall building footage, which shows dark-skinned people surging toward a barrier (footage from Spain, it turns out) as if they were a swarm of insects.
So, the authors think 'dark-skinned' people are like a 'swarm of insects'.
This is a dehumanizing trope that is familiar in racist propaganda and was favored by the National Socialists, among others.
But it is these two Professors who mention it. I would not have done so because I'm dark and don't see people who look like me as 'insects'. On the contrary, I understand the desperation that might drive such people. This does not mean I'd welcome a dilution in my own entitlements to accommodate anybody at all. I'm selfish but that's a reasonable thing to be.
As the opposition party to the incumbent president, Republicans would naturally want to paint our present reality negatively, and scapegoating is always easier to sell than real solutions for politicians of any party. Moreover, illegal immigration and foreign (as opposed to domestic) extremism have been longterm concerns of Republicans in particular, but Democrats as well. Nevertheless, while other candidates have followed Trump’s xenophobic direction, none have taken their tactics to such an explicitly low point.
Which is why he won. Obama, it is true, could do soaring rhetoric but then he was very handsome. If you are fat and ugly, promise to be a right bastard to anyone who poses a threat to the material standard of living of the voter.
As a result, prominent conservatives have distanced themselves from Trump’s eruptions; some have even labeled him a fascist.
They have lost their position in politics, unless, like Vance, they have turned their coats.
Ordinary citizens, used to what Princeton political scientist Tali Mendelberg has called “a norm of equality” in public political discourse, may be surprised by the support that Trump’s tactics generate.
Only if they are political scientists- i.e. cretins- at Prince-fucking-ton
But it is no surprise to theorists of democracy.
Not 'representative democracy' which is what we have.
The suggestion that divisive, shocking rhetoric is an especially powerful way to garner support dates back to the discussion of democracy in Book VIII of Plato’s Republic;
He was talking about small polities where the entire free, male, population voted on all matters. Also, some public offices were held by lot.
in fact, it is Plato’s reason for thinking that democracy invariably leads to tyranny after social conflicts tear it apart.
Only if the democracy places so much emphasis on individual freedom that some lose all self-restraint or sense of social cohesion. It was perfectly possible for a democracy to put itself under the leadership of 'Philosopher Kings' or 'Guardians'.
Hobbes, Rousseau, and a legion of other democratic theorists have made similar points. Hannah Arendt puts the attraction of perceived “forbidden” divisive rhetoric perhaps most pointedly when she writes, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, “The mob really believed that truth was whatever respectable society had hypocritically passed over.”
But that wasn't what happened in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. The Germans really believed that the General Staff and various 'technocrats' knew best. Stalin himself was a philosopher who was also supposed to be super-smart and an expert on everything under the Sun.
And in the still novel history of democratic states, the point has been reinforced by the trajectory of certain democracies which have transformed Plato’s prediction into prophecy, from the example of Weimar Germany that motivated Arendt’s remark, to 1990s Serbia and modern-day Russia.
But 'modern day Russia' is far less horrible than Stalin's- or even Gorby's- Russia. Weimar Germany had hyper-inflation (like Serbia) and was playing extend-and-pretend. Once foreign loans dried up, the public turned to Hindenburg and because Ludendorff was too crazy, Hitler (who had been Ludendorff's deputy during the Munich putsch).
Public schools exist, in part, for the political purpose of instilling the principal values of a democratic republic, training students in the skills and knowledge requisite to healthy democratic life.
No. They exist so as that kids learn to read and write and maybe do a bit of arithmetic. They aren't places where kids should be brainwashed into turning gay in between having abortions and knifing teechur.
In a time when a major political candidate threatens the fundamental values of the nation, educators are called to explain the nature of the present threat, that is, to explain one of the oldest problems in Western philosophy, the problem of demagoguery.
Fuck off! We want pedagogues to teach STEM subjects. We don't give a monkeys what Professors of shite subjects gas on about. All we ask is that they don't masturbate in public.
Democracy has two chief values, liberty and equality.
No. Its chief value is to permit relatively frictionless changes of administration. A democracy is welcome to be unequal or as unfree as fuck.
In most conceptions of liberty, demagoguery is allowed in a democracy.
But nobody says 'I have the right to be a demagogue.' Everybody says it is is their rival who is engaging in hysterical demagoguery. Stanley does nothing else.
Controversial speech is still free speech.
No. It is speech. It may have been coerced and thus not free at all.
The problem of demagoguery lies not in its conflict with freedom, but with the democratic value of equality.
No. The problem with it is that it may cross a line and become 'incitement' to an illegal action. In that case, it may face significant legal sanctions.
There are different theories of democratic equality,
No. There is only one. It is the notion that one person has one and only one vote. In the past, there were periods where some people had two votes while others had none. Thus, in England, there was a time when a male graduate of Oxbridge had two votes while women had none. There was also a property qualification for the vote for men. This only changed after the Great War.
but perhaps the most prominent regards it as a species of equal respect.
We can easily imagine a Theocracy or a Monarchy were everybody is very respectful of everybody else. But this would not be a democracy. What these cretins mean is 'we like Democracy. We also like equal respect. It would be nice if nice Democracies had nice nice equal respect. Also, please don't call me a moron just because I teach useless shite and don't know how to tie my own shoe-laces.'
A society is equal in this sense if there is equal respect among its members.
This isn't true. There is equal respect between members of your Church but some are smart and rich while others are stupid and poor.
Reasonableness as a norm of public political discourse is an expression of equal respect.
Nope. Lunatics may grant each other equal respect. Sadly, they are not reasonable and may try to bite off their own hands.
We see the centrality of the value of equality to democracy when we consider the connection between democratic policy and reasonableness.
Courts may require public policy to meet a standard of reasonableness, proportionality, impartiality etc. But that is 'Democracy under the Rule of law'.
A policy that is designed with only the perspectives of some citizens in mind is not a democratic one.
Yes it is. Only fishermen are concerned with the Government's policy on fisheries. My perspective- which is that all actuaries be reclassified as a type of salmon- should not be taken into account.
Equality is not some kind of additional desirable value added to the democratic ideal; it is the very foundation of democratic legitimacy.
No. It is wholly irrelevant. Anyway, when I hear the word 'Equality' I think it means I should be considered the equal of a billionaire. I don't want to be the equal of homeless dude who is obliged to give beejays to get a bit of protein in his diet.
Demagoguery causes problems in the absence of equal respect;
It would also cause problems in its presence if it leads to people doing stupid shit. Greta Thurnberg is a demagogue. We don't care because we aren't actually do any of the things she thinks would be cool.
it feeds off of and strengthens divisions in society.
Or it may unite society so as to get it to do stupid shit- e.g. invade Russia in winter.
The popularity of divisive rhetoric
like that of the American Founding Fathers who wanted the Brits and the Loyalists to fuck the fuck off
is in the first instance a sign of an underlying failure of democratic equality.
Yet, without it, there would be no fucking Democracies anywhere in the world.
But to leave it here is to absolve the demagogue of responsibility; it suggests that the demagogue is just taking advantage of pre-existing fissures in society.
If there are no 'pre-existing fissures'- i.e. in absolute homogeneity prevails- why have any politics?
The demagogue is, however, doing considerably more. When there are fissures and divisions in society, the demagogue strengthens and gives legitimacy to them in myriad ways.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a demagogue. He drew attention to the fact that some Americans were black and were denied Civil Rights on that basis. He should have pretended all Americans were the same color so as to deny 'legitimacy' to the ruling in Brown v Board of Education
Trump is not merely representing deep-seated anxieties—he is feeding them.
The man is as evil as Dr. King.
Problematic ideological divisions do not immediately disappear in a society, even when wars are fought to overcome them. Divisions fade gradually, starting initially with a public ethos that rejects them.
No. First economic or military considerations change how things are done. The 'public ethos' may or may not catch up.
Antidemocratic divisions still exist, and are held and discussed privately.
Why do some women think they have wombs and should get to choose what happens to those wombs? Come to think of it all women are demagogues- except Mummy. She is so nice.
But when a public ethos arises that repudiates them, even when the majority still cleaves to these divisions, it becomes less acceptable to endorse them explicitly in public.
Also, shitting on the pavement is frowned upon.
This does not mean that the problematic ideological fissures become politically neutralized. It does, however, mean that politicians who wish to exploit them must do so in a way that does not trigger the public’s sense that they are violating the norm of reasonableness.
Which is why saying 'Trump is a Fascist! He will reintroduce the Spanish Inquisition!' might backfire. Kamala, being a former prosecutor, will be careful in this respect.
This dialectic, concerning the ideological fissure of racism in the United States, is aptly reflected in a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, later to lead George H.W. Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign (with the notorious Willie Horton ad): You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
He wasn't saying anything people did not know. You want to come across as educated and smart. Don't use the N-word and don't refer to your wife as your sister even if that is what she actually is.
When a politician uses language that explicitly represents a group in negative terms, such as Trump’s description of Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” or his repeated association of Muslims with terrorists, it undercuts the norm that keeps such ideological fissures part of the private sphere.
Private sphere killed 1.3 million Muslims- right?
It makes such ideas part of legitimate public discourse.
Because public discourse should not admit that people want rapists and terrorists to be kept out of the country though I personally, would not mind being raped by Mia Khalifa even if she joins ISIS.
Since legitimate public discourse is guided by a norm of reasonableness,
Legitimacy is a justiciable matter. In America, there is no requirement that a contribution to public discourse- e.g. election speeches- should be reasonable. It may be wholly emotional or appeal to matter of faith which are unconnected to 'reason'. There is a Hohfeldian immunity against having to give a 'reasonable' account of your ideas. On the other hand, there are specific areas of the law where such immunities are defeasible.
this gives the description of Muslims as terrorists or Mexican immigrants as “rapists” an aura of reasonableness.
No. It is reasonable to restrict immigration more particularly if there is higher risk of criminals or terrorists being admitted.
Demagoguery legitimates problematic ideologies by making them appear to be reasonable moves in public discourse.
No. What 'legitimates' an ideology is its espousal by an administration or by a significant section of the population. Demagoguery doesn't matter in the slightest. Every shade of opinion can bring forward demagogues of their own.
The norm of reasonableness enjoins us to consider, in devising policy in a democracy, the perspective of the diverse range of groups that comprise the citizens of that democracy.
No. There may be judicial review of public policy and it may be incumbent on the administration to show that the action is reasonable, proportionate, etc. However there is no norm of reasonableness in deciding what is right or wrong. Your motivation may be religious faith or a strong moral intuition for which, however, no Court would require you to provide any type of reason whatsoever. Thus 'opinion' is protected but 'actions' flowing from an opinion or belief may not be so. This was the Bench's decision in a case involving Mormon polygamy.
But it is surely too much to require considering the perspectives of each and every citizen.
It is deeply silly.
Some citizens have perspectives that are, by their nature, unreasonable;
e.g. these two cretins.
perspectives according to which only members of their group have perspectives that should be valued.
Trump is very evil. He and his supporters should fuck off.
These are what we can consider unreasonable perspectives, group perspectives that have, as a criterion for membership, rejection of other perspectives.
We are welcome to think everybody is mad or evil.
For example, neo-Nazi perspectives, or the perspectives of ISIS supporters, are of this character.
As is the perspective of people who teach stupid shit.
To give unreasonable perspectives such as these equal political weight would involve a kind of contradiction; one would have to significantly diminish the weight given to other perspectives in order to accommodate them (of course, what is and is not an unreasonable perspective is subject to democratic contestation).
Thus, Eisenhower passed a law banning the Communist Party. It wasn't enforced.
A perspective can be reasonable to greater or lesser degrees. To call someone “a jerk” is to not suggest that their perspective on a topic should be completely discounted; to call them “vermin” discounts their perspective entirely.
No. The two things are not related. We may term child molesters vermin without discounting their perspective on technical subjects. The fact is, under 'Operation Paperclip', the US recruited Nazi scientists. Some changed their opinions. Others may not have done so.
To say that unreasonable perspectives should not be considered in the formation of public policy is not to suppress their expression.
Because it is like saying 'everybody should be nice'. Nasty peeps don't become nice just because you say so.
To suppress the expression of such perspectives would be a violation of the other value of democracy, freedom (in this case, freedom of speech).
A democracy can ban various types of speech.
It is rather to say that in deciding whether a policy is democratically legitimate, we do not need to ‘check’ whether the discussion has included unreasonable perspectives.
This depends on the law of the land. In some places, there is no 'doctrine of political question' and thus all policy matters are justiciable.
A democratically legitimate policy is one that is forged by the inclusion of all reasonable perspectives;
No. There may be, as in the US, a capacious doctrine of political question.
but in a democracy, this fact cannot lead us to suppress undemocratic perspectives.
It can and has done.
Rather, as Jefferson urged, we should “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
Yet the Communist Party was banned. Eisenhower was not a dictator or a demagogue.
Trump’s discourse legitimizes negative stereotypes of certain minority groups, representing immigrants as lazy criminals, blacks as violent (in a notorious instance, Trump tweeted an inaccurate graphic claiming that 81% of whites who were murdered were killed by blacks; the real number in 2014 was 14%), and Muslims as terrorists.
I think Muslims in the MENA and African Americans objected more to being slaughtered by organs of the American State than they did to negative stereotypes.
Such rhetoric makes it appear reasonable to discount the perspectives of the groups it targets.
But killing them is worse.
In effect, it places Mexican immigrants, blacks, and Muslims on a continuum of people whose perspectives it is legitimate to downgrade (or in some instances ignore entirely) in democratic decision making.
Nonsense! Trump tried to get their money and their votes just like Hilary.
The decision to reject Trump’s rhetoric is not a neutral decision.
It is a personal decision. Some who voted for him discounted his rhetoric. Actions matter. Words- not so much.
It means taking a stand on the question of whether being a Muslim is a reasonable way to conduct one’s life, or if it is rather more like association with a neo-Nazi group or, more relevantly, a supporter of ISIS.
No. The fact is, America was killing Muslims in far away places on an industrial scale. I still don't know why Americans thought it worthwhile to expend blood and treasure in that way. The truth, I suppose, is that, as Obama said, American foreign policy consists of doing stupid shit.
Silence in response to Trump’s assaults on public reason is not a neutral decision either, though it is an easy one to make.
It is counter-productive if, like Stanley, you are a fucking cretin and everybody can see this for themselves.
The realm of public reason belongs to us all equally
in other words, it doesn't belong to anybody and thus is welcome to play with itself till it falls asleep.
and we are each responsible for its upkeep. Silence is at best an acquiescence; it is at worst a tacit agreement that being Muslim, or a Mexican immigrant, or black, is to deserve exclusion from reasonable consideration.
What these nutters wanted was for their readers to say 'Trump and his supporters must be excluded from reasonable consideration.' Perhaps, that's one reason Hilary lost. 'Deplorables' don't matter even if they have votes.
Trump’s rhetoric also exhibits another characteristic of demagogic speech. If political speech ought to be guided, in liberal democracy, not just by reasonableness but also by truth, then Trump’s seeming willful disregard of it is also illiberal, whether it was his efforts as a “birther” to discredit President Obama by demanding his birth certificate or his recent claims about Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the World Trade Center attacks.
No doubt, Trump's supporters think all his legal troubles were maliciously manufactured by the Dems.
Such disregard for truth is a mark of the rise of history’s worst tyrants.
No. It is was irrelevant.
George Orwell expressed this through his character Winston, who wrote desperately in his diary, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
Orwell was a silly man who thought the Brits would ban 'Animal Farm' to curry favor with Uncle Joe.
Arendt grimly observed this axiom in action: “Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such….”
Mussolini hardly indulged in any propaganda before seizing power. Plenty of tyrants don't bother with the thing at all. If you can kill or incarcerate vast numbers of people, why bother with telling lies?
Teaching in the time of Trump raises a fundamental pedagogical question:
Not if you were teaching something worthwhile.
is it permissible for a teacher to adopt a non-neutral political stance in the classroom, either through explicitly addressing the problems with Trump’s rhetoric or, conversely, by remaining silent in the face of it?
Yes. Teach something useful. Don't pretend you understand politics.
How can teachers balance the much cherished value of political impartiality (protecting the students’ freedom of expression and autonomous political development) against the much cherished liberal values threatened by Trumpish demagoguery?
Stop cherishing shit and just do your fucking jobs you morons!
Public school classrooms are training grounds for liberal democracy,
No. Totalitarian countries may have better public schools. Few Americans could pass the Math portion of the Chinese High School exam.
where students learn democratic skills and knowledge.
There is no need to learn any such nonsense. Voting does not even require literacy- as the Indians showed.
This role is often misunderstood as merely learning facts—usually from a textbook—that ostensibly define public reason with precision. Yet public reason is, itself, not fixed. (And on this point, Jefferson’s generation’s unshakable faith in pure reason was misplaced.) The norms of the public ethos, where reasonable claims to equality and freedom are weighed, are constantly negotiated and redefined against fundamental principles that are, themselves, slowly shifting.
Nothing of the sort occurs save in Legislatures and Court-rooms.
Students must learn the bounds of reasonableness by interacting with apparently fixed knowledge—such as that in their textbooks—and also by applying knowledge to their engagement with other students in the process of analysis of public issues.
No. Students should learn useful stuff. Also, it would be nice if they didn't knife teechur.
In that process, teaching for democracy is not the same as giving free rein to all perspectives so that all are treated as equally reasonable.
It is talking worthless bollocks till the more Civic minded of your students knife you.
Rather, teachers lead conversations
why teach useful stuff when you can 'lead conversations'?
and set reasonable parameters so that all students can safely participate and learn what is reasonable and what is not reasonable.
Why not set smart parameters so that all students can become smart? How about setting parameters to do with proving the Reimann hypothesis so that all students can safely win the fucking Fields medal?
This is the fundamental political purpose of a public education.
No. Voters are prepared to fund public education because they want kids to learn useful stuff. Illiterate people can vote just as well as Professors of Poli Sci.
Democratic principles and ideals are not themselves neutral.
Nor do they need to be taught by cretins.
Neither is teaching students to become citizens in a society that aspires to these ideals.
They are already citizens.
Because of the value of liberty, one should not suppress the speech of those who argue that one religion should have a preference over others, for example.
They shouldn't be doing it in a Public School because of the separation of Church and State.
But it is reasonable for a teacher to observe that Trump’s rhetoric is a contemporary example of a violation of the democratic ideal of equal rights for all religions.
No. That is an unreasonable observation if teechur is paid to larn kids to spill gud. Why not say, 'it is reasonable that cab-drivers harangue their passengers on how to be reasonable and responsible citizens'?
Trump advocates demoting the perspectives of Muslim citizens in deliberation.
No. He advocated Muslim Americans giving him votes and money.
Trump’s rhetoric attaches negative social meaning to affiliation with Islam.
Whereas Bush & Obama were content to simply slaughter Muslims in far off places.
And he advocates barring Muslims who may be members of the families of U.S. citizens from visiting the United States just on the basis of their religious affiliation.
Whereas Biden barred Muslims holding high positions in certain countries which he disliked. This diminished America's influence in strategic parts of the world.
These proposals conflict with the liberal democratic ideal of equal rights for all religions.
Liberal Democracies don't give equal rights to foreigners more particularly if they are slaughtering them on an industrial scale.
Teachers also cannot be neutral about the misrepresentation of facts or the violation of norms of truth in public speech.
Teachers must not teach what they are paid to teach. They must preach paranoid shite.
They should emphasize to students the importance of evaluating the accuracy of statements made by candidates.
Why not emphasize to students that they should not stab teechur?
Some examples of websites that check these are FactCheck.org, the Washington Post Fact Checker, and PolitiFact. The latter provides summaries of the degree of truthfulness and falsity of the statements of each of a number of candidates. (As this article went to press, the statements by Trump evaluated by PolitiFact included a much higher proportion of falsehoods than the statements of any other presidential candidate.)
So, the thing was useless. People understood that Trump wasn't a policy wonk. But, they trusted that he would do deals which were in their interest so as to get a second term.
Students are free to decide that they accept Trump’s antidemocratic rhetoric, but if they do not understand why it is antidemocratic, or if they think that his rhetoric is reasonable, their public school education has failed them.
The very expensive education these two cretins received caused them to fail to say anything smart or interesting.
Trump’s presidential campaign invites a second pedagogical consideration as well, one more comfortable and familiar to social studies and history teachers. This approach would focus less on drawing out the undemocratic nature of Trump’s rhetoric, and more on its causal origins.
Angus Deaton now admits he was wrong to support the McCarran Immigration Act. It was bad for the American working class. Is that the sort of stuff these guys want history teachers to tell their students?
Here are some different approaches one could take with students on the topic. One approach would examine the material conditions leading to a situation in which voters are attracted by undemocratic rhetoric.
There is no need. It is fucking obvious that if, under Democratic government, you have no fucking food to eat, then you may be attracted to a Party which promises to get rid of Parliament and bring in lots of nice food.
Perhaps the institutions of democracy have failed them. A state that promised its citizens a raft of goods, but in fact never delivered them, would in so doing lay the groundwork for a protest candidate who proved his or her credentials by violating its norms of respectability.
If this needs to be taught, then students should also be instructed in breathing in and then breathing out so as to reduce the danger of suffocation.
Perhaps Trump is using shocking rhetoric merely to signal his intentions toward the norms keeping in place a broken social contract. A second approach involves a comparison of the current material conditions to those present at other times in U.S. history at which demagogues achieved some measure of success through the politics of division and exclusion based on religion, race, and political belief.
In other words, all other times in US history.
In short, one could compare the political environment that gave rise to Trump to the ones that gave rise to Father Coughlin in the 1930s and George Wallace in the 1960s, by examining similarities or differences in the state of the economy, social tensions, and disagreements over controversial government policies.
There is no similarity. Hilary just wasn't a very good candidate. Trump turned out to be a very good one. To be fair, his political savvy may not have been apparent when these two nutters wrote this.
A third approach would track the genesis of Trumpism to the shift in rhetoric brought into public debate by partisan news media.
Blame Murdoch. But Murdoch backed Blair in Britain.
This would involve a historical project comparing previous media norms to the ones at work in contemporary partisan media. Students might examine the impact of the growth of stridently conservative radio and TV programs and electronic media during the last 25 years, and
discover that the real problem was 'wokeness' which was pissing off ordinary people. That's what gave the Right traction.
consider whether they prepared the way for the political rise of Donald Trump. In the process of any of these three inquiries, students might better understand why others (or they, themselves) find demagoguery so appealing, and consequently, develop a richer understanding of the historical and contemporary challenges of democratic life.
Being talked down to by virtue signaling cretins pisses us off.
Silence is not an acceptable strategy.
It is if you are a fucking moron. Keep your mouth shut and people might never find this out.
As teachers, we should advocate no particular political party, candidate, or public policy.
You should do your fucking job.
But we are all obligated, deeply, to hew to the basic principles of democratic life in order to help our students discern what is reasonable.
Sadly, it isn't reasonable or smart to study worthless shite at Collidge.
Public school teaching is not neutral and has never been intended or understood as such.
Nonsense! It is neutral enough. Teachers tend to say the same things parents say. This varies from State to State.
Public schools are places where reason and reasonableness must be cultivated in the best traditions of liberals and conservatives alike, striking the balance between the principles of equality and freedom, preparing students for the maelstrom that awaits them.
No. American public schools should try to compete with Chinese public schools. Otherwise, they will overtake us and be in a position to use sanctions of various types against us so that we end up doing as they say.
No comments:
Post a Comment