More on Authenticity
More on the conflict of alleged beliefs and who one follows.
To follow on from my post yesterday, the following came to mind.
What if you were in group X, and your leader’s authentic self said phrase Y?
- You are a deeply committed feminist, but the leader of your party said, “Women should be second-class citizens.”
- You are a deeply committed Marxist, but the leader of your party said, “Profit maximization at the expense of labor is the highest good.”
- You are a deeply committed capitalist, but the leader of your party said, “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!”
- You are deeply commited to democracy, but the leader of your party said, “I support hereditary monarchy.”
- You are a deeply committed free speech absolutist, but the leader of your party said, “I am pro-censorship and, in fact, believe that all public speech should be pre-cleared by the government.
- You are a deeply committed anarchist, but the leader of your party said, “I am working to establish a totalitarian state.”
I could go but, I hae probably already ranged into belaboring the point.
At some point in cases like this, a person has to change parties, yes? Else they need to stop and reevaluate if they really are “deeply committed” to X or whether, in fact, they value something even more that the leader is allegedly going to provide them.
There is also the possibility that X really is just some kind of cultural signifier that means less than the member of X pretends to be the case.
Well, duh!
Sorry, Dr. T. But it seems all too obvious to me. I’m afraid that you’re whistling in the darkest corner of the graveyard.
I’m afraid your hope to change some minds is close to futile. Changing mindsets is like changing course in a supertanker. The more fundamental the change, the more force it takes, and the longer to have any major shift in direction.
The people following Fearless Leader mindlessly will continue to do so, because to do anything else is to admit error. Error is impossible because… well just because. His lackeys will continue because that’s the only way to retain the power they think they hold.
But then again, Luddite’s been trying to stay out of this fray for a while. I really, really wanted to sit out this particular revolution. I’m too old and fat to make anything more than a good target.
Humans are more loyal to people than beliefs. It’s the rare person committed to X who is sufficiently committed that they won’t find a way to rationalize why saying Y isn’t bad enough to shift allegiances.
No,no, no. You have it all wrong, Prof. Taylor. When politicians in general contradict themselves, they’re liars. When Trump contradicts himself, it’s because he’s playing 8-dimensional chess.
For instance, Gavin Newsom went on a podcast with a conservative figure and appeared friendly to the idea of banning trans people in sports.
As a result, most of the trans people and strong supporters I know of are very lukewarm if not downright hostile to any prospective candidacy for president.
This is the normal thing, I would contend.
Was Y said literally or seriously? Motivated reasoning is the most powerful force in the universe. We tend to see conservatives as lacking imagination, but they can be really creative at rationalization. Or at least someone on FOX or the intertubes can be for them. In any case, all that matters is beating the libtards.
@Jay L. Gischer:
Trans people would kill to be in the situation of evangelical Christians. The threats trans people face come from government taking away their rights. They aren’t asking to be liked. The threats evangelical Christians face are the same threats abusive fathers face: nobody likes them and therefore reacts to their actions.
Trump’s an abusive and sadistic guy. Punched his son’s lights out once, rapes women, rapes kids. He’s a piece of human shit, ugly as fuck, a coward who couldn’t fight against an equal, and evangelical Christians identify with this piece of human shit who doesn’t have to pretend that he loves the sinner and hates the sin.
You’re committed to clean carpets. You party leader personally comes in every day, and shits over your nice carpet….
You know, early in the 2016 primary season, I was sure El Taco would lose most Republicans on the basis of his incessant talk of tariffs. I was sure they’d be ok with repression, bigotry, Islamophobia, anti-immigration, and appointing fixer judges. But back then free trade was a big deal for their party.
I guess those could have already left.
@Modulo Myself:
Asked by Wendy Williams his favorite in common with his daughter, Donald responded, “Well, I was going to say sex…”
A pederast has no business being president. So gross.
How about when everyone you trust in politics and media tell you there’s absolutely nothing wrong with President X’s mental health, only to turn on the TV and see him look like a memory-care patient during a debate?
@PepperPrepper: yeah, I know. That UN speech the other day convinced a lot of the world Trump is mentally unsound.
@becca: And that absolutely BONKERS press conference about acetaminophen!
@becca:
Any Trump speech makes it clear he is unsound. Poor Pepper has to keep referring to one example to make their entire point.
It’s weird seeing an old man whose mental health is in decline rant on a forum about an old man whose mental health is in decline, while constantly trying to distract from an old man whose mental health is in decline. You can’t make this shit up.
@Jay L. Gischer: I would argue that to fit my point, the issue would have to be that a trans person, or trans rights person, was supporting someone who said that there are only two genders and that the law should reflect that.
I can understand why a trans person/advocate would not like Newsom’s position on sports, but it is a categorically different type of position than what I was getting at here.
@Jay L. Gischer: Also, if Newsom saying what he did about trans persons in sports leading them to be hostile to Newsom is kind of the exact opposite point I am making about Trump and many evangelicals.
@Jay L. Gischer: Also, if Newsom saying what he did about trans persons in sports leading them to be hostile to Newsom is kind of the exact opposite point I am making about Trump and many evangelicals.
@Flat Earth Luddite:
So you’re saying there’s a chance?
In all seriousness, while I do hope to change some minds, that isn’t my only goal. Note the last sentence, which is really a social science observation.
I’d observe that many “leader centric” political movements in the past have shown a remarkable ability to veer or u-turn and experience little or no cognitive dissoance whatosoever.
See both Bolshevik/Soviet Communist Party and Nazi Party.
Or the CCP.
“The maximum leader commands! You must obey! And troll the libz for lulz!”
@Flat Earth Luddite:
I’m working on a combination of of camouflage and nastiness.
Sort of a cross between a chameleon, a skunk, and porcupine.
A squid, perhaps?
You are likely right about the immovability of the committed.
But judging by polling and voting indicators, there are still a lot of uncommitted in the US, as well as in the UK (which concerns me rather more, I’m sorry to say).
The question is, of course, if the uncomitted are swayed, are the commited willing to go balls-out for enforcing their dominance by violence?
That’s when the fascist tyres hit the freeway.