Shep Smith: Journalists are not the enemy of the people

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

John Oliver discusses the growing number of authoritarian leaders around the world, their common characteristics,
and whether or not one of them is currently our president.

Identifiably authoritarian leaders are more part of the solution than part of the problem. The problem is more when 'benevolent dictatorships' emerge, which is when a leader is very popular to the point that critical thinking becomes despised among the people.

You see, authoritarianism isn't so much to do with the leader as it is to do with the interaction dynamics among the people. When we are critical independent thinkers who discuss issues constructively and respect each others independent thought processes, there is democracy.

When we behave repressively toward each other, avoid considering different viewpoints, dissent, etc. that's where authoritarianism emerges. It gets really bad when, for example, you have two sides of an issue vying for the power to suppress dissent, such as in climate discussions where pro-science people insist that denialists should just shut up and give up their POV, while denialists are often beyond the possibility of actually giving fair consideration to the science because they are only able to suspect scientists and government of being politically biased in favor of certain policies and thus manipulating science to trick them into accepting policies that they just think are meant to undermine their well being and self-determination.

Electing a 'bad' leader who represents 'bad' people is actually better than suppressing the bad people by electing someone else who doesn't represent them because you want people representing their views in public discourse rather than rejecting public discourse because it fails to represent their views. As difficult as this aspect of democracy is, it is important to represent and give consideration to POVs you disagree with and/or consider dangerous, because you have to talk those people into something more constructive so as not to have to go to war with them.

This is true whether the people you deem 'bad' are on the right or the left.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Identifiably authoritarian leaders are more part of the solution than part of the problem.The solution is to have more of them? To keep them around? To use them to say 'see I'm not so bad'? Or are you saying they should be around to repress people. Seriously, this is one ridiculous statement, no matter what context it's used in.

Quote:

You see, authoritarianism isn't so much to do with the leader as it is to do with the interaction dynamics among the people. When we are critical independent thinkers who discuss issues constructively and respect each others independent thought processes, there is democracy.

You obviously haven't seen third world dictatorships where people want to rise up, but are suppressed by the army- critical independent thinkers who discuss issues constructively and respect each others independent thought processes don't matter so much then.

In the Trump administration, it's not at that level. It's:
- don't have an opinion different to mine or you get sacked
- toe the line of your get sacked
- lie for me or you get sacked
- attack people for me or you get sacked
- kiss my butt or you get sacked

Maybe Trump is doing something good for you guys over there, but the above is what makes our news.

Of course, we keep knifing our Prime Ministers in the back (they can be removed by their own party, mid term), so maybe that's all that makes it over to the U.S. of politics here.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Identifiably authoritarian leaders are more part of the solution than part of the problem.The solution is to have more of them? To keep them around? To use them to say 'see I'm not so bad'? Or are you saying they should be around to repress people. Seriously, this is one ridiculous statement, no matter what context it's used in.

No, it's acknowledging that authoritarianism is a ground-up phenomena more than a top-down one. People have to have consciousness of their will to submission because that is the basis of the cult of the fuhrer that the Nazis exploited to get away with all they did.

No authoritarian leader can achieve anything without followers, so there's no reason to react against any leader, whether it's Trump, Obama, or Hitler. The people need to think and act critically and independently instead of deferring to authoritarian leadership. When liberty and responsible decentralized self-governance is achieved, authoritarianism is disabled.

Quote:

You obviously haven't seen third world dictatorships where people want to rise up, but are suppressed by the army- critical independent thinkers who discuss issues constructively and respect each others independent thought processes don't matter so much then.

So the problem is the army acting to suppress democracy. The same army could suppress uprisings because they are fascist uprisings against the government. Look at the Yellow Vest uprising against Macron, who is actively calling for open democratic discourse and constructive dialogue in governance. If people reject democracy because they simply aren't willing to listen to POVs that dissent from the collectively asserted fascism of populist movements, how is that any better than if the leader agrees with them and takes the blame for their fascism?

Quote:

In the Trump administration, it's not at that level. It's:
- don't have an opinion different to mine or you get sacked
- toe the line of your get sacked
- lie for me or you get sacked
- attack people for me or you get sacked
- kiss my butt or you get sacked

Sorry by my sense is that there is indeed a deep state of established government personnel who subtly pull strings in government no matter who gets elected. If Trump kept his mouth shut and let them pull their strings, he would have a higher approval rating. He must thwart their efforts to groom him into a figure head for their smooth planned operations and that is the reason he is attacked so aggressively in the for-sale media.

Quote:

Maybe Trump is doing something good for you guys over there, but the above is what makes our news.

Trump represents certain views and stances to everyone who pays attention to the news about him. I don't think it's about what he does for whom since that ultimately comes down to a lot more peoples' actions than his.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Electing a 'bad' leader who represents 'bad' people is actually better than suppressing the bad people by electing someone else who doesn't represent them because you want people representing their views in public discourse ...

. That's quite contrary to keep people free citizens with all the rights and laws that protect individual property and free speech.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
Electing a 'bad' leader who represents 'bad' people is actually better than suppressing the bad people by electing someone else who doesn't represent them because you want people representing their views in public discourse ...
. That's quite contrary to keep people free citizens with all the rights and laws that protect individual property and free speech.

In democracy you have to listen to and respond to anti-democratic ideas. The problem is when people use discourse in bad faith to manipulate, for example by promoting any type of government program whatsoever as a means of creating jobs and fiscally stimulating markets.

At that point, what appears ostensibly to be civil discourse turns out to be nothing more than a show design to stimulate market activities and growth. That isn't democracy, is it?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

At that point, what appears ostensibly to be civil discourse turns out to be nothing more than a show design to stimulate market activities and growth. That isn't democracy, is it?

That's called capitalism under the auspices of democracy.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
At that point, what appears ostensibly to be civil discourse turns out to be nothing more than a show design to stimulate market activities and growth. That isn't democracy, is it?
That's called capitalism under the auspices of democracy.

You don't have to eliminate capitalism to honor democracy.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

huh? Do you know the difference between capitalism and socialism?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

No, it's acknowledging that authoritarianism is a ground-up phenomena more than a top-down one. People have to have consciousness of their will to submission because that is the basis of the cult of the fuhrer that the Nazis exploited to get away with all they did.

Naziism was an exception to the rule, rather than the norm - which is why the ideology supporting the dictatorship had a name. Most dictatorships are very different. If you can't pick the difference between Idi Amin, Mugabe, Hussein, and most other dictatorships to Hitler's 3rd Reich, then it's no wonder you think what you do of having dictatorships.

Quote:

No authoritarian leader can achieve anything without followers, so there's no reason to react against any leader

You should give 'The dictators handbook' a read. It very clearly, with numerous examples, that cross political styles, explains why you are both right, and wrong.

It appears that your ideas are based in very flawed concepts.

You believe that armies suppress uprisings because they support facism (which example would be a very minor percentage of the worlds dictatorships)...but ignore why they are willing to kill people...and why sometimes, they are not. History shows a clear pattern.

Quote:

Sorry by my sense is that there is indeed a deep state of established government personnel who subtly pull strings in government no matter who gets elected

Which is an attempt to sidetrack the behaviour of Trump - meaning you acknowledge the assertions.

Quote:

that is the reason he is attacked so aggressively in the for-sale media.

Keh, going purely on his own behaviour, I'd say he's attacked because:
- he shoots his mouth off without thinking
- he had little to no concept of foreign relations when he started (he's much better now)
- he throws tantrums when someone disagrees with him (it's incredibly undignified, particularly for a leader)
- he verbally abuses people (again undignified)
- puts it all on twitter (again undignified, and so easy to make news out of)
- he sacked the head of the dept investigating him (terrible for democracy, not matter what angle you look at it)
- he likes yes men (same)
- etc

There are sooooo many personal flaws that the press, who sell on emotive issues, can't help but have a field day.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Trump's personal flaws are many. Bigotry, lies, scamming for money, cheated on all his wives, and his sexual attraction to his own daughter. Top psychiatrists have warned congress of Trump's danger to our country and the world. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-mental-health-psychiatrists-clear-present-danger-world-us-president-dr-bandy-lee-yale-a7911621.html His closure of the federal government increased our vulnerability to our security, and economists have determined that it cost our country $11 billion in lost income. He shut down the federal government for a useless border wall that he claims will cost $5.7 billion, but that doesn't take into consideration the loss in trade with Mexico, the impact to the environment, the cost of litigation to purchase private property which will take years if not decades, and the obvious bigotry of a wall. All we need to do is delay it for two years until Trump is gone. His approval now sits at 41% vs his disapproval at 55%.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

huh? Do you know the difference between capitalism and socialism?

Socialism is a variation on capitalism where fiscal transfers are no longer allowed to be voluntary because government or other coercive means are applied to mandate transfers that wouldn't take place voluntarily.

I say quit social spending, or at least minimize it for the sake of calming the economy to levels that are sustainable for the environment.

Then solve problems of poverty by helping people achieve their needs more independently, e.g. by doing more work for themselves instead of relying on subsidized wage labor of others.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Keh, going purely on his own behaviour, I'd say he's attacked because:
- he shoots his mouth off without thinking
- he had little to no concept of foreign relations when he started (he's much better now)
- he throws tantrums when someone disagrees with him (it's incredibly undignified, particularly for a leader)
- he verbally abuses people (again undignified)
- puts it all on twitter (again undignified, and so easy to make news out of)
- he sacked the head of the dept investigating him (terrible for democracy, not matter what angle you look at it)
- he likes yes men (same)
- etc

There are sooooo many personal flaws that the press, who sell on emotive issues, can't help but have a field day.

The bottom line is that everyone who attacks him is promoting a culture of hate and ridicule where people aren't allowed to be themselves and learn as they go. People should say what they think and try to think critically about things even when they are not experts. People should verbally stand up for themselves in a culture where ridicule and subtle rhetorical manipulation are happening, which was how politics was before Trump entered onto the scene. Twitter or any social media platform is a good way of communicating directly and transparently with the public. Finally, by criticizing him for firing certain people and liking 'yes men,' you're not acknowledging that he is dealing with people who are expert manipulators and moles. I'm sure everyone has different ideas of what the term, "deep state" means, but part of what I understand under that term are people who very subtly steer the influence that elected (temporary) government employees have. There is a lot of potential for abuse of power there, especially to the extent that subtlety means power goes unchecked. It is not "liking yes men" if you like people who are up to engaging in constructive dialogue rather than subtle obstruction and attack. People don't all have to agree to work together constructively, but Dems seem to only want to obstruct those that don't support their paradigm so that they can hold out for a strong enough majority to put through their overall plan, which they don't/can't negotiate because it is a complete structure for society, not a shopping list of goals that are independent from each other.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

The bottom line is that everyone who attacks him is promoting a culture of hate and ridicule where people aren't allowed to be themselves and learn as they go.

Yet again you make a statement (about news attacking trump), look at a person saying 'this is why' (his numerous flaws / behaviours), and try to divert the attention from your original statement and it's answer...onto a different topic (news promoting hate & criticism)...ignoring all the reasons why news attacks Trump, which was your original complaint.

-----------------------------

But let's look at your complaint:

The situation is one of expectations. It is not the expectation people place on 'the normal man' as you are trying to proclaim, but the expectation people place on the leader of hundreds of millions of people. That expectation is incredibly high. People have the expectation that in such situations, the person putting themselves forward, will already know how to do the job, and how to lead. They have the expectation that they will be dignified. They have the expectation that they will not throw tantrums. They have the expectation that they know how to be both strong, and diplomatic at the same time. They have the expectation that they will understand economics. That they will listen to experts. That they will know how to coordinate efforts.Etc.

These are not expectations expected of a blue collar worker.

When the leader of such a country engages in behaviours far away from the expectations, they will get criticised.

And coming back yet again to your point of promoting a culture of hate and ridicule - when a leader engages in behaviours of hate, bigotry, and vitriol, and constant accusations - it most certainly promotes similar amongst the populace.

Quote:

Finally, by criticizing him for firing certain people

'Certain people' is inaccurate:
- specifically criticising him for firing the head of a law enforcement agency that was investigating him
- criticising him for firing the number of people he has fired.

Quote:

you're not acknowledging that he is dealing with people who are expert manipulators and moles

If you say so. Apparently, no other president ever had them, or alternatively, had the guts to stand up to them. Wait...didn't Trump hire a heap of them personally?

From over here, it appears the problem isn't that they were expert manipulators -but that:
- they tried to stand up to his tantrums
- they tried to correct his lack of knowledge
- they tried to soften bad policy / ameliorate the effects of bad policy
- they tried to fix his lack of diplomacy
- they didn't attack people he wanted attacked
- they got sick of the degrading things he asked them to do
- they had the hide to say they were sick of the degrading things he asked them to do

ie. Trump viewed them as disloyal to him personally.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

The situation is one of expectations. It is not the expectation people place on 'the normal man' as you are trying to proclaim, but the expectation people place on the leader of hundreds of millions of people.

There's your problem. You have a culture that tolerates itself for 'normal' people, but then gets angry when they see the same culture reflected in public figureheads and other celebrities. When the people clean up their own culture, why would they expect to discover it filtering up into government?

Quote:

That expectation is incredibly high. People have the expectation that in such situations, the person putting themselves forward, will already know how to do the job, and how to lead.

They need to shift their expectations to themselves and other everyday people, because that is ultimately the source of culture and power. As long as they shirk the hard task of self-discipline in order to put expectations on a leader, they will not solve any problems.

Quote:

They have the expectation that they will be dignified. They have the expectation that they will not throw tantrums. They have the expectation that they know how to be both strong, and diplomatic at the same time. They have the expectation that they will understand economics. That they will listen to experts. That they will know how to coordinate efforts.Etc.

These are not expectations expected of a blue collar worker.

Shouldn't they be?

Quote:

And coming back yet again to your point of promoting a culture of hate and ridicule - when a leader engages in behaviours of hate, bigotry, and vitriol, and constant accusations - it most certainly promotes similar amongst the populace.

Or it promotes reflection and contemplation of morality and ethics "amongst the populace."

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

There's your problem. You have a culture that tolerates itself for 'normal' people, but then gets angry when they see the same culture reflected in public figureheads and other celebrities

Yet again you are showing your inability to follow the flow of a thread. How on earth does anyone have a rational conversation with you, when you focus on just parts of the the immediate content, ignoring the wider context contained within that specific post, and ignoring the ongoing context (ie the flow of conversation) in which the immediate content is written?

For the rest of your post - you do realise that there is nothing wrong with not expecting a blue collar worker:
- to know how to lead a nation
- to understand economic policy
- to be able to navigate foreign relations
- to have a standard of diplomacy sufficient to handle foreign relations
- to not fire the head of an law enforcement agency that is investigating him
- etc, etc, etc

Add to that that many people have an issue with anyone who is:
- abusive to people online
- throws tantrums constantly
- attacks his subordinates

So here we see yet again, you ignoring a swathe of problems, while attempting to focus the topic away from your original complaint - why media keeps attacking Trump.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

So here we see yet again, you ignoring a swathe of problems, while attempting to focus the topic away from your original complaint - why media keeps attacking Trump.

You have the narrative down pat. Remember it is a narrative. Plotted like a bank robbery.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

I could take that in any number of ways Very Happy

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

For the rest of your post - you do realise that there is nothing wrong with not expecting a blue collar worker:
- to know how to lead a nation
- to understand economic policy
- to be able to navigate foreign relations
- to have a standard of diplomacy sufficient to handle foreign relations
- to not fire the head of an law enforcement agency that is investigating him
- etc, etc, etc

That is what liberty and democracy mean and require. That is why universal education is a right and a responsibility. When people fail to step up to the plate of full citizenship in democracy, they are shirking the responsibilities of liberty.

Your notion of division of responsibility between leaders and 'led' is the basis for authoritarian society.

A society of ignorant sheeple demanding to be cared for and led by 'benevolent' leaders is a recipe for fascism and authoritarianism.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Thanks for one of the funniest takes on why a blue collar worker should know how to lead a nation, navigate foreign affairs etc, that I have ever seen. Because if he doesn't have all those skills, the country will become a fascist state Laughing

And all the while, you are still trying to divert from, and ignore the answer to your original complaint.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

It's true that the majority of citizens do not understand how our government works. Not at the local, county, state or federal. Here's a good entry for those interested in how the United States established our government. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/the-real-birth-of-american-democracy-83232825/

1 Reply

Shep Smith: Journalists are not the enemy of the people

Quick Links

My Account

able2know