I suspected what your argument might be and I am in agreement, with two caveats.
Objective 1) is achieved only to the extent that *all or most* Trump supporters
are as you describe.
Objective 2) not only pushes moderates leftward but simultaneously pushes the
Left-Radical-Fringe off the precipice.
The strategy can, I think, remain unproductive/counterproductive vis-a-vis
these two objectives, but probably would no longer merit the adjective "stupid."
Personally, I think that any meaningful change will require not only "showing
just how bad it can get" but reducing the temple to rubble. (Where's Sampson
when we need him?) Apocalypse Now! The only problem is how to make sure that
those that "led" us to this state of affairs, and the bureaucracies that
maintain that state, are the first one's culled by the pandemics, the jihads,
and the environmental collapses.
davew
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, at 4:11 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> I think the way to start is to identify the intention/purpose of the
> rhetoric/strategy. My tack, what I want to argue about, is that the
> rhetoric/strategy you identify is *not* "to defeat Trump". And that's
> why you think it's a stupid strategy, because you've identified a
> fictitious objective. The actual objective is to two-fold: 1) to
> demonstrate the extent to which Trump supporters are offensive to
> everything liberal democracy is and 2) to push the moderates further
> left.
>
> Hillary is an interesting example because she's not very far left (if
> she's even left at all). Her "basket of deplorables" comment lands, I
> think, squarely in (1). And I think we can classify most of the
> candidate rhetoric this way. For the most part, the moderates still
> talk about "my friends across the aisle" ... though I admit that's
> getting more rare. Day by day, those on the right show themselves to be
> anti-democracy, many show themselves to be pro-authority.
>
> To a large extent, my guess is that many lefties think Biden isn't much
> different from Trump, policy wise. So, the objective isn't to defeat
> Trump. It's to push the entire electorate left. And I think the
> strategy is working. Personally, as I argued in 2016, if Trump is
> re-elected, he'll *further* demonstrate how offensive and
> anti-democratic he and his supporters are. So, my strategy would be to
> re-elect him so everyone can see just how bad it can get. Maybe *then*
> we'll be motivated to go back and reconsider what we're trying to do.
> So, I'm almost ambivalent to whether Trump is re-elected. And I'll
> continue ridiculing his idiot supporters.
>
> As to SteveG's windmill tilting hermeneutic capitulation to theists,
> the ridicule strategy is working there, too. And we don't even need to
> work very hard at that. Our progress in coming to grips with the large
> and intricate universe demonstrates, daily, how stupid it is to believe
> in overly simple things like the Christian God. Now, more subtle
> conceptions of "gods" like that of pantheism, the Tao, or Buddha are
> not so easy to make look silly ... maybe because those concepts simply
> aren't silly. And a Jesuit conception of the Catholic Trinity is,
> arguably, similar. But it takes almost zero work to show how silly the
> Fundamentalists are. So, again, the strategy is working, as measured
> against the actual objective.
>
>
> On 6/12/20 2:46 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> > context:
> >
> > near the end of vFRIAM, SteveG argued that Science's denigration and
> > dismissal of God and religious sensibilities in general was both arrogant
> > (on the part of Science) and divisive / counter-productive. In an attempt
> > to steelman SteveG's position I generalized the argument and made the
> > assertion that this element of the Liberal Democratic strategy to defeat
> > Trump was not only counter-productive, but *extremely stupid*. I also
> > expanded the scope of SteveG's argument away from simply religion but to
> > all the views that might be held by those in Hillary's "basket of
> > deplorables."
> >
> > glen wishes to 'discuss' my assertion.
> >
> > How to proceed? from the general to eventual specifics/particulars? who
> > goes first?
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
