Ah, I see one person has joined him. I don't know what that voter's theory is, but Meade rejected the prompt in the text of my post: "The pro-Trump vote seems to embody the human desire for order."
A new poll:
You might try to reverse-engineer the answer from the media's chaos theme. If the mainstream media are left/liberal and are trying to wreck Trump, why did they choose the rhetoric of disorder instead of the rhetoric of excessive, oppressive order? One can infer — as Meade did — that it is the left that's in love with order.
পোস্টগুলি
৬৪টি মন্তব্য:
Meade stole my insight before I had a chance to express it. This always happens to me on the internet. Why isn't there a way to take credit for brilliant ideas that you had first, but hadn't yet gotten around to telling anyone? Plus, unfair time zone advantage: I'm brewing coffee and drinking it here in the Mountain Zone, trying to get the engine to turn over.
Too cute.
The strategy is to nurture the assumption every voter wants order and therefore want his twin brother competence.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
"Order" can be a synonym for fascism or authoritarianism.
What I voted for was change and that is not a term for "Order."
A Libertarian ballot. Includes NOTA as a choice. If NOTA receives the most votes, the office remains unfilled. The people have spoken.
Well, whether they realized it or not, Hillary voters were voting for the status quo. While that is not "order", it is consistency, and therefore not chaotic in their minds.
Would that make them conservative?
Change is chaos for those in power and the restoration of order for those without.
Hillary is all about control ... as a vehicle for leftists to impose complete cultural totalitarianism.
"Order" wasn't on the ballot this time.
I voted Trump primarily for the judges he's appoint - expecting they'd be much better than Hillary's choices - and preserve our right-center nation a bit longer. Also, I hoped he'd put a stop to the nonsense going on at HUD and the EPA. I also had in view that fact that the media had zero interest in Hillary's corruption and influence peddling, and her disregard for our nation's security information, which is a problem. I had to wonder what mischief would have gone on un-remarked upon under a Hillary administration.
So, sure Trump will be messy. Hillary but would have been messy in her own destructive way, but her mess making would have been swept under the rug until it was too late to correct course.
In a real sense maximum disorder was our equilibrium
~T.E. Lawrence Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Karen of Texas said...
"Well, whether they realized it or not, Hillary voters were voting for the status quo."
Bingo. The Dying Media are shrieking about "chaos" in order to convince us that Trump can't govern. The "orderly" process by which Obama was pounding this nation down a rathole has run into some snags, and their boss George Soros is not happy about that.
Meade's right. It's Progs who want order. They tend to be on the control freak side, personality-wise. They are frightened by other people being free. They want credentialed experts at least reviewing and, where possible, dictating every decision made by every American. They think the country can be run like a college campus with it's two tier system of adults and children.
Trump voters look at history and see that an attempt to create such a system will not lead to a good result, but to corruption and the system resorting to increasing oppression to maintain itself.
I think the Progs in the media use language of chaos because they tend to believe everybody thinks like they do. Those who do not are either evil or are like dumb animals needing a proper herdsman.
One can infer — as Meade did — that it is the left that's in love with order.
So I guess one can infer (although like Meade, it would be a completely wrong inference) that conservatives love chaos and disorder.
I would like to hear the difference between destruction of a status quo and its fundamental transformation.
Well Freder, we are not the ones wetting our pants every day.
I thought we all understood that a vote for Donald Trump was a vote for throwing a wrecking ball and the establishment. Michael Moore did. Who didn't expect a fight?
The reason Trump won was because he's the first guy who seemed willing to fight these people, and the balls/stamina to do it.
The left and the media are as coordinated as the Podesta emails exposed. They have a lot on the line. They need to defeat Trump, and middle American to hold on to their power.
Maybe Freder can explain why it's the left in love with a powerful central government.
tim in vermont said...
"Maybe Freder can explain why it's the left in love with a powerful central government."
Oh, yes! Freder can explain! Just one moment while he checks in with HQ.
Gusty, you are not supposed to know that because Putin!
Oh, yes! Freder can explain! Just one moment while he checks in with HQ.
You know I have been asking for a long time. If any of you know how I can get my money from George Soros, please point me to the sign up.
The left is reactionary left now. They are fighting to maintain there privileges and power.
Trump has spoken truth to some well established lies.
1) The courts are political
2) The MSM lies, many times by omission
3) Establishment Republicans are afraid to deliver on their promises even with majorities
4) Chuck Schumer is a clown
5) NAFTA was a bad deal
6) The EU does not care about America's interests
7) China is not a free trade nation
8) The Mexican Gov't is not in charge of their own country (they bow to the cartels and oligarchs)
9) Australia should keep the refugees on their land, why the fuck not?
10) If we follow the immigration path of the EU, we will end up like the EU
11) Islamic terrorism is a bigger problem that Russia.
You're not supposed to say these things. It's not Presidential. You're supposed to play the game and then go party with Richard Branson.
I don't think that the Left's desire is for order, it's for control. Those are two very different things.
It's Progs who want order. They tend to be on the control freak side, personality-wise.
They want us all to look different (but preferably NOT white), but think and act exactly the same. And they will destroy everyone who doesn't fit in to their preferred world.
Freder deflects and changes the subject. :^O!
The reason Trump won was because he's the first guy who seemed willing to fight these people, and the balls/stamina to do it.
And yet if you look at his cabinet appointments, they are dominated by the establishment: billionaires, Goldman Sachs executives, Generals (and if you don't think former military personnel with 30+ years of service aren't the establishment, you are seriously deluded), Republican party operatives (e.g., Chao and DeVos).
How these people are going to tear down the establishment is completely beyond me.
"Order" = sending thugs to beat up people with a different viewpoint, break windows, burn cars. Got it.
My reading of Althouse's reverse engineering comment is that there's a "right" answer here; I infer (per this comment) that the left is pro order; therefore to vote for Hillary is to be pro order and to vote for Trump is to be pro disorder or at least anti-order as it's presently understood. I couldn't vote in the poll because, as Michael K says, order wasn't on the ballot in November. I voted for Trump, not for disorder. It seems that a whole bunch of left-generated disorder is what I got. I'll live. I do worry, though, that Trump will cave. (Random aside: I love Althouse polls!)
I don't know why but this question, makes think of an earlier post about Brian Eno saying that the revolution came but not from the left. Which makes me think of these 30 year old REM lyrics.
Birdie in the hand for life's rich demand
The insurgency began and you missed it
I looked for it and I found it
Miles Standish proud congratulate me
Eno I think is right the Revolution has come but it isn't from the left or the right but more accurately from the middle. The middle has become radicalized. Trump is no conservative and has been a life long conventional pro choice Democrat. He was of course never a socialist like a lot of Democrats and for some reason or other stopped being pro choice. Many of his voters also supported Obama, so they are clearly not right wingers.
Freder brings up Goldman Sachs! Lol!
When I think 'order', I can't help but conjure up 'New World Order'. So I picked the Hillary option. Those who fear the disorder necessary to implement change are those who will always choose 'peace at any price' and will ultimately submit to fascism.
I think the idea is to create an atmosphere of non-stop chaos so that people will eventually tire and submit to the Left just to stop the incessant whining and tantrums.
Sounds counter-intuitive, but is practically the same strategy as the young child yelling and crying in the store for some item they want.
A lot of people DO give in to the kid, just to shut him/her/it up.
Not a lot of people have the stomach anymore to deliver a good spanking.
I am Laslo.
Not a lot of people have the stomach anymore to deliver a good spanking.
Nor, in most states, the legal right, sadly.
Freder brings up Goldman Sachs! Lol!
I know you don't want me to mention since it was a bludgeon (and frankly a very fair one) you used against Hillary. And now that Trump has appointed six Goldman Sachs executives (including one who is also a Hollywood producer) to his cabinet, everything is fine and dandy.
Freder Frederson said...
How these people are going to tear down the establishment is completely beyond me.
It's not going to be easy. They have to fight lifetime liberal bureaucrats at the State Department; leekers at the Intelligence agencies. The liberal political operatives employed by the IRS. That's the the swamp.
It is so obviously Central City from They Hunger Games.
So weird.
How about not panicking at every "Trump's in trouble" article from an obviously hostile media? Can't do that?
Okay. Then why should I care about what your oh-so-intelligent opinion is? Laslo has way, way, WAY more maturity than you do.
Laslo's on to something.
Suggested Poll
1) I give a good spanking and I voted Trump.
2) I need a good spanking and I voted Trump.
3) I give a good spanking and I voted Hillary.
4) I need a good spanking and I voted Hillary.
Well Freder, Democrats didn't offer a choice, did they? Did you read the post about how a Citibank exec accurately predicted Obama's cabinet before the election based on his own sources.
Try criticizing Trump for things you haven't blown your credibility on by defending Clinton.
Hint: Trump the sexual predator thing won't fly either.
I'm with Meade on this one.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's best-known statement is "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order." I think he was onto something: If you primarily want order and try to impose it directly, at best you may get a brutally simplistic structure, and at worst you may block the emergence of spontaneous order that you could get by protecting people's freedom to choose for themselves.
Clinton embodies a bureaucratic vision of imposed order, one that's ultimately stifling. Trump doesn't embody anything so desirable as a vision of spontaneous order—he seems to love the idea of issuing commands from the top and having people obey them—but he appeared as someone who was willing to disrupt Clinton's vision. That may be where his support came from, but more important, he produces a sense of panic in the system-addicted, who think that the massively centralized bureaucratic system they've built up is under threat.
I did not vote for Trump. If I had voted at all, I might've voted for him. Or I might've voted for a fringe candidate. I definitely would not have voted for Hillary Clinton, who was the embodiment of the Coastal Establishment Status Quo. No candidate could be more "orderly" than her.
Trump, on the other hand, was a flame thrower and an actual independent (who ran as a nominal Republican). He has no real ideology or core beliefs, except that he is pro-American workers and anti-Washington, DC. Democrats loathe him, partly because he exploited an opening created by their anti-white PC rhetoric, and Republicans can barely tolerate him or his heresies against conservatism. He is a threat to the status quo in so many ways. He's a "disrupter," as they say in Silicon Valley. If he makes good on even half his promises, which appears to be happening, DC will be a very fearful and neurotic place for four or eight years.
I can live with that.
That's right, just ignore any reports about chaos. It's all fake news. All is in order. Nothing to see here, move on. Be content.
The reason Trump won was because he's the first guy who seemed willing to fight these people, and the balls/stamina to do it.
Bingo ! And he is crazy enough and rich enough to keep at it regardless of what they throw at him.
And now that Trump has appointed six Goldman Sachs executives (including one who is also a Hollywood producer) to his cabinet, everything is fine and dandy.
Freder never heard of "Set a thief to catch a thief." They are the only ones who know where the keys are hidden and where the keyholes are.
He's a "disrupter," as they say in Silicon Valley. If he makes good on even half his promises, which appears to be happening, DC will be a very fearful and neurotic place for four or eight years.
I can live with it, too.
If Democrats had run Jim Webb for example, instead of the establishment power couple they knew half the country hated, if they had listened to us, they would be on their way to a SCOTUS majority today.
Trump stands for common sense. Since our establishment has veered so far off the rails of common sense, pulling it back on track only seems disorderly.
"You know I have been asking for a long time. If any of you know how I can get my money from George Soros, please point me to the sign up."
You don't change your identity nearly enough to qualify ; )
"It is so obviously Central City from They Hunger Games."
Yes. This was the Hunger Games election.
@Tim in Vermont - Webb may flip to the Republicans. I am not sure where he fits in the Democratic Party anymore.
Order seekers unhappy with the way Trump is doing his job. New low, Gallup poll.
Freder: It takes one to know one. If you are going to take down a system, you need to do it with people who understand its inner workings. The difficulty with the Trump Administration achieving success in those efforts will be the willful obstructionism of the palace guards.
"You know I have been asking for a long time. If any of you know how I can get my money from George Soros, please point me to the sign up."
You don't change your identity nearly enough to qualify ; )
"That's right, just ignore any reports about chaos. It's all fake news. All is in order. Nothing to see here, move on. Be content."
If the media had any shred of credibility left. I would be concerned. But guess what? They've peddled the narrative for so long that it's almost as if they're the only true believers left.
I voted for Trump because I thought he was most likely to create disorder. The idea of orderly change is an oxymoron.
I think that people who voted for Trump want a return to Rule of Law, and an end to the Status Quo... So a breaking of the existing, lawless order, in favor of a return to the older, lawful order...
And yet if you look at his cabinet appointments, they are dominated by the establishment: billionaires, Goldman Sachs executives, Generals (and if you don't think former military personnel with 30+ years of service aren't the establishment, you are seriously deluded), Republican party operatives (e.g., Chao and DeVos).
Do you really think that the most successful business people and military leaders do not challenge the established order? I think you do, which explains why you misunderstand so many things. "Adapt or die" is a good way to explain most of history. In our era the adaptations seem to come so fast they look like the establishment to people like you.
Hillary Clinton was establishment, as were the people around her. The attack on Trump and Trump's people is based on their not being establishment. Think Betsy Devos. Think the people that thought Tillerson could not be qualified to be Secretary of State because he had run an oil company, one of the most complicated enterprises in the world. etc. Etc.
Add me to the list of people surprised that Althouse thinks order-seekers voted for Trump (of all people!). Trump, known for rhetorical bomb-throwing. Trump, who's never held public office before this. Trump, who promised massive changes.
Voting Trump in this election was rolling the dice with some very high stakes. If you wanted a reliable, dependable, decades-long record of incompetence and corruption, then Hillary was your candidate.
One can infer — as Meade did — that it is the left that's in love with order.
They're not in love with order - they are in love with being right.
And being right is defined as what liberal intellectuals favor, and also called "science" None of them woant to be a denialist, that is, wrong.
And it is also identified mostly with the status quo in Washington, at least vs a vs consrvatives.
Trump is accused not of being "hard right" but of not knowing what he is doing, which anyway tends to fit his history more. And that also humanizes him.
Part of not knowing what you are doing is making all kinds of little mistakes and not having an organization to set you right.
David on 2/13/17, @ 11:51 AM
Think Betsy Devos. Think the people that thought Tillerson could not be qualified to be Secretary of State because he had run an oil company, one of the most complicated enterprises in the world. etc. Etc.
The argument there was they lacked the proper experience (and thus could not possibly make the right decisions.)
Betsy Devos, in particular, was accused of not having any idea of what was the propaganda of the teacher's unions - well, I mean, that's what it amounted to. She didn't know the issues. She was late to the party. She had no opinion on whether schools should be judged by how good they were, or by how much they had improved since the last time they were measured. (unions say by how much they improved, but student's achivements should never be used to measure teachers - only maybe gradutaion levels. Of course unions use special languuage to describe the two positions. Betsy Devos had no dea what she being asked about.)
Now the "resistance" - they treat her as evil, so she shouldn't be allowed into schools. but when the issue was information, they fell back on experience, and knowledge of education issues.
e idea of the "resistance" is to get as many people to reason backwards from the commotion and conclude something justifies it and Trump is bad, without ever having to directly argue it. Things are simpler that way.
It's the issue of not being correct.
The fundamental reason a lot of people voted for Trump in the primaries was that he was viewed as a disruptor of the status quo. Once in the general election, of course, he got the support of the more mainstream part of the Republican Party, too. But in my view, a pretty good majority of his support in November was still from those looking to overturn the consensus in Washington- which is a continuous march towards an ever more regulated and oppressive government.
I think in many ways, Meade's insight here is the correct one- the protesters may seem anarchic, but at the core, they are made livid by the thought that Trump is disrupting that progressive drift of bigger and more intrusive government.
What they asked Betsy Devos was a trick question.
Schools should be judged on the basis of how good they are.
Teachers should be judged on the basis of how much theire students had improved as compared to similar students.
Order cannot be maintained without control; the natural inclination of the universe is toward entropy.
Democrats a stated agenda of control and millions of supporters who want the same. Their supporters prefer to silence critics. Etc.
Republicans have a self-regarding elite who want control and a voter base that demands freedom. Freedom from P.C. Freedom from regulations. Freedom to defend yourself and your family. Freedom to pursue economic opportunities (which overlaps deregulation). Etc.
It is odd that the party that wants to devolve power away from D.C. would somehow be seen as the party that wants order.
I want Leviathan pruned by a blind gardener without depth perception. If some important thing gets trimmed it is easier to repair, regrow or replace what we find lacking.
I want Leviathan pruned by a blind gardener without depth perception.
Maybe we should have elected Edward Scissorhands.
Now the "resistance" - they treat her as evil, so she shouldn't be allowed into schools.
The individual that blocked the door to the school is a homosexual Afghan "refugee."
He is also an NPR "correspondent,."
Does Meade see Donald Trump as some sort of Father Figure who must be obeyed? We know Milo Yaganafapoulos does.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন