08-21-2016, 04:03 PM
(08-20-2016, 11:53 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(08-20-2016, 08:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote:Bob Butler Wrote:Mikebert brought up a point a while back that certain values can shift easier than others. People get different ideas on how the world works, different focuses on what goals ought to be pushed for to improve life. He has a point that beliefs that can be blatantly disproven by example can be superseded rather quickly. I'd also think values that are religious or emotional might have more staying power than objective ideas that can more clearly be shown to be false.
You are equating values with beliefs. They are different things. Values are hard to change because they contain a strong emotional or even spiritual content. Beliefs are logical constructs. The latter is amenable to “burned hand teaches best” experiences, the former, much less. Our issue is not values lock, (what we believe to be good) but belief lock (how we believe the world works).
I use both 'world views' and 'values'. World views would be what you are calling beliefs... how does the world work, while values say what goals should be pursued. Both can be stubborn, hard to change. Both can be important. I will sometimes use one phrase to indicate elements of both. It is just easier to read if one says 'values' instead of 'world views and values'. At other times I'm just focusing on one or the other, and will use one of the other.
But while my language might not be ideal, and the two are tied into one another tightly, one informing and being derived from the other, I shan't disagree with your primary statement here. Conflict in world views is very important.
(08-20-2016, 08:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote:Bob Butler Wrote:Now, I might wish Mikebert could be proven right. It would be nice if people could just look at the world, see policies that didn't work, that aren't working, and just let go of old ideas that might no longer be effective.
They can and do. The issue is, current policies are working just fine for elites, so why change? The definition of elites are those who run the American state and its major institutions. By definition, it is they who are to be convinced that policies need to be changed. Look at the past 4Ts.
Revolutionary 4T: Things were not good for American commercial elites like John Hancock, who were constrained by British mercantile policy. Furthermore, British monetary policy repressed American businesses. British Indian and frontier policy constrained land speculators and created internal problems like the Paxton terrorists in Western Pennsylvania. When American elites got too frustrated they recruited a critical mass of non-elites to their cause, gained control of the colonial militias, and set up shop as an independent nation.
Civil War 4T: Things were definitively moving against the interest of Southern elites in the 1850’s. In 1860 what they perceived as an abolitionist party won the election. It seemed likely that within a fairly short period of time they would be stripped of 60% of their wealth. They tried to pull out of the union peaceably, but the North wouldn’t have it, and what they feared happened to them, but only because they lost the war.
Depression 4T: American elites faced challenges, including a real revolutionary situation at the end of the 1896-1920 Progressive Era. Elites apparently successfully addressed this threat (see Gabriel Kolko’s book about the Progressive Era being a conservative program, and Kitty Calavita on the motive for immigration suppression in the early 1920's) without addressing the core problem, economic inequality. Another way to put this is: problem was them, there are too many of them (elite proliferation) and they had too much of the pie. (see Peter Turchin’s stuff about secular cycles and elite proliferation).
The only way to solve this problem is for some elites to take a haircut and become less elite. Volunteers, anyone? That wasn’t ever gonna happen, except it did. Why? Because the capitalist economy had collapsed, taking fair number of elites with it. And so now there was elite motivation to DO something. So changes were made to salvage things for one subset of elites at the expense of another. How was this decided? Well liberal elites in the Democratic party were able to marshall superior forces and prevail over conservative elites in Republican party in the critical election of 1932. This election served as a political revolution in place of a real one.
When reading your posts, I have long and often noted an emphasis you place on the importance of the elites. This might be described as a world view clash. When analyzing a given crisis, you will focus on the elites, while I will focus on the ordinary people. Which belief is more accurate?
I am not going to dismiss or make light of the role of the elites. In the examples you list above, one can project elites fighting over financial and political power, while the bulk of the population might care about taxation without representation, slavery, and life without increasingly grievous economic collapses. I shall not in the least say you are wrong in saying the elites are very very important in shaping a crisis, and I'd add that the motivations and values of the common people are often very different from the elites.
But crises are not settled in smoked filled rooms by a handful of elites. Conflicts can be settled at the ballot box. Lincoln and FDR got elected. Conflicts can be settled on the battle field. How many people are willing to fight how hard to support their beliefs and values? Yes, there was a power struggle between the southern slave owners and the northern robber barons on what shape the government and the country would take. It would never have gone to the battle field without John Brown and the abolitionists though.
Again, I see your belief system as overly focused on the role of the elites with a certain degree of blindness to the importance of democracy and war. Again, this isn't to say that elites aren't important. They are. They aren't all important.
In our current situation, groups of elites did not decide to make Donald Trump president. The Donald's place was decided by a whole bunch of people angry at the Republican establishment. Thus, your world view is discredited. Let's see how easily you change.
(08-20-2016, 08:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote:Bob Butler Wrote:You and Eric are representative in being able to see only one side of the picture. Both of you have lots of company, clinging to the extremes. It seems that modern society is complex enough that many people cannot see things well enough to shift positions. I don't think it ought to be all that difficult to open one's eyes, to see all of America and its history rather than focusing on selective bits that reinforce what one wants to believe. Still, the partisan divide continues.
You make these fuzzy statements with no specific examples of what you mean. Can you give some specific examples where you apply what you are talking about in order to illustrate them.
The common red / blue difference is in beliefs in how effective the government can be. For someone embracing red beliefs, government is inefficient, corrupt and ineffective. Tax and spend is anathema. When in doubt, cut taxes and force the government to cut services. If the era of the National Malaise was formative, one might be inclined to buy into this. On the blue side, there is a belief that the government can do much good. From the 30s through the 60s, the GIs basically ran on 'see problem solve same'. They would not hesitate to throw large amounts of money at a problem. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
Another example might be the red preference for supply side stimulus and the blue preference for demand side. Here, I might note an association between a belief system and self interest. Even if a robber baron knows full well there is no need to make more money available for investment, he might favor supply side as he might well think that tax cuts to the wealthy is to his personal advantage. Similarly, supposing hypothetically a time of full employment with most to all earning a living wage, someone living on main street might still favor additional demand side stimulus. One's world view and values are absolutely effected by one's wallet.
Now, I didn't feel a need to review with Eric and Classic these basic differences between their ways of thinking. Neither asked for clarification. I have spoken on both sets of beliefs many a time, and they are not unrelated. That you needed to ask implies to me that you have not been reading my stuff with any attention at all. To some degree I'm willing to feed you US politics and economics 101, but I've found that when your perspective on things clash with common points of view you are very slow to comprehend common points of view. Your own world view is not as objective as you seem to think. At times you are unable to recognize or understand stuff that should be basic to those living in the United States. I find myself repeating Jr High school level political concepts and finding you unable to acknowledge them. I associate this with a values lock problem, and have learned to avoid interacting with you as the experience is futile. I have better experiences with more open minded and flexible thinkers like Eric and Classic.
Well. Slight exaggeration.
Bob, the problem you have is being stuck with the values-lock meme.
It's both a no-shXt-Sherlock and a dead end.
The 4T doesn't get resolve by people "unlocking;" it gets resolve by one set of "locks" defeating the other set.