Witnessing the revenge of totally discredited media and expertise?

Radical Disaffection Engendered by Elitist Groupthink? (Part #3)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

Emergence of new insight? Following the election, many media have chosen to switch to articulating opposition to the Trump presidency rather than considering how fruitful insights might be gained from the surprise it constituted -- as a "Black Swan", in the spirit of the arguments of Nassim Nicholas Taleb (The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable, 2007; Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder, 2012). The point is made otherwise by Karen A. Cerulo (Never Saw It Coming: cultural challenges to envisioning the worst, 2006).

Unfortunately the tone of the media claiming to be progressive has continued to be characterized by various degrees of hysterical panic through framing an emerging state of national urgency in the face of "dark times" -- thereby offering little perspective on the process. That the opposite result would have been recognized for some as a continuation of the "dark times", engendered by the previous administration, is excluded from consideration as irrelevant and meaningless.

Lack of perspective? The lack of perspective offered by progressives claiming to be uniquely enlightened is an unfortunate indicator of the inadequacy of enlightenment as is seemingly understood -- and of a marked inability to learn from adversity. There may indeed be a case for a period of endarkenment to enable that learning (Enlightening Endarkenment: selected web resources on the challenge to comprehension, 2005; Elijah Millgram, The Great Endarkenment: philosophy for an Age of Hyperspecialization, 2015). The shrill response to having lost needs to be distinguished from the caricature of "headless chickens running around after having received the chop" -- or having been trumped.

Others are now obliged desperately to demonstrate that they have the maturity and perspective to comment fruitfully on a process in which they demonstrated such a high degree of narrow partisanship. What will have been learnt through that process?

As a separate commentary on his own thesis, Elijah Millgram admirably clarifies the extent to which academic elites are dependent on the "Impact Factor" of their own self-appreciation (The Endarkenment at Home: Benchmarking Academics, Daily Nous, 26 May 2015). This is comparable to the rankings of people on social media by the number of "likes" they accumulate. As an exercise in reinforcing confirmation bias, both cases neatly raise the question as to what impact the highest ranked have on those beyond the spheres in question -- and specifically the electorate at large. Despite being framed by a ballistic metaphor, the degree of impact is clearly questionable for a world in desperate quest of insightful governance -- hence the painful shock of the Trump election.

"End of the world"? One approach has been to frame the election of Donald Trump as a total catastrophe ('Catastrophe', 'tragedy': world media target 'dangerous' Trump, AFP, 9 November 2016; Clemens Wergin, For Europe, Trump's Election Is a Terrifying Disaster, The New York Times, 10 November 2016; Trump's Victory a Catastrophe for Climate, Common Dreams, 9 November 2016).

The election has variously been claimed to be the "end of the world", at least for some (Naomi Klein, Donald Trump's Presidency Could Literally Mean the End of Their World, The Nation, 10 November 2016; Tessa Stuart, Party at the End of the World: Inside Trump's Election Night Bash, Rolling Stone, 10 November 2016; Donald Trump's Presidential Win Harkens the 'End of the World', Hall of Fame Magazine, 14 November 2016; Gideon Levy, Is This the End of the World? Haaretz, 10 November 2016). "End of the world" has been trending in Google searches. Efforts to immigrate to other countries have been widely noted.

Curiously a similar argument is employed by a critic, Noam Chomsky, from whom greater insight might have been expected (Ian Johnston, Noam Chomsky: Donald Trump's election will accelerate global warming and humanity's 'race to disaster', The Independent, 15 November 2016; Tom Boggioni, Chomsky: Trump's Win Puts Govt in the Hands of the 'Most Dangerous Organization in World History', AlterNet, 14 November 2016). The subtext is unabashedly: you must agree with me, or else.

Such views exacerbate the difficulty of reframing situations which take the binary form "me right, you wrong" -- and unquestionably so. Chomsky's reference to a "bad mistake" has the further implication that it should be "rectified" --- but without indicating how (Noam Chomsky: People Who Didn't Vote For Clinton To Block Trump Made A 'Bad Mistake', The Huffington Post, 25 November 2016).

The inappropriateness of any such formulation has been usefully identified by Edward de Bono (I Am Right You Are Wrong, 1992), variously (sub)titled From This to the New Renaissance: From Rock Logic to Water Logic. As explored further below, so many disciplines and institutions vainly deploy arguments of that form, the challenge is how to move beyond them. The expectation that the world will subscribe to any single view -- however many Nobel Laureates promote it -- merits analysis of the greatest care, as argued separately (The Consensus Delusion: mysterious attractor undermining global civilization as currently imagined, 2011). The poor track record of global campaigns, and virtual wars, suggests that other dimensions merit consideration (Recognizing the Psychosocial Boundaries of Remedial Action: constraints on ensuring a safe operating space for humanity, 2009).

Associating catastrophe with a single issue like climate change, currently popular amongst some elites (although previously an "inconvenient truth"), serves to obscure the possible existence of other "truths", yet to be fully acknowledged, and potentially a source of disruptive surprise. The nature of their inconvenience, and the associated collective blindspot, merits particular attention (An Inconvenient Truth about any Inconvenient Truth, 2008). The challenge is succinctly framed by Ron Atkin: A surprise is an answer to a question we did not ask! (Mathematical Physics, 2010, p. 274).

Remarkably, imminent catastrophe is now variously related to predictions, notably by conspiracy theorists (Shiladitya Basu, End Of The World Prediction Coming True: Donald Trump Win The First Sign? Morning News USA, 9 November 2016; Alison Maloney, Donald Trump's victory was predicted by Nostradamus, The Sun, 11 November 2016; Alexandra Burlacu, Nostradamus Predictions: Did The French Prophet Predict Donald Trump 2016 US Presidential Election Victory Would Lead To World War 3? Tech Times, 11 November 2016).

This framing suggests a dangerous incapacity to navigate the adaptive cycle so fruitfully highlighted by Thomas Homer-Dixon (The Upside of own: catastrophe, creativity, and the renewal of civilization, 2006). As is widely recognized in the business world, those who are desperately dependent on always being "winners" define themselves as "losers" through being unable to learn from disasters, strategic failure and the insights of others (Learning from failure: what stops people from turning mistakes into success? The Economist, 10 October 2015; Amy C. Edmondson, Strategies for Learning from Failure, Harvard Business Review, April 2011).

Misplaced opposition? With so many having been proved to lack insight into the condition of the times and the processes it may engender, the question is how the discredited may now recover a degree of credibility.

The immediate aftermath of the election has seen a developing possibility in this regard. As carefully reviewed by Larry Chin, there is a real possibility that Donald Trump will either be prevented from acceding to the White House or that a process of impeachment could be launched at the beginning of his administration (Post Election Chaos, Trump Presidency Under Siege: guided anarchy and "The Purple Revolution" -- orchestrated anti-Trump mob violence, Global Research, 23 November 2016).

However, rather than any form of admission of inadequacy, or recognition of the need for radical re-examination of assumptions, many now feel impelled to argue that "wrong" has been done through the election of Trump. This sentiment is complemented by their personal identification with the "right" that they represent so unquestionably.

Again the mistaken focus on the person avoids recognition that a large proportion of the population believes that wrong has been done to them by the political style represented by Clinton. Mistakenly, it is Trump that is "Not My President" rather than any recognition of the indifference to large numbers of people in pain -- whether the neglect is deliberate or inadvertent (Christopher Mele and Annie Correal, 'Not Our President': Protests Spread After Donald Trump's Election, The New York Times, 9 November 2016).

Reflecting the new understanding of democracy, Wikipedia already offers an entry on Protests against Donald Trump matching the simultaneous Protests against Park Geun-hye in South Korea. Should the legitimacy of all democratic elections now be called into question by the losers?

Expectations of the loser in a democratic process: One focus has been the argument that Clinton "really won" -- having "won the popular vote" -- irrespective of the complex conventions of the democratic process in the USA with its electoral college system. As argued by Joel S. Hirschhorn:

The clearest sign of Democrat stupidity and delusion is the constant garbage bragging that Clinton got more votes than Trump. Why is this so repulsive? Because presidential campaigns are devised and operated on the basis of the Electoral College system that constitutionally determines the victor. This means that a winning campaign must focus on specific states rather than on states with the largest populations. In other words, Clinton's larger national popular vote total is irrelevant and meaningless. (Many Americans Should Un-Stupid Themselves, Information Clearing House, 18 November 2016)

What of the fact that Trump also won the overwhelming majority of US counties (Results By County, San Francisco Chronicle, 17 November 2016)? Or the fact that 48% of the eligible voters abstained? Would the argument have been voiced (and heard) had the result been otherwise? If not, why not?

Is the detection of electoral irregularities by the losers now as predictable as their denial by the winners (Steven Rosenfeld, Something Stinks When Exit Polls and Official Counts Don't Match, AlterNet, 14 November 2016; Steven Rosenfeld, A Fair Election? Serious, Hard-to-Explain Questions Arise About Trump Vote Totals in 3 Key States, AlterNet, 17 November 2016)? What of claims by progressives that elections have been stolen (Steven F. Freeman, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? 2011)?

Are such claims themselves predictable in a post-truth era (Computer scientists say they have strong evidence election was rigged against Clinton in three key states, The Independent, 23 November 2016; Jill Stein raises over $2m to request US election recounts in battleground states, The Guardian, 24 November 2016)? Would such evidence have been sought had Clinton won?

In the case of the presidential campaign, initiatives by progressives to ensure a recount of votes in some areas could well miss the point. In a post-truth era, any recount proving that the first count was incorrect could itself be disputed and subject to appeal. How is it to be proved -- and by whom -- that the recount data was itself not subject to some form of hacking by interested parties? Would some of those favouring an alternative result not indeed be motivated to ensure that this was the case? How indeed is the extensive media coverage of the "participation" of the Clinton campaign in the recount to be interpreted with respect to objectivity and "truth" (Hillary Clinton's Team to Join Wisconsin Recount Pushed by Jill Stein, The New York Times, 26 November 2016)?

Parallels are to be seen with the indictment of individuals, variously set aside after a succession of appeals -- provided that funds are available to sustain the legal proceedings, to question the evidence and to threaten the judiciary and jury members.

The argument of course highlights some deficiencies in the democratic process in the USA -- although many others can be identified there (and in other democracies). Similar arguments have been presented following the outcome of previous presidential elections. As argued separately, increasingly it is evident that no democratic election or referendum is held without some claiming irregularities -- typically denied by others, whether appropriately investigated or not (Criteria Justifying Recounting or Revoting in Democracy post-Brexit, 2016).

The violence following such elections, as in the USA, could be challenged as a case of losing sides being "bad losers" in a system focused on one side "winning" according to a set of rules, however arbitrary and inappropriate. Had Clinton won, others would be voicing the slogan "Not My President" -- with the winners triumphantly celebrating their victory and the righteous "crushing" of their ignorant opponents, held "to have received their just deserts".

Beyond triumphalist gloating in democracy? Is there not a case for enabling some alternative to the feeding frenzy whereby an opponent is torn apart -- a process savoured vicariously by observers via the media? It is curious that this process is so carefully celebrated in politics, business and sport -- echoing its historic parallels in military action and religion. The incredible depths of negative campaigning, to which the presidential campaign descended, are curiously legitimized by an implied analogue to just war doctrine.

Ironically, for the media who got it so wrong, the Trump story was an incredible godsend in sustaining audience interest over the period of the campaign -- whether in terms of their weekly or daily offerings to consumers. Having reached a formal conclusion through the election, there is necessarily a great temptation to spin the story further through challenging the democratic outcome and celebrating the ensuring difficulties -- even to the point of inciting violence, verbal or otherwise. Would Trump supporters have been able to do as much had they lost -- especially those isolated in rural areas? Who would care, had they not?

Recognizing neglected truths: Typically any reprise by media pundits avoids any implication that others may have truths which have been inadequately expressed, as exemplified by Paul Krugman (Thoughts for the Horrified, The New York Times, 11 November 2016):

So what do we do now? By "we" I mean all those left, center and even right who saw Donald Trump as the worst man ever to run for president and assumed that a strong majority of our fellow citizens would agree. I'm not talking about rethinking political strategy. There will be a time for that -- God knows it's clear that almost everyone on the center-left, myself included, was clueless about what actually works in persuading voters. For now, however, I'm talking about personal attitude and behavior in the face of this terrible shock.

Despite his renown as a Nobel Laureate, Krugman clearly learnt nothing other than that Trump was more skillful in convincing unforeseen numbers, previously ignored by Krugman. The skill is attributed specifically to his lies and the gullibility of the ignorant. The difficulty in this regard for Krugman and others is that their views are disseminated through media dependent for their survival on advertising. In deprecating the lies of Trump, the question is to what extent the experts are dubiously complicit in the lies purveyed by advertising -- skillfully reframed as legitimate puffery.

The problem for those with the power to deceive, most notably amongst the elites, is that they are increasingly unable to prove that they have not. This is especially evident in the case of the advertisers faced with an audience effectively "groomed" to be sceptical through constant exposure to puffery. "Fiat truths" are increasingly less effective in a "post-society".

Incitement to disloyalty? For Michael Moore, equally lacking in any sense of perspective, as an erstwhile hero of progressives, the reprise has taken the form of very active opposition to Trump and his strategies -- given that these can be framed as uniquely tainted by racism and and misogyny (7 Things We Must Do as Trump Prepares for the White House, AlterNet, 10 November 2016):

1. Must quickly and decisively form an opposition movement, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1960s.... [in order to enhance the divisions in American society?]
2. Prepare to impeach Trump...
3. Must commit right now to a vigorous fight (including civil disobedience, if necessary) that will block any and all Donald Trump Supreme Court nominees who do not meet our approval... [incitement to civil disobedience?]
4. Demand the DNC apologize to Bernie Sanders for trying to fix the primaries against him, for spinning the press to ignore his historic campaign...
5. Demand that President Obama establish a special prosecutor to investigate who and what was behind FBI director James Comey's illegal interference into the presidential election 11 days before the vote was held. [with the implication that there was no substance to the allegations?]
6. Begin a national push while it's fresh in everyone's mind for a constitutional amendment to fix our broken electoral system...
7. Convince President Obama to immediately... replace all the poisoned pipes... the water in Flint is still unusable. [a failure symptomatic of ineffectual policies of the Clinton party?]

Who might now be suspected of planning to assassinate Trump -- in a society which has demonstrated such propensity (Abraham Lincoln, Kennedy, Martin Luther King)? Who would welcome such an outcome? With what language might it be deplored by his critics? (Samuel Osborne, Sir David Attenborough receives death threats after saying 'we could shoot' Donald Trump, The Independent, 17 November 2016).

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]