Sep 29, 2018
Changing the Theory of Elections starting in the #USA and the #EU
For convenience, first we give access to USA’s entries, including some of its images. Then on Brexit and the EU, we convert two tweets on the first two comments, and then add the other two comments.
On Brexit and the EU
Tweet 1 on Comment 1
The following two images one meant to be readable with mobile devices and the direct copy from the The Economist’s web site were made for another tweet corresponding to the first comment. That idea is repeated on the second tweet.
Tweet 2 on Comment 2
Comment 3
This comment is in response to the following long comment:
CA-Oxonian Sep 28th, 16:19
One of the greatest mistakes one can make is when, confronted with danger, one mistakes the nature of the challenge.
The chattering classes (academics, journalists) have persistently and unremittingly clung to a fantasy over the last few years of populist success. The fantasy is that Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, et al are all cries of dissatisfaction from “ordinary people who’ve been left behind” by globalisation and by some supposed “elite” that remains conspicuously undefined. Thus, goes the narrative, we need to meet these people’s needs in order to restore “fairness” to our society and thereafter, magically, all will be well. We don’t need to think any more about the problem. Job done.
In fact this is perhaps the most dangerous error imaginable. The success of Brexit, Trump, Le Pen (who will become President of France at the next election) et al is not “a cry from ordinary people” at all. It’s the result of the simple fact that most people are easily gulled by unscrupulous charlatans. If you offer a child free ice-cream forever, it won’t stop to reflect upon (a) the likelihood of the promise being fulfilled, or (b) the consequences if the promise is in fact fulfilled. The child will simple scream until it gets the ice-cream.
The vast majority of people don’t understand the issues we face. They want simple “solutions” to complex problems, and charlatans understand that they can gain votes by proffering simplistic “solutions” to those lacking the cognitive resources necessary to evaluate what they’re fed. None of the “solutions” proffered by today’s charlatans comes remotely close to addressing any of the real-world issues facing us today. In fact, every “solution” is merely running away and hiding under the bed, wrapped in a blanket of nostalgia and false patriotism.
The chattering classes need to stop pretending that a mob repeating sound-bites it’s been fed represents anything other than a mob repeating sound-bites it’s been fed. This is not “a cry of dissatisfaction against global elites.” It’s simple-minded people cheering for “strong” leaders promising them free ice-cream forever. We’ve been here before: Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot… now Trump, Boris the Clown, Erdogan, Orban… Brexit and Trump showed politicians the world over that a great many voters are far more easily gulled than even the most cynical had hitherto imagined. Not surprisingly we’re seeing a huge uprising of populism across the West and it will deliver predictable results.
Welcome to the end of Western civilization: not overwhelmed by external foes but eaten away by the acid of infantile folly.
Next is the response:
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio in reply to CA-Oxonian Sep 28th, 18:27
This third comment under this article starts quoting Buckminster Fuller: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Readers would be interested to know what’s your model that’s defending the existing reality with the argument of “infantile folly” by the “chattering classes.” In my first comment I showed my model that makes the existing reality obsolete. As far as I know the existing reality corresponds to Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Stiglitz, as represented by his book “Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited: Anti-Globalization in the Era of Trump. Is is fair to say that the non-democratic leaders of China seem to be more democratic than the Western elites of the Dark Globalization and of DeGlobalization? In order for anyone to reply, please consider the partial story Might China’s ‘new game plan’ come first than the European Union or the USA?
Comment 4
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio Sep 28th, 19:51
As a complement that mutually reinforces my three earlier comments, what follows is my response to the Sep 28, 2018, Project Syndicate article Democratizing Brexit,by YANIS VAROUFAKIS. The assumption “Democracy can never aspire to being more than a work in progress, and decisions made collectively must constantly be reappraised collectively in the light of new evidence” is the key to problem solving that blocks out the emerging opportunities for transformation to a global order. To see a different light of new evidence, please consider the post “It’s not left versus right… that matter” since 1980, “but old versus new.” That NEW requires global leadership for the transformation (a radical institutional innovation) towards the Bright Globalization as a North Star in order to create the Systemic Civilization under The Wealth of Globalization that replaces the OLD industrial civilization under The Wealth of Nations. After that evidence, then the transition (incremental institutional innovations) to democracy will be once again a work in progress in the Systemic Civilization and decisions made collectively must constantly be reappraised collectively in the light of new evidence for decades or centuries to come.”
