{"id":9572,"date":"2017-07-14T07:24:15","date_gmt":"2017-07-14T07:24:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=9572"},"modified":"2017-07-15T07:26:42","modified_gmt":"2017-07-15T07:26:42","slug":"why-some-are-applauding-donald-trump-jrs-win-at-all-costs-attitude","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/why-some-are-applauding-donald-trump-jrs-win-at-all-costs-attitude\/","title":{"rendered":"Why some are applauding Donald Trump Jr’s ‘win at all costs’ attitude"},"content":{"rendered":"

Daniel M. Shea<\/a>, Colby College<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

To many, the revelation<\/a> that Donald Trump Jr. was anxious to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russians will not come as a surprise. It is but the latest example of the take-no-prisoners, anything-goes politics of our day. Sure, soliciting help from a hostile foreign power is exceptional, and it is certainly true that the Trumps have taken \u201cunconventional\u201d politics to new heights. But how we do politics in the United States, the boundaries of acceptable behavior, has been shifting for two decades. <\/p>\n

The real surprise \u2013 the part of the story that we should be gravely concerned about \u2013 is that this disclosure will not matter to a great many American voters. After thinking and writing about politics for two decades<\/a>, I have come to the conclusion that the real issue we face is not the conduct of public officials or their surrogates, but how nefarious acts are now sanctioned, and even applauded, by so many on both sides of the partisan fence. <\/p>\n

So what\u2019s changed in our politics?<\/p>\n

Fear and loathing<\/h2>\n

For one, the nature of partisanship is different. Until about a decade ago, one\u2019s attachment to a party was centered around policy disputes or cues from groups and associations. But today\u2019s version is grounded in the fear and loathing of the other side. Trunkloads of data, much of it from the Pew Research Center<\/a>, suggest each side sees the other party as crazy and certainly dangerous. So it does not matter what your side does so long as it keeps the nut jobs on the other side at bay.<\/p>\n

A new volume by political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels further helps to fine-tune our understanding how people vote and which party they identify with. Their book, \u201cDemocracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government<\/a>,\u201d suggests \u201cissue congruence [between voters and parties], in so far as it exists, is mostly a byproduct of other connections, most of them lacking policy content.\u201d In other words, we don\u2019t think through issues, policies and candidate characteristics, but instead see elections as \u201cus versus them.\u201d These scholars argue voters tie themselves with racial, ethnic, occupational, religious, recreational and other groups, with partisanship as the byproduct. Our group identity, not policy concerns or ideology, determines vote choice. That is to say, we gather comfortably with our tribe and tune out other points of view. <\/p>\n

A central force propelling hostility toward the \u201cother\u201d party is the partisan media. Many such outlets have figured out a sustainable business model. Smaller audiences can be profitable, so long as they remain loyal. Loyalty springs from \u201ccrisis\u201d and, of course, \u201cmenace.\u201d This leads to treating every issue as a true threat to our existence or a usurpation of fundamental \u201crights.\u201d The other party is always the villain, and your side can do no wrong \u2013 so long as it is for the grand struggle.<\/p>\n

And then there is the online world. Voters rarely explore new ideas and perspectives, but share, like and retweet concordant ones. We fence in and we fence out. As recently noted by journalist and author Megan McArdle<\/a>, \u201cSocial media, of course, makes this problem worse. Even if we are not deliberately blocking people who disagree with us, Facebook curates our feeds so that we get more of the stuff we \u2018like.\u2019 What do we \u2018like\u2019? People and posts that agree with us.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sorting and filtering<\/h2>\n

Is the filtering of information really a new development? It is not at all clear that voters have ever absorbed a broad range of information or shifted though competing evidence. It is likely party bosses, elected officials, candidates and even media elites have always been able to manipulate mass opinion to a degree. Cognitive time-saving cues, especially party identification, have always been used to sort and filter. <\/p>\n

But something very different is happening today. In the recent past, news was more widely viewed as objective, leading to a high degree of accepted facts and authority. When the news media unraveled the story of Watergate, for example, citizens of all partisan stripes accepted it as fact. What scholars dubbed \u201cshort-term influences<\/a>\u201d could override partisan leanings.<\/p>\n

Which leads us to \u201calternative facts,\u201d the aggressive spinning of policies and arguments regardless of contrary verifiable information. This may be a game-changer in our politics. The barrier for evidence has, it seems, evaporated, and emotion-rich information is used to draw more viewers, readers and listeners. If we add the continual drive for fresh \u201cnews\u201d and the high costs of creating traditional journalism, we are left with little consensus or authority. New York Times blogger Farhad Manjoo put it this way<\/a>: \u201cWe are roiled by preconceptions and biases, and we usually do what feels easiest \u2013 we gorge on information that confirms our ideas, and we shun what does not.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, popular culture has also probably contributed to our growing indifference to nefarious acts. We pick our reality show contestant and applaud every backhanded, despicable move that gets him across the finish line. There can\u2019t be two winners or a collective good, only a sole survivor. Or shall we say that only one apprentice can get the job? And the best part of the show \u2013 the segment that really gets the producers juiced \u2013 is when things get truly ugly.<\/a><\/p>\n

Democratic accountability<\/h2>\n

The latest Trump team revelation is a shocker, but even more stunning is the meager impact it will likely have on his supporters. As noted in a recent USA Today story, in Trump country the Russia disclosure is no big deal.<\/a><\/p>\n

As voters, citizens are called to judge those in power. But there must be an objective standard for the assessment, which is why the framers of the Constitution put so much stock in a free press. The governed in a democracy must be willing and able to fairly judge the acts of the governors. But today \u201cyour side\u201d has always done a good job and the \u201cother\u201d party has always failed. Any contrary revelation can be explained away as fake news.<\/p>\n

\"TheThe key ingredient in the democratic accountability process \u2013 objectivity \u2013 is disappearing, and the foundation of our limited government has been shaken. In Federalist #51 and elsewhere, James Madison wrote<\/a>, \u201cA dependence upon the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government\u2026\u201d Many are starting to wonder if Americans are up to the job \u2013 and whether the fate of the grand experiment is at risk.<\/p>\n

Daniel M. Shea<\/a>, Professor of Government, Colby College<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This article was originally published on The Conversation<\/a>. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Daniel M. Shea, Colby College To many, the revelation that Donald Trump Jr. was anxious to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russians will not come as a surprise. It is but the latest example of the take-no-prisoners, anything-goes politics of our day. Sure, soliciting help from a hostile foreign power is exceptional, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":9573,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[2004,529,479,2748,699,2749,530],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9572"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9572"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9572\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9574,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9572\/revisions\/9574"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9573"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}