Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Clearly, the two political sides are looking down on each other. But which side has better use of their opportunities? Which one attracts, motivates more people? Which one controls more resources? Even with Obama, it has been a pretty one-sided game.

There are quote a few commentaries out there that seek to explicate liberal pains by referring to the Graves Values models of human existence. That is generally an appropriate paradigm for an analysis, though particular commentary can be disagreeable. If you care, here is a hostile evaluation:

the [Level 6/Liberal/Green] postmodern leading-edge of evolution itself has, for several decades, degenerated into its extreme, pathological, and dysfunctional forms. As such, it is literally incapable of effectively acting as a real leading-edge. Its fundamental belief -- "there is no truth" -- and its basic essential attitude -- "aperspectival madness" -- cannot in any fashion actually lead, actually choose a course of action that is positive, healthy, effective, and truly evolutionary. With all growth hierarchies denied and deconstructed, evolution has no real way to grow, has no way forward at all, and thus nothing but dominator hierarchies are seen everywhere, effectively reducing any individual you want to a victim. The leading-edge has collapsed; it is now a few-billion-persons (or so) massive car crash, a huge traffic jam at the very edge of evolution itself, sabotaging virtually every move that evolution seeks to take.
And here is from a practitioner promotion:
There are multiple levels of what we can call "psycho-social" security [...]

Essentially, the "progressive" political movements of the recent decades in North America and Europe were a function of more secure economic times following the end of World War II

(Note: A registration discount for his web-presentation of the "modern" Graves theory next Thursday is valid just for another 2 hours.)
by das monde on Sat Feb 11th, 2017 at 02:42:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was absolutely essential to deconstruct the myths by which our societies operate and expose them and their relationships to critical, public view. We just have to become accustomed to dealing in a world where various groups of 'we' assert values and relate them to lived experience without divine intervention or the support of ancient venerated practices. The problem is that too few of the population are at all comfortable so doing.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Feb 12th, 2017 at 05:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In a broad sense, myths are essential in changing and maintaining core values of people.
by das monde on Sun Feb 12th, 2017 at 06:08:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed. But when myths become sufficiently disconnected from large portions of the community they need to change or, in modern parlance, be deconstructed. The process is not usually pretty and 'western civilization' has been going through just that process since WW II, more intensively starting in the '60s. Widespread myths of the racial superiority of the 'white race', and, hence, the justification for white domination of 'lesser races' were challenged, most strongly by the victims of these myths, non-whites.

Then it became a question of what to think about that and how to respond to that whole process. For a large portion of whites the reaction was one of angry denial. A corollary of the myth of the superiority of the white race was the whole post-WW II American triumphalism with America as a unique moral force for good in the world. It had always been in conflict with reality, but, until the whole Vietnam issue blew up, it was the tacit understanding of a majority in the USA. The divisions that mythic struggle engendered are also still with us.

I grew up believing much of those common myths and still did when I started college in June, '60. By fall of '61 I had changed. That I gave voice to my dissidence did me no good in Oklahoma or Arizona, but in California I found a home.

The expression of views corrosive to the prevailing myth so alarmed professors in the History Department at the U of Arizona that they gave me a terminal masters degree without even telling me what they had done. I didn't find out for close to 50 years, as I never applied to other, better programs. A.J. Hobson described this process well from the English perspective in his 1902 book, Imperialism, some of the insights from which resonated with me and which I naively embraced in seminars. I actually thought that freedom of belief and opinion really existed in Academe. Hobson described the view of educators in the England of his time for selection of aspiring educators as "sound men, sound views". It was the same in Arizona. I was 'unsound'.

The process rolls on. One of the better things that Trump has done is to spectacularly challenge this myth of US exceptionalism hilariously in defense of his business relationship with the Russian state under Putin. As he noted on Fox during the Superbowl: "We've got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country's so innocent?" A large portion of his supporters are also believers in the myth and were upset. I take my pleasures where I may.    

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Feb 12th, 2017 at 10:14:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series