Wednesday, October 19, 2016

final debate

Assuming Hillary Clinton has chosen not to follow Obama aide David Axelrod's advice to skip the third presidential debate,* the debate is still on and will air Wednesday evening, Nevada time. I'll catch the bloody, shredded-fetus aftermath Thursday morning, Korea time.

The third debate will take place in Las Vegas, and I can't imagine a more appropriately sleazy venue for a campaign with a record-breaking amount of sleaze sticking to it. This debate will also be moderated by Chris Wallace, a conservative Fox News commentator. Trump is, in a manner of speaking, on his home turf in Vegas, a city in which he has deep business roots (Trump International Hotel, etc.), but the debate won't be held among the casinos: it will take place at the slightly more staid University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Thomas & Mack Center.

With the election having reached a fever pitch, I find it highly doubtful that any needles will be moved by whatever happens during this final exchange between two unsavory candidates. Commitments have crystallized, and for the uncommitted: when it's kaiju versus kaiju, there's no one to root for.

Just a heads-up: talking about this election has been a massive headache for me. My post-debate commentary will probably be the last thing I write about Election 2016, after which I leave everything in the hands of the gods—as everything has always been, really.

My final thought for this post is to reiterate that we really do have two utterly different worldviews, two utterly different doxastic practices (to borrow a philo term that means, approximately, "how we form our beliefs") at work this election cycle. One worldview hews to the mainstream, relying on poll aggregators like Real Clear Politics; evolving-forecast sites like Nate Silver's 538; and various legacy-media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, ABC/NBC/CBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and so on. The other worldview subsists mostly online and has nothing whatsoever to do with print media. This is the demimonde of YouTube commentators like Styxhexenhammer666, computer-savvy folks like Wikileaks, undercover documentarians like James O'Keefe, and shadowy sources like Anonymous.** King Baeksu, on this blog, has called Trump "the internet candidate," so the question is the degree to which internet-based discourse has superseded more conventional/traditional forms of public discourse. Are the legacy media really dead? If the internet is indeed influencing people in ways that the mainstream is blind to, then surveys like this Arizona Freedom Alliance poll are not merely wishful thinking: they're truer reflections of reality than what's being produced by the mainstream. Or they're not. One worldview is going to be proven decisively wrong on November 8. Will it be egg on the face of the legacy media? Will Styx be shown to be a reality-denying Baghdad Bob? All will be revealed in just a few weeks.***

UPDATE: an excerpt from Scott Adams's latest:

I’m here to tell you that if you are afraid that Donald Trump is a racist/sexist clown with a dangerous temperament, you have been brainwashed by the best group of brainwashers in the business right now: Team Clinton.

Go read the rest to understand his argument before responding. Meanwhile, this gentleman says Trump "doesn't have a racist bone in his body."

UPDATE 2: as with Brexit, betting patterns seem to be skewing Trumpward.

UPDATE 3: in case you failed to click the link I left above to Malcolm's blog, here's an excerpt from Malcolm's leftie frenemy Peter, who goes by the moniker "The One-eyed Man" on Malcolm's comment threads:

James O’Keefe? You’re kidding me, right? Was Alex Jones unavailable?

Here in the reality-based community, we rely on “facts” and “evidence” to create reasoned argument. In the la-la land of the right wing bubble – where global warming stopped back in the 1990’s, the President is not an American, and non-existent Muslims celebrated 9/11 – facts and evidence are in short supply, so the work of convicted fraudsters like O’Keefe will have to do.

Trump’s claims of a rigged election are horseshit. The fact that an election which hasn’t occurred cannot possibly have been rigged, combined with his complete lack of evidence, does not deter the credulous Trumpen proletariat from insisting on absurdities which no thinking person would dare conceive.

Trump is groping for a solution to his dismal and disgusting campaign, and has gone full Breitbart with lurid tales of international conspiracies and heinous plots. Those who view O’Keefe, Daily Caller, and Drudge as credible sources of news will swallow this whole. Those who are capable of observation and ratiocination recognize it for what it is: the whiny excuses of a small man who knows he is heading for a crushing defeat.

To a girl, no less.

So as per usual, both sides are calling each other stupid.

Peter has more to say here.

UPDATE 4: Malcolm has written a heartfelt post here. He spends a few column-inches hammering away at notions of "diversity," "inclusiveness," and "multiculturalism." I think his concerns are valid, to some extent, but his extreme formulation of "diversity + proximity = war" seems to paper over the idea that some diversity is not only desirable but essential for a country to be strong. Lack of diversity leads to situations like that on the Korean peninsula, where the ethnic/racial echo chamber reigns.

My own attitude toward diversity is Buddhist in flavor: it's neither inherently good nor inherently bad. There can indeed be too much diversity, but it should be obvious that a certain measure of it, in any country's culture, is salubrious because it exposes people to other points of view that can then inform a larger view of the world. I have to wonder, in practical terms, just how far back Malcolm would care to roll America's diversity. Where does one stop? If we roll it back far enough, all we'll have left will be American Indians, and theoretically, we could roll back even further until there's no one at all.

Obviously, Malcolm isn't advocating anything as horrifying as ethnic cleansing, but I can't get a lock on what, exactly, Malcolm is advocating. How much diversity is enough? How much is too much? Are un-diverse countries (Korea, Scandinavia for the next little while) really a model to follow? As a resident of Korea, I see the pathologies of un-diversity up close.



*The idea was to skip the debate as a protest against the "depths" to which Trump has "sunk" in floating the prospect of drug-testing both him and Hillary Clinton before they take the debate stage, just so the public can know what chemicals are coursing through Hillary's veins. Trump's reasoning was, apparently, that what he and Hillary are doing is akin to what athletes do, and if athletes get drug-tested, then by parity of reasoning, presidential candidates ought to be drug-tested, too. I'd have found this argument more convincing had Trump made it before the first debate, but this is obviously an ad hoc, trash-talking tactic that's meant to rattle, or at least annoy, the Hillary camp.

**Strangely, we might also include Facebook in this list if this article holds any water: Facebook has apparently seen record levels of pro-Trump activity.

***Of course, whichever worldview turns out to be the loser will do what it can to save face through various justifications, which will likely revolve around election-rigging, which seems to be a rich topic of discussion right about now.



13 comments:

King Baeksu said...

I can't imagine a more appropriately sleazy venue for a campaign with a record-breaking amount of sleaze sticking to it.

When it comes to sleaze, the Democrats have cornered the market. You listen to that punk Cesar Vargas, who evidently isn't even a US citizen, and think to yourself: They are literally plotting a demographic coup
against the historic American nation.


O'Keefe's latest videos exposing wide-scale DP voting fraud are blowing up online. Meanwhile, the New York Times tells us on its front page today, hilariously, "Trump’s Call to Monitor Polls Raises Fears of Intimidation."

James O'Keefe is more of a real journalist than just about all of the hacks at the NYT combined. That useless rag can't go bankrupt soon enough!

King Baeksu said...

The other worldview subsists mostly online and has nothing whatsoever to do with print media. This is the demimonde of YouTube commentators like Styxhexenhammer666, computer-savvy folks like Wikileaks, undercover documentarians like James O'Keefe, and shadowy sources like Anonymous.

Don't forget the most important one of them all: /pol/

Nathan B. said...

I agree that there might be two terribly opposed worldviews as regards this election, but I don't think it has anything to do with polls or anything to do with the reality termed "online."

Even the most "scientific" polls aren't really scientific, in the sense of being perfectly mathematical, objective, and always 100% accurate. Polling isn't physics. Here in my Canada, polls have often been proved wrong on election night. More recently in the UK, the polls were wrong about Brexit. Right now, the polls show Clinton ahead; I genuinely hope that's true, but that has nothing to do with my own prediction of who actually might win. In other words, who I hope to win and who actually wins could be two completely different people. That said, the more "scientific" polls are, in general, going to be more accurate than most online polls simply because they have better methodology and better controls--but some things can't be controlled for--e.g. if you like Trump but don't want to admit it to a pollster.

I get all my news online. The NY Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, the BBC, the CBC, and even the National Post--those are my daily stops. Trump's wild conspiracy theories, racism, and chauvinism are spreading online, too. One side isn't more "online" than the other. Everything is online, including this discussion.

For my part, I do not at all like Clinton as a candidate, but I believe Trump would be disastrous for the world order. To be sure, the world order needs changing. The middle class in North America is being gutted, and that's my biggest worry. But electing the ultra-rich, lying, swindling Trump won't help the middle class--it'll exacerbate its demise. I also believe that electing Trump will result in more instances of sexual assault, and will make it harder for women to take public positions on political issues. I think that may be the greatest tragedy of all, not to mention the suffering that will befall the populations of some of the sovereign states--some of whom are NATO allies--around Russia's borders. (Now I happen to think NATO was wrong to include them in the first place, but that's another matter--NATO as an alliance has to mean something; otherwise, it means nothing.)

As for my own prediction regarding the outcome of the race, I am terrified that Trump may win, or may lose narrowly. If too many polls who Clinton ahead, her supporters may stay home, while Trump's may be more motivated to turn out. I don't think this election is going to be the cakewalk that many of the Democrats think. I hope they take the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, but I'm not sure they'll take any of those three.

Kevin Kim said...

Nathan,

re: "everything is online"

Millions of older Americans shun the online experience to receive their news on TV. The print media, which certain parties claim is dying, still kills millions of trees to stay in business, so obviously someone is still reading the rags. The online presence of mainstream outlets like WaPo, NYT, et al., doesn't signify anything more than that these are merely appendages of "meatspace" media—they're more cyber-afterthoughts than bona fide online presences. The proof of this is in how the online legacy media still cling to an increasingly outdated "subscription" paradigm, as if what's on your monitor were merely another form of paper.

So I'd say my point stands re: the existence of two worlds. Lumping them together as "all online" obscures the fundamental difference in doxastic practices that I referred to in my post. Sure, granted: in a brute technical sense, it's all (or at least mostly) online. Both of these worlds are. But for one world, its online presence is merely an extension of its paper presence, and the political agendas driving these two worlds are substantially different.

Kevin Kim said...

Nathan,

PS: same goes for traditional broadcast media like ABC, NBC, CBS, CBC, and the BBC: their online presences are merely extensions of what they do on TV.

King Baeksu said...

The middle class in North America is being gutted, and that's my biggest worry. But electing the ultra-rich, lying, swindling Trump won't help the middle class--it'll exacerbate its demise.

Really? Then why are so many American union members supporting Trump?

I also believe that electing Trump will result in more instances of sexual assault, and will make it harder for women to take public positions on political issues.

Sexual-harassment laws in the workplace and at universities are extremely tough in the West, and a small can of Mace is more than sufficient to repel any would-be attackers on a lonely street at night. To my understanding, feminism means treating women as full equals to men, not as helpless victims unable to take care of themselves.

I believe Trump would be disastrous for the world order.

Trump has consistently critiqued the neoconservative program of endless foreign interventionism and nation-building abroad. Sounds good to me. Sounds like a considerable improvement for the world order, in fact.

I think that may be the greatest tragedy of all, not to mention the suffering that will befall the populations of some of the sovereign states--some of whom are NATO allies--around Russia's borders.

Oh, dear. The mean, scary Russians again. Trump says he actually wants to work with the Russians, since both the US and Russia would like to rid the world of the scourge of Isis (at least that's what Obama and Krooked Killary claim in public.) On the other hand, establishing a "no-fly zone" in Syria, which $hillary supports, would likely lead to war with Russia were it to actually be enforced. (And let's not forget that establishing a "no-fly zone" over Libya was the first stage in the ultimate toppling of the state there, which is now mired in total anarchy.)

Here in my Canada, polls have often been proved wrong on election night.

Can I ask a serious question? Why do so many people in Canada consider it acceptable to constantly lecture Americans on how ignorant we are about politics and other affairs of the world? I mean, I thought Canadians were supposed to be paragons of politesse and good manners and all that. Just curious!

King Baeksu said...

Middle-America Trump supporters show how well-versed they are on the issues:

Trump Voters Discuss Upcoming Debate Topics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA_KQaViAzk

It would be nice to hear Hillary supporters say something beyond "He's racist!" or "He's a sexist!" but then again, anyone who is actually supporting her is probably too brain-damaged to formulate an actual thought of their own.

Nathan B. said...

Hi Kevin,

Regarding online media, it's certainly true that some sites started as online outreaches of existing print media companies--e.g., NYTimes.com, or CNN.com. (For what it's worth, I tend to avoid the broadcasters' websites in favour of the print media's sites--perhaps because I've always had more respect for print media rather than broadcast media, or perhaps it's simply because I'm hard of hearing and would rather read my news than listen to it.)

But I still don't see how this relates to the whole Clinton vs. Trump campaign. For instance, Breitbart.com, which is famously in Trump's camp, had about 12.5 million visits in September, accordingly to one ranking (ebizmba "most popular political websites"). But the Huffington Post, which I don't read but which I believe skews very left, had nearly ten times more, at 110 million. The NYTimes had 70 million (ebizmba "most popular news sites).

And as far as subscriptions go, many left-oriented sites (like The Guardian and the Huffpo, which I believe started as an online entity), do not operate their online sites on a subscription-basis.

Furthermore, while I agree with you that many older voters might tend to get their news exclusively offline--that is to say, through standard TV news sources--those voters are well-known to skew Republican. They're dinosaurs, from a news-gathering standpoint, and if they're loyal to the GOP, they're voting for Trump.

Meanwhile, there are a huge number of Trump parodies on Youtube. Lefties (and even righties opposed to Trump) have fun online, too. I honestly don't know how this quantifies, especially vs. pro-Trump themes, but I thought it worth mentioning.

In short, I while I agree with you that there are two very different worldviews at play here, I still disagree with your thesis about how those views relate to online media.

That's probably all I'll say to this post. I'll read your response, of course, but I plan to leave the last word to you--it is your blog, after all, and I enjoy reading it. ;-)

Nathan B. said...

Hi Kevin, just curious: did you get the comment I left on this thread a few days ago? I guess it may not matter, much, though, really.

Kevin Kim said...

Nathan,

Your comment somehow ended up in my spam filter. Don't know why; this happens on occasion, as my friend Charles can attest.

Kevin Kim said...

"But the Huffington Post, which I don't read but which I believe skews very left, had nearly ten times more, at 110 million."

Then there's Drudge, with a billion unique visits per month. One site to rule them all.

Malcolm Pollack said...

Hi Kevin,

You're quite right that some diversity is good. It leavens and spices a society.

A commenter, Alex Liebowitz, made roughly the same point as you on the comment-thread of the post you mentioned, and I posted a response that, I hope, addresses your concerns. His comment is here, and mine is slightly farther on.

Nathan B. said...

Thanks, Kevin. I had wanted to say that according to one website I found on Google, HuffPo has 13.2 million daily page views to Drudge's 2 million daily page views--but if I said that, I suppose I wouldn't be doing what I said I would, which was to leave the last word to you. Well, I guess you won't be fooled by my attempt at paraleipsis, so I'll just grovel and beg your pardon! ;-) (That said, I don't know how accurate those stats are.)