Trump vs Hillary

[Elok]

Bernie has not shown a willingness to compromise so far. Otoh, we've seen Trump compromise a lot ( morals, ethics, etc.).

Like I said, I don't really know Bern; I'm probably talking out my ass there. Trump, OTOH, doesn't compromise so much as say whatever crack-brained thing the space aliens are beaming into his head at the moment. He does, however, show an alarming fondness for totally losing his **** whenever he is challenged in the slightest way.

[Elok]

There's a lot to be angry about, but I am extremely skeptical that (a) we know how to fix what's wrong and/or (b) we're actually going to fix what's wrong. So I take solace in the fact that, broadly, civilization has been trending upwards for quite awhile now, even if it's doing so slowly and there's still a lot that's ****ty.

(should have multiquoted, sorry)

I can take comfort in the resurrection of Christ and the eventual renewal of the universe, if it comes to that. But that doesn't obviate the more immediate concerns at hand. I am also inclined to be cynical, but if nobody ever figured out what was wrong or figured out how to fix it civilization would not be trending upwards at all.

[Elok]

Furthermore, the current situation will be resolved for the simple reason that it has to be; our present course is hopelessly untenable. But there are different kinds of potential resolution. Historically, things have not ended well for societies where wealthy elites endlessly carved out greater and greater privileges for themselves at the expense of the vast bulk of the populace. It's just our misfortune that we're starting with a silly orange-haired Caligula this time instead of a Julius Caesar. But he's still got enormous crowds of enraged, hollow-eyed peasants behind him. It would be ever so nice, for those of us stuck living out this particular point in history, if the dialectic whatsit didn't have to sort itself out by means of shotgun-toting paramilitary groups, nuclear attacks on Mexico, or a Russian invasion of Turkey after US withdrawal from NATO.

[Lorizael]

I think our general upward trend has a lot more to do with technology and, possibly, a reduced tolerance for tyranny. I don't think we've actually gotten significantly better at handling specific social/political situations. So when you say, "historically, X has led to Y," I don't think we're all that well-equipped to avoid Y unless the present situation isn't really X. We'll be this way until we get something like psychohistory, I imagine.

[Elok]

I might share more of your resignation if I did not have children, and therefore a heavy emotional investment in the future stability of human civilization. I agree that most of our progress is due to technology--to which I would add that our current stretch of prosperity is anomalous and unsustainable in purely economic and environmental terms, and that our culture has entered a deeply decadent phase. Nor do I think human nature has changed. However, Sanders does offer an alternative and likely more constructive channel for popular discontent than Trump, who would likely behave like Putin with a much larger budget and a much stronger army. At least in the short term, that would make some difference. I don't have a lot of hope, and I don't "feel the Bern," but I'd rather a quixotic social democrat than a half-crazed crypto-fascist.

EDIT out of pathological desire to avoid two posts in a row:

I've been reading Norwich's abridged history of Byzantium, and it's really striking that, while the Empire was essentially doomed from the seventh century onwards by its location between the Muslim hammer and the Catholic anvil, its fortunes waxed and waned dramatically in response to the competence of individual rulers. Foresighted emperors could and did pass edicts to improve the condition of their people, with striking long-term effects, as well as making good diplomatic and military decisions. Conversely, a single idiot on the throne could wreak spectacular havoc for reasons apparently unrelated to any long-term historical forces. Norwich remarks, for example, that the Empire could almost certainly have recovered most of the ground lost at Manzikert by simply treating with the Turks in good faith and maintaining a united front.

America will likely decline sooner than we'd like--God knows we've been on top of the heap for some time, in a period of accelerated social, economic, and technological change--but that doesn't mean that policy decisions are meaningless because of some broad trend of history.

[Ben Kenobi]

while the Empire was essentially doomed from the seventh century onwards by its location between the Muslim hammer and the Catholic anvil

I would dispute that - Turkey has done well for itself. Prior to Manzikert, the Byzantines could have survived and survived for a long time too. The problem was the immediate Byzantine civil war after Manzikert and letting the turks in past the barriers in eastern Anatolia. Once they lost the core and were unable to push them out that was the end.

America will likely decline sooner than we'd like--God knows we've been on top of the heap for some time, in a period of accelerated social, economic, and technological change--but that doesn't mean that policy decisions are meaningless because of some broad trend of history.

America has the benefit of being the strongest power in the hemisphere with no serious external enemies with the capability of conducting an invasion such as with Byzantium. None of these advantages are going away anytime soon, and will likely persists - for the foreseeable future.

America's biggest danger at this point in time is a split as the polarization between the two parts of the united states grows greater. It's not healthy that the US has been divided for so long.

In 1878, you had the emergence of the solid south. In 1900, you had virtually the same map, 22 years later. It wasn't until 1920 that you finally had any kind of breakthrough into the solid south, which was 42 years later. It wasn't until 1968 that the states actually voted en masse for someone who wasn't a democrat. So, the reality is that there has been two Americas for a long, long time.

[Lorizael]

I might share more of your resignation if I did not have children, and therefore a heavy emotional investment in the future stability of human civilization. I agree that most of our progress is due to technology--to which I would add that our current stretch of prosperity is anomalous and unsustainable in purely economic and environmental terms, and that our culture has entered a deeply decadent phase. Nor do I think human nature has changed. However, Sanders does offer an alternative and likely more constructive channel for popular discontent than Trump, who would likely behave like Putin with a much larger budget and a much stronger army. At least in the short term, that would make some difference. I don't have a lot of hope, and I don't "feel the Bern," but I'd rather a quixotic social democrat than a half-crazed crypto-fascist.

EDIT out of pathological desire to avoid two posts in a row:

I've been reading Norwich's abridged history of Byzantium, and it's really striking that, while the Empire was essentially doomed from the seventh century onwards by its location between the Muslim hammer and the Catholic anvil, its fortunes waxed and waned dramatically in response to the competence of individual rulers. Foresighted emperors could and did pass edicts to improve the condition of their people, with striking long-term effects, as well as making good diplomatic and military decisions. Conversely, a single idiot on the throne could wreak spectacular havoc for reasons apparently unrelated to any long-term historical forces. Norwich remarks, for example, that the Empire could almost certainly have recovered most of the ground lost at Manzikert by simply treating with the Turks in good faith and maintaining a united front.

America will likely decline sooner than we'd like--God knows we've been on top of the heap for some time, in a period of accelerated social, economic, and technological change--but that doesn't mean that policy decisions are meaningless because of some broad trend of history.

I guess to that I ask, how many good decisions from Byzantine leaders only look good in hindsight? We can applaud them now for having done something that had a positive effect, but was it reasonable at the time to expect their policies to lead to good outcomes? Conversely, was it reasonable at the time to suspect that the bad policies would lead to bad outcomes? Did the leaders who made good decisions really understand what they were doing, or was there simply a confluence of events that happened to validate their choices?

If we extend that to now, it's certainly possible that we can make better or worse decisions regarding our future, but how likely are we to know which decisions will be which? I'll grant you it seems plainly true that Trump's possible presidential policies will undoubtedly be of the bad variety. But for less extreme cases, I'm honestly not sure it's so easy for us to tell except with distant hindsight.

[Elok]

Well, for one example, one of the emperors enacted much-needed land reforms that broke up large estates in Asia Minor and effectively created/revived a large middle class--not only good from a moral decency perspective, but also for economic and tax purposes, and to provide the backbone of the Byzantine army for some time after. It would have been pretty obvious at the time that allowing aristocrats to buy up all the land and reduce formerly free landowners to peasant tenant status was not especially good (except for aristocrats, and even then only in the short term). One advantage we enjoy over the past is the ability to learn from past mistakes, in theory at least. Those Byzantines, Greek as they were, still thought of themselves as Romans. They had good cause to remember the vast latifundia of their ancient (nominal) forebears, and what came of them.

Other obviously-sane policies: strengthening the army in the face of repeated barbarian incursions, eliminating corrupt practices, converting pagan tribes to serve as allies and buffer states (along with the prestige bonus), clarifying the legal code. Some emperors were impressive but ultimately fruitless or a mixed blessing (such as Justinian and Manuel I). Others, such as Basil II, were almost invariably triumphant on every field--Basil's near-sociopathic hatred of Bulgars notwithstanding. Still others, like Heraclius, were mostly successful but failed for essentially unforeseeable reasons. And then there were the ones like Phocas who were worse than useless. In general, it was pretty obvious which ones were horrible and which were at least competent, even if the truly farsighted were not immediately apparent. Are high offices being sold? Is the basileus spending most of his time getting drunk and cornholing little boys? Can you be tortured to death on the strength of unsubstantiated rumors?

And then there's Murzuphlus, whose name means "unibrow," and who wasn't especially brilliant or long-lived but at least had the guts to raise a revolt against the Latins after the Fourth Crusade. Hail, Emperor Murzuphlus!

[Dinner]

I would like to read more Byzantine history. Does anyone know a good book on the topic?

[Elok]

If you've already read J.J. Norwich's short history--or the gigantic trilogy it's condensed from--no. I find it rather frustrating.

EDIT: If you haven't read Norwich's, of course, you should. He's a very entertaining writer, if not as scholarly as some.

[Ben Kenobi]

You could read the originals if you have the time.

[Kidlicious]

Hillary and Trump supporters are older so there's not much hope for them. Bernie supporters are young so I have hope for them. That's enough to wish Bernie could win some how.

[Kidlicious]

I don't think people realize how many people will vote for Trump to StopHillary. Trump didn't get where he's at in a vacuum. Don't just blame Trump supporters for the state of this country. No one should ever be a leading candidate if they have done any of the following

1). Told a lie involving bullets flying over her head.
2). Purposefully put their spouse in the hospital.
3). Blamed accusations of sexual harassment on a vast right wing conspiracy.
4). Kept state secrets on an unsecured server.

[Elok]

It's kind of baffling, really, the articles I keep seeing shared on FB. "Well, Hillary's looking like a loser for various reasons, while Sanders is consistently polling ahead of Trump. Maybe . . . um . . . the Democrats can appoint some totally different guy, one who isn't even running at present, to be their nominee at the convention? The Bernie guys, having finally shouted down one candidate for the status quo, are sure to accept some other candidate for the status quo, provided he shoves Elizabeth Warren in the VP slot to appease them."

I can see why the WSJ et al would find that an appealing solution, but not why they believe Sanders supporters would settle for such a blatant sop, nor why it would be wise for the DNC to undermine an otherwise pretty good chance of averting the Trumpocalypse.

[Ming]

The Dems are kind of in a tough spot. While Trump probably can't win, Hillary seems to be the best candidate for him to do so.