Gary -
I agree that in the sense of the stakes being *very very* high, this is
not a game. But winning the contest IS about strategy and tactics as
much (or more) than it is about representing the will and interests of
the citizenry. And I find that deeply sad. In that sense, our
elections ARE a game, or maybe more aptly, a contest, when they should
be an exercise in discovering "the will of the people".
Marcus -
I think it IS very much about the ideological aspirations of these two
candidates supporters, however. I contend that they (we?) are letting
these two candidates (re)shape our ideologies unnecessarily and
inappropriately. The Man-Child (very apt description) has harnessed
(co-opted?) the righteous anger of "populism" to obtain enough following
to have a significant chance of becoming president(-elect) of the United
States as early as midnight tonight. In the process, he has managed to
inject (uncover?) a strongly fascist/racist/misogynist rhetoric into the
public discourse (and therefore thought?).
Hillary is less disturbing (to me, though clearly not to the many who
have been frothing at the mouth about her) in qualitative as well as
quantitative ways. But that doesn't mean she and the machine behind
her are not ALSO manipulating the public discourse in unhealthy ways.
Gary and Jill (and the others) may be irrelevant in the sense that
neither has a chance of "winning the contest", but I would claim that
yet another presumed irrelevant (Bernie Sanders) HAS significantly
shaped the discussion and possibly the shape of Hillary's platform and
possibly even policy once in office. I also believe that they are
reshaping the field itself. Jill has been promoting ranked choice
voting for months now... THAT is a significant change to the playing
field and one that I claim will help our elections more accurately
reflect "the will of the people" rather than distort and manipulate it.
Scarier than Brexit? Definitely to ME, but not so much to my young
friends and colleagues from the UK and the EU whose future was abruptly
redirected significantly by that decision. In at least one notable (in
my life) case, that historic decision has bitterly pitted children
against their parents. Anecdotally, that is widespread. At least THAT
decision doesn't seem to be as final as our own presidential elections.
My point about holding this moment to be a very special one is that the
ambiguity of this moment allows me (us?) to seriously consider things
that will become entirely moot tomorrow. If (when) Hillary sweeps, many
of us will heave a sigh of relief and begin to try to release the
cortisol in our systems and *forget* the spectre of a
bigoted/misogynistic/fascist (world D) America. Today, I get to continue
to ask myself honestly relevant rather than merely speculative or
academic questions about "what would it be like to live in world D?"
Tomorrow that will just become a bad taste in my mouth (or the taste of
my own foot in my mouth?)
Perhaps we are all deer in the headlights... I choose to stare into them
with deliberate awareness rather than in mere stark fear. I *trust* I
am standing in the correct lane to not be smeared across the grille...
for what it is worth, I DID get smeared across the grille in 2000 and 2004.
Perhaps I should go back and watch the PK Dick inspired series "Man in
the High Castle" again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle_(TV_series)
- Steve
On 11/8/16 3:25 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
Well put. This is not a game.
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com
<mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
"The fact that world H and world D are such closely adjacent
possibles is what I am savoring (in the sense of morbid
fascination) for roughly the next 24-36 hours. "
To first order, this isn't about the ideological aspirations of
one candidate vs. the other (or the completely irrelevant
others). It's about choosing between a person who can and has
managed in relevant circumstances, and a man-child that obviously
needs to be managed and who obviously draws-from and amplifies the
worst in people, has many indicators of an authoritarian
personality, and is a likely target for blackmail and manipulation
by foreign powers. The potential upside of this non-contest is
that a thinker and policy wonk may sneak through as the winner by
default. Even stranger is that it would be historic -- and
somehow that is almost a footnote. The whole thing is surreal and
even scarier than Brexit.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
<http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
