Bi-Weekly Discussion - Trump & Post-Truth Politics
Details
We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, not too far from our summer meeting spot in Washington Square Park. The cafe is near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.
Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.
The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 1 block west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.
----------------------------------------------------------
TRUMP, POLITICAL RHETORIC & POST-TRUTH POLITICS
In this discussion, we'll look at the intersection of political rhetoric, media coverage of politics, and "tribal epistemology" - the tendency for people to evaluate & interpret the information based not on conformity to objective standards of evidence, but on whether it supports the tribe's values and goals. Terms like "truthiness" and "post-truth politics" have risen to prominence over the last 12 years or so, signifying a breakdown in Americans' common understanding of the political world, and the pundit-sphere's concerns over this appears to have risen to new heights during the 2016 presidential race and the first year of Donald Trump's presidency.
While this discussion will mostly focus on conflicting perceptions of politics, I don't want us to assume an entirely subjective, postmodernist view where there is no underlying reality. Rather, we should acknowledge that sifting truth from falsehood and weighing the costs & benefits of policies are difficult but not impossible. As usual for this meetup, I'll suggest that we consider the expert consensus so that we ground our discussion in terms of what's probably the smartest approach, while allowing for the possibility that the experts could be wrong...
In terms of economic policy, Trump's trade protectionism & anti-immigration policies (esp. cuts to H1-B visas) look deeply misguided to the vast majority of economists, although their views on some of the proposed tax reforms & cuts to low-skill immigration are more mixed, although still leaning towards disagreement. You can see this from the relevant poll results at the IGM Experts Panel (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel).
In terms of foreign policy, Trump's mixture of "America First" isolationism, unilateralism, and saber-rattling isn't viewed positively by the majority of IR scholars. You can see this from the polls results at TRIP Snap Poll on the 2016 election (https://trip.wm.edu/charts/#/questions/42). More recently, it appears that many IR experts are worried about Trump's decertifying the Iran nuclear deal (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/13/trump-has-an-iran-strategy-but-it-might-be-too-tough-to-pull-off/) and his escalating rhetoric with North Korea. (https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/20/16340392/trump-north-korea-unga-totally-destroy-speech) However, it also appears that most IR experts approved of Trump's strike on Syria's airbase (https://www.ft.com/content/38642df0-1baf-11e7-a266-12672483791a) after a chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of civilians back in April, and the defeat of ISIS (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/23/what-the-end-of-isis-means/) got him some grudging approval, even if Trump didn't significantly alter Obama's strategy. Foreign Policy magazine has a list of some other issues (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/28/what-trump-got-right-about-foreign-policy/) where Trump has been "directionally correct" but doesn't appear to have appreciated the subtleties & strategy enough to accomplish anything.
In terms of domestic policy, polls of political scientists indicate that most of them tend to see Trump's administration as more dysfunctional & chaotic than authoritarian. Most of them think that our checks & balances, institutional inertia & public opposition have helped keep Trump's strongman instincts from significantly undermining the foundations of democracy. However, they also see growing political polarization and a skepticism towards basic democratic principles among many Americans, and this has them concerned. Check out the latest survey from Bright Line Watch (http://brightlinewatch.org/blw-survey-wave3/) & a recent Vox article (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16414338/trump-democracy-authoritarianism) on the survey results for more on that.
I can't find polls of constitutional lawyers on Trump, but in general what I've read indicates that prominent jurists appear to agree with the political scientists and don't think that any of Trump's actions so far qualify as a "constitutional crisis." However, they're wary of his contribution to a longer-term erosion of our political norms (http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-reckless-unconventional-behavior-inviting-constitutional-crisis-642524) that could spark a crisis in the near future. Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch to SCOTUS and a slew of conservative judges to the federal judiciary (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/donald-trump-is-doing-one-thing-well-appointing-lifetime-judges/) are viewed as one of his few accomplishments that's underreported but will have long-term effects, although whether this is good or bad depends a lot on one's political leanings. Keep in mind, though, that even if you disagree with these judges' conservative values they are not raving populists but rather normal, well-educated professionals, and their net effect could probably be compared to Reagan's court appointments (http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/10968).
We'll save an in-depth discussion of Trump's policies for another day, but I want the expert consensus of Trump's policies & actions to provide a reality check for those who might want to argue that Trump is either a savior of the white working class or a dangerous crypto-fascist that will destroy America.
The videos you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of the debates surrounding Trump's rhetoric, debates over how to correctly interpret Trump's actions, and the broader issue of "post-truth politics". As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just read the numbered videos linked under each section - this should take about 59 minutes total to get through. I know that's a lot, and if you can't watch all of the videos, don't worry - just watch as much as you can. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.
In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the 5 topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section. I've listed questions under each section which we'll do our best to address.
NOTE: If you're interested, this discussion will be preceded by a related 2-hour discussion for "Skeptics in the Pub" on the question of whether the Democratic or Republican base is worse in terms of denying science, endorsing conspiracy theories, voting against their own interests, and in terms of possessing negative personality traits like psychoticism, neuroticism & authoritarianism. To check out the outline & RSVP, go here:
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/241726423/
----------------------------------------------------------
I. THE "GOLDWATER RULE" & RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF TRUMP'S SPEECHES: IS IT OK FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS TO DIAGNOSE TRUMP FROM A DISTANCE? DO TRUMP'S WORDS GIVE US INSIGHT INTO HIS ACTUAL THOUGHT PROCESSES & OVERALL COMPETENCE (OR LACK THEREOF) OR IS IT MOSTLY AN ACT? HOW DO TRUMP'S SIMPLE DICTION & IDIOSYNCRATIC SPEAKING PATTERNS COMPARE TO PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS? WHY IS TRUMP'S SPEAKING STYLE PERSUASIVE FOR MANY PEOPLE?
1a) Jennifer Sclafani, "This linguist studied the way Trump speaks for two years. Here's what she learned" (video - 4:20 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpxCl8ylJgE
1b) Fusion, "What happened to the way Trump talks?" (video - 4:55 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPOLJFPeoOk
- The Neurocritic, "Using Discourse Analysis to Assess Cognitive Decline" (article)
http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2017/02/using-discourse-analysis-to-assess.html
- Christie Aschwanden, "‘Diagnosing’ Trump Is More About Politics Than Mental Health " (article)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/diagnosing-trump-is-more-about-politics-than-mental-health/
- Derek Thompson, "Presidential Speeches Were Once College-Level Rhetoric—Now They're for Sixth-Graders - Are the presidents dumbing down? Or are their speechwriters smartening up?" (article)
- Katy Waldman, "Trump’s Tower of Babble. It may sound like gibberish, but there’s an accidental brilliance to Trump’s style of speech" (article)
II . APPLYING OCCAM'S RAZOR & HANLON'S RAZOR TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: WHEN WE'RE ASSESSING ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION OR WRONGDOING, SHOULD WE ASSUME THAT THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS MOST LIKELY TO BE CORRECT? WILL THAT LEAD US TO ASSUME "COCK-UP BEFORE CONSPIRACY"? SHOULD WE APPLY THE SAME INTERPRETIVE HEURISTICS WE USE ON TRUMP TO OTHER POLITICIANS - AND IF SO, WHAT DOES IT SUGGEST ABOUT CORRUPTION IN BOTH PARTIES?
2a) Jimmy Dore w/ Dylan Ratigan, "Occam's Razor: Both Parties Are Massively Corrupt" (video - 5:13 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqy6AvXwCZM
2b) Stephan Cox w/ David Roberts, "Trump and Theory of Mind" (podcast - 25:22 min, listen til 12:18)
https://soundcloud.com/thinkoutsidethebeltway/totb-welcomes-voxs-david-roberts
- David Roberts, "Trump isn’t an evil genius. And that’s not what matters anyway." (article)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14442190/trump-is-no-evil-genius
- Leonid Bershidsky, "Simpler Explanations Are Usually Correct. Even on Russia. Recent revelations have simple, credible explanations that are overshadowed by conspiracy theories and hype." (article)
- Nate Silver, "The Media Needs To Stop Rationalizing President Trump’s Behavior. His outburst on Hurricane Maria and Puerto Rico shows that not everything is a clever ploy to rally his base." (article)
- Tyler Dahnke, "Left’s Gold Star Attacks On Trump Administration Suspend Good Faith And Common Sense. The supposition that President Trump or John Kelly offended a grieving soldier's widow on purpose isn't just unfair, it's highly illogical." (article)
- The Meme Policeman, "Are Republicans More Corrupt Than Democrats?" (article)
http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/
III. "TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME": WHY DO WE SEE CONFLICTING PORTRAYALS OF TRUMP AS BOTH "LITERALLY HITLER" & AN INCOMPETENT BUFFOON? DOES THE MEDIA FOCUS TOO MUCH ON TRUMP'S TWEETS & GAFFES RATHER THAN MORE SERIOUS MATTERS? ARE WE WITNESSING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS "DERANGEMENT SYNDROMES" UNDER BUSH & OBAMA WHERE A HOSTILE MEDIA PORTRAYS EVEN FAIRLY NORMAL ACTIONS AS UNPRECEDENTED & DISASTROUS? HOW DOES THIS TIE INTO THE POLARIZATION OF MEDIA COVERAGE & THE GROWING PARTISAN DIVIDE IN PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL RATINGS?
3a) Dave Rubin w/ Scott Adams, "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (video - 30:40 min, listen til 6:47)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_idhCca2XM
3b) Fareed Zakaria, "Is 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' Real?" (video - 4:36 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIWdwII07wc
-
Conor Friedersdorf, "The 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' Dodge. Beware trusting pundits who exploit the least defensible critiques of the president to avoid acknowledging his most dangerous flaws" (article)
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/the-trump-derangement-syndrome-dodge/527154/ -
Danielle Kurtzleben, "Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents" (article)
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage-of-trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents -
Nate Silver, et al., "Does The Media Cover Trump Too Much? Too Harshly? Too Narrowly?" (article)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-the-media-cover-trump-too-much-too-harshly-too-narrowly/
-
Philip Bump, "The partisan split in presidential approval overlaps with the split along racial lines" (article)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/14/the-partisan-split-in-presidential-approval-overlaps-with-the-split-along-racial-lines/?utm_term=.80c03e5d7438 -
Dara Lind, "One year into the Trump era, it’s time to recalibrate your anxieties. You’re not the protagonist of a dystopian novel just because you disagree with the administration" (article)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/8/16617444/resistance-trump-stress-white
IV. POLITICAL FACT-CHECKING IN THE AGE OF "ALTERNATIVE FACTS": WHICH IS MORE INFORMATIVE - A FACT-CHECKER'S RATING OF A STATEMENT OR THEIR EXPLANATION FOR THE RATING? CAN FACT-CHECKING SITES GIVES US AN ACCURATE INDICATION OF WHICH PARTY LIES MORE BY AGGREGATING RATINGS? DOES TRUMP APPEAR TO BE AN OUTLIER IN TERMS OF LYING & FACTUAL MISTAKES? ARE FACT-CHECKERS RELATIVELY UNBIASED OR JUST ANOTHER PARTISAN ECHO CHAMBER?
4a) Cenk Uygur, "Who Lies More - Republicans or Democrats?" (video - 5:09 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJon7iFzt9o
4b) Matthew Vadum, "Where Is The Fact Checking? How Politifact and Others Have Failed Us" (video - 4:55 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMI4ttg8_jw
- Elspeth Reeve, "Why Fact-Checkers Find More GOP Lies. PolitiFact rated Republican claims to be 'false' or 'pants on fire' three times more often than it rated Democratic claims that way this year, according to a new study. So: Does the GOP lie more? Is PolitiFact biased? Or do GOP liars — like fact-checking 'dream' Michele Bachmann — get more attention?" (article)
- Alexios Mantzarlis, "Can fact-checkers agree on what is true? New study doesn't point to the answer" (article)
https://www.poynter.org/news/can-fact-checkers-agree-what-true-new-study-doesnt-point-answer
- David A. Graham, "Why Fact-Checking Doesn't Faze Trump Fans. The president’s backers aren’t impervious to reality: Confronted with untruths, they concede he was wrong, but don’t waver in their support for him." (article)
- Matt Shapiro, "Running The Data On PolitiFact Shows Bias Against Conservatives" (article)
http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/
- Matt Shapiro, "How PolitiFact Slants Its Truth Ratings Against Republicans [But Treats Trump Like A Democrat]" (article)
http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/29/politifact-slants-truth-ratings-republicans/
V. TRUMP AS "BULLSHITTER" AND "MASTER PERSUADER": IS TRUMP'S USE OF HYPERBOLE & FRANKFURTIAN "BULLSHIT" WORSE THAN OTHER POLITICIANS' USE OF EVASIONS & EQUIVOCATIONS? SHOULD WE "TAKE TRUMP SERIOUSLY BUT NOT LITERALLY" & FOCUS MORE ON HIS DIRECTION THAN THE SPECIFICS? IS SCOTT ADAMS RIGHT THAT TRUMP PLAYS A MODERATING ROLE IN THE GOP BY "PACING & LEADING" THEIR POPULIST VOTERS TOWARDS THE CENTER? IS SCOTT ADAMS' NARROW FOCUS ON TRUMP'S RHETORICAL EFFECTIVENESS "MORAL NIHILISM" OR JUST REALISM?
5a) Harry Frankfurt, "On Bullshit and Donald Trump" (video - 5:50 min.)
https://kottke.org/16/06/on-bullshit-and-donald-trump
5b) Sam Harris w/ Scott Adams, "Is Donald Trump Persuasive?" (podcast excerpt - 5:02 min.)
-
Ben Yagoda, "Literally, Seriously?" (article) https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2016/11/16/literally-seriously/
-
Matt Yglesias, "The Bullshitter-in-Chief - Donald Trump’s disregard for the truth is something more sinister than ordinary lying" (article)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15631710/trump-bullshit -
Jake Orthwein, "Scott Adams, Donald Trump, and the Ethics of Persuasion" (article)
http://quillette.com/2017/08/13/scott-adams-donald-trump-ethics-persuasion/
Bi-Weekly Discussion - Trump & Post-Truth Politics