Distrust and skepticism are required for keeping society humming or progressing. However, for example, if Project 2025 wants to abolish the department of education, and the plan for replacing it is "who cares?", I'll be instead listening to someone else's ideas for improving our education system. I'm not going to absolve America or the world writ large of personal responsibility for their wilful idiocy, but there has been a coordinated effort to undermine the legitimacy and the trust we place in the institutions that got us to our zenith. The people most heavily funding extremist disinformation campaigns doing said undermining are billionaires, and all while they're building off-the-grid doomsday bunkers. They know they're destroying society. I guess they delight in it or something, I can't really figure that part out, it's related to the classic "does becoming a billionaire fundamentally corrupt almost everyone?" or "is becoming a billionaire selecting for sociopathic psychos?" chick-egg question. edit: and yeah, like 'bl00 mentions, obviously the close messaging alignment of one party with Russia is, um, illustrative.
Two-class societies are stable and easily controlled. Doesn't have to be capitalist; communists on strike are dead communists just as much as capitalists on strike are dead capitalists. Three-class societies with mobility are a threat to the upper class because they tend to lose their position. The average hang-time within wealth and privilege in an egalitarian, democratic society is three generations - Grandpa made it big, Pop spent it, Junior works for a living. The average hang-time within wealth and privilege in a two-class society is Rothschild.
I'm talking about much smaller things than that. For example, overestimating the chances of harm from an MMR vaccine vs. underestimating the harm from texting while driving. Or never letting your kids go to the park by themselves vs. virtually unfettered access to digital devices. There's a whole mixed up world perceived vs. real harms. Maybe KB is correct that we've always been bad at risk assessment, but my sense is that the way in which were bad at his has morphed into something that looks like the tragedy of the commons on steroids. Certainly in that environment it's a lot easier for bad actors to exploit people's fears for whatever gain they get out of it. But also a lot of leadership in this country has scored some nasty own goals since the pandemic that are inexcusable. There's a good line in a thing I posted this morning about suicides in the army where a soldier says how fucked up it is that the army preaches sacrificing the individual for the collective but then still fails the collective. I'm not into making predictions, but one I'm fairly certain of is that we're going to continue to experience a leadership gap for at least another 4 years and change.
Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational" would be a great read for you. Humans suck at abstraction, full stop, and our impressions of risk are shaped very much by societal expectations. Ariely points out that the most dangerous thing in modern life is stairs, and has been for 5,000 years. But since we have no alternative to stairs, we accept the risk of stairs and assign it to zero. We're 30 years into computers, which is nothing from an evolutionary perspective. We're 20 years into social media. Kids at the park by themselves? We're 30 years into America's Most Wanted and the ABC Sunday Night Movie. Both are more than 10 years gone, though, so the backlash is well-advanced. My kid stays home alone for hours at a time and when I mention this to fellow parents they're all at "whew, ours too" because while they know they'll be judged, they also know that fuckin' hell an eleven year old can manage on her own with an iPad for a couple hours fer chrissake. I think we're starting to see the turn on social media, too. A dreary percentage of this country wants serfs. A much bigger percentage wants to be serfs. Turns out they're all white.
Well yeah, people latch on to hyper-specific manifestations of a broadly anti-science mis/disinfo campaign, often when it's personally convenient, but apparently very much so also when it's politically normalized. Not even "normalized" so much as required, nowadays, for MAGA. As for e.g. texting while driving, shit's ripe for PSAs. edit: here's a good one. Since I first heard about the electric universe cranks, back in the day on physforum (deleted, became physorg.com, I even had the same username) like 15 years ago, they have been largely hijacked by the climate change deniers. Largely, they didn't use to tie in climate change or anything else, that happened later. And that's how it goes; mostly-harmless armchair dummies coaxed into supporting dangerous right-wing politics. Seen it so many times that it's a cliché now. I keep hearing distant chants of "Whitmire" louder than other competing voices. You've probably given your take previously, has it changed at all in the interim?leadership gap
As in , do I think Whitmer would be a better candidate than Biden? I mean, I think marshmallows taste better than an old shoe. But I also think that an old shoe is what's for dinner, and that beats the shit out of cyanide. Whitmer will be a candidate in 2028, but I think it's engaging in wishful thinking to think there isn't a 98% chance Biden is the candidate, with a 2% chance that Harris is should Biden suffer some sort of medical emergency. I don't have the slightest clue how you'd dump her. Whitmer is great, and has done a very good job as the chief executive of my fair state, but we don't live at the end of the rainbow.
Oh no, it is a 100% chance that Biden is this year's dem party candidate. Whitmer*, yes, sorry, I have Houston's mayor on my mind, I guess. Biden's health will be fine through the election, I guess because he's a maybe-somewhat-benign sociopath or something, I'd be dead by now from the stress, but I wouldn't be too surprised if he steps down within a year or two if he wins.. and manages to stay in the white house.