General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis is a shock event (and I think the election was too)
Read this carefully:
From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
"I don't like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event."
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like.
I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it."
If you want to share this, copy it and paste it. Don't share.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)
enough
(13,256 posts)frankieallen
(583 posts)he was going to do this, because in his mind, terrorists would quickly get into the country before it went into affect. I am really not that worried about this executive order, it's a best grand standing, it's temporary for the most part, 90 days i think, and most of it will be shot down by the courts. It does expose Trump for what he is, so in a way he's helping the resistance to strengthen.
Trump was not shy during the election telling people what he planned to do, banning Muslims from the 7 countries, mass deportations of the undocumented, ect, and he was elected anyway.
What does that tell you about the electorate?
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)
yardwork
(61,588 posts)Reading her essay, I'm taking to heart her suggestion that we reorganize along new lines.
Mainstream corporate Republicans don't like things that interfere with business. We can reach them in that issue. If you know any Republicans, approach them that way. Ask them how Trump's actions are good for business. They may start to wake up.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)#resist
Cha
(297,137 posts)It was shocking.. mission accomplished.
Did they ever expect so many people to respond by going to the airports and protesting their shocks?
And, Judge Donnelly? This is war.
And, the stupid blotus gets on twitter and shows off what an incompetent bloody buffoon he is.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)
0rganism
(23,940 posts)once the hunters start to discover that they have interests in common with the environmentalists
