Remix.run Logo
benreesman 4 days ago

The decline in what we expect of our leaders has been going on my entire life and the contrast between 20 years ago and the present is stark.

In 1998 Meriwether and the rest of LTCM nearly crashed the economy, needed the Fed to get involved, and they were personally ruined, guy never opened a ten thousand dollar bottle of wine again and probably never had anything again. Shortly thereafter, Jeff Skilling took out offices in 9 cities and pension plans all over the country with shady accounting. 24 years in prison (reduced later to 14). Ebbers/Worldcom 2002: died in prison.

By 2008? Zero prosecutions. Bonuses the next year.

Around the same time Clinton got caught lying about chasing (consenting and of age) skirt in the Office: nearly ended his presidency, definitely ended his policy agenda, real consequences and he caught a shooting star to avoid far worse. The public was not going to accept it, Congress was not going to let it slide on either side of the aisle. Today? Something like that barely makes the press. You have to be accused of sex trafficking to even get an investigation started and everyone will probably walk.

The idea that this became uniquely bad in January, or even 2016 is demonstrably untrue. At some time in the last 30 years we started accepting leadership who are dishonest, nakedly self-interested, lie without consequences, enrich themselves via extraction rather than value creation, collude with no oversight, and sell out the public.

This is a completely bipartisan consensus on these norms. Speaking for myself, I think Trump represents a new low, but not by much, he's just the next increment in what history will probably call the Altman Era if his ascent to arbitrary power on zero substance continues on it's current trajectory.

ffsm8 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's not even centered on the US. I personally think the Internet just desensitized us all.

Reasons for that are easy to come up, imo chief among them being web2.0 (social media) and the ever increasing degree with which people exaggerate everything just to get a reaction.

Under that context, what's a little skirt chasing compared to what people usually say about the politicians? And how are you gonna remember he did something a few months ago, when so many more extreme things have happened since?

Really, I feel like social media will be considered the most destructive force to society in 20-50 yrs

usefulcat 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

30 years ago in the US, there were a handful of major TV news outlets, and most people got their news from one of those and/or a newspaper, of which there were also a limited number.

The thing about those sources is that for the most part, it wasn't really economically viable to alienate half the population by leaning hard right or left. Any reduction in audience would likely translate to a commensurate reduction in advertising revenue.

Today, there are many, many sources of 'news' available in various forms around the internet, and of course people are free to choose what to pay attention to. This means it's entirely feasible for each source to cater to a particular viewpoint, even at the expense of definitely alienating half or more of the theoretical potential audience.

I theorize that the reason for this is that people have voted with their feet, balanced sources aren't as profitable and that's why there are fewer of them. It makes sense, a more balanced take on events is by definition not nearly as sensational, and almost always requires more mental effort on the part of the listener.

That by itself would probably be enough to explain the current situation, but on top of that, we also have the fact that many people receive the above mentioned information via algorithms designed to feed them more of what they already like (i.e. agree with) and nothing else, which of course only amplifies the effect further.

I have no idea how we get out of this situation (or if in fact we will), but in my mind it's not surprising at all.

panopticon 4 days ago | parent [-]

The cracks in the media were already visible 30 years ago. Conservative talk radio was taking off, people were beginning to call CNN "Clinton News Network", and Fox News was right around the corner. There was clearly an appetite—and a market—for partisan news. This was further fueled by the growth of national radio and TV networks that were less beholden to capturing local audiences.

I think the internet just supercharged a change that was already well underway.

tstrimple 4 days ago | parent [-]

Agreed. And Democrats were fucking stupid and decided to just ignore all of the systems Republicans were putting into place over decades. There are multiple conservative think tanks who approve supreme court nominations and spearhead Republican policy. They have been working on it for decades. It's unfortunate that the only political party in this country which can look to the future an make long term plans is the one most likely to follow the Nazi party into the history books.

Nevermark 4 days ago | parent [-]

Unfortunately, the policies you get from any party that is disciplined over decades in putting long term power plays ahead of good governance is ... more long term power plays.

I usually can think of at least a few plausible/possible solutions to most problems. But I am not at all sure what the Democrat's right response should have been.

However, a severe lack of legal tolerance for businesses that use technology to super-scale poisonous conflicts of interest, like surveillance backed ads and media feeds algorithmically manipulated for addiction/attention behavior would have been part of it.

Zuck should have been put away for life a few accidental genocides ago. (IMHO)

Henchman21 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s almost like the correct action to take would be a Luddite-style wrench-in-the-works. Sabotage in service of humanity. And as an added bonus, think of all the electricity we’d get back!

johntarter 4 days ago | parent [-]

Bring on the Bureau of Sabotage from Frank Herbert's ConSentiency universe books!

Henchman21 4 days ago | parent [-]

I will settle for a Butlerian Jihad to destroy the "thinking machines"

eli_gottlieb 4 days ago | parent [-]

So we can all be forced into a feudal caste system and become mortally dependent on eugenically-bred drugged-up subcastes?

Henchman21 4 days ago | parent [-]

The survival of the species demands it.

Volker-E 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed by all, but one: In 0 years.

avhception 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's like watching the public discourse devolve into ever more screaming and posturing. The only winning move is not to play.

Sometimes I find myself thinking about that experiment with the perfect rat paradise. The overpopulation got so bad, the normal social functions of the rats started to break down and the rats started acting like sociopaths. Sometimes, I think that's what we're doing to ourselves by exposing the average human to millions of voices through the internet.

Of course, ironically, I'm ignoring my own advice and still engage with the Internet. Though I mostly keep to HN and some IRC.

NavinF 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The mouse utopia experiment is mostly fake and researchers who reproduced the experiment didn't see any of those behaviors: https://gwern.net/mouse-utopia

It was just as wrong as predictions about human overpopulation like Malthusianism

avhception 4 days ago | parent [-]

Oh thanks, I didn't know that! TIL!

heavyset_go 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/q4k07...

XorNot 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But you're doing more then that: even in what you call a crisis you are refusing to engage with specific issues, resorting still to generalities and calls about "both sides".

Like there are any number of extremely specific issues which are not "screaming and posturing" unless you're dead set on not talking about them.

avhception 4 days ago | parent [-]

Huh? "Both" sides? I didn't even think about any sides, much less specifically two of them. My comment wasn't even necessarily about online discussions concerning politics. It was just as much about, for example, the way people show off their fake-successful influencer-lifestyle or something like that. The ways that social media causes bad feelings like jealousy, for example.

rossjudson 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We populate our corporate leadership with non-founders so highly compensated that actually succeeding does not matter to them. They've already "won" at the game, and they spend a lot of time posturing with respect to each other. They set the membership criteria for the "club", reinforce each others' positions, and use the ability to bestow membership to manipulate the political system away from regulating or taxing them.

In other words, I completely agree.

daymanstep 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The rot has been going on for a lot more than 30 years. Try 70 years more like. LBJ openly cheated on his wife Lady Bird while he was in office and he never suffered any consequences for it. Eisenhower was the last good president.

Henchman21 4 days ago | parent [-]

Not Carter?

eli_gottlieb 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Around the same time Clinton got caught lying about chasing (consenting and of age) skirt in the Office: nearly ended his presidency, definitely ended his policy agenda, real consequences and he caught a shooting star to avoid far worse. The public was not going to accept it, Congress was not going to let it slide on either side of the aisle. Today? Something like that barely makes the press. You have to be accused of sex trafficking to even get an investigation started and everyone will probably walk.

The same President Clinton, with the same Congress, repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and thereby effectively legalized much of the next 26 years of corporate malfeasance, starting with much of what enabled the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. And when they did this, it was popular and politically nonthreatening.

We got what we voted for.

kevin_thibedeau 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You have to be accused of sex trafficking

The child sex ring that was uncovered in 2008 resulted in ludicrously light consequences and then after a repeat offense in 2019 was systematically ignored until now.

drdec 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Around the same time Clinton got caught lying about chasing (consenting and of age) skirt in the Office: nearly ended his presidency, definitely ended his policy agenda, real consequences and he caught a shooting star to avoid far worse. The public was not going to accept it, Congress was not going to let it slide on either side of the aisle. Today? Something like that barely makes the press. You have to be accused of sex trafficking to even get an investigation started and everyone will probably walk.

I don't think Al Franken would agree with this

kevin_thibedeau 4 days ago | parent [-]

That was an inside maneuver by Schumer to push him out because Franken was too principled to toe the line on the party hypocrisy.

wat10000 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I blame Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

They heavily pushed the idea that the opposition could not have legitimacy. Gingrich did it through the exercise of power and Limbaugh did it on the airwaves. It wasn’t just that the opposition was wrong or bad for the country, standard democracy stuff, but that the opposition had no right to hold power at all. Once you start thinking that legitimacy is based on which side you’re on rather than who you are or what you do, you won’t care about bad leadership as long as it’s yours.

kevin_thibedeau 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Falwell and Reed were the genesis of modern conservative disgruntlement rooted in tribal identity. Limbaugh and Gingrich used that as fuel for deconstructing civil administration after the '94 regime change.

kelnos 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Couldn't agree more. And we see the continuation of this stuff today in Trumpist assertions that the 2020 election was rigged, simply because there's "no way" that Biden could have won over Trump.

Trump's entire rhetoric relies on this tactic. Anyone who disagrees with him or tries to shut him down should be impeached, jailed, whatever, because they shouldn't be allowed to exercise their power against him, no matter how legally they wield it.

It just makes me so angry to hear Vance say things like "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power". Yes, they are! That's literally one of their jobs, specifically enumerated in the constitution! But that's the tactic: train people to believe that the judicial branch is not legitimate when it comes to executive branch decisions.