I watched a populist leader rise in my country. That's why I'm genuinely worried for America. - The Washington Post:
"halting elected post-truthers in countries split by partisan fighting is much more difficult than achieving freedom where it is desired by virtually everyone."
Haraszti makes several recommendations to those hoping to limit the damage Trump will do to the Constitution. The entire article is worth reading. Here are a few segments that stood out for me.
His first lesson, based on the Hungarian experience and one that he considers vital, is not to expect logic, fiascos,
or existing statutes to help keep things under control.
"Populists govern by swapping issues, as opposed to resolving them. Purposeful randomness, constant ambush, relentless slaloming and red herrings dropped all around are the new normal. Their favorite means of communication is provoking conflict. They do not mind being hated. Their two basic postures of “defending” and “triumphing” are impossible to perform without picking enemies."
Labeling
If you want to open eyes to the damage done, Haraszti hints that labeling is important. For example, don't say "conflicts of interest". That's a weak phrase unlikely to trigger an emotional response. "Conflicts of interest" are just a special case of "corruption", and "corruption" is a better, stronger label.
Protect Those Who Oppose Corruption
"It probably helps to be as watchful as possible on corruption, to assist investigative journalism at any price, and to defend the institutions that enforce transparency and justice. And it also helps to have leaders in the opposition who are not only impeccably clean in pecuniary matters, but also impress as such."
There will probably be blood. Look what happens to
investigative journalists in Russia. Look at before and after photos of Ukraine's
Viktor Yushchenko. "At any price" is not a cliche.
Beliefs Trump Reason, Always
I know from experience that some who recognized Trump as a danger, but who still voted for him, are already rationalizing vigorously. They see his pre-inaugural behavior, and his cabinet picks. And they respond that their other choices would have been just as bad – that, "we would have been screwed either way". They see his conflicts of interest, and they respond by pointing to quotes, taken out of context, from the Benghazi hearings.
The belief that we are screwed no matter what will be hard to dislodge. Until it is, these voters will not perceive leaders in the opposition as providing a real alternative to the evil emperor, and they won't be moved to join the popular majority who voted against him in the first place.
I don't know how to persuade them.
Putting Benghazi quotes in context may help.
Admitting the imperfections of the opposition may hinder at first, but it may also tell rationalizers you respect their reasoning and intellect. And that may make them more willing to consider that the opposition leaders
are better in significant ways, that perhaps we
aren't screwed no matter what.
It will take time to understand how to persuade apathetic rationalizers. But
I think it is necessary to do so.
In any case, thanks to Haraszti for giving us the benefit of relevant experience.
