The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It | Hacker News Reader

The Immigration Ban Is a Headfake, and We’re Falling for It

medium.com

37 pointsjkw17 comments

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13525405

Some of the things Trump has said are scarily effective. The Mexico wall being a great example.

He turned the debate to who will pay for the wall. The argument about whether there should be a wall or not became a mute point. The slight of hand is impressive.

He plays the part of an idiot, but he is anything but.

Just to let you know for the future, it’s a “moot point” and “sleight of hand”. (Unless that’s intentional and I’m not getting it.)

no, the wonders of autocorrect on the new and not improved Android gesture typing. Thanks! :)

This is Bannon's strategy, not Trumps. I don't think he is playing a part.

Trump did this before Bannon ever came on.

This is a conspiracy theory on the level of the birth certificate myth.

- Nothing in the administration's actions, or the individual actors' history would lead an observer to the conclusion that they're capable of executing a complex and coordinated plan. One example is the press release for Holocaust Memorial Day: it was probably an amateur mistake not to specifically mention jews. But they're now defending that as intentional, repeating it, and getting critiqued in the harshest possible terms even by right-wing zionist groups. There is no universe in which a dictatorial Trump would not profit from the support of jews in the US and Israel.

- This "theory" could also apply to almost any policy initiative whose legality is questionable.

- The idea that it's a staged event to distract from a reshuffling of the National Security Council is laughable. Nobody (unfortunately) cares about him braking a tradition of keeping the national security side, and the partisan political side of the White House somewhat separate. That's because the majority of people already think everything in government is party politics – the idea of professionals acting with motives beyond Breitbart and HuffPost is laughed at[0]

Don't fall for this stuff:

- It's easily attacked, and you lose credibility

- Protests are actually more effective than you might think. Even the widely-mocked Occupy has made the 1% vs 99% narrative pervasive in political discussions, probably laying the foundation for Sanders' success. Neither the Arab spring nor the Ukrainian revolution, or the protests leading to German reunification had the power to topple regimes willing to use violence, but they did (not saying that they all ended well, only that they had the power the effect change)

- This administration is terrible under pressure, see that Holocaust thing above. Continuing protests will create more and more visible failures. His approval ratings are already down, meaning that his voters do react to his failures. The business world, who started out trying to remain neutral, is now almost universally opposed. The bureaucracy is encouraged to sabotage him, leak, refuse, or simply walk away with all the expertise he needs.

- If the current level of backlash is sustained, Trump will not be president in half a year. He is desperate for approval (c. f. inauguration crowd) and will just walk away.

0: examples if you're skeptical: Roberts voting for Obamacare, or possibly the State departments "dissent memos", if it could be shown that there are people signing both the current one as well as the one criticising Obama on Syria)

I don't see how the protesters hurt the situation. And I don't see how paying for newspapers helps it. I think that the protesters actually are a good thing. Protesters have caused revolutions before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

And if everyone is out of work protesting, and the protesters, using the shear weight of their bodymass, were able to surround the airports and not let anyone in or out, or surround the whitehouse (I'm sure there are tunnels, but running away doesn't look good). Then a protest, even a peaceful one, can be a very effective weapon.

I think this article was written as a justification for the writer's own inaction more than anything else. Protesting the Muslim ban doesn't mean we can't also challenge changes to the National Security Council. Working together on one issue makes us more aware of other issues, and any victory provides momentum toward further victories.

By probing the extent of his power he might end up in a position vulnerable to impeachment.

this is the second time I see this strategy described. first time a few days ago on scott adam's blog: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156532225711/the-persuasion-fil....

TL;DR trump is not an idiot, he's a very accomplished persuader, he's written a book about how he persuades, he does what he described in it in front of everybody without even trying to hide it and it still works exactly as he wants it to.

The way he lied about it raining during his speech to the CIA seemed almost like a way of sending a message - "See how well I lie? I can get away with anything."

Not quite a "headfake" but indeed it is all about testing our response. This is called Lean Fascism: http://blog.koehntopp.info/index.php/255-lean-fascism/ - "Political positions are no longer backed by theory and no longer subject to political discourse and societal control. They are simply being implemented, sometimes even purposefully badly crafted, in order to measure societal reaction"

This has been going on in the US for a very long time. This is nothing new. Nothing Trump is doing is new or that different. It's just when the policies are applied State side people are like oh my God. When the policies are applied to other people or other countries, it's like oh yeah business as usual. George W. Bush destroyed at least one stable country, like completely destroyed it, and ruined the relatively stable lives of millions of people all in the name of saving them from a bad dictator. Obama killed scores of innocent people. But that's business as usual. It was a matter of time until your chickens come home to roost.

And it this point there is little that can be done about what Trump's going to do. Too little, too late as were. If people were more passionate before about actually defending human rights of all people, then maybe we would not be here.

So, where does a general strike or an economic boycott fit in, being more disruptive than protests and all?

Like an old colleague of mine said: If you're in doubt whether someone is a complete idiot, or a super sophisticated genius, it's probably the first one.

I think we make the mistake of underestimating Trump because we are accustomed to rating intelligence on a linear scale. We look at only one dimension of it.

Could Trump learn calculus and do well on a math test? I highly doubt it. I doubt he understands half the words he reads in the New York Times.

But is he intelligent in his cunning - is he masterful at persuasion and does he possess a deep intuitive understanding for power dynamics? Does he understand how words make people _feel_? All evidence points to yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com