The idea that Russia has the power to decide the outcome of American elections seems strange to me. I do not follow politics, but I listen to news channels from time to time. I got the impression that "Russia hunting" is part of the campaign against all those whose discourse is not in accordance with the narrative of the "free world". A young commentator informed us that "we" cannot tolerate discourses which "divide us and make us weaker". Hence, "we" must defend ourselves from such discourses. (And Russia produces such discourses.) This is how all totalitarian regimes speak. Have "we" developed such a regime, or at least such social psychology?
Dear Mario,
I think the same about "if Russia has the power to decide american elections" and I believe you are right on your impressions. In my opinion, Russia has been just a "name" to be said by a group against another one in an internal battle for the power. In internal battles between right and left that are both using any opportunity to have the attention of the target public. Not more than that. Just political arguments at populists acts.
Christian,
you say: "... this depends on how many votes are required to be changed. In the worst case, a single vote may decide an election."
Every "single vote" counts, but much more than "a single vote" is needed for a victory. You may win with one vote more (than your competitor), but this does not make any specific vote more important than others.
Many factors have "some influence on the public discourse" in the US and elsewhere, so that I do not think that there is any particular reason (beyond internal politics) to point at any particular state in the case of the US elections. Some British politicians have probably had a larger influence than several Russian messages.
Anyway, I am not a lover of politics; I wrote this question because I got tired of this saga, which still dominates on global news channels which I watch (sometimes), especially on the BBC.
Christian,
"America is used to influence public affairs of foreign states, not vice versa." - Correct. - "It is a new experience for US citizens. That's why they are alarmed about it." - I am not sure whether *citizens* are alarmed, or the information (manipulation) industry simply produces a drama, because this is how this industry functions. There is no discourse without a drama, conflict, scandal, natural disasters, and so forth. There is no "normal discourse" (about anything) in the media any more.
By a "normal discourse" I mean a discourse in which *the art (beauty) of discourse* is more important than the *content* of the discourse. For me, the greatest masters of the art of discourse are Plato and Nietzsche. I do not appreciate much the content of their narratives, but each of them is a supreme master of the art of narration.
I graduated computer science and I still earn my bread teaching computer networks and computer programming. I tried to become a professional philosophers (I taught logic at the department of philosophy), but I returned to the department of informatics because I was disappointed with the "scholastic atmosphere" at the department of philosophy. Karl Popper, a professional philosopher, used to criticize his professional colleagues even more severely than I do.
So, I love the "beauty of discourse", and there is no such thing in the media any more; there is only intrusive noise and erratic images. Nothing is "normal" by itself, but the media discourse is getting more and more irritating to me. I am getting older and more critical, and the media are getting ever worse.
Hello Gentlemen,
Russia having influence has already affected those who need another god to follow. Americans are gullible, and don't leave out greedy. We rely on an electoral college and say every vote counts. Not!
The Arts are a Beauty, but mentioning all culture does not help socio-psychology.
By the "art (beauty) of discourse" I do not intend a "polite" discourse, but a clear and well-argued discourse about any issue. There are virtually no such discourses on the news television channels any more. There is alway a background noise or music, even in news bulletins. And the content is always shalow and manipulative ("misinfotainment"). The aim of public discourse is not to inform, but to *form* a mood, attitude and behaviour.
"No country should interfere into the issues of other countries."
Correct; but that is what all countries have allways done, depending on their power and aims.
I agree with Mario. I also think that if it does not exist a good idea which would unite society, then it is not unusual that the idea of a common enemy will be used.
Russia does not have the power to make Americans vote a certain way. Russians may have influenced some Americans to vote for Trump rather than Hillary by putting money into attack ads and hacking endeavors. But that influence can be freely resisted by Americans. I certainly didn't vote for Trump!
To think that Russia can control American politics is to buy into a totalitarian metanarrative which plays some sort of a psychological role for its stakeholders. I'm not exactly sure what that role is, as I'm not a psychologist.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Social Psychology