A Republican winning the presidential popular vote by 15 points is a laughable assertion on its face. I will leave the rest of your comment to speak for itself.
I recently came across a post by an activist group bemoaning that Derek Chauvin was being kept in solitary in prison, which apparently constituted privileged treatment in their eyes. Their point was, still no justice!!!
And I’m like, seriously? First, cops in jail are always kept separate from everyone else because being shanked is not part of their sentencing. Second, what more do they want done to Chauvin for it to be “justice”? Put him in a hair shirt then let him be murdered in prison? He was found guilty on all counts. That’s the most justice that can be given in our system.
I also heard a lot of negative commentary about how the prosecutor said “this is not an anti police case” or something along those lines (i watched the whole trial but i can’t remember the exact quote). And again, it’s NOT. Chauvin is not a proxy for American policing. He was an individual man on trial for the murder of another individual man. The fact that he was found guilty could be built upon because it offers a toe hold against egregious police crimes. But it’s not going to be built upon if we’re complaining that the prosecutor didn’t prosecute all of American policing, or that Chauvin isn’t being publicly stoned to death.
You are so right, Freddie. It seems that huge swaths of liberals/SJWs are so fixated on the panic and outrage that they aren’t taking the small victories when they come and building on them. To use a popular term, it’s trauma these folks want to *live* in, rather than do the work of dealing with it and moving forward.
The bewildering thing to me is that the overwhelming response of liberals to Trump has just been scolding. I admit that Trump's victory was a complete shock because I live in a liberal bubble, but my response was that was realizing I had been living in a bubble so I sought out explanations for what had happened. That response probably explains a lot of people in major cities that ended up joining DSA or Bernie's 2020 run, but unfortunately that's not the majority. The majority still, after a full Trump term, seem to think that reciting the right platitudes and denouncing the right things is how we prevent this all from happening again. The idea seems to be that during Obama we didn't scold enough? That's why his two terms led us to Trump?
I had roughly the same experience, and I've actually been scared of some of the responses I've heard from left-leaning friends.
I was explaining why I'd been reading many contemporary (primarily black and Hispanic!) conservative thinkers' writings about the current era and why they supported Trump, saying that we needed to understand where they were coming from and why they believed what they believed if we were to convince them that our ideas were better. The response I got was literally, "We've been trying to convince them, it doesn't work! It's never worked!"
To which I could only stare. If you've given up on trying to convert your political enemies, either you're giving up (which they haven't), or...you're advocating something that sure as hell isn't liberal democracy. And they can't see how far they've slipped from the values they purport to hold.
The D party establishment is full of sell outs that are full of shit and have been throwing working class people under the bus for 50 years.
The R party establishment is full of sell outs that are full of shit and have been throwing working class people under the bus for 50 years.
Both of those facts have been increasingly true for decades as extremists and radicals on the far left and far right continue to expand their influence via hysteria and toxic ideology because the national unity myth is dis-integrating.
Western civilization emerged because of high-social-trust, transcending the older honor systems ("saving face", "thar", clannish politics) of the rest of the world.
Globalization and postmodernism (social fragmentation and atomization) have caused high-social-trust to fail.
Radical extremism and ideological tribalism on both the far left and far right are symptoms of the failure of the modern nation state system and high-social-trust. They accomplish nothing.
Excellent piece. I despise the Orange One too, but I'm equally disheartened by what he's done to many of my fellow liberals. Just nonstop freakouts. I watched helplessly as one hobbyist space after another became consumed by woke yelling. I quit Twitter in 2018, and I felt so alienated, like I was one of the bad guys for questioning this mentality, that I started seeing a therapist to work through my worsening depression.
Now that Trump is gone, most of my Facebook feed has calmed down. But there's still a few stragglers who won't shut up about him. It's almost like they miss him, and they miss the fight. They can yell at Ted Cruz or Majorie Taylor Greene, but it's not the same. They want the hard shit, not a vape substitute.
As for me, I'm like "No. Fuck this. I won't live my life in constant fear." So I've gotten more apolitical lately as a result of burnout. Sorry, but I'm sick and tired of politics being wedged into every area of life.
You've hit some of the nails right on their heads: the record of the Bush administration, the emotional tone of many Democrats focussing on inside-DC outrages, etc. Nevertheless I think you've missed something very big in dismissing the "this is not normal" reaction. You write "Marxism asserts the preeminence of fundamental economic structures in the flow of history" as if that suffices to lay the basis of your argument. Instead it sounds eerily like Ernst Thaelmann in 1933, saying that ultimately victory would be assured because people work in factories.
History need not follow grand schema, particularly ones emerging from the miasma of idealist German philosophy. The future of our species can be decided by a quantum fluctuation in a $0.47 chip in a nuclear attack detection system.
The key problem with the liberal reaction is not so much that they exaggerate the possible looming catastrophes but that they fail to focus on the politically practical ways out. As you say, we need to focus on shared economic interests and not on splintering identities.
Nonetheless, let's look at deep causes. Are there any markers of something deep being "not normal"? Yes- declining life expectancy due to deaths of despair among less-educated whites, a huge proportion of the population. By "not normal" I mean that there are really no other recent effects like this in any major population worldwide, except in Russia after the fall of the USSR. A huge fraction of the population seems to be subjectively experiencing a collapse of their world of that type. It would be surprising if that did not result in political phenomena that were very "not normal".
The liberal sense that something is way off may turn out to capture what's important better than simple projection of the first 3 years Trump years onto a short-term consequences axis.
"I mean that there are really no other recent effects like this in any major population worldwide, except in Russia after the fall of the USSR."
That's because the same thing is happening in both place, albeit at different speeds: a collapsing empire's treasury is being raided by neoliberal oligarchs, while the rest of population suffers for it and yet does nothing, because they're too afraid of losing what little they still have (i.e. their lives) to go up against the might of the empire's internal security apparatuses.
re: traditionalism erodes, is displaced by postmodern relativism
Postmodern social conditions (globalization, network effects), the ultimate cause of the problems under discussion, was indeed caused by the post-WW2 shift from a productive economy (factory and farming) to a suburban consumer economy.
Techno-economic changes led to cultural changes.
In that sense, Marx, Freddie and social science (Gerhard Lenski) are correct.
The irony here is that capitalism is the answer, not the problem. Bezos, Wall Street, the CIA are NOT capitalism but oligarchy. Socialism would pour fuel on this fire and lock them into complete rule, which is what you see in all socialist countries; a tyrannical state in league with an elite class that do their bidding. AOC would bring about oligarchy on steriods, although I guess we would all get crappy schools and sub-par healthcare, while the elites got their own tier of services. Equity and all.
We need something more like Denmark, an extemely capitalist state with strong anti-trust and and a strong safety net for all. The irony here being, the populist Republicans are better set to do this, especially now that the clown car of Trump is gone. (I say this as a liberal woman married to a Dane having spent a fair amount of time there.)
Here's what makes Denmark work along with which US party is most likely to implement. Please note than when I say (R) I mean populist R and not the neocon Romneys and McCains who are virtually indistinguishable from Clinton, Obama types.
1. Strong borders and strict immigration enforcement. (R)
2. High barriers to benefits without work; ie welfare work requirements (they will train you to work but work is a requirement for benefits for all but the most disabled). (R)
3. Very nearly a flat tax.. all but the poorest pay taxes. (R)
4. A low corporate tax rate. (R)
5). A heavy reliance on oil extraction for financial security. (R)
6) Support of small business and entrepreneurism rather than corporate control. (shifting to R)
7) Cultural homogeneity (you can be any color or gender you want but you are required to speak Danish and follow Danish culture to live in Denmark.) (R)
8) Highly religiously tolerant. (D - but the hatred of all things Christian no matter how positive and the love of all things Muslim no matter how abhorrant means they are losing ground here.)
9) High personal taxation. (D)
10) High amounts of government transparency and local control over tax allocation. (R)
Trump was the wrong person to lead this populist uprising, but there is a reason he gained minority votes across the middle class. The Scandavian model looks a lot more like what Republicans are evolving into. The populist left would cement the worst aspects of our current system of oligarchy into place despite their best intentions in my opinion.
Thank you for that Freddie, you’re helping me understand why I liked Trump so much. Trump’s affect was the key ingredient. It drove the liberals insane and his supporters reveled in their derangement.
The commentator George Will criticized Trump in a thoughtful column. Trump responded by saying people only think he’s smart because he wears glasses. That’s it! That captures it, that’s what the hat was all about. It was that simple.
Trump was a hero to a certain type of person like me. He was a hero to people who think the elite were self-serving, greedy and endlessly self-righteous. The elite use their education as a cudgel for beating up the working class. They believe it’s a meritocracy and they are deserving of their fate and we are deserving of our fate. Such nasty little pricks and then along comes the bloviating Trump monster. It was hilarious: colon hydrotherapy.
I use the past tense because Trump is an old man (5 years?) and is not really the issue. The working class will need a new champion and the elite are committed to ensuring it never happens again: the rabble were roused. Underneath Trump hate is distain for the working class, the uneducated. Trump: “I love the uneducated “. The elite are vicious, righteous, true believers.
Anger, resentment, envy. That is what you are defending here? All of your woes are due to the elite, huh? You voted and supported someone just because it drove liberals insane? Never mind his policies; that was irrelevant. I'm sorry but I have no respect for this position. Tell me: what policies did he put in place that benefited you? How has he made your life better? Did you even expect him to? I may not agree with Sanders, but I can well see how people would believe in him and support him. But this position --just stick it to the liberals -- just seems juvenile to me and I don't understand how you are defending it.
1. Government policy has almost zero effect on the day to day lives of the hoi polloi.
2. Any federal administration is constrained to "govern from 40 to 60". Extremism of any sort when you're actually in power is simply not possible. Trump's rhetoric may have been extreme but his actual governance?
This is back to the argument that nothing SO bad happened on his watch, which is backwards to me. We're lucky nothing SO bad happened. He was held back from extremism by the constraints of our government -- this is your defense of him? But you're missing my point to RJF. There are reasons people voted for Trump, reasons I can respect. My brother, who describes himself as right-of-center voted for Trump in 2020 b/c he thought the liberals had gone nuts and that Biden wouldn't be able to withstand a party deep into critical race theory and promoting maximum spending. I don't agree with my brother, but I can understand his reasoning. But just "stick it to the liberals" is not a reason I can respect.
If government policy actually has little impact on the day to day lives of ordinary citizens then what is the motive behind voting? Cultural issues, and that is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today. You may not like it but survey after survey has found that what really motivates political partisans is their dislike for the other side.
the effect on the day-to-day life of millions of people (mostly factory workers, but also middle class office workers and family farmers) whose jobs were off-shored should be obvious.
2. "bad middle eastern wars"
such wars had more than zero effect on the working class people in the military
3. "criminals/illegals swarming over the border"
millions of working class people lost earning power as a result of the 10s of millions of illegal, low wage immigrants that came to the USA in the last 25-40 years.
---
As far as how effective Trump was on those specific policy topics:
1. not very effective, but he shifted the debate about the evils of neoliberalism in the center toward populism.
the extremists and radicals on the cultural-left were NEVER going to change their mind, and in fact have doubled down on the anti-working class and anti-white rhetoric, as expected.
2. Trump made it a LOT harder for people on the "right" to openly embrace neocon war mongering.
Did that change the increasingly bizarre stuff going on inside the military-industrial-complex? Not that I can tell, there is increasingly rampant corruption and dysfunction, and the MIC is now openly embracing the violent totalitarianism of radicals on the cultural-left.
3. Sorta. Trump sent the only message to the illiterate, diseased peasants and the cartels and human traffickers in latin america that they will understand: brutal repercussions for illegal immigration. Trump did benefit from being able to invoke COVID to "shut down" the border.
Kamala Harris has now begun to use a watered-down version of Trump's "don't come here" rhetoric. lol
"Anger, resentment, envy. That is what you are defending here? All of your woes are due to the elite, huh?"
Anger, resentment, and envy are personally destructive. Individuals who let go of such emotions are far healthier and usually more moral than those who cling to them. In my own life, I strive to free myself of anger, resentment, and envy. I even find myself emotionally repelled by people who feel the need to point out (correctly) that anger can be a justified response to evil.
Nonetheless, I'm disturbed by the way mainstream left-liberal rhetoric has increasingly framed itself in opposition to anger, resentment, and envy—especially resentment. Indeed, this trend, along with the rise of resentment- and grievance-talk from people like Tucker Carlson, represents a troubling reversal of traditional left-right discourse.
Traditionally, the right stood for elite interests and smug satisfaction with class- and education-based hierarchies, while the left stood for suspicion and, yes, resentment of elites and elite interests. In Nietzschean terms, the right represented "master values," while the left served as a voice for the "slave morality" of "ressentiment." Despite the right’s appeal to "Christian values," it was the left that embodied the resentful cry of Luke 1:52-53: "He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty."
I'm satisfied with my life and don't resent those who are better off, and I do my best not to harbor genuine ill-will toward those I regard as arrogant or oppressors. However, I see it as the left's historic calling to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted," as the saying goes, and to view wealth and "the elite" with suspicion. This populist spirit must animate any left worthy of the name. Accusations of "envy" and "resentment" have been the right's traditional weapons against this populist spirit, and there's simply no denying that very real resentment has often been the driving force behind left-populist movements.
Therefore, I just can't get on board with the current anti-resentment rhetorical bandwagon. At best, it's a distraction from the left's historic calling. At worst, it signals a fundamental realignment of American politics, in which people like me will have to make a morally impossible choice between an economically populist but socially reactionary "right" and a socially liberal elitism that does not deserve the name "left."
Sure. Again --Bernie Sanders - makes sense. Fought for the working class his whole life. I don't think his brand of socialism is best for the country, but I can respect those who do. But how is Trump the champion of the working class? A NY millionaire -- the epitome of the elites. So yeah - when I see someone like RJF promote Trump just b/c he was entertaining, not caring about policy or making lives better, I lose respect. I can emotionally understand it and I agree that those on the left better pay attention. But we're having a reasonably intellectual dialogue here about Trump and this is what he comes up with. Disappointing.
don't think Trump supporters have the same definition of "epitome of the elites" you do.
I remember during the Republican primary they attacked Trump for being a business failure without realizing that was his selling point to his supporters. Why do you think Trump himself spends so much time talking about his business failures as a casino owner?
When Trump supporters talk the elite, they are not talking about how much money you have, or even if that money was inherited. The elite for them are life long politicians who never fail because their connection to government guarantees they will still win even after their decisions blow up the entire economy and everyone but them loses as they did in 2008.
Trump is part of his own rigged system and I'm no fan, but it's a rigged system his supporters can tolerate since they know in their bones life is not fair. It's a rigged system where he did not earn it, but he could lose everything as he did. When his supporters talk about "the epitome of the elite," they mean the Bush's and the Clinton's. The "heads I win, tails you lose" elite who never bet with their own money, never lose even when their choices means everyone but them loses as happened in 2008. People who send the children of other people to death in wars their own children will never participate in.
You're the person Steve Bannon believes and hopes exists; willing to abandon social causes for false claims of economic populism, which the right-wing blathers on about but does nothing about. DeSantis and Hawley and Cotton, won't raise the minimum wage, but they will talk about economic populism and then have fun gutting civil rights protections under the guise of religious freedom. And you are anxious to join them.
First of all, I voted for Biden, for Pete's sake. Second, how does my post indicate that I'm "anxious to join them"? I explicitly said that, even if the Bannon-esque political realignment were real (I agree with you that it has, at least so far, been fake), I would find it "morally impossible" to choose between an economically populist but socially reactionary right and a socially liberal but elitist faux-left.
Nailed it! Guilty as charged, juvenile pleasure galore, I found Trump delicious. His rallies were comic genius. The man absconded with the US presidency : the greatest political feat ever.
Obama was the only other politician that held rallies worth watching: soaring rhetoric, beautiful delivery and an Olympian presence. Our Canadian pols are pathetic, not a one worth listening to, tired cliches and careful choreography.
I’m not envious. I think they, the ruling class have a finger on the scale, steal many unfair advantages and then congratulate themselves for being successful all the while dismissing others as having been beaten fair and square. Trump lambasted them and I loved ever bit of it. That said Trump is sui generis, old and not long for this world. The people who like me found solace in Trump will remain - half of America.
Sorry, as a Canadian it’s really not my place to pontificate on America.
It's unclear to me whether this guy is a sincere Trump supporter, an deliberate parody of one, or a particularly intelligent and thoughtful troll. Whatever the truth may be, the post articulates something very real about our current political reality--and something that any mainstream liberals who still consider themselves supporters of the poor and the working class really ought to keep in mind and reflect upon. Of course, none of this means that Trump was a good person or a good thing for the country.
Yeah, the post certainly seems to have struck a cord here. I hope that people are liking the post because it nicely articulates the cultural forces that contributed to Trumpism (and legitimate frustrations with elitist attitudes) and not because the likers share the commenter's support for Trump.
As for my suggestion that the post is insincere: I guess my time observing internet culture has made me cynical.
Sincere Trump supporter, but I would like to be the troll as well. I love using Trump to upset people. He is a pretty horrible person and it is dubious whether his presidency did anything to help the people who supported him. In fact it’s unlikely he helped them but he did say they matter. People like that.
Politicians exploit voters by pandering to their stupidity and weaknesses.
As others have pointed out, Trump was honest about his dishonesty. His narrative was so powerful (the elites in both parties have been throwing working class people under the bus for 50 years) that he didn't need to be correct on very many facts, especially the ones used by the cultural-left to support their narrative (everything is a construct, white people are evil, everyone else is a victim, and so forth).
One of the facts that he was correct about is that most of the people on the cultural-left are horrible sell-outs. The further up the food chain on the cultural-left, the worse the problem is. Overt as well as pervasive intellectual fraud and dishonesty, Tammany Hall style corruption, etc.
Yes I agree with you the elite use their education to ridicule the uneducated white working class in a deeply dishonest way - meritocracy - “ it’s your own fault buddy, you’re a loser I’m a winner”
Trump being so often wrong was strangely helpful; he trounced them with his lack of knowledge. His affect was hilarious and I think his supporters said - “ WTF, this guy stands up for us , they speak down to us.”
He loved the uneducated because they can’t see behind his ridiculously thin veil: HE IS THE ELITE.
And considering he captured my grandparents’ vote —my grandparents, who have cared for their now 63-year-old quadriplegic son with cerebral palsy for his entire life—even after he publicly mocked a disabled reporter while everyone laughed. Well, that’s just sick. If there’s an infection we need to discuss it’s whatever resides within half this country that makes the desire to openly deride others to a chorus of laughter the reason to vote for a candidate.
I share a lot of Freddie’s views on liberals and SJWs. But I also don’t get the idea of farther left people holding their nose to vote for Hillary or to vote for Biden. You have to acknowledge that there IS another half to the country, or you’re not going to get the margin from the middle to win governance.
Meh – he's rich but also the butt of _decades_ of jokes (by other 'elites').
'Eliteness' isn't a measure of standing in a single (or simple) hierarchy – at least not in the U.S.. Trump's 'eliteness' is pretty complicated – and interesting to think about!
Don't you think you're being a little generous to call it "group therapy?" I thought that was supposed to help people be better, not make them want to be worse.
You are too smart to buy the Marxist claptrap. Read "From Marx to Mises" by Steele and see what you think.
I don't have any solution to what you call "capitalism," and its problems are real; but if there's anything that's clear, it's that Marxism and communism bring us from unpleasant dream to nightmare.
Great post. I once polled my millennial friends on the "worst president" in their lifetimes, and a vast majority said Trump with only a couple choosing Bush or Reagan. For the first 3 years, especially, this made no sense for all the reasons you stated -- Bush and Reagan both have staggering body counts on their hands, while Trump was too disinterested in the world to start wars.
When covid-19 happened, I thought, holy shit, he's starting to live up to his reputation -- letting people die from neglect, actively encouraging his supporters to reject masks and precautions. Now his supporters refuse to be vaccinated. Our pandemic body count didn't have to be this high. But I suppose you have to compare it to a counterfactual world where President Hillary Clinton was in charge, with a Congress desperate for her to fail and Republicans ignoring her advice out of spite. Deaths might not have been much lower. She wouldn't have hung hospitals out to dry, though. She would have tried.
Bush and Reagan have more blood on their hands, to be sure, but I can forgive people for histrionics after living through 2020... or I would if they cared about senseless deaths more than crass Tweets, Russia, and January 6th.
In terms of per capita deaths and infections from Covid the US is completely unremarkable when compared to its peers in the cohort of Western industrialized nations. Maybe Trump didn't do a great job with Covid but neither did the UK, Italy, France, Ireland, Belgium, etc.
Europe was weeks ahead of us in the pandemic. We had the resources and the lead time to do better, and we've consistently had more deaths per capita than the EU and more than twice the deaths per capita in Canada.
But even aside from comparisons, look at how Trump handled the pandemic. He didn't even try for basic coordination and leadership, and he actively made it worse by promoting irresponsible behavior.
UK, Croatia, Italy, Belgium, Czechia all have more deaths per capita than US, and Spain, France, Portugal, Romania are basically tied with the US (~1700). Germany is somewhat lower, I guess?
also America was overtesting using 40 PCR cycles (hence overcounting deaths), excess deaths show that U.S. is a bit under EU but we won't really know until the end of 2022, when we see how flu season does
Oh man, that tweet linking to Snyder. I think it was Corey Robin who made a tweet listing all the times over and over that Snyder made apocalyptic claims about Trump, like every year predicting that THIS will be the year that Trump does a Reichstag Fire to permanently seize power. Trying to remember if he then had to do some absurd mental gymnastics to try to explain away how/why Trump never actually used the emergencies that actually did happen like COVID to take control.
Honestly, the catastrophization is based on something real, an understanding that this system just doesn't work, and it's probably not going to be solved. It's just borne of a certain optimism about the system of government the US was formed with- that if you just elected someone, it would change the fundamental dysfunction the US constitution. Unfortunately, it's not the case. Combined, especially, with an economic system dominated by capital, it's doomed to fail. It's nice to see, for example, some of the constituencies in the Democratic coalition realizing the structural disadvantages they have in the US system, but I don't think that's going to be common enough to really make changes.
For example, the extolling of the power of state governments is interesting because the economic forces are well beyond the power of any one to control. The Governor of West Virginia and its legislature are simply not capable of making any kind of meaningful change for the people of the state, even if they were actually inclined toward it. But somehow, this is considered in the system equal to say, California. There's this ideal that it reflects local issues, but once again, many states have complex, diverse electorates inside them and pretty much all of the big, nationally influential state governments rule over so many different constituencies.
Of course some of the poorest of the country are going to not have the same reverence for the US constitution that the "glorious middle class" does. It was not made to give the poor representation, anything they have is almost by accident. It guarantees them almost nothing. Instead it pits rural against urban through the geographical disadvantages given to the urban populations.
Also, the FPTP and winner-take-all electoral systems run heavily against trying to do something with a new party. There's not really a way to win a little and build up, you have to do it all at once and everything in this country runs against that.
Yep. The fundamental issue at play here is the sense amongst all average people that the United States is broken and can no longer accomplish anything constructive. We can certainly bomb the shit out of other countries but aside from that? Nada. We don't have a functioning national legislature and thus we cannot solve problems democratically, which is part of the reason why the Republican Party is radicalizing against democracy.
Trump is a sideshow, not the real issue. People responded to him because he's funny and entertaining, not because he actually contains any useful ideas for how to govern the country. He's horrifying, but whatever. He didn't do a tenth of the damage to this country (at least in concrete terms) that GWB did, and anyone under the age of 30 has been convinced he's a kindly old grandpa making bad paintings in his retirement.
Gridlock is a perfectly natural outcome for a country that is evenly divided fifty - fifty. In fact if one side were able to advance an agenda as though they had an actual majority that would be acutely undemocratic.
This country isn't evenly divided 50-50. The popular vote was quite different but the senate remains 50-50 with a veto for any party with at least 41 votes. This country was decided as an acutely undemocratic nation, disenfranchising those in many states. It is not a system that works for anyone except a vaucus culture warrior.
Who are these people? Holy cow, I don't know anyone under 30 who thinks Bush is super cool. I don't know anyone of any age who thinks Bush is cool. Where are you seeing this? Is it from people in the media? Who buys Bush's paintings?
I'm not a sociologist or anything, but I have multiple friends in their mid-to-late-20s (I'm 40) who basically have no conception of GWB other than "he was the president when I was in grade school and he seems pleasant."
When someone says "Trump is the worst President in American history" I find I can safely ignore everything else they have to say about politics or history or America. It reveals either a lack of knowledge or morality.
Trump was a coup d’état through other means. He absconded with the US presidency. The power structure, the ruling class freaked out. They were certain they were just in there cause - stop Trump at all cost. Trump’s incompetence and unfitness for the job reinforced their certainty. The elite see Trump supporters as ignorant bigots. Two Americas, alike in hatred.
The liberal rehabilitation of George Bush is absolutely infuriating. I grew up during the Bush years and remember the politics of the era very well. Liberals have no moral ground to stand on if they elect to forgive and ignore such an objectively worse president, in really every way. The only thing that Bush didn't do was be mean online, and that's the REAL, deep seated reason that Trump drove liberals insane- he was directly mean to them. Trump knocked over their block tower in political daycare. Liberals have a cheap adherence to tiny rules that they love enforcing, Trump bucked the trend.
Could the characterization of Republicans as 'monsters' be counterproductive here? In American terms, Trump governed as a moderate, and certainly hewed far closer to neoliberalism than he did to populism. (I know you're not defending neoliberalism - quite the opposite - but bear with me.) If this renders someone monstrous then a good 40% of the country is monstrous. And, much as you say that Bush has been rehabilitated... well, I was around then, I remember that he was A Monster then, and seeing how easily A Monster has become A Wise Elder Statesman makes me far less apt to care about monsters in the future. After all, they're everywhere, they're 40% of the country, and there doesn't seem to be a great deal of penalty for being one, at least not after a few years and a dozen headlines have elapsed.
It strikes me as a very self-defeating starting point. There are people on my side of the internet who genuinely believe that "white genocide" is a mainstream Democratic position. Obviously this is a cranky belief, but more than that... well, now what? You believe that 40% of the country wants you dead? Then you've already lost before you've started. You can't overcome that, especially when virtually nobody agrees with you. The same would apply to broad-brush patholigization of ones' opponents. It doesn't lead to action and it makes people throw up their hands in hopelessness.
Aside from that, I loved this article (as a Trump supporter) and I can see so much relevance of it on my own side as well.
Technically, no. The data that Rachel Bitecofer dug up "proved" that Democrats could win elections by *IGNORING* swing voters (independents, centrists) and using extreme hate rhetoric to rile up their far-left base.
All that is only counterproductive if you think that democracy is more important than promoting the hyper toxic totalitarianism that is growing on the cultural-left.
To be clear: the totalitarians on the cultural-left do not want to fix or tweak democracy, they want to destroy as much of western civilization as is necessary for them to take over and impose their form of totalitarianism (cultural marxism).
"Donald Trump will be dead within five years. He has no political heir, and I would argue can have none."
"I demand the right to also point out that the Democrats certainly seem to be failing to do what’s necessary to prevent the next Trump, who will likely have a functioning brain and will thus be far more dangerous."
Don't these two statements conflict? Is there going to be a next Trump or not? Or are you using some definition of "political heir" here that maybe I'm not aware of? For my part, I think it's pretty clear that people like Hawley are indeed positioning themselves as the next Trump, using many of the same tactics Trump used.
Also, I think Democrats are doing things to prevent the next Trump. These include passing laws and trying to get laws passed that would make real life better for millions of people, including the American Jobs Plan, the American Families Plan, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the MORE Act, etc. They're trying to use government to help people, however imperfectly.
The real conflict between the Democrats and Republicans now is based in cultural differences between socioeconomic classes. No amount of jobs legislation can change that and efforts at police reform based on "defund the police" will only enflame passions, not quiet them.
"Defund the police" really seems like a slogan searching for policy. The "hard problem" of law enforcement is that it is guaranteed to attract a certain type of person when the job pitch is "hey, do you want the power to enforce the law selectively?"
This problem won't be solved by non-solutions such as community policing, which would essentially become total vigilante in five second as drug dealers are shot on the street and it just passes the "hey, do you want the power to enforce the law selectively?" buck down the road. The overwhelming majority of the US simply doesn't have a tradition of community policing to build off of and would have to be built from scratch, with rules attached. And while we're at it, why don't we give the community police some uniforms and a place to congregate? Oh wait.
Even the more specific calls for more social workers in leu of policemen won't solve anything. If I run a corner store and I believe that someone is here to harm me or my business, I'm not taking my chances to have a social worker come down and talk it out with the perp. And sending social workers into potentially dangerous situations hardly seems fair. Maybe we should give them training and the means to defend themselves-oh wait.
The whole idea is fraught with difficulties that have only been met with utopian claptrap. The longer "Defund the police" exists as essentially a big nothing burger the more likely people will double down on the status quo instead of embracing total uncertainty.
The elephant in the room is that police are politically partisan right-wingers, but no one wants to acknowledge that, especially people with a desire to increase faith in institutions.
The honest truth of it is that we would probably be better off acknowledging that police organizations can and will be politically partisan in that way and work around that rather than play kayfabe that they're actually totally neutral arbiters of anything. Consider purging the organizations to get a political view that actually reflects the elected local governments rather than letting them run independently.
More cops are republican than democrat, but how much of that is down to republicans writ large supporting police than dems? I don't think it's a hot take for an institution to side with the party that in turn sides with them.
Even when they weren't really a hot button issue of the day, they were partisan right-wingers. I don't think the change in the past 10 years or so has really done more than simply reveal it.
It's only in the modern era that people think that your political affiliation should have anything to do with your job performance as a police officer, a doctor, a computer programmer, or anything else.
why wouldn't political affiliation affect the decisions a cop makes? they have tons and tons of discretion, which means they have political power in their way
Why should it? You are engaged in complete speculation without any evidence whatsoever. Why shouldn't a programmer's orientation affect his facial recognition algorithms?
Yes, police historically are more conservative, but this has been exacerbated by the recent disdain on the left for the police. I have certainly had a mildly distrustful view of police my whole life and am in support of criminal justice reform, but I'm appalled at the current hostility on the left toward the police. And as Lytel says, "Defund the police" is ridiculous. Anyway, I find his articles interesting and informative. And there's no charge. I think he would welcome fresh interest.
A Republican winning the presidential popular vote by 15 points is a laughable assertion on its face. I will leave the rest of your comment to speak for itself.
I recently came across a post by an activist group bemoaning that Derek Chauvin was being kept in solitary in prison, which apparently constituted privileged treatment in their eyes. Their point was, still no justice!!!
And I’m like, seriously? First, cops in jail are always kept separate from everyone else because being shanked is not part of their sentencing. Second, what more do they want done to Chauvin for it to be “justice”? Put him in a hair shirt then let him be murdered in prison? He was found guilty on all counts. That’s the most justice that can be given in our system.
I also heard a lot of negative commentary about how the prosecutor said “this is not an anti police case” or something along those lines (i watched the whole trial but i can’t remember the exact quote). And again, it’s NOT. Chauvin is not a proxy for American policing. He was an individual man on trial for the murder of another individual man. The fact that he was found guilty could be built upon because it offers a toe hold against egregious police crimes. But it’s not going to be built upon if we’re complaining that the prosecutor didn’t prosecute all of American policing, or that Chauvin isn’t being publicly stoned to death.
You are so right, Freddie. It seems that huge swaths of liberals/SJWs are so fixated on the panic and outrage that they aren’t taking the small victories when they come and building on them. To use a popular term, it’s trauma these folks want to *live* in, rather than do the work of dealing with it and moving forward.
The bewildering thing to me is that the overwhelming response of liberals to Trump has just been scolding. I admit that Trump's victory was a complete shock because I live in a liberal bubble, but my response was that was realizing I had been living in a bubble so I sought out explanations for what had happened. That response probably explains a lot of people in major cities that ended up joining DSA or Bernie's 2020 run, but unfortunately that's not the majority. The majority still, after a full Trump term, seem to think that reciting the right platitudes and denouncing the right things is how we prevent this all from happening again. The idea seems to be that during Obama we didn't scold enough? That's why his two terms led us to Trump?
I had roughly the same experience, and I've actually been scared of some of the responses I've heard from left-leaning friends.
I was explaining why I'd been reading many contemporary (primarily black and Hispanic!) conservative thinkers' writings about the current era and why they supported Trump, saying that we needed to understand where they were coming from and why they believed what they believed if we were to convince them that our ideas were better. The response I got was literally, "We've been trying to convince them, it doesn't work! It's never worked!"
To which I could only stare. If you've given up on trying to convert your political enemies, either you're giving up (which they haven't), or...you're advocating something that sure as hell isn't liberal democracy. And they can't see how far they've slipped from the values they purport to hold.
Totalitarians on the cultural-left have been brainwashing people for many decades. I doubt that very many of them will ever recover.
Trump simply said the obvious:
The D party establishment is full of sell outs that are full of shit and have been throwing working class people under the bus for 50 years.
The R party establishment is full of sell outs that are full of shit and have been throwing working class people under the bus for 50 years.
Both of those facts have been increasingly true for decades as extremists and radicals on the far left and far right continue to expand their influence via hysteria and toxic ideology because the national unity myth is dis-integrating.
Western civilization emerged because of high-social-trust, transcending the older honor systems ("saving face", "thar", clannish politics) of the rest of the world.
Globalization and postmodernism (social fragmentation and atomization) have caused high-social-trust to fail.
Radical extremism and ideological tribalism on both the far left and far right are symptoms of the failure of the modern nation state system and high-social-trust. They accomplish nothing.
Excellent piece. I despise the Orange One too, but I'm equally disheartened by what he's done to many of my fellow liberals. Just nonstop freakouts. I watched helplessly as one hobbyist space after another became consumed by woke yelling. I quit Twitter in 2018, and I felt so alienated, like I was one of the bad guys for questioning this mentality, that I started seeing a therapist to work through my worsening depression.
Now that Trump is gone, most of my Facebook feed has calmed down. But there's still a few stragglers who won't shut up about him. It's almost like they miss him, and they miss the fight. They can yell at Ted Cruz or Majorie Taylor Greene, but it's not the same. They want the hard shit, not a vape substitute.
As for me, I'm like "No. Fuck this. I won't live my life in constant fear." So I've gotten more apolitical lately as a result of burnout. Sorry, but I'm sick and tired of politics being wedged into every area of life.
You've hit some of the nails right on their heads: the record of the Bush administration, the emotional tone of many Democrats focussing on inside-DC outrages, etc. Nevertheless I think you've missed something very big in dismissing the "this is not normal" reaction. You write "Marxism asserts the preeminence of fundamental economic structures in the flow of history" as if that suffices to lay the basis of your argument. Instead it sounds eerily like Ernst Thaelmann in 1933, saying that ultimately victory would be assured because people work in factories.
History need not follow grand schema, particularly ones emerging from the miasma of idealist German philosophy. The future of our species can be decided by a quantum fluctuation in a $0.47 chip in a nuclear attack detection system.
The key problem with the liberal reaction is not so much that they exaggerate the possible looming catastrophes but that they fail to focus on the politically practical ways out. As you say, we need to focus on shared economic interests and not on splintering identities.
Nonetheless, let's look at deep causes. Are there any markers of something deep being "not normal"? Yes- declining life expectancy due to deaths of despair among less-educated whites, a huge proportion of the population. By "not normal" I mean that there are really no other recent effects like this in any major population worldwide, except in Russia after the fall of the USSR. A huge fraction of the population seems to be subjectively experiencing a collapse of their world of that type. It would be surprising if that did not result in political phenomena that were very "not normal".
The liberal sense that something is way off may turn out to capture what's important better than simple projection of the first 3 years Trump years onto a short-term consequences axis.
"I mean that there are really no other recent effects like this in any major population worldwide, except in Russia after the fall of the USSR."
That's because the same thing is happening in both place, albeit at different speeds: a collapsing empire's treasury is being raided by neoliberal oligarchs, while the rest of population suffers for it and yet does nothing, because they're too afraid of losing what little they still have (i.e. their lives) to go up against the might of the empire's internal security apparatuses.
re: traditionalism erodes, is displaced by postmodern relativism
Postmodern social conditions (globalization, network effects), the ultimate cause of the problems under discussion, was indeed caused by the post-WW2 shift from a productive economy (factory and farming) to a suburban consumer economy.
Techno-economic changes led to cultural changes.
In that sense, Marx, Freddie and social science (Gerhard Lenski) are correct.
The irony here is that capitalism is the answer, not the problem. Bezos, Wall Street, the CIA are NOT capitalism but oligarchy. Socialism would pour fuel on this fire and lock them into complete rule, which is what you see in all socialist countries; a tyrannical state in league with an elite class that do their bidding. AOC would bring about oligarchy on steriods, although I guess we would all get crappy schools and sub-par healthcare, while the elites got their own tier of services. Equity and all.
We need something more like Denmark, an extemely capitalist state with strong anti-trust and and a strong safety net for all. The irony here being, the populist Republicans are better set to do this, especially now that the clown car of Trump is gone. (I say this as a liberal woman married to a Dane having spent a fair amount of time there.)
Here's what makes Denmark work along with which US party is most likely to implement. Please note than when I say (R) I mean populist R and not the neocon Romneys and McCains who are virtually indistinguishable from Clinton, Obama types.
1. Strong borders and strict immigration enforcement. (R)
2. High barriers to benefits without work; ie welfare work requirements (they will train you to work but work is a requirement for benefits for all but the most disabled). (R)
3. Very nearly a flat tax.. all but the poorest pay taxes. (R)
4. A low corporate tax rate. (R)
5). A heavy reliance on oil extraction for financial security. (R)
6) Support of small business and entrepreneurism rather than corporate control. (shifting to R)
7) Cultural homogeneity (you can be any color or gender you want but you are required to speak Danish and follow Danish culture to live in Denmark.) (R)
8) Highly religiously tolerant. (D - but the hatred of all things Christian no matter how positive and the love of all things Muslim no matter how abhorrant means they are losing ground here.)
9) High personal taxation. (D)
10) High amounts of government transparency and local control over tax allocation. (R)
Trump was the wrong person to lead this populist uprising, but there is a reason he gained minority votes across the middle class. The Scandavian model looks a lot more like what Republicans are evolving into. The populist left would cement the worst aspects of our current system of oligarchy into place despite their best intentions in my opinion.
Thank you for that Freddie, you’re helping me understand why I liked Trump so much. Trump’s affect was the key ingredient. It drove the liberals insane and his supporters reveled in their derangement.
The commentator George Will criticized Trump in a thoughtful column. Trump responded by saying people only think he’s smart because he wears glasses. That’s it! That captures it, that’s what the hat was all about. It was that simple.
Trump was a hero to a certain type of person like me. He was a hero to people who think the elite were self-serving, greedy and endlessly self-righteous. The elite use their education as a cudgel for beating up the working class. They believe it’s a meritocracy and they are deserving of their fate and we are deserving of our fate. Such nasty little pricks and then along comes the bloviating Trump monster. It was hilarious: colon hydrotherapy.
I use the past tense because Trump is an old man (5 years?) and is not really the issue. The working class will need a new champion and the elite are committed to ensuring it never happens again: the rabble were roused. Underneath Trump hate is distain for the working class, the uneducated. Trump: “I love the uneducated “. The elite are vicious, righteous, true believers.
Anger, resentment, envy. That is what you are defending here? All of your woes are due to the elite, huh? You voted and supported someone just because it drove liberals insane? Never mind his policies; that was irrelevant. I'm sorry but I have no respect for this position. Tell me: what policies did he put in place that benefited you? How has he made your life better? Did you even expect him to? I may not agree with Sanders, but I can well see how people would believe in him and support him. But this position --just stick it to the liberals -- just seems juvenile to me and I don't understand how you are defending it.
1. Government policy has almost zero effect on the day to day lives of the hoi polloi.
2. Any federal administration is constrained to "govern from 40 to 60". Extremism of any sort when you're actually in power is simply not possible. Trump's rhetoric may have been extreme but his actual governance?
This is back to the argument that nothing SO bad happened on his watch, which is backwards to me. We're lucky nothing SO bad happened. He was held back from extremism by the constraints of our government -- this is your defense of him? But you're missing my point to RJF. There are reasons people voted for Trump, reasons I can respect. My brother, who describes himself as right-of-center voted for Trump in 2020 b/c he thought the liberals had gone nuts and that Biden wouldn't be able to withstand a party deep into critical race theory and promoting maximum spending. I don't agree with my brother, but I can understand his reasoning. But just "stick it to the liberals" is not a reason I can respect.
If government policy actually has little impact on the day to day lives of ordinary citizens then what is the motive behind voting? Cultural issues, and that is precisely the situation we find ourselves in today. You may not like it but survey after survey has found that what really motivates political partisans is their dislike for the other side.
1. "bad trade deals"
the effect on the day-to-day life of millions of people (mostly factory workers, but also middle class office workers and family farmers) whose jobs were off-shored should be obvious.
2. "bad middle eastern wars"
such wars had more than zero effect on the working class people in the military
3. "criminals/illegals swarming over the border"
millions of working class people lost earning power as a result of the 10s of millions of illegal, low wage immigrants that came to the USA in the last 25-40 years.
---
As far as how effective Trump was on those specific policy topics:
1. not very effective, but he shifted the debate about the evils of neoliberalism in the center toward populism.
the extremists and radicals on the cultural-left were NEVER going to change their mind, and in fact have doubled down on the anti-working class and anti-white rhetoric, as expected.
2. Trump made it a LOT harder for people on the "right" to openly embrace neocon war mongering.
Did that change the increasingly bizarre stuff going on inside the military-industrial-complex? Not that I can tell, there is increasingly rampant corruption and dysfunction, and the MIC is now openly embracing the violent totalitarianism of radicals on the cultural-left.
3. Sorta. Trump sent the only message to the illiterate, diseased peasants and the cartels and human traffickers in latin america that they will understand: brutal repercussions for illegal immigration. Trump did benefit from being able to invoke COVID to "shut down" the border.
Kamala Harris has now begun to use a watered-down version of Trump's "don't come here" rhetoric. lol
"Anger, resentment, envy. That is what you are defending here? All of your woes are due to the elite, huh?"
Anger, resentment, and envy are personally destructive. Individuals who let go of such emotions are far healthier and usually more moral than those who cling to them. In my own life, I strive to free myself of anger, resentment, and envy. I even find myself emotionally repelled by people who feel the need to point out (correctly) that anger can be a justified response to evil.
Nonetheless, I'm disturbed by the way mainstream left-liberal rhetoric has increasingly framed itself in opposition to anger, resentment, and envy—especially resentment. Indeed, this trend, along with the rise of resentment- and grievance-talk from people like Tucker Carlson, represents a troubling reversal of traditional left-right discourse.
Traditionally, the right stood for elite interests and smug satisfaction with class- and education-based hierarchies, while the left stood for suspicion and, yes, resentment of elites and elite interests. In Nietzschean terms, the right represented "master values," while the left served as a voice for the "slave morality" of "ressentiment." Despite the right’s appeal to "Christian values," it was the left that embodied the resentful cry of Luke 1:52-53: "He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty."
I'm satisfied with my life and don't resent those who are better off, and I do my best not to harbor genuine ill-will toward those I regard as arrogant or oppressors. However, I see it as the left's historic calling to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted," as the saying goes, and to view wealth and "the elite" with suspicion. This populist spirit must animate any left worthy of the name. Accusations of "envy" and "resentment" have been the right's traditional weapons against this populist spirit, and there's simply no denying that very real resentment has often been the driving force behind left-populist movements.
Therefore, I just can't get on board with the current anti-resentment rhetorical bandwagon. At best, it's a distraction from the left's historic calling. At worst, it signals a fundamental realignment of American politics, in which people like me will have to make a morally impossible choice between an economically populist but socially reactionary "right" and a socially liberal elitism that does not deserve the name "left."
Sure. Again --Bernie Sanders - makes sense. Fought for the working class his whole life. I don't think his brand of socialism is best for the country, but I can respect those who do. But how is Trump the champion of the working class? A NY millionaire -- the epitome of the elites. So yeah - when I see someone like RJF promote Trump just b/c he was entertaining, not caring about policy or making lives better, I lose respect. I can emotionally understand it and I agree that those on the left better pay attention. But we're having a reasonably intellectual dialogue here about Trump and this is what he comes up with. Disappointing.
don't think Trump supporters have the same definition of "epitome of the elites" you do.
I remember during the Republican primary they attacked Trump for being a business failure without realizing that was his selling point to his supporters. Why do you think Trump himself spends so much time talking about his business failures as a casino owner?
When Trump supporters talk the elite, they are not talking about how much money you have, or even if that money was inherited. The elite for them are life long politicians who never fail because their connection to government guarantees they will still win even after their decisions blow up the entire economy and everyone but them loses as they did in 2008.
Trump is part of his own rigged system and I'm no fan, but it's a rigged system his supporters can tolerate since they know in their bones life is not fair. It's a rigged system where he did not earn it, but he could lose everything as he did. When his supporters talk about "the epitome of the elite," they mean the Bush's and the Clinton's. The "heads I win, tails you lose" elite who never bet with their own money, never lose even when their choices means everyone but them loses as happened in 2008. People who send the children of other people to death in wars their own children will never participate in.
You're the person Steve Bannon believes and hopes exists; willing to abandon social causes for false claims of economic populism, which the right-wing blathers on about but does nothing about. DeSantis and Hawley and Cotton, won't raise the minimum wage, but they will talk about economic populism and then have fun gutting civil rights protections under the guise of religious freedom. And you are anxious to join them.
First of all, I voted for Biden, for Pete's sake. Second, how does my post indicate that I'm "anxious to join them"? I explicitly said that, even if the Bannon-esque political realignment were real (I agree with you that it has, at least so far, been fake), I would find it "morally impossible" to choose between an economically populist but socially reactionary right and a socially liberal but elitist faux-left.
Nailed it! Guilty as charged, juvenile pleasure galore, I found Trump delicious. His rallies were comic genius. The man absconded with the US presidency : the greatest political feat ever.
Obama was the only other politician that held rallies worth watching: soaring rhetoric, beautiful delivery and an Olympian presence. Our Canadian pols are pathetic, not a one worth listening to, tired cliches and careful choreography.
I’m not envious. I think they, the ruling class have a finger on the scale, steal many unfair advantages and then congratulate themselves for being successful all the while dismissing others as having been beaten fair and square. Trump lambasted them and I loved ever bit of it. That said Trump is sui generis, old and not long for this world. The people who like me found solace in Trump will remain - half of America.
Sorry, as a Canadian it’s really not my place to pontificate on America.
"...as a Canadian it’s really not my place to pontificate on America."
I mean, that ship has kinda sailed now, hasn't it?
I’m just acknowledging I’m aware of the trespass
All good, man.
> Sorry, as a Canadian it’s really not my place to pontificate on America.
Nah – as an American, I grant everyone standing to pontificate on America, or anything else, in perpetuity.
It's unclear to me whether this guy is a sincere Trump supporter, an deliberate parody of one, or a particularly intelligent and thoughtful troll. Whatever the truth may be, the post articulates something very real about our current political reality--and something that any mainstream liberals who still consider themselves supporters of the poor and the working class really ought to keep in mind and reflect upon. Of course, none of this means that Trump was a good person or a good thing for the country.
Interesting-- didn't even consider this was anything besides a sincere post. Regardless, it has gotten 14 likes at this point so your point stands.
Yeah, the post certainly seems to have struck a cord here. I hope that people are liking the post because it nicely articulates the cultural forces that contributed to Trumpism (and legitimate frustrations with elitist attitudes) and not because the likers share the commenter's support for Trump.
As for my suggestion that the post is insincere: I guess my time observing internet culture has made me cynical.
Sincere Trump supporter, but I would like to be the troll as well. I love using Trump to upset people. He is a pretty horrible person and it is dubious whether his presidency did anything to help the people who supported him. In fact it’s unlikely he helped them but he did say they matter. People like that.
A universal truth on both the left and right:
Politicians exploit voters by pandering to their stupidity and weaknesses.
As others have pointed out, Trump was honest about his dishonesty. His narrative was so powerful (the elites in both parties have been throwing working class people under the bus for 50 years) that he didn't need to be correct on very many facts, especially the ones used by the cultural-left to support their narrative (everything is a construct, white people are evil, everyone else is a victim, and so forth).
One of the facts that he was correct about is that most of the people on the cultural-left are horrible sell-outs. The further up the food chain on the cultural-left, the worse the problem is. Overt as well as pervasive intellectual fraud and dishonesty, Tammany Hall style corruption, etc.
Yes I agree with you the elite use their education to ridicule the uneducated white working class in a deeply dishonest way - meritocracy - “ it’s your own fault buddy, you’re a loser I’m a winner”
Trump being so often wrong was strangely helpful; he trounced them with his lack of knowledge. His affect was hilarious and I think his supporters said - “ WTF, this guy stands up for us , they speak down to us.”
He loved the uneducated because they can’t see behind his ridiculously thin veil: HE IS THE ELITE.
And considering he captured my grandparents’ vote —my grandparents, who have cared for their now 63-year-old quadriplegic son with cerebral palsy for his entire life—even after he publicly mocked a disabled reporter while everyone laughed. Well, that’s just sick. If there’s an infection we need to discuss it’s whatever resides within half this country that makes the desire to openly deride others to a chorus of laughter the reason to vote for a candidate.
I share a lot of Freddie’s views on liberals and SJWs. But I also don’t get the idea of farther left people holding their nose to vote for Hillary or to vote for Biden. You have to acknowledge that there IS another half to the country, or you’re not going to get the margin from the middle to win governance.
> HE IS THE ELITE
Meh – he's rich but also the butt of _decades_ of jokes (by other 'elites').
'Eliteness' isn't a measure of standing in a single (or simple) hierarchy – at least not in the U.S.. Trump's 'eliteness' is pretty complicated – and interesting to think about!
Don't you think you're being a little generous to call it "group therapy?" I thought that was supposed to help people be better, not make them want to be worse.
You are too smart to buy the Marxist claptrap. Read "From Marx to Mises" by Steele and see what you think.
I don't have any solution to what you call "capitalism," and its problems are real; but if there's anything that's clear, it's that Marxism and communism bring us from unpleasant dream to nightmare.
This made me chuckle. I hope one day you realize why.
Great post. I once polled my millennial friends on the "worst president" in their lifetimes, and a vast majority said Trump with only a couple choosing Bush or Reagan. For the first 3 years, especially, this made no sense for all the reasons you stated -- Bush and Reagan both have staggering body counts on their hands, while Trump was too disinterested in the world to start wars.
When covid-19 happened, I thought, holy shit, he's starting to live up to his reputation -- letting people die from neglect, actively encouraging his supporters to reject masks and precautions. Now his supporters refuse to be vaccinated. Our pandemic body count didn't have to be this high. But I suppose you have to compare it to a counterfactual world where President Hillary Clinton was in charge, with a Congress desperate for her to fail and Republicans ignoring her advice out of spite. Deaths might not have been much lower. She wouldn't have hung hospitals out to dry, though. She would have tried.
Bush and Reagan have more blood on their hands, to be sure, but I can forgive people for histrionics after living through 2020... or I would if they cared about senseless deaths more than crass Tweets, Russia, and January 6th.
In terms of per capita deaths and infections from Covid the US is completely unremarkable when compared to its peers in the cohort of Western industrialized nations. Maybe Trump didn't do a great job with Covid but neither did the UK, Italy, France, Ireland, Belgium, etc.
Europe was weeks ahead of us in the pandemic. We had the resources and the lead time to do better, and we've consistently had more deaths per capita than the EU and more than twice the deaths per capita in Canada.
But even aside from comparisons, look at how Trump handled the pandemic. He didn't even try for basic coordination and leadership, and he actively made it worse by promoting irresponsible behavior.
UK, Croatia, Italy, Belgium, Czechia all have more deaths per capita than US, and Spain, France, Portugal, Romania are basically tied with the US (~1700). Germany is somewhat lower, I guess?
A lot of countries are lower. I’m talking about all of Europe vs. US.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=total_cases&hideControls=true&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=USA~Europe&Metric=Confirmed+deaths
you're using Europe instead of EU (worse record-keeping in eastern Europe), here's the relevant comparison: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=total_cases&hideControls=true&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=European+Union~North+America
also America was overtesting using 40 PCR cycles (hence overcounting deaths), excess deaths show that U.S. is a bit under EU but we won't really know until the end of 2022, when we see how flu season does
Oh man, that tweet linking to Snyder. I think it was Corey Robin who made a tweet listing all the times over and over that Snyder made apocalyptic claims about Trump, like every year predicting that THIS will be the year that Trump does a Reichstag Fire to permanently seize power. Trying to remember if he then had to do some absurd mental gymnastics to try to explain away how/why Trump never actually used the emergencies that actually did happen like COVID to take control.
Honestly, the catastrophization is based on something real, an understanding that this system just doesn't work, and it's probably not going to be solved. It's just borne of a certain optimism about the system of government the US was formed with- that if you just elected someone, it would change the fundamental dysfunction the US constitution. Unfortunately, it's not the case. Combined, especially, with an economic system dominated by capital, it's doomed to fail. It's nice to see, for example, some of the constituencies in the Democratic coalition realizing the structural disadvantages they have in the US system, but I don't think that's going to be common enough to really make changes.
For example, the extolling of the power of state governments is interesting because the economic forces are well beyond the power of any one to control. The Governor of West Virginia and its legislature are simply not capable of making any kind of meaningful change for the people of the state, even if they were actually inclined toward it. But somehow, this is considered in the system equal to say, California. There's this ideal that it reflects local issues, but once again, many states have complex, diverse electorates inside them and pretty much all of the big, nationally influential state governments rule over so many different constituencies.
Of course some of the poorest of the country are going to not have the same reverence for the US constitution that the "glorious middle class" does. It was not made to give the poor representation, anything they have is almost by accident. It guarantees them almost nothing. Instead it pits rural against urban through the geographical disadvantages given to the urban populations.
Also, the FPTP and winner-take-all electoral systems run heavily against trying to do something with a new party. There's not really a way to win a little and build up, you have to do it all at once and everything in this country runs against that.
Yep. The fundamental issue at play here is the sense amongst all average people that the United States is broken and can no longer accomplish anything constructive. We can certainly bomb the shit out of other countries but aside from that? Nada. We don't have a functioning national legislature and thus we cannot solve problems democratically, which is part of the reason why the Republican Party is radicalizing against democracy.
Trump is a sideshow, not the real issue. People responded to him because he's funny and entertaining, not because he actually contains any useful ideas for how to govern the country. He's horrifying, but whatever. He didn't do a tenth of the damage to this country (at least in concrete terms) that GWB did, and anyone under the age of 30 has been convinced he's a kindly old grandpa making bad paintings in his retirement.
Gridlock is a perfectly natural outcome for a country that is evenly divided fifty - fifty. In fact if one side were able to advance an agenda as though they had an actual majority that would be acutely undemocratic.
This country isn't evenly divided 50-50. The popular vote was quite different but the senate remains 50-50 with a veto for any party with at least 41 votes. This country was decided as an acutely undemocratic nation, disenfranchising those in many states. It is not a system that works for anyone except a vaucus culture warrior.
Who are these people? Holy cow, I don't know anyone under 30 who thinks Bush is super cool. I don't know anyone of any age who thinks Bush is cool. Where are you seeing this? Is it from people in the media? Who buys Bush's paintings?
There was a big Bush rehabilitation effort in the MSM a couple months ago https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/george-w-bush-cant-paint-his-way-out-of-hell.html
Yeah the media for sure pushes this. But I don't know anyone in the real world who has a sudden reverence for W.
I'm not a sociologist or anything, but I have multiple friends in their mid-to-late-20s (I'm 40) who basically have no conception of GWB other than "he was the president when I was in grade school and he seems pleasant."
When someone says "Trump is the worst President in American history" I find I can safely ignore everything else they have to say about politics or history or America. It reveals either a lack of knowledge or morality.
Trump was a coup d’état through other means. He absconded with the US presidency. The power structure, the ruling class freaked out. They were certain they were just in there cause - stop Trump at all cost. Trump’s incompetence and unfitness for the job reinforced their certainty. The elite see Trump supporters as ignorant bigots. Two Americas, alike in hatred.
The liberal rehabilitation of George Bush is absolutely infuriating. I grew up during the Bush years and remember the politics of the era very well. Liberals have no moral ground to stand on if they elect to forgive and ignore such an objectively worse president, in really every way. The only thing that Bush didn't do was be mean online, and that's the REAL, deep seated reason that Trump drove liberals insane- he was directly mean to them. Trump knocked over their block tower in political daycare. Liberals have a cheap adherence to tiny rules that they love enforcing, Trump bucked the trend.
Could the characterization of Republicans as 'monsters' be counterproductive here? In American terms, Trump governed as a moderate, and certainly hewed far closer to neoliberalism than he did to populism. (I know you're not defending neoliberalism - quite the opposite - but bear with me.) If this renders someone monstrous then a good 40% of the country is monstrous. And, much as you say that Bush has been rehabilitated... well, I was around then, I remember that he was A Monster then, and seeing how easily A Monster has become A Wise Elder Statesman makes me far less apt to care about monsters in the future. After all, they're everywhere, they're 40% of the country, and there doesn't seem to be a great deal of penalty for being one, at least not after a few years and a dozen headlines have elapsed.
It strikes me as a very self-defeating starting point. There are people on my side of the internet who genuinely believe that "white genocide" is a mainstream Democratic position. Obviously this is a cranky belief, but more than that... well, now what? You believe that 40% of the country wants you dead? Then you've already lost before you've started. You can't overcome that, especially when virtually nobody agrees with you. The same would apply to broad-brush patholigization of ones' opponents. It doesn't lead to action and it makes people throw up their hands in hopelessness.
Aside from that, I loved this article (as a Trump supporter) and I can see so much relevance of it on my own side as well.
Technically, no. The data that Rachel Bitecofer dug up "proved" that Democrats could win elections by *IGNORING* swing voters (independents, centrists) and using extreme hate rhetoric to rile up their far-left base.
All that is only counterproductive if you think that democracy is more important than promoting the hyper toxic totalitarianism that is growing on the cultural-left.
To be clear: the totalitarians on the cultural-left do not want to fix or tweak democracy, they want to destroy as much of western civilization as is necessary for them to take over and impose their form of totalitarianism (cultural marxism).
"Donald Trump will be dead within five years. He has no political heir, and I would argue can have none."
"I demand the right to also point out that the Democrats certainly seem to be failing to do what’s necessary to prevent the next Trump, who will likely have a functioning brain and will thus be far more dangerous."
Don't these two statements conflict? Is there going to be a next Trump or not? Or are you using some definition of "political heir" here that maybe I'm not aware of? For my part, I think it's pretty clear that people like Hawley are indeed positioning themselves as the next Trump, using many of the same tactics Trump used.
Also, I think Democrats are doing things to prevent the next Trump. These include passing laws and trying to get laws passed that would make real life better for millions of people, including the American Jobs Plan, the American Families Plan, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the MORE Act, etc. They're trying to use government to help people, however imperfectly.
The real conflict between the Democrats and Republicans now is based in cultural differences between socioeconomic classes. No amount of jobs legislation can change that and efforts at police reform based on "defund the police" will only enflame passions, not quiet them.
"Defund the police" really seems like a slogan searching for policy. The "hard problem" of law enforcement is that it is guaranteed to attract a certain type of person when the job pitch is "hey, do you want the power to enforce the law selectively?"
This problem won't be solved by non-solutions such as community policing, which would essentially become total vigilante in five second as drug dealers are shot on the street and it just passes the "hey, do you want the power to enforce the law selectively?" buck down the road. The overwhelming majority of the US simply doesn't have a tradition of community policing to build off of and would have to be built from scratch, with rules attached. And while we're at it, why don't we give the community police some uniforms and a place to congregate? Oh wait.
Even the more specific calls for more social workers in leu of policemen won't solve anything. If I run a corner store and I believe that someone is here to harm me or my business, I'm not taking my chances to have a social worker come down and talk it out with the perp. And sending social workers into potentially dangerous situations hardly seems fair. Maybe we should give them training and the means to defend themselves-oh wait.
The whole idea is fraught with difficulties that have only been met with utopian claptrap. The longer "Defund the police" exists as essentially a big nothing burger the more likely people will double down on the status quo instead of embracing total uncertainty.
The elephant in the room is that police are politically partisan right-wingers, but no one wants to acknowledge that, especially people with a desire to increase faith in institutions.
The honest truth of it is that we would probably be better off acknowledging that police organizations can and will be politically partisan in that way and work around that rather than play kayfabe that they're actually totally neutral arbiters of anything. Consider purging the organizations to get a political view that actually reflects the elected local governments rather than letting them run independently.
More cops are republican than democrat, but how much of that is down to republicans writ large supporting police than dems? I don't think it's a hot take for an institution to side with the party that in turn sides with them.
Even when they weren't really a hot button issue of the day, they were partisan right-wingers. I don't think the change in the past 10 years or so has really done more than simply reveal it.
I think this too has been known, what next step comes from knowing that policemen are more likely to be republicans?
It's only in the modern era that people think that your political affiliation should have anything to do with your job performance as a police officer, a doctor, a computer programmer, or anything else.
why wouldn't political affiliation affect the decisions a cop makes? they have tons and tons of discretion, which means they have political power in their way
Why should it? You are engaged in complete speculation without any evidence whatsoever. Why shouldn't a programmer's orientation affect his facial recognition algorithms?
May I recommend The Graham Factor Substack? He is a retired police officer that writes posts on policing and criminal justice. He has a post on this issue: https://grahamfactor.substack.com/p/why-are-cops-so-conservative
Yes, police historically are more conservative, but this has been exacerbated by the recent disdain on the left for the police. I have certainly had a mildly distrustful view of police my whole life and am in support of criminal justice reform, but I'm appalled at the current hostility on the left toward the police. And as Lytel says, "Defund the police" is ridiculous. Anyway, I find his articles interesting and informative. And there's no charge. I think he would welcome fresh interest.