I like the article, but in the spirit of your encouraged dumb question asking, what is to be done?
What, specifically and realistically, can the Democratic Party say or do to win? What concrete policy or slogan should be adopted? "Fight the billionaires/elites" isn't a policy and will immediately become "fight the (((billionaires))) and woke elites" like how Bernie's message was often used by Republicans to pull in former leftists/left-curious.
A lot of the venom towards Democratic consultants may be deserved, but "just be different" isn't a helpful way forward. I do think your analysis is spot on in that Americans like an asshole and going forward, whatever that may be, Democrats gotta embrace their inner asshole.
That's because we ARE assholes. What we need to do is stop being hypocrites. Example: The problem with a green agenda is that we don't really want it if it costs us more than lip service. Unless, of course, we can find a way to off load the burden on someone else. Do we want economic fairness? Sure, but after I take care of myself. Wokeness? Who cares who I trigger as long as the identity group I choose is held up. If our message is the moral high road, then we have to really believe what we say. Otherwise then we should see how far we can push being assholes. Go ahead and say screw the corporations. Say, yeah the economy will take a hit when we go green. And we need to abandon the race war we have been asking for.
I'm still thinking through things myself so let me start with my personal anecdote about When I Realized the Democrats Were in Trouble. I work for a large storage company. It's kind of a hybrid workplace. Some days you sit in front of a computer for eight hours. Other days you're pulling boxes off shelves. Back in 2021 I started to hear more and more of my coworkers complain about lazy people, about shiftless folk who collected welfare rather than do a job. Of course, a year ago my co-workers were desperate to get their stimulus checks and collect unemployment insurance. At the end of 2020, I had wondered if all that spending might change the public's attitude toward the welfare state. I guess I got the answer.
Anyway, I had this conversation with one co-worker --
"Okay. They're being lazy. So why do you think I'm here?"
"You want to be a leader, not a follower."
"What?"
"You want to be a leader, not a follower."
"What does that mean?"
"It means you want to do what's right."
"Oh, to hell with that."
This exchange was not too serious in tone, but I think it gets at the difference between myself and a wide chunk of the Trump working class coalition. They see a job as evidence of their goodness. I see it as signifying not much -- a paycheck, but no proof of anything.
This is why I have qualms about framing voters as "lonely masses" and "isolated subjects" with "painful resentments." From what I see at my workplace and read about non-white Republicans, they still very much believe in 'middle-class respectability.' They do think, “If you behave respectably as we do, you will find your measure of success." They might be amused by Trump's shit-talking, but they are as consciously upright as your hypothetical HR manager.
I forget who said it, but there's a quote that reactionaries have a culture that mixes rectitude and seediness. The trick is figuring out where the rectitude ends and the seediness begins.
I have to say I wish I had written this - one of your best pieces imo.
One addtiion. I just read a interesting book about the Berlusconi phenomena and I really do think he was the true ur-Trump figure. I don't know if an English translation of this book exists, but Giovanni Orsina's "Il berlusconismo nella storia d'Italia" (written in 2013 btw, so in no way conceived in light of the existence of Trump's career) really would be useful for people trying to understand Trump as well.
I might write a piece on it myself. But I'd also love it if you investigated Berlusconi here as well.
Good piece. Seems to accord with Winant's piece at Dissent in that you both argue the Dems have a fundamental democratic deficit, which makes it hard to generate a genuine and popular politics! Of course, the right is only democratic in an affective/aesthetic sense. But that seems to be enough for them for now . . .
I do really think the left needs to orient to a radically democratic (and yes, socialist) politics to uncover effective political programs and, most importantly, shape the political subject for a non-reactionary popular politics. Winant has a Stuart Hall quote where he's criticizing the Labour party in the wake of Thatcher that really speaks to me:
"That bureaucratic conception of politics has nothing to do with the mobilization of a variety of popular forces. It doesn’t have any conception of how people become empowered by doing something: first of all about their immediate troubles; then, the power expands their political capacities and ambitions, so that they begin to think again about what it might be like to rule the world . . . Their politics has ceased to have a connection with this most modern of all resolutions—the deepening of democratic life."
Honestly, I don't think the Dems have it in them, so I suspect we are entering a long reactionary winter where the Dems keep chasing a more unhinged reactionary GOP rightward. Both the Winant and the Hall essay are well worth reading for those who haven't yet.
If we take a longer and internationally comparative view, we can see that center-left parties across the rich capitalist democracies, not just the Democrats here in the US, have had a lot of trouble figuring out how to build a durable popular coalition under the conditions of post-industrial capitalism. The Democrats and Labour in Britain have been propped up by our respective winner-take-all electoral systems, but in multiparty systems with proportional representation social democratic and labor parties no longer get the 35-40 (or more) percent of the vote they routinely won in the postwar period. They're in the 20s now or even lower, and have to figure out how to cobble together coalitions with other parties representing social constituencies that have emerged in contemporary "knowledge economies." The political and electoral fragmentation that's happened in other countries all gets shoehorned into the two main parties here, and I think that accounts for a good deal of the chaotic weirdness we see in US politics today. None of this is to say that left-wing, broadly socialist or social democratic politics is doomed in the present period, I don't think it is. But we face some really serious challenges in constructing a hegemonic bloc capable of building a new political order, and I increasingly feel like nobody has a particularly good answer for what to do.
The point about curiosity and persuasion is so important, glad you’ve highlighted it. I think a lot of the Dem consultant class is still stuck in the “if you’re explaining, you’re losing” mindset of the 90s, but in today’s world if you are explaining you’re winning. And Dems’ refusal to engage in these discussions - their tendency to just restate their position in ways that mock the other position but don’t explain why it’s wrong - is a huge own goal.
If you are right you should be able to explain why you’re right in a way that makes sense to people!
Emily Oster actually had an op-ed this week about this from the perspective of public health:
“Public health agencies typically tell people what to do and what not to do, but they don’t regularly explain why — or why people might hear something different from others… My suggestion is that when asked about these topics, health experts provide this level of detail. Simply saying that vaccines are good and raw milk is bad misses specifics that people find important. People often do their research, and if they feel the risks of raw milk have been exaggerated, it can erode their trust.”
One way someone can take advantage of you is the gangster way, another is the lawyer way. Meaning they screw you over on the fine print, "read the contract", it's your job to be informed. You're not even allowed to complain about it because we both agreed that this is the good outcome, right?
There's a ton of this going around in American society at all levels and everyone experiences it. Your workplace, school, university, health insurance, everyone always has procedures and policies that are written just to trap you into agreeing to something you didn't want, or as a justification to screw you after the fact. And almost by definition this is done by institutions and the educated, verbally fluent people who staff them.
The most extreme illustration I know of was that woman who died of a nut allergy at Disney World (the waiter confirmed no nuts in the food). Disney tried to throw out the wrongful death lawsuit because the husband had signed up for a Disney+ free trial 5 years ago and there was some kind of immunity clause in the contract.
I don't know if this is my whole theory of the election, but I do think if you talk like a professional-managerial class person, people assume you are going to screw them in this particular way, which is now blue-coded.
I don't know if people necessarily prefer being taken advantage of honestly by a gangster type. But some might and it certainly muddies the waters about who is honest.
I felt like Obama did a certain bait and switch when, with Dem leadership of both houses he suggested tinkering with Social Security and then followed that up with “Single Payer is on the table” while by accounts he had already negotiated it away. I felt hoodwinked, but was told to clap harder.
Great piece, John. Nice to be able to share a refined version of what you were talking about on the Unclear pod the other day with my friends who would never listen to a podcast about The Saint. I made a similar point about Trump seeming authentic to people on Bluesky about a month ago:
"Had an epiphany that a reason Trump gets so much support is that he is a stupid person's idea of an honest person. Stupid people equate honesty with having no filter, they think moderating one's speech to be respectful is lying. It doesn't matter that Trump is wrong, he is saying what he thinks."
Trump appeals to the type of person who in high school got in trouble for calling his teacher fat and thinks that the fact that the teacher is fat should means he shouldn't be punished.
This isn't the only reason for his appeal, of course, but I think it is a big part of it.
good piece tho, esp liked "If liberals want more organic intellectuals like the GOP seems to have, they need to be willing to be more organic" and "Trump’s movement offers an invitation"
I like your presentation of the battle between the Democrats and Republicans in this election as one between a fun-loving, unrestrained id, and a civil, boring, and dishonest superego. But if that's the case, here's the thing: that's the nature of these two forces, and sometimes the id just wins.
At the end of your piece, I think you're making the same mistake you accuse establishment Democrats of making: that the solution to a bad system is some hypothetical good system, one that will be democratic yet somehow change the rules of the game by the will of some creative elite. You accuse Democrats of snobbery and call for more democracy, but unless you mean it, that's just a higher form of snobbery (there's a hierarchy of snobbery: the center-left criticizes the society in which it exists and feels superior to it, and the left does the same to the center-left; but we'll get back to snobbery later). What should Democrats do if many people, as you point out, are actively drawn to authoritarianism -- not despite the bigotry but also not necessarily for it, but mostly because it offers them the simplicity they crave? What should they do if many people insist climate change is a hoax? That Democrats cheat and steal elections? That vaccines cause autism? That Elon Musk should do as he pleases?
I agree that Trump and his entourage "get it", the zeitgeist, more than establishment Democrats, but I also think that the former-Republican never-Trumpers, the likes of Tom Nichols and George Conway, get it more than some leftists who overcomplicate things (as they do). The election was lost due to contingent factors, but Trump's base wasn't built because of the failure of Democratic politics. There's a difference in epistemology and values between the sides, one defined over decades of social and technological changes. As the never-Trumpers would put it, the other side are just stupid and authoritarian.
But the other side also won, and it grew thanks to the feelings you describe in your piece. And so, if more honesty is called for, what if, instead of denouncing snobbery -- something Democrats will never, ever, be able to do convincingly -- they embrace it? There are upsides to being identified as the elite. People hate you, but they also want to be you. If Trump's coalition is one of "inclusive bigotry," why can't the Democrats' be one of inclusive snobbery? Maybe you didn't get rich off of crypto *and* didn't go to Harvard but you're welcome to feel superior with us, those who know vaccines work and that the world is complex (superiority has long been what Democrats have fed their id). Conservatives have accused liberals of being ethnically inclusive but not ideologically inclusive, a criticism that some liberals have taken to heart. But if this is an age of conflict rather than unity, what if Democrats punched down *more*? People can listen to Joe Rogan, but they shouldn't get to feel proud about it (if they do, the epistemological war will truly be lost).
This isn't scapegoating but drawing the lines of battle. Republicans say it's between an authentic good and a globalist, conspiratorial evil. Democrats should say it's between smart and stupid (everyone knows that's what they think, anyway). They'll offer not a superiority of class, but one of epistemology and values. True, this is neither creative nor proactive. Yes, it will be a pro-wrestling match between Dr Evil and Mr Moron, but both will have popular appeal and hey -- it's the people who make up the rules of the game. Trump didn't create it, he's just good at it. Playing it would be the democratic thing to do, and possibly the only thing to do. It's a tough pill to swallow because progressives were never ones to be humbled by social forces, accepting that people shape them but don't control them. And eventually, the game will change because sometimes the superego also wins.
Wonderful piece. People don’t get off the couch for managerialism. The only real rhetorical currency the dems have (and that got record numbers out for Obama in ’08)- “justice”, “rights”, “law” - died under all that rubble in Gaza, and “you never had it so good, Jack” sounds like a cruel joke.
People really *really* want to hear - hear from the top - that they live in a junkyard of broken dreams and bullshit jobs and stuff that doesn’t work and, if they won’t hear it from Dems, they’ll take it from a billionaire slob who rapes beauty contestants.
I don’t think Trump voters want to hear solutions or even believe there are any, and at some level even his fans know his slogans are a crock and the shitshow will continue. Mostly they just want someone in a suit to say America is a bust, a hustle, fat cats rigged it, and you can’t consultant your way out of it. If it comes from a bunch of criminals, so be it, at least they know the game.
That said, Trump means business this time. A lot more revenge accounts to settle than his first kick at the can, and he’s harnessing a team of fanatics to do it. I think even lots of Trump voters will be going, “hold the goddamn phone, I didn’t vote for this.”
Hard piece but can’t argue with the content. You have to scrub the wound before it’ll heal. A lot of pain involved. Beyond the domestic economy there is a sense that there’s decreasing resources and wealth and it may as well be ours whether we take it by force or otherwise. And Trump has no otherwise. This isn’t really any different than how imperialistic empires have ever behaved. Now we don’t want to waste time with the diplomatic niceties. The world is more and more dominated by a gangster mentality. As Dennis Quaid said, “He’s an asshole but he’s my asshole.” Make sure we get ours.
In the face of that, kumbaya has no chance.
This is a small thing overall but the last month also involved a great deal cognitive dissonance as “Dick Cheney endorsed me” became a go-to. I know what the idea was but all I saw was a lot of people who’d previously had their go at tanking this experiment saying she was the best way to go. But especially with that monster as the main example. When their endorsements were banged on so hard even I began doubting my allegiance.
I like the article, but in the spirit of your encouraged dumb question asking, what is to be done?
What, specifically and realistically, can the Democratic Party say or do to win? What concrete policy or slogan should be adopted? "Fight the billionaires/elites" isn't a policy and will immediately become "fight the (((billionaires))) and woke elites" like how Bernie's message was often used by Republicans to pull in former leftists/left-curious.
A lot of the venom towards Democratic consultants may be deserved, but "just be different" isn't a helpful way forward. I do think your analysis is spot on in that Americans like an asshole and going forward, whatever that may be, Democrats gotta embrace their inner asshole.
sounds good to me!
That's because we ARE assholes. What we need to do is stop being hypocrites. Example: The problem with a green agenda is that we don't really want it if it costs us more than lip service. Unless, of course, we can find a way to off load the burden on someone else. Do we want economic fairness? Sure, but after I take care of myself. Wokeness? Who cares who I trigger as long as the identity group I choose is held up. If our message is the moral high road, then we have to really believe what we say. Otherwise then we should see how far we can push being assholes. Go ahead and say screw the corporations. Say, yeah the economy will take a hit when we go green. And we need to abandon the race war we have been asking for.
One of the most sensible things I’ve read in the last two weeks.
Brilliantly put. Hard to think of a better synthesis of political economy and cultural analysis.
I'm still thinking through things myself so let me start with my personal anecdote about When I Realized the Democrats Were in Trouble. I work for a large storage company. It's kind of a hybrid workplace. Some days you sit in front of a computer for eight hours. Other days you're pulling boxes off shelves. Back in 2021 I started to hear more and more of my coworkers complain about lazy people, about shiftless folk who collected welfare rather than do a job. Of course, a year ago my co-workers were desperate to get their stimulus checks and collect unemployment insurance. At the end of 2020, I had wondered if all that spending might change the public's attitude toward the welfare state. I guess I got the answer.
Anyway, I had this conversation with one co-worker --
"Okay. They're being lazy. So why do you think I'm here?"
"You want to be a leader, not a follower."
"What?"
"You want to be a leader, not a follower."
"What does that mean?"
"It means you want to do what's right."
"Oh, to hell with that."
This exchange was not too serious in tone, but I think it gets at the difference between myself and a wide chunk of the Trump working class coalition. They see a job as evidence of their goodness. I see it as signifying not much -- a paycheck, but no proof of anything.
This is why I have qualms about framing voters as "lonely masses" and "isolated subjects" with "painful resentments." From what I see at my workplace and read about non-white Republicans, they still very much believe in 'middle-class respectability.' They do think, “If you behave respectably as we do, you will find your measure of success." They might be amused by Trump's shit-talking, but they are as consciously upright as your hypothetical HR manager.
I forget who said it, but there's a quote that reactionaries have a culture that mixes rectitude and seediness. The trick is figuring out where the rectitude ends and the seediness begins.
:
great points, which I discussed in today's newsletter!
Thanks! I wish I could remember who said the 'seediness' thing. As I recall, one of the KYE guys had retweeted it.
I have to say I wish I had written this - one of your best pieces imo.
One addtiion. I just read a interesting book about the Berlusconi phenomena and I really do think he was the true ur-Trump figure. I don't know if an English translation of this book exists, but Giovanni Orsina's "Il berlusconismo nella storia d'Italia" (written in 2013 btw, so in no way conceived in light of the existence of Trump's career) really would be useful for people trying to understand Trump as well.
I might write a piece on it myself. But I'd also love it if you investigated Berlusconi here as well.
Good piece. Seems to accord with Winant's piece at Dissent in that you both argue the Dems have a fundamental democratic deficit, which makes it hard to generate a genuine and popular politics! Of course, the right is only democratic in an affective/aesthetic sense. But that seems to be enough for them for now . . .
I do really think the left needs to orient to a radically democratic (and yes, socialist) politics to uncover effective political programs and, most importantly, shape the political subject for a non-reactionary popular politics. Winant has a Stuart Hall quote where he's criticizing the Labour party in the wake of Thatcher that really speaks to me:
"That bureaucratic conception of politics has nothing to do with the mobilization of a variety of popular forces. It doesn’t have any conception of how people become empowered by doing something: first of all about their immediate troubles; then, the power expands their political capacities and ambitions, so that they begin to think again about what it might be like to rule the world . . . Their politics has ceased to have a connection with this most modern of all resolutions—the deepening of democratic life."
Honestly, I don't think the Dems have it in them, so I suspect we are entering a long reactionary winter where the Dems keep chasing a more unhinged reactionary GOP rightward. Both the Winant and the Hall essay are well worth reading for those who haven't yet.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/exit-right/
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/2448-stuart-hall-gramsci-and-us
If we take a longer and internationally comparative view, we can see that center-left parties across the rich capitalist democracies, not just the Democrats here in the US, have had a lot of trouble figuring out how to build a durable popular coalition under the conditions of post-industrial capitalism. The Democrats and Labour in Britain have been propped up by our respective winner-take-all electoral systems, but in multiparty systems with proportional representation social democratic and labor parties no longer get the 35-40 (or more) percent of the vote they routinely won in the postwar period. They're in the 20s now or even lower, and have to figure out how to cobble together coalitions with other parties representing social constituencies that have emerged in contemporary "knowledge economies." The political and electoral fragmentation that's happened in other countries all gets shoehorned into the two main parties here, and I think that accounts for a good deal of the chaotic weirdness we see in US politics today. None of this is to say that left-wing, broadly socialist or social democratic politics is doomed in the present period, I don't think it is. But we face some really serious challenges in constructing a hegemonic bloc capable of building a new political order, and I increasingly feel like nobody has a particularly good answer for what to do.
That's ... magnificent!!
The point about curiosity and persuasion is so important, glad you’ve highlighted it. I think a lot of the Dem consultant class is still stuck in the “if you’re explaining, you’re losing” mindset of the 90s, but in today’s world if you are explaining you’re winning. And Dems’ refusal to engage in these discussions - their tendency to just restate their position in ways that mock the other position but don’t explain why it’s wrong - is a huge own goal.
If you are right you should be able to explain why you’re right in a way that makes sense to people!
Emily Oster actually had an op-ed this week about this from the perspective of public health:
“Public health agencies typically tell people what to do and what not to do, but they don’t regularly explain why — or why people might hear something different from others… My suggestion is that when asked about these topics, health experts provide this level of detail. Simply saying that vaccines are good and raw milk is bad misses specifics that people find important. People often do their research, and if they feel the risks of raw milk have been exaggerated, it can erode their trust.”
One way someone can take advantage of you is the gangster way, another is the lawyer way. Meaning they screw you over on the fine print, "read the contract", it's your job to be informed. You're not even allowed to complain about it because we both agreed that this is the good outcome, right?
There's a ton of this going around in American society at all levels and everyone experiences it. Your workplace, school, university, health insurance, everyone always has procedures and policies that are written just to trap you into agreeing to something you didn't want, or as a justification to screw you after the fact. And almost by definition this is done by institutions and the educated, verbally fluent people who staff them.
The most extreme illustration I know of was that woman who died of a nut allergy at Disney World (the waiter confirmed no nuts in the food). Disney tried to throw out the wrongful death lawsuit because the husband had signed up for a Disney+ free trial 5 years ago and there was some kind of immunity clause in the contract.
I don't know if this is my whole theory of the election, but I do think if you talk like a professional-managerial class person, people assume you are going to screw them in this particular way, which is now blue-coded.
I don't know if people necessarily prefer being taken advantage of honestly by a gangster type. But some might and it certainly muddies the waters about who is honest.
I'm sorry ... lawyers aren't gangsters? Well, not all, but lots are. Roy Cohn comes to mind.
I felt like Obama did a certain bait and switch when, with Dem leadership of both houses he suggested tinkering with Social Security and then followed that up with “Single Payer is on the table” while by accounts he had already negotiated it away. I felt hoodwinked, but was told to clap harder.
Great piece, John. Nice to be able to share a refined version of what you were talking about on the Unclear pod the other day with my friends who would never listen to a podcast about The Saint. I made a similar point about Trump seeming authentic to people on Bluesky about a month ago:
"Had an epiphany that a reason Trump gets so much support is that he is a stupid person's idea of an honest person. Stupid people equate honesty with having no filter, they think moderating one's speech to be respectful is lying. It doesn't matter that Trump is wrong, he is saying what he thinks."
Trump appeals to the type of person who in high school got in trouble for calling his teacher fat and thinks that the fact that the teacher is fat should means he shouldn't be punished.
This isn't the only reason for his appeal, of course, but I think it is a big part of it.
going to Hegel at the top of the third paragraph, bold
good piece tho, esp liked "If liberals want more organic intellectuals like the GOP seems to have, they need to be willing to be more organic" and "Trump’s movement offers an invitation"
I like your presentation of the battle between the Democrats and Republicans in this election as one between a fun-loving, unrestrained id, and a civil, boring, and dishonest superego. But if that's the case, here's the thing: that's the nature of these two forces, and sometimes the id just wins.
At the end of your piece, I think you're making the same mistake you accuse establishment Democrats of making: that the solution to a bad system is some hypothetical good system, one that will be democratic yet somehow change the rules of the game by the will of some creative elite. You accuse Democrats of snobbery and call for more democracy, but unless you mean it, that's just a higher form of snobbery (there's a hierarchy of snobbery: the center-left criticizes the society in which it exists and feels superior to it, and the left does the same to the center-left; but we'll get back to snobbery later). What should Democrats do if many people, as you point out, are actively drawn to authoritarianism -- not despite the bigotry but also not necessarily for it, but mostly because it offers them the simplicity they crave? What should they do if many people insist climate change is a hoax? That Democrats cheat and steal elections? That vaccines cause autism? That Elon Musk should do as he pleases?
I agree that Trump and his entourage "get it", the zeitgeist, more than establishment Democrats, but I also think that the former-Republican never-Trumpers, the likes of Tom Nichols and George Conway, get it more than some leftists who overcomplicate things (as they do). The election was lost due to contingent factors, but Trump's base wasn't built because of the failure of Democratic politics. There's a difference in epistemology and values between the sides, one defined over decades of social and technological changes. As the never-Trumpers would put it, the other side are just stupid and authoritarian.
But the other side also won, and it grew thanks to the feelings you describe in your piece. And so, if more honesty is called for, what if, instead of denouncing snobbery -- something Democrats will never, ever, be able to do convincingly -- they embrace it? There are upsides to being identified as the elite. People hate you, but they also want to be you. If Trump's coalition is one of "inclusive bigotry," why can't the Democrats' be one of inclusive snobbery? Maybe you didn't get rich off of crypto *and* didn't go to Harvard but you're welcome to feel superior with us, those who know vaccines work and that the world is complex (superiority has long been what Democrats have fed their id). Conservatives have accused liberals of being ethnically inclusive but not ideologically inclusive, a criticism that some liberals have taken to heart. But if this is an age of conflict rather than unity, what if Democrats punched down *more*? People can listen to Joe Rogan, but they shouldn't get to feel proud about it (if they do, the epistemological war will truly be lost).
This isn't scapegoating but drawing the lines of battle. Republicans say it's between an authentic good and a globalist, conspiratorial evil. Democrats should say it's between smart and stupid (everyone knows that's what they think, anyway). They'll offer not a superiority of class, but one of epistemology and values. True, this is neither creative nor proactive. Yes, it will be a pro-wrestling match between Dr Evil and Mr Moron, but both will have popular appeal and hey -- it's the people who make up the rules of the game. Trump didn't create it, he's just good at it. Playing it would be the democratic thing to do, and possibly the only thing to do. It's a tough pill to swallow because progressives were never ones to be humbled by social forces, accepting that people shape them but don't control them. And eventually, the game will change because sometimes the superego also wins.
Wonderful piece. People don’t get off the couch for managerialism. The only real rhetorical currency the dems have (and that got record numbers out for Obama in ’08)- “justice”, “rights”, “law” - died under all that rubble in Gaza, and “you never had it so good, Jack” sounds like a cruel joke.
People really *really* want to hear - hear from the top - that they live in a junkyard of broken dreams and bullshit jobs and stuff that doesn’t work and, if they won’t hear it from Dems, they’ll take it from a billionaire slob who rapes beauty contestants.
I don’t think Trump voters want to hear solutions or even believe there are any, and at some level even his fans know his slogans are a crock and the shitshow will continue. Mostly they just want someone in a suit to say America is a bust, a hustle, fat cats rigged it, and you can’t consultant your way out of it. If it comes from a bunch of criminals, so be it, at least they know the game.
That said, Trump means business this time. A lot more revenge accounts to settle than his first kick at the can, and he’s harnessing a team of fanatics to do it. I think even lots of Trump voters will be going, “hold the goddamn phone, I didn’t vote for this.”
"Before you get mad, keep in mind my thoughts are still evolving."
You allow your thoughts to evolve? That's going to make everyone mad.
Hard piece but can’t argue with the content. You have to scrub the wound before it’ll heal. A lot of pain involved. Beyond the domestic economy there is a sense that there’s decreasing resources and wealth and it may as well be ours whether we take it by force or otherwise. And Trump has no otherwise. This isn’t really any different than how imperialistic empires have ever behaved. Now we don’t want to waste time with the diplomatic niceties. The world is more and more dominated by a gangster mentality. As Dennis Quaid said, “He’s an asshole but he’s my asshole.” Make sure we get ours.
In the face of that, kumbaya has no chance.
This is a small thing overall but the last month also involved a great deal cognitive dissonance as “Dick Cheney endorsed me” became a go-to. I know what the idea was but all I saw was a lot of people who’d previously had their go at tanking this experiment saying she was the best way to go. But especially with that monster as the main example. When their endorsements were banged on so hard even I began doubting my allegiance.