Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

That's exactly why I credit this as almost something Orwellian. It's not in the MAGA world force propaganda like 1984's Big Brother but due to his appeal as a 'says it like it is' honest broker following despite being a lying grifter. Its self radicalization like with muslim extremists that isolates people on their own so they trust no one by 'their' people to such an extreme degree that only direct and very personal betrayal by Trump might change that.

Nineteen Eighty-Four's protagonist Winston Smith, who works in the Ministry of Truth, is routinely assigned the task of revising old newspaper articles in order to serve the propaganda interests of the government. In one instance, the weekly chocolate ration was decreased from 30 grams to 20. The next day the newspaper announced that the chocolate ration had not been reduced to 20 grams per week, but increased to 20 grams. Any previous mention of the ration having been 30 grams per week needed to be destroyed.

You may recall that I documented over the first Trump term something like 4 instances in which Trump tweeted celebrating the Dow Jones index reaching 25000. Because it kept dropping below it and then rebounding, over months.

So yes, the picture of MAGA praising Trump for each time he either issues tariffs or retracts them is a fundamentally Orwellian one; yes, there are millions of Americans who would probably execute their firstborn if the Trump, thy God commanded it, but the MAGA cult as a group is 'only' like 1/3 of the population. The rest of the Trump supporters suffer from a mixture of negative qualities, including sheer ignorance of American politics and what politicians say and do, selfish contempt of anything "liberal", etc. Those people aren't true believers, they're more passive, and under potential circumstances could turn on Trump just like most of them turned on GWB (who lest we forget had a little bit of a cultish worship movement about him in his first term, after 9/11).

Though I shudder to think what sort of catastrophies it would take to bring Trump down to 35% approval... I think he could order the nuclear bombardment of "blue cities" and never drop below 30%, still counting the casualties.

Well, that's part of his weird power as a lying grifter. He's completely inconsistent in his promises on a day by day basis and can say whatever to please whatever demographic. Those that like it will say 'listen to what he says, wow he's our guy' and those that don't like what he says are met with 'he's just trying to trigger the libs, it's a joke, that's not what he meant.'

Many condemn Trump as a lifelong business failure, but he has always in fact been really successful in all forms of white-collar crime, which besides his reality TV show and related branding were his primary source of net worth before politics. Trump is a grifter to make P.T. Barnum blush, a very effective one. Many, if not most, are immune to his ways, such that we may recall the famous quote attributed to Abe Lincoln about not fooling all of the people all of the time, but those who are susceptible just keep falling for it no matter how many times Trump bamboozles them - in politics and in business. For Trump to have been blacklisted from almost every major bank still involved him successfully defrauding almost every major bank!! If we had the kind of system to put guys like this in prison when they're just starting out, we'd be much healthier as a society. But I've noticed something interesting about Left and Right:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is a bit of a preliminary read that deserves much more development, but I recently had the realization that conservatives tend to profoundly prioritize negative attention toward violent crime, larceny, and direct offenses between individuals than white-collar crime in general, even though you can often hear conservatives giving lip service against corruption and fraud. On the other hand, people more inclined toward progressive or egalitarian sentiments usually react much more negatively toward white-collar, financialized crime, including crimes that affect lots of people in indirect ways, than they do toward violent crime or larceny. In other words, the archetypical right-winger thinks about someone breaking into their house and raping their family and reaches for their gun, while the archetypical left-winger thinks about their boss's boss skimming their wages and screwing up their neighborhood and reaches for their placard. Of coirse, I would be remiss not to note that left-wing fears are a lot more common to come to life...

My hypothesis is that this gets at something fundamental in political psychology, though I struggle to think how to best research the question. If correct, it would go some way to helping explain how corruption remains so persistent even in developed societies, and why elite impunity is so persistent everywhere.

I'm sure the MAGA inside traders are making piles off this self created chaos

Donald Trump’s crypto project netted $350mn from presidential memecoin

Trump's meme coin made nearly $100 million in trading fees, as small traders lost money


God forbid Musk and Trump manage to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into pumping and dumping their own and their friends' crypto holdings, as they've suggested they'd like to do.

would be nice to at least have a silver lining of solving my money problems too.

Notably, this is how a lot of "competitive" authoritarian regimes like Orban's or even Putin's get up and running. It's not just about sticks - threatening, exiling, jailing, or killing the opposition into submission - but the carrots as well. From ordinary people up to civil societal actors and bit politicians and bureaucrats, the message is 'cooperate, and we'll elevate you into the club.' Regime members and associates get loads of job opportunities, graft opportunities, kickbacks, and other favors and privileges. In better times the West acts as a key partner in this respect, in among other ways by acting as an outlet for the opposition to emigrate to (but still send remittances from). Kind of how all those socialists and anarchists came to America from France, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia back in the day. So in other words, contemporary authoritarians win without mass killing by dividing and conquering the vast majority of the population into: self-exiles; passives; collaborators; core supporters.

I think the way the public is beginning to react in the US may demonstrate that our society is indeed too complex and diverse to overwhelm like that, to say nothing of the fact that Musk and Trump are chaotic and narcissistic rather than rational, focused planners like the other Bad Hombres. We'll see if trying so hard to make as many enemies as they can at once pays off for them down the line. (Such as, to stay on topic, the Cubanos getting triggered by Musk declaring Radio Martí a form of waste, fraud, and abuse, and trying to shut it down.) For instance, the leaks from/about the Trump cabinet officials such as Rubio have got underway, alleging friction between the political appointees and Elon Musk trying to do his own thing.

But now we're in a global psychosocial war of some nature, so no relationship is stable with respect to anything else.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nice discussion. And I do like Foucault's take on things -- always makes me thoughtful.

Trump is every bit of the communicator FDR was; seeks changes in politics and government that are just as sweeping as FDR; sees himself as the only real leader who can face this moment in history and embodies "apres moi le deluge" every bit as much.

Trump's rhetoric is every bit as effective as FDR and his fireside chats. He appeals to commonality and Americana mythos & nomos appeals with his core support group like few ever have. The believe he shares their most important experience of America is going to Hell and we need to take it back -- never stop swinging back at your opponents (never give up, never surrender) until they are destroyed (and that there are no real rules in a knife fight except to win). His connection with his core 20% of the electorate is profound. That it contravenes all of Aristotle's precepts about proper rhetoric doesn't mean it isn't working. Logos is ignored, Ethos redefined to tribalism, and pathos reigns triumphant. That is, by the way, the exact demagogic approach to successful rhetoric decried by Socrates, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Kant as being without ethics. But what did they know.

Trump's program of change is every bit as sweeping in scope as the New Deal (though much of Trump's version is literally an antithesis thereto). Executive orders to effect immediate change, hacking a government size, reshaping America's foreign and trade policies to a transactional model more akin to the pre-ww1 great powers system. Trump's core support group has imbibed the close HHS, close Education, put energy back in the DoD, Cut taxes, cut government and put things back to the States, One language, Strict Borders, One dominant culture for 3 decades on the radio. Trump is trying to bring it all to fruition yesterday, and his core loves him even more for "finally doing the right thing."

Trump, as near as I can tell, truly believes that he and only he has the ability to change things for the better. While he has brought the GOP into power in all branches at this moment in history, he is gutting the development of other leaders in the party every bit as thoroughly as FDR did. Truman barely hung on in 1948 after nuking Japan (popular with many as fewer Americans died) and finishing up the win for ww2. The Dems weren't able to field a successful bid for the presidency until 1960 and even then it was a narrow win against the ever-so-charming and trustworthy RMN. Following Truman, you do not see an 8 year Democratic presidency until Clinton...a generation later. Trump's GOP is similarly gutting future leadership so that the hero can shine. To be fair, this bothers me less now that I am no longer a GOP'er. It used to be the party home for fiscal/defense conservatives. Now only the single issue social conservatives really remain.

I am a political conservative. I like the idea of smaller governance and power reverted to the states on many issues. I am not a fan of entitlement plans or government run healthcare. I am not a neo-isolationist. I am an American exceptionalist...and I still cannot support this administration's agenda or the people in charge. Silly me, I think that ethics still matter.

[Montmorency]

Trump's rhetoric is every bit as effective as FDR and his fireside chats. He appeals to commonality and Americana mythos & nomos appeals with his core support group like few ever have. The believe he shares their most important experience of America is going to Hell and we need to take it back -- never stop swinging back at your opponents (never give up, never surrender) until they are destroyed (and that there are no real rules in a knife fight except to win). His connection with his core 20% of the electorate is profound. That it contravenes all of Aristotle's precepts about proper rhetoric doesn't mean it isn't working. Logos is ignored, Ethos redefined to tribalism, and pathos reigns triumphant. That is, by the way, the exact demagogic approach to successful rhetoric decried by Socrates, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Kant as being without ethics. But what did they know.

I don't think I was the first to compare Trump to Peisistratos (thrice reigned, twice deposed) during the Biden years.

But FDR didn't have nearly the power over his party and base that Trump does, although there may have been a similar scale of adoration. He consistently restrained himself to Congress, who implemented or allowed the implementation of most of the New Deal of their own authority. In contrast, all Trump demands from his Congress is quiescence and a unified front before the media (which Republicans have always been pretty good at) as he and Musk establish a despotic biumvirate. What we can compare the two in is in their limits in trying to usurp or retire dissatisfactory politicians: both have always failed at that, because it's really hard for a single politician to command a local electorate vote one way or another against a live person in that jurisdiction. Especially incumbent. That is technically some sort of balance of powers I suppose.

Anyway, the national Democrats are continuing in their historical trend of accommodationism, actually more intensely than I would recall of the Reagan years or other such eras. One can't identify what Democrats in Congress stand for right now, other than competing for the Ludwig Kaas and Franz von Papen Prize for Merit in Liberal Politics.

[spmetla]

Trump, as near as I can tell, truly believes that he and only he has the ability to change things for the better. While he has brought the GOP into power in all branches at this moment in history, he is gutting the development of other leaders in the party every bit as thoroughly as FDR did. Truman barely hung on in 1948 after nuking Japan (popular with many as fewer Americans died) and finishing up the win for ww2. The Dems weren't able to field a successful bid for the presidency until 1960 and even then it was a narrow win against the ever-so-charming and trustworthy RMN. Following Truman, you do not see an 8 year Democratic presidency until Clinton...a generation later. Trump's GOP is similarly gutting future leadership so that the hero can shine. To be fair, this bothers me less now that I am no longer a GOP'er. It used to be the party home for fiscal/defense conservatives. Now only the single issue social conservatives really remain.

The GOP's lack of direction or leadership probably won't hurt it as much as the democrats back in the day. With the tribalism of today's politics there are too many that would never ever vote anything other than Republican and would at the most just not show up to vote instead of vote for the opposition.
It's certainly clear that he has zero intention of ever leaving office too though so what happens beyond him is beyond his caring.

Anyway, the national Democrats are continuing in their historical trend of accommodationist, actually more intensely than I would recall of the Reagan years or other such eras. One can't identify what Democrats in Congress stand for right now, other than competing for the Ludwig Kaas and Franz von Papen Prize for Merit in Liberal Politics.

I think right now the Democrats are involved in similar internal debates like we've had on here. Should they double down on progressive-liberal politics or appear more centrist to try and win over splitters from the Rs in the wake of Trump's chaotic governance?
Think that's why Schumer is not looking for a shutdown, he wants to not be seen as simply an obstructionist, and I think more importantly they don't want the economic damage of a government shutdown to allow the Republicans to blame the Democrats for any fallout to divert from the created chaos from tariffs and poor diplomacy.
Seeing as no political reckoning can really happen until the midterms next year I imagine that the Democratic 'game' is let Trump do his thing (while still challenging in courts) and let that dissuade voters as their own rhetoric didn't reach the voters as needed.
Sadly though, this will likely just allow Trump to cement his power better.

[Montmorency]

I think right now the Democrats are involved in similar internal debates like we've had on here. Should they double down on progressive-liberal politics or appear more centrist to try and win over splitters from the Rs in the wake of Trump's chaotic governance?

I mean, disavowing everything negative you've ever said about Trump and formally licensing his unlimited lawbreaking and looting doesn't sound centrist, it sounds like the Democrats (in the eyes of their critics) admitting to being corrupt hypocrites anyway. Has everything the US government has been based on in living memory just been a criminal and illegitimate con, like Musk and Trump say? If not, Dem hypocrisy in not standing up is a disgrace. If Trump and Musk are right, then they should get all the credit for 'saving' the country from Dems, not the Dems suddenly deciding to bend the knee to the ones doing God's work.

Practically, a few things are happening:

1. Most Democrats (base and electeds) seem to be angry about Schumer's decision, which was in support of a conservative flank of just a few senators. Even Pelosi came out against him, and they worked in lockstep for decades as party leaders. We'll see if he faces a strong primary challenge.
2. Trump's approval has been sinking slowly since January, but consistently. This was a missed opportunity to reinforce that.
3. As a historical matter, Republicans always get blamed for government shutdowns. To be fair, they've always been the ones who caused government shutdowns, but as one liberal blogger puts it, average voters think of Republicans as anti-government (certainly the American bureaucratic state has had no greater enemies in 200 years than Musk/Trump), and of Democrats as the party of government. Given what's been going on, amid unified Republican government, who but the most committed MAGA is going to buy that it's actually Democrats who are anti-government right now in the event of a shutdown.
4. Government shutdowns have a habit of reminding people of the value of stable and effective government, at least for a few minutes.

Seeing as no political reckoning can really happen until the midterms next year I imagine that the Democratic 'game' is let Trump do his thing (while still challenging in courts) and let that dissuade voters as their own rhetoric didn't reach the voters as needed.

Democrats need to eventually unify around a replacement ideology and program to legacy 20th century liberalism, because that project and movement is not only exhausted (as we can observe with our own eyes), but with the way the political "resistance" is going there's just not going to be much left of it to salvage or rebuild in the coming years and decades. Democrats winning back a Senate seat and two-four districts or whatever in 2026 is utterly meaningless if Trump continues to rule autocratically and Democrats continue to have no hope of either regaining a unified government to counteract Trumpism, nor even of wielding it fully should they be delivered such an electoral miracle in 2028.

To phrase it differently, if Republicans even allow Democrats to retake the presidency anytime in the foreseeable future, what are the Democrats prepared to do with that power? Nothing?

[spmetla]

I mean, disavowing everything negative you've ever said about Trump and formally licensing his unlimited lawbreaking and looting doesn't sound centrist, it sounds like the Democrats (in the eyes of their critics) admitting to being corrupt hypocrites anyway. Has everything the US government has been based on in living memory just been a criminal and illegitimate con, like Musk and Trump say? If not, Dem hypocrisy in not standing up is a disgrace. If Trump and Musk are right, then they should get all the credit for 'saving' the country from Dems, not the Dems suddenly deciding to bend the knee to the ones doing God's work.

Believe me, I'm not sold on a thing Trump is doing and am more surprised and trying to see if there's any strategy in the way the Democratic leaders went ahead of this CR.
As for the Dem leaders being corrupt hypocrites, I view the majority of our long-term politicians as such. The current MAGA republicans are more than just hypocrites though, they are dangerous hypocrites threatening our constitutional system. Schumer has been a disgrace in the way he handled this and he's clearly out of touch.

To phrase it differently, if Republicans even allow Democrats to retake the presidency anytime in the foreseeable future, what are the Democrats prepared to do with that power? Nothing?

I agree, there is no true platform for the Democrats to rally around. Like with the Republicans they've allowed too many years of political dynasties to rule their leadership. Obama was the outlier and applauded for being such and Biden only came in because thankfully the US was at the time sick of Trump (and COVID) but even then, was just a 'centrist' tried and true Washington DC politician still trying to milk his blue collar reputation from nearly a half century before.
Obama was "change we can believe in" and "yes we can" but there's no such rallying cry anymore.

Too much of the US wants change, a more efficient and effective yet smaller government, less war, and still maintain national pride and international respect, but can't figure out how to get there which is how we'll get folks that voted for Obama, then wanted Sanders, and now support Trump.

[Montmorency]

[Shaka_Khan]

[Montmorency]

Nice Godwin blog post on discursive and political pscyhology trends in Nazi Germany and their implicit analogy in present times (themselves an enhanced version of much from the first Trump era):

Here, then, are things to watch for, all warnings from the well-known story of the Third Reich.

Daily life will take on a surreal quality and, if we do not take some action or join an organized resistance, our discussions will consist of merely repeating the latest horror.

Sebastian Haffner, writing in 1939, noted that “life went on as before, though it had now become ghostly and unreal, and was daily mocked by the events that served as its background…. We were not equal to the situation, even as victims.” Then as now, “many adapt to living with clenched teeth. Unfortunately they form a majority of a visible 'opposition' in Germany. So it is no wonder that this opposition has never developed any goals, plans, or expectations. Most of its members spend their time bemoaning the atrocities. The dreadful things that are happening have become essential to their spiritual well-being. Their only remaining dark pleasure is to luxuriate in the description of gruesome deeds, and it is impossible to have a discussion with them on any other topic.”

People around you will forget that they once were anti-Trump.
Christopher Isherwood wrote of his Berlin landlady in 1933: “Already she is adapting herself, as she will adapt herself to every new regime. This morning I even heard her talking reverently about Der Furher to the porter’s wife. If anyone was to remind her that at the elections last November she voted Communist she would probably deny it hotly and in perfect good faith. She is merely acclimatizing herself in accordance with a natural law, like an animal which changes its coat for the winter.”

[...]

MAGA will continue to believe what the leader says up until the very brink of disaster.

In the summer of 1939, three months after Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Robert Jamieson, a British English teacher living in Essen, wrote to Lord Londonderry, who had recently acted as a go-between British and Nazi leaders: “[The Germans] really believe that the Czech government had voluntarily sought Hitler’s protection and that they would all starve if they do not get this lebensraum and colonies.