Back in 2010 I didn’t get it.
Rallies were popping up all over the place to protest the just-adopted Affordable Care Act. And it looked like the protesters were the very people who would benefit most from the new law. I couldn’t understand how so many people could be misreading a very good thing as a very bad thing.
The Tea Party teetered briefly as a true unaffiliated, grassroots movement before it was eaten whole by the Republicans — only to have it turn around and consume them. The smart guys in the GOP thought they were coopting the Tea Party. Turns out they now work for the Tea Party’s CEO, Donald J. Trump.
And the Republicans, who once stood for stability, security and the predictable policies that businesses and markets want in order to justify long-term investments, now stand with Trump for just the opposite.
Trump is the bringer of chaos. His tariff whims change daily and the stock markets careen wildly one way or another based, pretty much, on what he had for breakfast. He has empowered Elon Musk to summarily fire thousands of Federal workers without bothering to ask what they do or who their absence might hurt. He’s deporting thousands, some to brutal Salvadoran prisons, without due process and in growing defiance of the courts. We’re inching toward a full on constitutional crisis.
And his core supporters cheer. Auto workers cheer even though his tariffs threaten their jobs. Owners of Wisconsin dairy farms cheer even though he threatens to deport the workers they depend on. Most of them cheer Trump’s flouting of the courts, never thinking that one day they might need the protection of the laws themselves.
Does this make any sense? Well, if your focus is on rational public policy then no, it does not. But if you think the whole system is against you, if you’re so angry that you just want to blow everything up even if you’re likely to get hit by the shrapnel, then yeah, it makes perfect sense.
When Trump talks about “draining the swamp,” people like me half agree with him. Because when we hear “swamp” we think about special interests and Washington lobbyists and corruption. And yet, Trump and his family reek of corruption themselves. His supporters know that but they think it’s fake news or they think every pol does it or they just don’t care.
When they hear “swamp” they think of distant, entrenched powers — not just in Washington, but in New York and Hollywood — that run their lives, dictate the culture and look down on them and their values. So, to the extent that Trump’s chaos drives all those folks — including people like me — crazy it’s worth it to them.
If you want to make sense of Trump, you have to understand the power of the phrase “owning the libs.” But you also have to have an expansive definition of “lib.” It’s not just cultural liberals that Trump supporters dislike. It’s also the old guard of the Republican Party, like Liz Cheney, who is hardly a liberal. I don’t think most core Trump supporters make much of distinction between Cheney and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. They’re all part of the same establishment they detest.
So, if you think this is just a phase and that Trump will settle down once he’s made the changes he wants, I wouldn’t count on that. Trump’s chaos is not part of a process — it’s the whole point.
On this website we believe in:
Free speech.
The rule of law.
Reason.
Tolerance.
Pluralism.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
Affordable Care Act was not, and still is not affordable for many Americans. Have you ever had to get health insurance from the marketplace? If no then maybe don’t be so glib about telling the poors what a great thing it is.
Boo hoo for the rich boomers who have to deal with a little market volatility. Suited you fine when the Fed’s money printer made your portfolio go up up up. Did not work out as well for people who don’t own assets.
Chaos. Part of it is planned. People can’t keep up with it. It’s also a good strategy for doing what has to be done. I understand that people like you who are used to moving at the speed of government are flabbergasted. Take heart though most private companies couldn’t keep up with the speed of Elon either. Have you read Issacson’s biography yet?
LikeLike
I worry your fixation on the national debt as the primary issue facing our country leads to acceptance of dangerous byproducts. Honest question: would you support a dictatorship if it was an effective strategy for doing what you believe “needs to be done”? Where is your red line, wherein the ends no longer justify the means?
Many people would say yes to dictatorship, believing that a wide range of things “need to be done.” History is full of examples. I don’t know of any examples where the pros outweighed the cons, and I don’t think our case will be the exception to the rule. An administration that is willing to disobey the supreme court and congress is quite literally a dictatorship, and that’s exactly what this administration is doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree any “fixation” is going to stack the deck on the ends justify the means. But I also see it from the other side. Biden’s lawfare against Trump was justified because Trump is Hitler. The Democrats using a decidedly undemocratic process to pick their nominee was justified because Trump is Hitler. Open borders? You guessed it, Trump is Hitler.
In the end Democracy contains the seeds to its own destruction. We’re there now. Our congress is a popularity contest. Our judges are politicians. And the Presidents have been EOing the shit out of everything for a long time now.
If the debt resulted in the US going bankrupt and lots of hardship that would be one thing. But I don’t think a country with our nuclear arsenal is going to take our medicine so to speak. We’re going to invade some resource rich country. Eventually it’s Armageddon for everyone, IMHO.
LikeLike
You didn’t really answer the questions, and it’s informative to see you not willing to say anything like “I am not in favor of a dictatorship,” or “there exist times when the ends do not justify the means.” You’re offended that people bring up Hitler comparisons, but with a response like yours you’re not helping dispel worry in that respect. But what you wrote certainly illustrates a nihilism. If the end of the world is on our doorstep, then nothing really matters, does it?
I have far more faith in democracy than you seem to have. A popularity contest doesn’t have to be as bad as you think. If more of us voted, and could vote, we’d be better off. Because regular people ARE smarter than our current leaders. The answer is greater democracy, not lesser. With that, we could avoid the apocalypse.
“lawfare against Trump”
Biden did not mastermind the cases against Trump. Ex-Presidents aren’t supposed to be immune from law. Trump broke laws, and it would be malfeasance to ignore lawbreaking if you or I did it, and it is doubly so if we let powerful people skate by. He is far more capable (rich, can hire lawyers) of dealing with our justice system than you or I, and you or I can be charged by police power tomorrow. But he should be immune!?!? Every criminal defendant in our system could claim “lawfare.” He got off amazingly better than you or I would if we did the same. Yet you shed tears for him?!? And if Lawfare is such a terrible thing, one should be aghast at today’s DOJ. But the point isn’t ensuring the justice system is fair, the point is cruelty and power. Trump has never wanted a fair justice system, he just wants it working for him. And supporters like you live in doublethink: against corruption and for Trump.
“using a decidedly undemocratic process to pick their nominee”
Where in the constitution does it say how parties should pick nominees? None of our political party nomination processes are particularly democratic, (too much money) and didn’t you just say democracy was overrated? Which is it? I don’t like the process either, but this argument is grasping at straws, and I’m not even sure what point you were going for by bring it up. Is this a reason we should accept a dictatorship?
“Open borders”
Ds are far from open border advocates. They have been far more sympathetic to R arguments than I’d prefer. They essentially ARE Rs on this issue, the differences are amazingly minute. Remember the bipartisan border bill from last year? Ds are completely acceptable to minimizing border crossings, the main difference is a wish to be less cruel to people already here. They’re basically Regan. But that’s too liberal?!?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“it’s informative to see you not willing to say anything like “I am not in favor of a dictatorship,” or “there exist times when the ends do not justify the means.” “
Geez maybe it’s because I’m not omniscient and I don’t know?
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
― Bertrand Russell
I don’t think the people are smarter than the politicians. They are both driven by short term incentives (mostly). Democracy does nothing to change those incentives. Bitcoin does. Religion does, or at least can.
I don’t see how under a democracy the incentives will change. Can you enlighten me?
LikeLike
It doesn’t take being omniscient, I asked an “if” question: would you support a dictatorship if it was an effective strategy for doing what you believe needs to be done?
Lots of people have lots of ideas about what needs to be done; a dictator will only represent one viewpoint. For example, I don’t agree with you that the debt is an urgent issue. I doubt you’d agree with me about what issues are urgent, and wouldn’t like it if “my” dictator took charge. You seem to be souring on the constitution. Spreading power around widely helps to temper things, helps push people towards compromise. That’s not saying we have a great example going, but I propose improving it by increasing democracy, not discarding it. For all that I criticize the US about, its main arc has been moving in the right direction, and slowly improving citizens’ power (in a zig zag, forward and back process). The debt is solvable even under our imperfect system, recall we had balanced budgets (surpluses, iirc) as recently as the 90’s.
I don’t know that I can enlighten you. It helps that you identify religion as a potential path forward. Consider that religion’s essential component is faith. Perhaps you can have faith in democracy, have faith in your fellow human.
I like the Russell quote, although he is much more an elitist than I prefer. While one interpretation might suggest lessening democracy, another suggests strengthening education. I prefer the latter. Another way to interpret the quote is to consider the dictator as the ultimate expression of a cocksure person. Intelligent people have doubt, because they know that new facts bring new interpretations. An actually intelligent person would naturally be open to compromise with other intelligent people, a productive example of democracy (if we were allowed to elect intelligent people). I think more democracy and more education is the way to go.
LikeLike
I held my nose when I voted for him, but then, what other choice did I have? That silly word salad clown from California? I really do wish there would have been someone else.
LikeLike
But you did have a choice. Draw up a list of pros and cons that a Harris presidency would bring vs a Trump presidency. If you think what we’re getting now is better than what you expected from Harris, there’s no need to hold your nose. If getting rid of due process, the checks and balances of the three branches of government, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the US’s leadership in education, research, and economics is a better outcome than whatever Harris would have done, you made the right choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“They’re all part of the same establishment they detest.”
You say the establishment they detest includes Washington, Hollywood, academia, New York, Democrats, and Liz Cheney Republicans. It sounds like they detest America, except for the part that lives in rural areas and doesn’t run anything large enough to be considered part of the establishment.
LikeLike