Trump Redux: The Death of Democracy, or Overblown Hyperbole?

[Trollheart]

You know, I think that will do. I mean, there are fucking hundreds, even thousands of appointments to be made yet, but do I, or you, care about his Communications Director or the Guy Who Takes the Skin off His Kentucky Fried Chicken? I know I don't, and I think I've done a half-decent job writing about enough potential threats to American and world peace now that it's beginning to affect me, so I think I'll leave it at that. I may come back at some point and write a profile on Vance, but the rest of them can fuck off. I'm tuning out and watching the footy. This is giving me a headache. Anyone else who wants to contribute, knock yourself out. I'm done with this for now.

[Psy-Fi]

[Jwb]

If you believe that is an accurate characterization of the right in America, I think that belies an understanding of where the majority of the American right is at and how Trump actually did court them from 2015 to now. For one, the right-wing conservatives of America have been extremely pro-Israel for a long time, far preceding Trump - that was one thing he didn't really change in terms of the shift from neoconservatism to "MAGA". It's the right who are much more likely to sympathize solely with Israel, whereas the left is more likely to sympathize with both Israel and Palestine. More broadly though, I think Trump can get away with a lot when it comes to foreign policy and his views/strategies on how things should be done (Israel not withstanding, as I don't think even he has a lot of wiggle room in the party on them), for the simple fact that most Americans simply can't be bothered with foreign policy as one of their important priorities, as the majority of them are much more concerned with what's happening domestically. Americans lack of interest in a general sense with foreign policy is one of the reasons the progressive left is so important. Of course, back in the '70s, Americans were much more in tune with foreign policy as we were actively drafting young men to go fight a war, but that only makes the activism and message of the progressive left regarding the situation of Israel and Palestine that much more important now.

Secondly, if you wanted a more accurate broad-brush stroke characterization of much of the right in America today compared to the left, I think it would be more fitting to characterize it as 'anti-establishment/anti-institutions' vs 'pro-establishment/pro-institutions' (just look at some of his cabinet picks in this thread for example). Since 2015, Trump has successfully sold a message of distrust, disdain, and general resentment against institutions that were once generally well respected and well regarded by most of the mainstream politicians in both parties - whether that be our intelligence agencies, our pharmaceutical industries, our military, our educational institutions, our immigration system, our media, our technology companies, our election systems, and of course, our politicians. This isn't to say that the left is always pro-institution and pro-establishment, certainly the progressive left is not - but the corporate democrats that haunt most of the halls of power generally are - Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, etc. - why wouldn't they be, they got elected and got rich with the system as it is!

Of course, this would raise the question of how a guy born into wealth, who benefited greatly from the establishment and donated to many establishment politicians was able to successfully convince enough voters that he is sincere in his anti-establishment rhetoric and goals to become president. Doing it once could be written off as a fluke, especially with how it happened in 2016 - doing it twice, with a popular vote to boot makes it much more difficult to write off.

There's certainly an aspect of truth to this - that there are Trump supporters who will buy whatever he's selling them, e.g. slapping universal tariffs and heavily leaning into trade wars will help your bottom line - but I think there's another aspect of the truth that many Democrats often overlook - that being that Trump is really, really good at taking the temperature of the room and telling people what they want to hear, regardless of if it's true or not. And he also knows when to shift his messaging if it's not working - which it doesn't always. I'm reminded of when he, in typical Trumpian fashion, wanted to take credit for Operation Warp Speed (which he probably does deserve some credit for), and encouraged his supporters to get the vaccine - only to be met with boos and repudiation from his crowd. I'm sure you can guess, after he met this response from his crowds a few times, how often he boasted about the vaccines and encouraged people to get them after that.

It's often implied that Trump supporters are simply cultists - it's a comforting thought for those who despise him, because generally speaking, when a cult leader goes and dies, the cult dissipates. The more uncomfortable thought for those who despise Trump is that his supporters aren't simply a reflection of him, but rather, he's a reflection of his supporters and America more broadly - the good: a fighter's spirit, confidence, tenacity, courage; and of course also the bad: the immorality, the corruption, the greed, and the anger.

I don't think most people who use the terminology of pro-establiment vs anti-establishment have any kind of coherent meaning in mind beyond vibes.  It's a vague dissatisfaction with the status quo that exists among the populace that is tapped into by demogagues. The thing that seems to make populist rhetoric work is that it blames our problems on a kind of shady elite who's interests are at odds with those of the people.  For Bernie Sanders,  that's the interests of the billionares and big business.  For Trump, it's the deep state. 

In either case, it's an intuitive narrative that easily appeals to a lot of people and can often serve as both a motivating reason to promote their particular agenda,  but also a useful framing device for explaining away shortcomings, losses, etc.  These things are easyv to explain away when "the system is rigged against you." And even more so,  by Trump in particular, it's utilized to frame him as a victim of said deep state which only makes him more authentic in the minds of his followers.  The myriad of criminal charges leveled against him are proof positive not of his criminal tendencies but of the fact that he is a martyr of the deep state.  It's a self reinforcing narrative that can easily make sense of any event.  Whether Trump wins or loses the election, it confirms the narrative.  Whether he is convicted or beats the charges.  It never matters.

I believe it doesn't even really matter if he is a criminal or if he wants to be a dictator, in the minds of many MAGA voters.  All the better to have him fighting in your corner.

[Trollheart]

Does anyone think Trump actually really stands for anything, or is it all just go with what he thinks people want, what will get him the votes and the support? Does he have any principles at all, anything he believes in (besides making money and having the heads of his enemies impaled on the spikes of the White House gates)? In other words, are there issues he truly, genuinely believes in (just say electric cars, or immigration, or whatever) or is he just a chameleon who, if the circumstances demand it and the wind changes, goes in the prevailing direction? Is he, in the end, an empty suit, the literal straw man, or is there anything of substance there at all? Is it all smoke and mirrors and snake oil?

[Jwb]

It depends.  I thought at first that a lot of the anti immigration rhetoric and xenophobia he engaged in during his first campaign seemed sort of cynical and geared toward the sentiment of the times. But he has not relented from that messaging and basic vision of things so for all intents and purposes I think he more or less buys into it.  I think it's even more likely that he believes all the stuff about the US getting taken advantage of in trade deals and by our NATO allies who relied on the American security umbrella without investing in their own seven defense. Because he's been beating that same drum since the late 80's.

I think he's willing to say what he needs to in order to get elected when it comes to topics like abortion, topics he doesn't really care about.  But for the handful of issues he's made his brand,  either he believes them or if it's a grift then it's one that he's been cultivating for more than 30 years.

[Trollheart]

I think it makes it very difficult to know what someone actually stands for - if they do - when they appear to bend with whichever way the wind is blowing. I mean, as a purely hypothetical example, something I know would never happen, let's assume that 99% of people in the USA during Covid believed passionately in vaccines and rejected the conspiracy theories, would he have gone with the flow, bowed to the will of the people? If he sincerely (a word, I know, not normally used to describe him) believed the virus was manufactured and the lies spun about it, would he have tried to convince/browbeat everyone to accept his view? Or, to take another, perhaps slightly more believable example, if he suddenly cozied up to China, but American opinion was against them, would he fold or fight his corner?

I hesitate to trot out the old Hitler comparisons, but this one seems to me to illustrate at least his (Hitler's), for want of another word, dedication to his own beliefs. I have no doubt at all that if all of Germany rejected the idea of hatred against the Jews, Hitler would have continued pushing it, because it wasn't, to him, just a means to an end (though of course it was that too): he sincerely (again, probably not a great word to use but I can't think of another right now) believed what he was saying, it wasn't just all propaganda. So to be terribly insensitive about it, you could say that you always knew where Hitler stood. You might say - I don't know if I'm right - Kennedy (JFK) fighting for civil rights in the case of that school in Alabama (was it? Maybe Georgia; one of the deep South states anyway) refusing to allow black students, and sending in the National Guard, even though he knew he might lose votes there, is another example of someone showing that they don't just use a cause for their own ends, they truly believe in and are prepared to fight for it. I'm not so sure there's anything you can say falls into that category about Trump, other than money, power and Donald Trump.

Incidentally, not being smart, but in your response: "their own seven defense"? I know autocorrect can fuck you up, but I can't figure out what you meant there?

[DJChameleon]

Trump has no positions or anything he stands for outside of wanting people close to him to be die hard loyalists and to make money for him and his family. He just wants the power to get himself off charges and his buddies ie the Gaetz pick.

He will flip flop on issues depending on the audience he is speaking to because he's a con man/drifter. He will say he back Israel then headed to Michigan to bring some Muslims on stage to say he's pro Palestinian and wants the conflict to end. He's also said in an interview that he just wants Netenayahu to just hurry it up and finish it like kill everyone he has to and I guess stop. He says that more from the aspect of wanting to start construction in the area on some beachfront property.

Oh and seven defense probably means self defense.

[Psy-Fi]

DOJ and FBI officials reach out to lawyers as potential Trump revenge prosecutions loom

[SGR]

I think it makes it very difficult to know what someone actually stands for - if they do - when they appear to bend with whichever way the wind is blowing. I mean, as a purely hypothetical example, something I know would never happen, let's assume that 99% of people in the USA during Covid believed passionately in vaccines and rejected the conspiracy theories, would he have gone with the flow, bowed to the will of the people? If he sincerely (a word, I know, not normally used to describe him) believed the virus was manufactured and the lies spun about it, would he have tried to convince/browbeat everyone to accept his view? Or, to take another, perhaps slightly more believable example, if he suddenly cozied up to China, but American opinion was against them, would he fold or fight his corner?

I hesitate to trot out the old Hitler comparisons, but this one seems to me to illustrate at least his (Hitler's), for want of another word, dedication to his own beliefs. I have no doubt at all that if all of Germany rejected the idea of hatred against the Jews, Hitler would have continued pushing it, because it wasn't, to him, just a means to an end (though of course it was that too): he sincerely (again, probably not a great word to use but I can't think of another right now) believed what he was saying, it wasn't just all propaganda. So to be terribly insensitive about it, you could say that you always knew where Hitler stood. You might say - I don't know if I'm right - Kennedy (JFK) fighting for civil rights in the case of that school in Alabama (was it? Maybe Georgia; one of the deep South states anyway) refusing to allow black students, and sending in the National Guard, even though he knew he might lose votes there, is another example of someone showing that they don't just use a cause for their own ends, they truly believe in and are prepared to fight for it. I'm not so sure there's anything you can say falls into that category about Trump, other than money, power and Donald Trump.

Incidentally, not being smart, but in your response: "their own seven defense"? I know autocorrect can fuck you up, but I can't figure out what you meant there?

I'd agree with jwb that he seems to have genuine beliefs around things like trade agreements and security alliances (and the discrepancy in the cost to America in maintaining those alliances). To his point, you can go back to interviews he gave in the 80s and 90s and pick up on many of these same themes and beliefs, which is the indicator that it's most likely a genuine belief.

If what you're actually looking for are some high-minded and selfless convictions that Trump has like, to your example, JFK - or an Abraham Lincoln - then I'm not sure you'll find that with Trump. There's a moral turpitude with Trump that makes him stand out among US presidents, but not so much for the immorality (which, if you honestly assess many US presidents, you'll find it with probably most of them in one degree or another), but rather because Trump almost always doubles down, denies, and defames his accusers and opponents when he's called out on his moral failings.

One aspect to who Trump is and why he acts the way he does can be somewhat decoded by his relationship with lawyer Roy Cohn (who used to be the special counsel for Senator Joseph McCarthy in the '50s - and if you know much about US history, the fact that the same man who in a sense brought you Joseph McCarthy also brought you Donald Trump is telling). PBS Frontline had a recent piece on the relationship - and if anyone has a goal of trying to understand Trump, I don't think you can do it without understanding the lessons he learned through the mentorship of Roy Cohn:

"Roy went on the offensive and said this is a victory; Trump was vindicated," Marcus says. "He knew before anybody else did that the court of public opinion is often more important than a court of law."

The Choice 2024 draws a through line from that moment to the present, showing how Cohn's playbook for the race discrimination suit became an enduring guide for Trump in handling future crises: Deny everything, fight back, and go on the offensive to declare victory.

"If somebody attacks him, he attacks them back, he says, ten times as hard," says Peter Baker of The New York Times. "He's not about diplomacy. He's not about negotiation. He is all about the fight."

When you consider the idea that the 'court of public opinion is often more important than a court of law', you could see the motivation for why Trump appeared on so many podcasts in this recent election cycle, not only amplifying his message to millions, but also in a sense humanizing and normalizing him. You could also tie this idea back to why all the indictments and legal cases against him didn't seem to have much of an effect on his support and voter turnout:

Most US voters think Trump criminal trial 'politically motivated'

There was recently a biopic movie about Trump released called The Apprentice - I haven't yet watched it myself, so I can't say personally whether or not it's any good, but I have heard from some people that it does do a decent job at explaining the influence Roy Cohn had on Trump and his approach to the media and politics:

[SGR]

I don't think most people who use the terminology of pro-establiment vs anti-establishment have any kind of coherent meaning in mind beyond vibes.  It's a vague dissatisfaction with the status quo that exists among the populace that is tapped into by demogagues. The thing that seems to make populist rhetoric work is that it blames our problems on a kind of shady elite who's interests are at odds with those of the people.  For Bernie Sanders,  that's the interests of the billionares and big business.  For Trump, it's the deep state. 

In either case, it's an intuitive narrative that easily appeals to a lot of people and can often serve as both a motivating reason to promote their particular agenda,  but also a useful framing device for explaining away shortcomings, losses, etc.  These things are easyv to explain away when "the system is rigged against you." And even more so,  by Trump in particular, it's utilized to frame him as a victim of said deep state which only makes him more authentic in the minds of his followers.  The myriad of criminal charges leveled against him are proof positive not of his criminal tendencies but of the fact that he is a martyr of the deep state.  It's a self reinforcing narrative that can easily make sense of any event.  Whether Trump wins or loses the election, it confirms the narrative.  Whether he is convicted or beats the charges.  It never matters.

I believe it doesn't even really matter if he is a criminal or if he wants to be a dictator, in the minds of many MAGA voters.  All the better to have him fighting in your corner.

Yes, I think your assessment of why and how this populist rhetoric works is mostly fair. One thing I might amend though is the following:

It's a self reinforcing narrative that can easily make sense of any event.

I think it might more accurately be referred to as a feedback loop, rather than a self reinforcing narrative - at least in Trump's case. In other words, Trump's framing couldn't exist (or at least couldn't be successful) in a vacuum. It's a framing that relies on a cycle of action-reaction, or output-input-output.

Trump says the deep state are going after you, and he's just in the way - then he proceeds to say or do something that is morally questionable, unethical, or criminal - and then he's plastered on the news practically 24/7...and he gets impeached...and a special counsel is formed to investigate him...and he gets indicted...and he gets convicted...and he gets shot at. The narrative or framing is only as persuasive/successful as it is because he's constantly engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with the media, the government, and the courts. While I agree that the overriding narrative is extremely flexible, and can be used to explain or 'frame' almost any event, imo, the narrative of 'The Trump Show' (so to speak) doesn't work unless Tom chases Jerry.

Hypothetically, if Trump had won in 2016 and behaved better than a choir boy in his words and conduct (and as a result, let's say there were no investigations, no impeachments, no endless negative news coverage, etc) - would the narrative that the evil and corrupt deep state is out to get him and get you still resonate with people and help him win re-election?

[Jwb]

I get what you mean.  From my point of view,  the only problem with your assessment is that it buys into the presumption that Tom exists.  That Tom is actually chasing Jerry.  The way that it is spoken about by Trump and his acolytes and followers,  whether it's a random incel shooter trying to take Trump's head off, a member of the press running a bad story,  a member of congress who votes to impeach him,  an intelligence agency that launches an investigation,  or a prosecutor that decides to pursue charges,  they're all a part of the same insidious conspiracy to take down Trump on behalf of the nebulous Deep State that is in some vague way implied to have orchestrated all of these efforts.

So what if for example they just decide not to press charges for the sake of political expediency? Well,  for one,  that would be an actual deep state plot to affect our politics.  If the DOJ and intelligence agencies decided that going after Trump in any sense would help his hand,  and they decided to look the other way on plausible criminal cases as a result,  that is them prioritizing electoral concerns over the rule of law.  That actually is a bigger problem than inadvertently helping his electoral prospects through trying to legitimately uphold the law. 

In addition, it basically would normalize whatever behavior we are talking about and basically set the precedent that the president can get away with any of these behaviors because it will always just be too politically sensitive to try to hold him to justice. 

That's not to say the intelligence agencies made no mistakes, but even so I don't think it was ridiculous in the first place to look into the Trump Russia connection.  I think it's patently absurd that anyone thinks that they shouldn't have looked into that,  even if there are legitimate criticisms of the methods they employed early on in the investigation (it's been a while but from what I remember there was a problem with a FISA warrant or something?), ultimately they basically said there's clear evidence of obstruction,  but didn't find any clear evidence of collusion.  Which as far as I can tell was in accordance with the facts and basically was a win for Donald Trump. So why is it still cited by MAGA as some type of insidious witch hunt? What kind of witch hunt doesn't find you guilty in the end?

As for Trump the chior boy... such a Trump would have never gotten elected.  He was basically pitched as a bull in a China shop.  The idea that you can campaign and politic in the way he does and not expect to make waves is just a non starter for me as a hypothetical,  because I have a hard time imagining what would have set him apart from the mold if it wasn't for this inherent antagonism.

Even early on in his first campaign,  there was the sense that both the media pundits and the establishment Republicans were in stark opposition to Trump,  and I think that's where his first sorta credentials as the embattled outsider came from.  It was antagonism from the get go.  Who is on what side of the battle has shifted over time,  but that basic dynamic is central to his political identity.

[SGR]

I get what you mean.  From my point of view,  the only problem with your assessment is that it buys into the presumption that Tom exists.  That Tom is actually chasing Jerry.  The way that it is spoken about by Trump and his acolytes and followers,  whether it's a random incel shooter trying to take Trump's head off, a member of the press running a bad story,  a member of congress who votes to impeach him,  an intelligence agency that launches an investigation,  or a prosecutor that decides to pursue charges,  they're all a part of the same insidious conspiracy to take down Trump on behalf of the nebulous Deep State that is in some vague way implied to have orchestrated all of these efforts.

So what if for example they just decide not to press charges for the sake of political expediency? Well,  for one,  that would be an actual deep state plot to affect our politics.  If the DOJ and intelligence agencies decided that going after Trump in any sense would help his hand,  and they decided to look the other way on plausible criminal cases as a result,  that is them prioritizing electoral concerns over the rule of law.  That actually is a bigger problem than inadvertently helping his electoral prospects through trying to legitimately uphold the law. 

In addition, it basically would normalize whatever behavior we are talking about and basically set the precedent that the president can get away with any of these behaviors because it will always just be too politically sensitive to try to hold him to justice. 

The analogy of the cat and mouse game and Tom and Jerry is only an analogy for the narrative itself, as Trump presents it to his supporters, not an analogy for reality and how things have actually gone down.

Liberals and opponents of Trump essentially take it as proof-positive that Trump has (at least potentially in some cases) broken laws, violated his oath to the constitution, engaged in corruption, etc and the systems of government, justice, and media are reacting accordingly and justifiably (they reject Trump's narrative/framing), while his supporters, as you point out, take it as proof-positive that Trump was right all along and all these systems are in concert or cahoots, politically persecuting Trump rather than justly prosecuting him. Conspiracy or no conspiracy, justly or unjustly, my point is simply that the narrative Trump presents essentially requires opposition, blowback, and prosecution to sustain itself - it can't sustain itself on the narrative alone in a vacuum - at least not long term. 

Per your description of them deciding not to press charges, if they decided solely based on whether or not they believed it would help Trump politically would be a betrayal of their duties, but I don't think it wouldn't necessarily require a deep state plot (I suppose it's important to quantify which 'they' we're talking about and who 'they' consists of) to do so (just like the charges filed now didn't require a deep state plot). For several of the cases, as far as I understand it, it would be up to the discretion of the State AG and various district attorneys to decide whether or not the case has enough merit to be worth pursuing. Even if they ultimately decided not to based on their belief that it would help Trump, they obviously could justify it publicly with other reasons not to pursue, assumedly in an independent fashion. But to your overarching point, yes, electoral concerns should not play a part in the decision to press charges, whether it would be a boon or a bust for your side politically to do so, and it would set terrible precedent if those deciding factors/motivations were revealed.

That's not to say the intelligence agencies made no mistakes, but even so I don't think it was ridiculous in the first place to look into the Trump Russia connection.  I think it's patently absurd that anyone thinks that they shouldn't have looked into that,  even if there are legitimate criticisms of the methods they employed early on in the investigation (it's been a while but from what I remember there was a problem with a FISA warrant or something?), ultimately they basically said there's clear evidence of obstruction,  but didn't find any clear evidence of collusion.  Which as far as I can tell was in accordance with the facts and basically was a win for Donald Trump. So why is it still cited by MAGA as some type of insidious witch hunt? What kind of witch hunt doesn't find you guilty in the end?

I don't remember all the ins-and-outs of the Russia Collusion investigation, the Muller report, or the subsequent Durham report, but I think we've both kind of answered that question already, haven't we? Because it falls practically perfectly into Trump's narrative frame. In other words, if you've already accepted Trump's frame, this case would only be viewed via confirmation bias, especially because there were mistakes made by the intelligence agencies, the media talked about it endlessly for two years, and the ultimate findings were favorable to Trump in that there wasn't clear evidence of collusion. I assume the analogy of a 'witch hunt' was used by Trump/his supporters with the view that there was no witch (totally off topic, but I recently picked up an antique book on the history of witch hunts, and holy shit, is it brutal - worse than I ever read about in passing).

As for Trump the chior boy... such a Trump would have never gotten elected.  He was basically pitched as a bull in a China shop.  The idea that you can campaign and politic in the way he does and not expect to make waves is just a non starter for me as a hypothetical,  because I have a hard time imagining what would have set him apart from the mold if it wasn't for this inherent antagonism.

Even early on in his first campaign,  there was the sense that both the media pundits and the establishment Republicans were in stark opposition to Trump,  and I think that's where his first sorta credentials as the embattled outsider came from.  It was antagonism from the get go.  Who is on what side of the battle has shifted over time,  but that basic dynamic is central to his political identity.

Yes, as a hypothetical it's not particularly believable I admit. I suppose I was looking at it from the point of view that we've had many presidents who campaign as real nice, standup guys - the kinda guys that you'd invite over for dinner, or that you'd be comfortable hiring to babysit your kids for a while - but then they get in office and do some absolutely terrible and evil shit. Whereas in the hypothetical, it would've been Trump doing the opposite, campaigning as an antagonistic 'bull in a china shop' asshole but then being a real standup guy who's easy to work with and plays by the rules once he got in office. I know, not believable, especially with his history - but my only point is that I don't think his 'corrupt deep state out to get me' narrative would work any longer in that case - which doesn't mean necessarily that he couldn't win re-election, just that he'd need a new narrative.

[Psy-Fi]

RFK Jr.'s No. 1 hurdle to take on unhealthy food: Money

[DJChameleon]

Linda McMahon is back with another role she isn't qualified for Secretary of Education
https://apnews.com/article/linda-mcmahon-trump-education-secretary-wwe-613016d0c164b89765af761404cbb123

A month after defeating Hillary Clinton, Trump chose McMahon as leader of the Small Business Administration. The agency gives loans and disaster relief to companies and entrepreneurs, and it monitors government officials' compliance with contract laws.

This was her previous role in the last term.


Dr. Oz is heading up Medicare and Medicaid

https://www.newsweek.com/what-dr-oz-has-said-about-changing-medicare-1989533

Even though he's been a tv doctor he does have actually experience being a doctor as opposed to someone like Dr. Phil.

If confirmed by the Senate, the celebrity heart surgeon turned TV star, who has been criticized for promoting health misinformation, would be responsible for the three federal programs—Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act—that more than half the country relies on for health insurance.

[Trollheart]

Well thank Jaysus for that! It's certainly something...


News Alert: Matt Gaetz withdraws from attorney general consideration


Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz said Thursday that he is withdrawing as President-elect Donald Trump's pick for attorney general, writing on social media that his nomination "was unfairly becoming a distraction."

Gaetz's withdrawal comes after meetings with Republican senators this week, as Trump's transition team sought to gauge whether he would win enough GOP support to be confirmed.

Democrats were pressing for the disclosure of a House Ethics Committee report detailing its investigation into Gaetz, including over allegations of sexual misconduct and other alleged crimes, after the panel's Republicans voted on Wednesday not to release the probe's results.

Gaetz has vehemently denied the allegations investigated by the Justice Department and the committee, including the claim that he had sex with a woman in 2017 when she was a minor.