Tougher for the US than the question of Trump himself is this: what to do about the fact that millions of citizens are in violent agreement with his rhetoric? So much so that they are willing to fight and be jailed for it while deifying the man himself. This is maybe 50 million people and they’re not going to suddenly change their politics just because Trump gets defeated or jailed. There needs to be a long term strategy that engages with, understands and somehow accommodates the needs and beliefs of this group. If not, Trump will only be the start.
Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion
- Thread starter tim
- Start date
You accommodate it by understanding what lies behind that manifestation of belief. It isn’t some innate defect, it derived from sociocultural and economic conditions. And the accommodation thus needs to have a long-term horizon as a consequence — those conditions aren’t going to change overnight. But nothing will be fixed by simply demonising a group of people as being untouchable and beyond the pale. All that will do is remove any chance of common ground, and create the conditions for greater fascism
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
Accommodates is maybe too strong but certainly understands and addresses. This is top of the iTunes chart at the moment in the middle of a row about its contents, and I think it's indicative, to a degree, about the centrist (and left tbh) crisis:
As a snapshot of the contradictions of the aggrieved right, it's picking up on real factors which get buried below the whining about welfare recipients and high taxes. But for that it could be a leftie blues song.
These are factors which have their causes misdiagnosed either through manipulation or ideology or cultural influences, but which centrist economics has zero answers for and the left has been absolutely pants at countering.
As a snapshot of the contradictions of the aggrieved right, it's picking up on real factors which get buried below the whining about welfare recipients and high taxes. But for that it could be a leftie blues song.
These are factors which have their causes misdiagnosed either through manipulation or ideology or cultural influences, but which centrist economics has zero answers for and the left has been absolutely pants at countering.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Ideally, but how to dialogue with someone who tells you that you're going to burn in hell or deserve to be culled?
Kind of a conversation stopper.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Thing is Trumps support base are not the most economically marginalised (and this also applies to simialr phenomema such as brexit and the rise of rw populaism in europe) . Its more that these are (often older) people who are increasingly alientated from an ever more atomised society - where the government and other institutions are seen as out of touch and promoting a social liberalism that makes them uncomfortable . So they see society as under attack and traditional values and norms being undermined by a combination of sinister outside forces and alien influexes - "wokeness", immigration, globalism, homosexuality, feminism, "white replacement" , islam, foreign powers - often this slides into conspiracy theories around rothschilds, elites, qanon, bill gates, the jews etc etc being aided and abbetted by nefarious "elites" This sense of victimhood and grievance has been exponentially fuelled by socail media and right wing media platforms.
As a result the romantic nationalism, simple solutions and scapegoating offerred by the likes of trump apeals - it resonates and reinforces their own narrative. Trump an co appear to validate them and thier concerns.
So I dont see there is a real tangible concern that can be easily addressed here - its a narrative, a story, a myth that they have bought into. You would have to go back to building a less atomised society that made people less susecptable to swallowing this narrative in the first place.
As a result the romantic nationalism, simple solutions and scapegoating offerred by the likes of trump apeals - it resonates and reinforces their own narrative. Trump an co appear to validate them and thier concerns.
So I dont see there is a real tangible concern that can be easily addressed here - its a narrative, a story, a myth that they have bought into. You would have to go back to building a less atomised society that made people less susecptable to swallowing this narrative in the first place.
Last edited:
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
I know this is a typo. But I want this to be a real word.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Not just no answers for, but which create the material conditions that are feeling the rise of populism - hard right or left.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
In Trump's lexicon, it is
petee
no gods, no malarkey
two more
As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.
This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.
The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.
Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.
Tribe is an establishment liberal but Luttig:
Judge Michael Luttig on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, for example, hires only students with membership in the Federalist Society or comparable credentials on their resumes. And almost all of Judge Luttig's clerks go on to clerkships at the Supreme Court. His unheard-of batting average is sustained because Judge Luttig diverts clerks who don't land a clerkship with other Justices to Justice Scalia (whom Luttig himself clerked for) and Justice Clarence Thomas.
As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.
This protection, embodied in the amendment’s often-overlooked Section 3, automatically excludes from future office and position of power in the United States government—and also from any equivalent office and position of power in the sovereign states and their subdivisions—any person who has taken an oath to support and defend our Constitution and thereafter rebels against that sacred charter, either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.
The historically unprecedented federal and state indictments of former President Donald Trump have prompted many to ask whether his conviction pursuant to any or all of these indictments would be either necessary or sufficient to deny him the office of the presidency in 2024.
Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.
The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.
Tribe is an establishment liberal but Luttig:
Judge Michael Luttig on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, for example, hires only students with membership in the Federalist Society or comparable credentials on their resumes. And almost all of Judge Luttig's clerks go on to clerkships at the Supreme Court. His unheard-of batting average is sustained because Judge Luttig diverts clerks who don't land a clerkship with other Justices to Justice Scalia (whom Luttig himself clerked for) and Justice Clarence Thomas.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
Partially true (though not entirely) but it's important to note that his base includes a very large number of people whose experience of US life very much is downward slope and are looking for reasons why that might be. His base is primarily white, male, rural, non-college and either headed into or in retirement, but they're not entirely blind to the struggles of eg. their younger family members and communities, and many are in retirement precisely because the jobs that once sustained them are gone or on their way out. The vast suburban vote Trump draws is a vision of the US that's not going to make it in the long run, they're not making that fear up. Small town America is fucked by the prevailing economic winds, the advance of automation etc. Suburban sprawl and norms are threatened by the logics required to combat climate change.
The easy thing is to pin it all on social conservativism and leave it there, but it's a broader phenomenon than that - the draw isn't just "beware the gays" it's also tying fear of social liberalism to something much more concrete.
Last edited:
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
The last bit of your last sentence broadly answers the first 'what to do?' question though doesn't it?
I mean if people think others can't be brought round to better politics then they must have a pretty bleak view of the world in terms of things getting better. People weren't born with these politics, they've come to them for concrete reasons, and some of that is justified fears and dislike of how things are, they've just been guided and directed towards incorrect reasons for the world being the way it is. And ime these ideas are pretty fragile and can be countered often quite easily face to face, hence they need constant and brutal repetition by the media and people like Trump to stay in their heads.
Last edited:
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Quoting myself but hey
And if organising on the basis of shared class interests is not possible then that removes the foundation stone of socialism.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
long term effects of deindustrialisation playing out - I think its more about the reduced status of traditional male working class as a decline in material conditions. Although a significent section of trumps voter base (and mirrored by the brexit vote) have seen a decline in material condtions - its not as severe as the butt fucking that younger people have been on the end of. Its not the people on the streets and relying on food banks or the people (often from immgrant communties) working 60 hour weeks on zero sum contracts who are voting for this.
What notable is this growth of support for extreme nationalism and rejection of liberal democracy is not being driven by comparable economic calamity and insecurity that fuelled its rise in the 30s. The malaise is arguably as much - or more - socio- cultural as socio-economic. Thats why im wary of the idea that the "deplorable" constiuencey have concrete greivances that "need" to be listened to or can be addressed in a concrete or effective way. And a large section of the support are moderearely/comforatably off retired people - but with exactly the same greivances. And yes - good point about the hostilty to polices to combat climate change - (another woke/globablist conspiracy)
Is investment in better jobs, education, higher wages, access to healthcare , reducing inequality and decent housing going to much of a differance to them? - they would likely see that as all going to "aliens", lazy undesirables and undeserving and feckless millenials at thier expense.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
hmm that and the more simplistic approach that cover more countries than the usa
if you struggling it the other that are causing it
and the othering of part of the states has been going on for almost since the country was invented
the native americans , the slaves, the chinese immigrants, the free slaves , the irish and german disphoria and so on and so on
its nothing new to the states but need to be checked from time to time
something most country around the world have to fight against time and time again
parts of the media since the late 70'd have weaponised it in america and it still going on
Last edited:
Even within the terms that you identify, the sociocultural differences are not something that anybody can afford to simply write off as untouchable.
There have been a number of attempts to analyse these sociocultural differences, including via Moral Foundations theory. That postulates that there are five/six fundamental types of morality that define the ideological map. One of the interesting results from this approach is that liberals tend only to focus on two of those foundations, whereas conservatives care about all five/six. That causes each side to talk past each other. If liberals want to address the “deplorables” beyond the structural level, they will therefore need to think about how to create common ground on these other three/four foundations, rather than ignoring them.
That’s effectively what the speaker did in the talk I linked to earlier, by the way. He sought to understand and engage with KKK members on their own ground, with incredible results.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
No but it also involves two other things, the perception of (and thus motivation from) relative decline (when you already have no money or power deepening trouble is more brutal but less vertiginous) and the means to do something about it (lower-middle class and better-off working class people have resources to mobilise and propagandise).
Well yeah it would obviously make a difference, which is one reason why a big section of capital is so hell bent on relentlessly attacking socialist ideas/bolstering ideological frameworks which alienate and build hostility between different sections of the working class. If it was a rock-solid social construct which couldn't be influenced at all there'd be no need for Fox.
Nine Bob Note
Self-Isolating before it was fashionable
"Don't get too confident kids, we've survived her floods (eww), we still have to face her emails!"
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
A Pizzagate Now
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Key witness in Mar-a-Lago documents case switches statement to implicate Trump
All the latest news and analysis of Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign and far-reaching legal problems
www.the-independent.com
not-bono-ever
meh
Let’s hope there is more of this. Go to a supermax for someone who despises you ? Nope
Here's that $200k Bond in full:
petee
no gods, no malarkey
there may be.
Free Lawyers! But Big Strings Attached
If your boss is accused of criming, and investigators want to talk to you, here’s a tip: Be wary if the company generously offers to pay for your lawyer. Remember Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows? She learned this lesson quickly. When January...
statuskuo.substack.com
Similar threads
