I still do not understand the mechanisms by which Trump imposes his control on other actors in the Republican Party. What are these people afraid of?
Is it simply that he'll speak ill of you? Write an all-caps tweet? That he'll support a primary opponent? Those don't seem sufficient to explain the Kadavergehorsam of the Republican political class.
I have always found it baffling that people admire him, think he is a good person, smart, witty, charismatic etc.. But now I'm talking about a different issue: why do they obey him? Saddam had secret police who would simply torture and kill you and your family -- okay, no mystery why people obeyed him. Does Trump have a squad of assassins? Did he when he was out of office? And who have been their victims?
The complete moral collapse of the Republican political elite is a mystery to me.
I would love to read a close chronology of the weeks after Jan. 6. The Republican Senate and House came as close to breaking with him on Jan. 7 as they ever have since 2015. But somehow, within a week, he brought them back under his will. What exactly happened? Death threats from constituents? Death threats from Trump? Blackmail on an industrial scale? What happened to Mitch? What happened to Lindsey? They came so close to getting the monkey off their backs, and then suddenly he was on top again.
I think it's simply that GOP primary voters love him. GOP officeholders don't need to be "afraid" of him necessarily for him to control them. If they cross him, they'll lose their primaries and won't be officeholders anymore. Some of them have in fact not been afraid and done just that (Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Charlie Dent, Anthony Gonzalez, etc.) and they're not around anymore.
[Brian Kemp has annoyed Trump and survived, but state politics are different. It is an interesting fact about the American electorate that as low-information as it seems to be, it seems to meaningfully understand the distinction between Governors and Senators, as non-swing states are much more willing to elect the former from the "out party" than the latter. We see the same dynamic with GOP electorates being willing to support Trump-annoyers in state offices than in Congress.]
" If they cross him, they'll lose their primaries...."
Maybe? But that seems like normal politics -- the Bush dynasty did that kinda stuff, Reagan did that kinda stuff. And yet, Republican rivals did not simply deflate into empty sacks when the Bush boys were riding high.
Plus, the threat of primaries applies only to a small subset of Republican elites. Lots of them don't depend for their meal tickets on getting votes every two years. And yet damned near all of them have folded.
Obama broke Republicans and they sought a deal with the devil. The longer they go along with his charade and transgressions the harder it is to leave because to deviate or reject Trump is acknowledging they are complicit in all the harm and incompetence of this amoral man.
"... longer they go along with his charade and transgressions ...."
Okay, that may explain some of their attitude now, during his second maladministration. But what about Jan.7-Jan. 14 of 2021? They had a perfect opportunity to wash their hands of all their past transgressions. And yet within a week, they all fell in line.
Because the shock wore off. They had developed rationalizations and excuses to shirk responsibility to Democrats (literally McConnell was saying it was Democrats’ job to bring the impeachment vote not his.)
Now they could remain complicit with Jan 6 and dismiss it.
My whole solution to this would have been proscription of those involved, but I am a history nerd.
It's hard to remember how much of a non-entity Trump was for a couple years after Jan. 6. His campaign kickoff event at Mar-a-Lago on Nov. 22, 2022, was so pathetic that one of the major attendees was the weirdo guy who wore the "build a wall" suit. Matt Gaetz (Matt Gaetz!) said he couldn't make it because the weather was too bad to be flying from north to south Florida. The New York Post mocked him with the headline, "Florida Man Makes Announcement." The most prominent politician who attended was Madison Cawthorn, who had already been defeated in his primary.
All the Republican leaders continued to think he was yesterday's news and irrelevant (as they made googoo eyes at Ron DeSantis). Too bad the primary voters and those attending his boisterous rallies had a different idea.
It does make me a bit more sympathetic toward Merrick Garland and why he didn't go after Trump starting Jan. 20 2021 like gangbusters. For all intents and purposes, it was clear that Trump was finished. Why poke the bear by rushing criminal prosecution? Too bad the Republican base eventually disagreed about Trump's demise. But that wasn't really that predictable, no matter how clear it seems in hindsight.
Yep, they thought their Trump problem was basically "solved" and never imagined that Trump could make a comeback.
It may have been good for them to avoid challenges in 2022, but it's given them more headaches now. That said, many seem to be happily adapting to the new world as it's easier than ever to stay in power (just be nice to Trump).
The yelling by itself is not a sufficient explanation of the behavior. Politicians get yelled at, and they ignore it. We could have lined the entire terminal with Columbia undergrads yelling about Gaza, and Lindsey would have ignored it.
So, what's different about these yells, or these yellers?
How did Obama “break” Republicans? What did he do that was so evil and oppressive that a deal with the orange douche was appealing? Was is just, uh, being in the Oval Office while having excessive levels of melanin?
That was the injury. What added the insult was the fact that he was really, really good at the job. They hated having a black man in the White House, but could have tolerated it more easily if he had confirmed all of their prejudices that black people are stupid lazy, incompetent, etc.. Instead, he was sharp, disciplined, on top of the facts, and ran one of the most corruption-free administrations in US history. It was unforgivable.
Obama came in on hope and gave: bailouts, more handouts and didn’t side with workers over the establishment. He even continued bush foreign policy. On top of that, growth was lackluster at best.
Combine that with the rise of social media and a very fractured 2016 primary (which they did again in 2024). And you get Trump.
You can quibble with any of these policies, but they all fall squarely within “politician from the other party does stuff I don’t like,” not “OMG this is a CATASTROPHE that must be undone by ANY MEANS NECESSARY including 100% uncritically supporting the ignorant buffoon and tinpot dictator wannabe.”
The Bushes were different because their support was deeper with the chamber of commerce than with working stiffs. Cross the Bushes and your fund raising would take a hit. Cross Trump and people who usually don’t vote in primaries might show up to destroy your career.
Evangelicals really liked Bush because he was religious and his redemption arc really hit their sweet spot.
And then Trump came along and they realized that letting their id-fueled freak flag fly was so much tastier than all that Jesus stuff they thought they liked before.
I'll add that the main reason GOP primary voters love Trump is that he fights the culture war and the Lefts march through the institutions more effectively than any modern Republican politician ever has. GOP primary voters hadn't seen any "cultural" or "lifestyle" wins until Trump descended the escalator, so he is now their idol.
The left kept winning the culture war in the Bush era. That was one of the greatest advances in gay rights in history, even though state constitutional amendments made it look like the opposite on a formal legal level.
Gay marriage isn't the only culture war issue? I certainly remember the Dixie Chicks and the massive 'patriotism means supporting Bush and the War on Terror' push.
Beat me to it. And while some have derided the likes of Jeff Flake, Lamar Alexander, Thom Tillis, etc. as being cowardly for quitting, and there's indeed a small sample size, that sample size has indicated that crossing Trump means getting primaried, and written out of GOP power.
The downside risk for Republicans, though, is that GOP primary voters keep nominating Trump like clowns that have not been as accepted with general voters, and it's caused Republicans to score several own goals that have impeded them from holding even more power. And that downside risk could hopefully implode when Trump's gone and there's no equivalent personalist at the top.
It’s not clear to me why but state and local level politics seems to be perceived as being much less zero sum than national politics. That means politicians and voters are more willing to both break with their party. Republicans in particular have made Congress and and the Presidency a life or death matter but have not succeeded in making that true of Governorships.
I have a few theories as to why. First, I think some of it is political talent. The typical state or local politician does not have the personality or political talent to convince people that voting for them is zero sum. Second, Congress and the President hold the keys to the federal judiciary which is increasingly where policy is made or unmade and where’s the state judiciary is not nearly as important to voters. Third, the press covers national politics so closely and largely ignores state and local level politics so national stuff feels zero sum in a way that state and local stuff doesn’t. Lastly, both parties (republicans more so) have empowered the executive such that things are more zero sum at the national level.
Interested in what others think is the reason for this or if I’m just wrong.
"Kadavergehorsam is a German term meaning "corpse-like obedience," referring to absolute, unquestioning submission to another's will, like that of a mindless cadaver. The concept was popularized in the context of Jesuit orders and later became associated with German military and administrative obedience, particularly during the Prussian and Nazi eras, where it was used to justify carrying out orders without moral or ethical consideration."
Two years ago Mitt Romney said he was spending $5,000/day on security due to all the violent threats; and IIRC it was Tim Miller or someone else at the Bulwark that said in private GOP officials absolutely say they take votes they don't want to because they don't want their families threatened. Getting violent threats is horrible even if they're not carried out. IDK how people can still ask 'what are these people scared of'.
That’s how it works: if you threaten government officials, then you get arrested.
Or at least, that’s how it works normally. So why not with the people threatening Mitt or Tim Miller?
Is the next step here a matter of complicity on the part of the police or prosecutors? Did Mitt complain about their being unresponsive to his concerns?
Trump pardoned hundreds of people who staged a somewhat violent failed coup on his behalf. Would you trust his security services to protect your family against people who are just making threatening phone calls?
Also, even if they wanted to, it may be hard to do. I know very little about policing tbh but I guess the threats come from burner phones that are hard to trace.
Eh I'd say the scared members of the 2nd Amendment party need to buy a gun and learn how to use it. Frankly Democrats should maybe consider doing the same. I'm only half kidding.
I mean, this seems like it’s one of the fundamental weaknesses in Binya’s argument and strength of dts—shouldn’t right wing crazy people be threatening Democrats as much or more than Republians? And if non-enforcement of threats is so ubiquitous, the set of left-aligned people willing to issue them may be smaller than the set of right-aligned people but if the 1970s and the Weather Underground etc. are any guide it’s extremely far from zero. Non-enforcement would make them hugely incentive-compatible. Partisan non-enforcement as proposed by evan bear is one possibility explaining their ostensible absence, but that still wouldn’t explain why the Dems aren’t just able to be threatened into compliance with the R agenda if threats by righties are (1) effective and (2) never subject to deterrence by law enforcement. There are some serious missing pieces to this narrative.
I think 'death threats on the internet' is an excuse to do what one wants to do anyway, or more apt in this scenario, not to do things that would be hard and frustrating.
I think there's just also a fundamental asymmetry where in a lot of ways the GOP is terrified of their base, whereas the Democratic party tends to have a kind of contempt for theirs.
"shouldn’t right wing crazy people be threatening Democrats as much or more than Republians?"
It's the same phenomenon we see on the left -- the far left people have massive rage at more moderate people but essentially ignore the right. Consider all the stuff about how Biden and Harris were personally committing genocide and were beyond contempt and how conscientious leftists couldn't POSSIBLY vote for such mass murderers. So you let Trump get elected? Okay.
Dismissing real-world evidence purely based on logic is often a sign the logic is wrong. Mitt Romney didn't spend $2m/year on security for no reason and while the other claims have been private, there've been too many I think to dismiss.
I won't pretend to have a logic-based "proof". But the fact is dysphemistic treadmill asked why certain people are behaving a certain way and repeatedly those people say it's at least in part because of the threats. Maybe it's an excuse, but even if it is, the fact there's quite a bit of reason to view it as credible matters.
Specifically on your logic, Dems and Reps are not the same. Dems can't vote with Trump, unless they switch party. They can take the odd bipartisan vote but ultimately being Dem means voting against the GOP. So, threats do not have the same incentive structure.
Well in a world where we're a failed state (I'm not sure exactly what point that is), this is what you do. I'd really like some 2A people to explain what they think the normie wonky types should do given the circumstances.
Even the best efforts of law enforcement are not going to be 100% effective. Moreover, the threats are indicators of a high prevalence of proclivity toward violence that is not limited to those known to be making threats
I don’t know how new or different it is, but I do think it’s true that there’s a lot of willingness for a subset of the far right deep state hating Pizzagate types to make death threats to GOP politicians. I think it’s telling that Trump’s response to Epstein stuff lately is one of the first cracks you’ve seen for these folks.
It’s a bit surprising that they mostly don’t talk about this in public - but I guess talking about it in public gets you death threats as much as saying not so nice things about Trump.
I know someone who climbed pretty high in corporate America and then ended up retiring early. There explanation was that as they rose higher and higher and the money became bigger and bigger she began to encounter people who would do anything to get ahead.
I assume if you were in the running for a big promotion your first thought wouldn't be to begin executing on your plan to ruin your rival thought lies, sabotage, rumors, and any and all forms of political machinations. Trump is exactly that kind of person. And as a result rivals are scared of him - whatever your limits are his are 2x.
Hopefully not jinxing anything, but regarding your "Trump doesn't have a secret police" point: I think we may eat our words on that considering the recent developments of ICE. It's certainly heading in that direction.
ICE now has a budget in the same ballpark as the Marine corps/other nations' militaries (it'd be in the top 20 or so) and are filtering for ideological loyalty in their new hires. We haven't seen an American-style Savak/Stasi before, but i'd argue that that's because there hasn't been enough time yet and they just haven't been given explicit orders to start arresting and harassing people beyond the scope of those who can be profiled as "immigrants".
Give it time. ICE is going after "illegals" now, but the true danger is that there is now a huge, personalized paramilitary force that is gaining daily experience in repression tactics, and has seen no real resistance to it's trampling of multiple constitutional amendments.
The only difference between this 'gun' and the historical 'guns' of past secret police forces is that ICE isn't pointed in our general direction yet. But it's loaded and sitting on the table.
Yes, which is why if the opposition (whoever that is) actually manages to win power they've got to purge them all. You may have to overstretch the Border Patrol or something to perform necessary duties but you can't trust anyone who is used to masking up and kidnapping people off the street.
There's also the fact that there have already been impersonators out there doing this to kidnap women. That adds a whole other layer of fear to this that the people arresting you might not even be real law enforcement, so how are you supposed to act in that situation?
In theory this would be a fairly legitimate reason for the use of a specific constitutional right (or self defense by any means, really, baseball bats, pepper spray, whatever).
From an external view, there's functionally no difference between masked, unidentified secret cops apprehending people without warrants and criminals kidnapping someone. Any psycho can buy a cop costume from Spirit Halloween and hurt people, as we've seen, which is why law enforcement, in the ideal free society, are required to identify themselves.
In practice however, good luck proving your innocence afterwards when the state throws the book at you if you happen to successfully make it through the 'self defense' part in one piece.
> In practice however, good luck proving your innocence afterwards when the state throws the book at you if you happen to successfully make it through the 'self defense' part in one piece.
Anecdotally at least, it seems judges and juries have been declining to indict in some of these cases (at least for relatively minor offenses).
I don't like this line of argument. There's a hint of "things aren't that bad *yet* but he's laying the groundwork for really bad things to come." First, he's an impetuous toddler and can't plan past tomorrow so the idea he has a master plan is ludicrous. But more importantly, like the guy who said the future is already here but just distributed unevenly, we *are* already in an authoritarian state, it's just distributed unevenly. What ICE is doing is *already* intolerable if you are potentially a subject of its depredations. That applies to, oh, maybe 2% of SB readers. It's a bad look to make the concern, hey, they may come after *me* next. Even if ICE never goes beyond harrassing/arresting/deporting brown people and leaves the rest of us alone, what this country is doing is unconscionable.
This is kind of a stretch man, nowhere do I say that what's already happened is tolerable. Pointing out that it can get worse by expanding into a broader form of repression (i.e. against election infrastructure next year if the army says no to illegal orders) is just another reason why this stuff is bad news, they don't cancel out.
Seeing these arrests by masked people in minimalist uniforms with unmarked vehicles really is distressing.
I'm not sure how we should address this, but we really need to. At the very least any law enforcement out arresting people should have to wear uniforms that clearly identify their agency and the officer individually, and be maskless.
My crank unifying theory of politics right now is that the country is in a conservative mood, but Trump is so bad that Democrats are doing better than they otherwise would, and that everyone is misinterpreting this as the opposite. It makes Republicans totally acquiesce to him even though he's actually an albatross around their necks, and it makes Democrats think they can copy his worse instincts as a way to improve their performance.
I think people underestimate how much the epistemic bubble that is the right oriented media has become. This has provided a reliable source of votes and money that is not really critical about the overall direction of Republican politics. Having family members who had strong anti-Trump views eventually just shrug off his awfulness off, it is not surprising that there are a whole cadre of elected officials who are shrugged it off too.
I sort of agree with this. I'll just say I'll amend this to say that the country clearly recoiled from the more extreme progressive culture war stuff that seemed to be in ascension circa 2020-2021 but that too many Trump loyalists have misinterpreted as the country wanting similarly right wing reactionary culture war policy instead. When in reality the banal explanation is people have "status quo bias" and are unlikely to be particularly enamored with anything too extreme either direction (slow and steady wins the race).
I will say I think the authoritarian moves made by the Trump administration is in itself a recognition that reactionary right wing culture war goals are not actually that popular. I think some of this is a combo of Trump's own ego/authoritarian tendencies and some administration officials who are "high on their own supply" and really think some "deep state" cabal of bureaucrats and university elites are the only thing standing in the way of the true desires of "the people". But I think some of it is at least a gut feeling recognition that a lot these moves are likely going to backfire at the ballot box so let's do we what we can to limit that backlash.
People are saying that these military interventions Trump has pursued in LA and DC are laying the groundwork for how he's going to undermine the elections in 2026 and 2028.
That's not my fear.
My fear is that the economy basically does OK and we muddle along and the Republicans just outright *win* the upcoming elections and the poison of MAGA and its jihad against all institutions aligned against it gets totally normalized and embedded in our society. That's when we become totally lost.
Boy, I hope the economy really turns lousy over the next year.
This is a good comment. One of the more underrated factors in American politics is that there is a very strong 'leave me the F alone/out of it' undercurrent especially in normie space. However instead of understanding the dynamic hard culture warriors tend to see rejection of their opponent's aggression and overreach as an appetite for their own obsessions and aesthetics.
Like in a certain way I think Tim Walz was really onto something with the 'these Trump people are weird' stuff. They are freaking weird and into a lot of things with very little popular currency or enthusiasm. The problem is that we've got people on our own side who are prominently into a lot of weird stuff too, and people know it, so it blunts the attack.
- think it’s an underrated story how many GOP officials come out and say they are actually frightened for their families. When we say Trump is a cult I don’t think we are really grappling with this. There is a good 20% of this country gripped in an actual Branch Davidian style cult and have drunk the kool - aid. If even a small percentage of those people are threatening politicians behind the scenes that really is a low key Saddam style intimidation (again on smaller scale)
- Related and someone else brought this up. GOP primary voters a disproportionately made up of these cultists. Think we underestimate how much control Trump has mentally over these voters.
- Trump is at around 42% approval rating. I said on Brian Buetler’s substack that this a proverbial “Mendoza” line; just high enough to keep his control over the party. Same as the first term. Because the economy was booming pre COVID and because economy has been…okay…so far. This remains his floor and allows Trump to maintain loyalty. I honestly think we are a bit of an inflection point here. PCE is clearly picking up. Job growth is clearly slowing. And SCOTUS is likely not adjudicating as to Trump’s tariff authority any time soon. Juicing the officials stats can only do so much to cover up people actually losing their jobs in reality. If this comes to pass (assuming he doesn’t ultimately TACO), it seems highly unlikely to me is approval rating can stay above the Mendoza line. So at that point, I do wonder how GOP officials start acting. Especially ones from swing states and districts.
I think there is some level of truth to the idea that some elected Republicans and voters actually wanting at least some or all of this stuff to happen. Some of them are probably gleeful at the sight of masked ICE goons dragging people off the street. They want someone to just ignore judges and "do stuff" to advance whatever pieces of the anti-regulatory or anti-abortion or anti-DEI or administrative state they happen to oppose. There are lots of Republicans who don't want there to be public schools, or in some cases, a US Postal Service. Or they want an un-checked executive branch (as long as it's their executive). Some of them are Seven Mountain Mandate/dominionist nutjob theocrats who want conservative Christians to take over all aspects of U.S. society and usher in the end times, and see Trump as a useful vessel. The current speaker of the house, Mike Johnson, is one of these people (or at least adjacent to them). And there are a lot of craven opportunists in Congress who really have no guiding principles other than staying in office, sucking up as much money as they can, and/or getting a lot of attention -- Ted Cruz would be a good example.
Some of them are *probably* gleeful? Look at the comment section on of a few videos of said goons dragging people into vans and you'll see legions people beside themselves with joy. It's shameful.
Yeah, I think a lot of the "Why are Republicans going along with this" discourse is driven by the fact that the few reasonable Republicans occupy a disproportionate share of the discourse because they can actually block his actions. The vast majority of Republican office holders go along because they like Trump, like his policies, and don't much care about any of his transgressions.
Particularly in the House, there's a shrinking pool of Republican members of Congress who were in office pre-Trump and know a different way of doing things on Capitol Hill.
Weird column from Matt. I think comparative poli-sci is good, but pointing out that the problem with Trump turning America into a dictatorship is that it will hurt growth feels like trying to prove his critics correct.
I thought about “trying to prove his critics correct” a bit more, and I was wrong. As Matt has observed multiple times, we tried to win the election with anti-dictatorship arguments and lost to cost-of-living and prosperity arguments.
I think there's something to this. Maybe they always wanted it, at least to the extent that every politician thinks that it would be better if their party had permanent control, but have to be a little careful for the future when they don't.
Like in basketball, every player works the refs, but they got to be careful how far they take it lest they get a technical foul. But now the Republican Party thinks it sees the opportunity not just to be in charge of hiring the refs, but also to decide who sits on the rules committee as well as who hires the commissioner, and they think they see the opportunity to permanently flip the game in their favor.
I've been surprised by how brazen Texas lawmakers have been about gerrymandering. No Overton window whatsoever, more than one has been on record saying this is purely for partisan reasons and it is their belief having more Republicans in Congress is better for Texas.
Not even trying to pretend it's being done for democratic reasons. I do think a huge portion of the GOP is flat out authoritarian these days.
"...some of his supporters are also dangerous...."
Well, this is one of the things I wonder about -- does Congressman Righteous Republican receive death-threats at his office?
But even then -- how does this work? If I were to phone in death threats to all of the Republicans whom I hate, then the FBI would jump right on my ass and I'd be sent straight to jail. Have we heard about people being jailed for death-threats to political leaders? I don't recall many.
What are the details? Have there been horse heads left in beds? Have the threats been organized or just lone-wolf? How many lone wolves? Again -- what's the mechanism?
I suspect that if a Republican congressman got a MAGA person arrested for making death threats, that would be a good way to make himself a cause celebre for people like Laura Loomer and a target of many more death threats in the future.
"... that would be a good way to make himself...."
You could be right. But an episode like this has either happened or it hasn't happened. If it has happened, why have we not heard about it? And if it has not happened, but the Republican is just afraid that it might happen, then we're back to the original question about the source of their fear.
Believe me, if I first threatened to kill an elected official, and then threatened that I would kill them if they called the cops on me, my name and mugshot would soon be in the papers.
Good questions. Obviously we don't know the answer to the first one.
Another point worth noting is who the head of the FBI is now. I don't know how large of an impact that has on day-to-day operations, but from a personal standpoint, he seems like the kind of guy who'd be happy to put *your* name and mugshot in the papers, but not someone making the same kinds of death threats but from the right.
I think people do receive lots of death threats, or at least scary messages close to threats. But I think getting scary Twitter DMs or similar from anonymous accounts is not treated as a big deal by the FBI.
I have all these Republican lawmakers receiving death threats and therefore going along with Trump on my list of people to feel sorry for, but they're like ten million lines below the judges who are constantly receiving death threats from MAGA types and yet keep on doing their damn jobs because they're good, patriotic Americans.
You have a ton of replies, but no answer to this very good question. I think the average well-adjusted American has been asking themselves this question for well on a decade now. I am only in my mid thirties, but I am certain I will be asking myself this question for the rest of my life, and never get a real answer.
I think that's why it is popular in shit-lib circles to refer to Trump's strongest supporters as being members of a cult - there's just not a more satisfactory answer
Trump will sue you, have federal law enforcement or the IRS investigate you into bankruptcy, if you have any foreign family or contacts like the Republican Senator who just posted about his adopted African daughter, Trump will probably try to deport them, or go after your companies—the feds have lots of ways to do this as we’re seeing with law firms, universities, corporations.
An underrated factor is that Trump has largely delivered on long-term Republican Party priorities. He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, and they successfully overturned Roe v. Wade. He has slashed taxes on the wealthy and gutted regulations. He has crushed the hated bureaucracy, neutered the Department of Education, and humiliated universities. He has killed public broadcasting and bullied mainstream media organizations into compliance. He has also, somehow, turned the tide on the long-term cultural dominance on the left.
Republican leadership (especially Mitch McConnell!) are pragmatic and they understand that these victories are important and enduring no matter how unsavory Trump's means have been.
Yes, and Republicans were lying about everything else they said they believed in (free markets, America playing a leading role in the world, good character being important in our leaders).
100% agreed here. All they had to do was show just a brief amount of spine, and they could have been done with Trump. 10 more votes and the problem would have gone away forever.
All that being said, they should have had the impeachment within a day or two, when the fear of what happened was fresh in their minds. And the impeachment should have been focused only on Jan 6th NOT on stuff before the election.
The articles should have been drawn up with Republican support, and prosecuted in a way to get republican support.
But Pelosi, played this as a typical partisan game, trying to score points. Again, and again, Democrats thought Trump was the easier opponent to beat (which I agree he is). But easier doesn't mean you can't lose.
People overrate violence (or the threat of it) as a means of control, and they underrate social censure, humiliation and the carrot-and-stick of in-group dynamics. I'm sure the crowdsourced death threats don't hurt, but the real way Trump keeps the party in line is by making his rivals into pariahs and cucks within the social world (conservative politics) that they built their lives around.
Elected officials are social creatures almost by definition, and if you know your constituents and colleagues and the institutions in your community will judge you harshly for not supporting Trump, it has a gravitational pull that most people can't resist. (Very interested to see how the David and Goliath tale of Thomas Massie is going to play out.)
On the other side of the psychological ledger, Trump devotes a great deal of time to meting out favors to those Republicans who might be inclined to resist but decide to kiss the ring instead. As with the threat of violence, I think the rewards here are typically less concrete and more a matter of social currency: He can destroy you in the eyes of your people, or he can elevate you to his side. Marco Rubio is a living trophy to Trump's powers of social control. It's almost a born-again arc -- once among the gravest of sinners, he's now been washed clean and elevated to the left hand of the throne.
There are probably as many answers as there are Republicans, but one I think is probably underrated is the role of blackmail. Who knows what's in the National Enquirer's secret files? Trump does, or at least he might, and unlike Mitt Romney, most Republicans are not highly disciplined, clean-living Mormons.
Well, he IS smart, witty and charismatic. Good person? That’s in the eye of the beholder. But if I told you Obama wasn’t smart, witty and charismatic you’d probably say my partisanship was interfering with my judgement.
As far as why the Republican politicians follow him, it’s because he controls the opinion of a massive number of the voters they depend upon, and as President, he controls most of the US grift machine.
How did he regain control after January 6? No, it wasn’t death threats; it was threats of non-support from their constituents. In other words, “democracy”.
I was just listening to an interview with the authors of the book "How Trump Retook the White House and Democrats Lost America". In the interview, they noted how in 2022 when Trump announced his campaign from Mar-a-Lago, practically no one showed up. Even Hannity canceled a planned interview. It was barely covered; the New York Post said "Florida Man Makes Announcement", part of their merciless coverage of him*. And yet he clawed his way back, not because he had anyone under his thumb or in his pocket but because he was and is supported by the voters.
Meanwhile, if you stroll over to the free speech crowd, they seem to be throwing their shoulders out for how aggressively they’re shrugging at this consolidation of personal rule.
Like, it can be true both that progressive-institutional overreach paved the way for this *and* that there’s currently an unprecedented concentration of power in one man that’s very, very bad. But audience capture, etc.
Edit: I basically mean TFP and Taibbi. I guess Greenwald, too, but I’m not sure his schtick was ever really “free speech” as such - more anti-corporate, anti-surveillance state. Not sure what he’s been up to, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he too is misplacing his skepticism of state censorship and surveillance at the moment.
Every time it seems as if people might be ready to get fed up with Trump's unprecedented concentration of power, I turn on NPR and hear some "homelessness advocate" trying to justify massive encampments, or (as a gay male) I'm being sold a moral panic on behalf of "queer trans people of color."
When that's the message coming from "the Resistance," voters see those far less vulnerable than themselves using "the most vulnerable" as a scourge on the middle class -- and the winner is... Donald Trump.
In the process -- to top it off -- Trump gets what he wants most: He remains the (seemingly ever-beleaguered) center of attention.
Agreed - and TFP, Taibbi, etc. are very effective at pushing the “beleaguered Donald Trump” narrative.
It’s pretty tragic what’s happened to NPR et al. There used to be a smart center-left media ecosystem, and now…it’s scattered, to say the least.
I guess at least the “homelessness advocate / trans queer people of color activist” clique has seen their relevance dramatically diminished since 2020-2021. What’s too bad is that their influence was diminishing organically - and then Trump & cie. came along and said “no, actually, we need to do a right-wing Cultural Revolution.”
The problem is that the NPR folks and their counterparts in "The Groups" still set the tone for public discourse among the Resistance. Every time it seems as if Trump's gone too far with his "right-wing Cultural Revolution,” there they are again -- always relentlessly scolding and pontificating in the background. (For that, you can always count on the likes of M[asha] Gessen!)
All Trump needs to say is, "See? What did I tell you? The Resistance is for 'They/Them'..." At this point, in fact, he doesn't need to say anything at all.
If you notice, Matt lobs bombs there way all the time.
Take two seconds to even read just the headlines and you’ll see that it would be silly to call them just some new version of Fox News. There is clearly at least some criticisms of Trump administration policies.
But Bari made her name for herself being a very loud free speech warrior. At least in theory. And it was supposedly a high minded criticism of all forms of restricting speech
So given that background, the fact that the only article on main website today criticizing restricting speech is taking Berkeley to task for lefty overreach is pretty enlightening given how every single day there is basically some new Trump policy or pronouncement that threatens free speech in ways that go well beyond anything seen in 2020 or 2021.
So yeah, count me among those who thought and feel like they’ve been vindicated in thinking Bari was a charlatan from the very beginning when it comes to defending free speech.
The recent news about Shari Redstone and 60 minutes is really enlightening here and also related given news reports that Bari might be brought in to oversee CBS news.
Combine this with FP putting out an article noting that because the famous photo of a kid with a protruding spine was actually a photo of a kid with a pre-existing condition and therefore reports of starvation in Gaza is dare I say "fake news"* and it's really hard not to conclude that Bari's real mission above anything else is defending anything Bibi does no matter what.
*I can't believe they published such a gross article. I'm sorry you can walk and chew gum at the same time. You absolutely can be pro-Israel, anti-Hamas and also at least show basic human decency when looking at how Bibi and his cabinet of reactionary goons are carrying out operations in Gaza right now.
I had Matt Taibbi in mind. I get that he’s pissed about Russiagate and being threatened with imprisonment by Democratic backbenchers, but man, his free speech principles are pretty selectively applied.
He’s an awful thinker. A lot people see that now but still give him credit for his OWS-era writing, but it was just as dumb. There was no evidence then, and certainly no evidence now, that the government was being secretly run by Goldman Sachs, but his reputation continued to coast on that nonsense.
Pre-Trump, I saw him as a kind of an amusing side attraction to legitimate mainstream journalism, who was doing fun things like going to snake handler events and singing Russian heavy metal to approximate speaking in tongues, but whom everyone knew not to take seriously. (This is similar to how I felt about Michael Hobbes at the time.) I thought everyone was in on the joke. He was supposed to be a bro-style alternative to the front page of Buzzfeed (whose social media manager then went to jail for January 6th) or your friend's cousin who would buy you beer in high school and thought his band was still going to be signed to a major label even though he's already 32. Like, if you took him seriously, you were doing media literacy wrong.
Back in 2016-2017, I bought into the whole Trump is a Russian stooge story line...and I feel foolish for having believed it. But politics is indeed a dirty business and now I understand the whole Russian stooge narrative was a made-up pile of horse manure thanks to Taibbi's and others' work. It's the kind of work good investigative journalists are supposed to do, even if it makes team Blue feel a bit queasy.
Yeah. I have no issue with Taibbi muckraking about Russiagate stuff. It was a bad thing.
I do have a problem with him devoting a column to e.g. complaining about the NYT comments section instead of applying his free speech fire to clear violations of free speech by Trump et al.
I don’t care that he has a clear preference for Trump; I care that he keeps up the pretense that he’s evenhanded in his criticism when he’s very clearly not. He can’t be - his MAGA audience would tear him to shreds. And that’s fine as far as it goes, but own it!
I think those individuals and organizations you identify aren’t part of the free speech crowd, but are part of the anti-establishment crowd. Therefore, they have a lot of tolerance for many of the things that Trump is doing.
A large portion of the "Free Speech" crowd were more on the "don't criticize me for bad opinions" shtick. This is why they would lean so heavily on deflections to bad faith discussions on past criticisms for governments and corporations.
There's personalization of government, well articulated in today's post, and personalization of a party, which is implied but not discussed. Trump has successfully personalized the GOP. It will be super interesting to see, assuming the two term guardrail holds (wild that needs to be said) how the GOP manages a post-Trump nomination, and how the democratic party, remaining more of an institution, can leverage that organizational advantage to its benefit.
Trump is clearly aging mentally, just as Biden was - he's physically louder and he has always been more talkative than Biden, so the signs are different (he talks nonsense rather than seizing up, for instance), but, just to pick some obvious examples, his vocabulary and his capacity to absorb new information are way down on ten years go.
I think he's going to find that any sort of serious election contest in 2028 will expose his mental weaknesses. Obviously, he might be able to prevent such a contest, but I doubt things will go that far that quickly. I suspect that even if he can clear the constitutional obstacles to a run in 2028, he may not be physically/mentally up to it.
What is likely, though, is that he picks a successor. Which means that the 2028 nomination will not be truly post-Trump.
I don’t think any successor will have anything close to Trump’s charisma or parasocial relationship with voters. He is not going to let someone else cultivate that attention or relationship while he is in charge. My guess his successor will be a wet noodle.
I actually chatted with, uh, ChatGPT about who a successful successor to Trump would be, and we were both left scratching our heads (well, I did; ChatGPT convincingly simulated scratching its non-existent head). Vance? Too much of a dork, and Catholicism / mixed race family is a liability for core MAGA-heads. RFK Jr.? Some independent base of support, but ultimately limited. Hegseth / Gabbard / Noem / other toadies? Too niche. Sons? Too incompetent and even MAGA thinks they’re punchable dweebs.
Even ChatGPT’s “here are some possible scenarios” thing (it loves to generate lists!) was accompanied by “…but all of these have some big caveat.”
I still think DJT Jr. is being severely underrated. All Trump has to do is make it clear he'll still be running things, and Jr will win a primary. The idea of making libs swallow a third (and potentially fourth) Trump term alone will give him him the nod among Republicans, regardless of his lack of charisma or competence.
And Trump can direct from sidelines well into his 80s if he doesn't have to maintain a presidential schedule. I think people are massively overestimating the odds of him passing in the next 5 years. Declining, yes, but he doesnt drink, has presidential health care, and his parents lived into their 90s.
Been on record as saying someone named Trump will be GOP nominee in 2028.
Key thing to recognize is he clearly does not care one iota about the GOP or GOP future. He doesn't really care about his kids in a meaningful way but he does care as they represent a reflection upon his legacy and his own ego driven greatness.
I think it's extremely likely Don Jr. runs and DJT does his best to indicate to GOP primary voters that if they like him they should vote for his son and that he'll really be running things if Jr is elected (he's clearly not doing his job now given often he is befuddled at press conferences as to questions regarding what is own administration is doing, but primary voters clearly ignore that).
I think it's very unlikely to work if we have a free and fair election in 2028 (especially if the economy is not doing great). The real worry in this scenario is something Matt and Brian brought up in the podcast this week. This time around he'll have more capacity to maneuver loyalist National Guard troops to DC. If he declares the 2028 results "rigged" what happens then if there is another coup attempt.
Yeah - the 2028 stolen election scenario really only makes sense if we're talking about a de facto third term, since Trump won't give a shit about anyone else and Vance/DeSantis/etc. don't have the shooters.
Yeah. I really don't want to count on "Trump is clearly old" to save us in the same way I don't want to count on "The economy tanking will save us". But forced to bet as to most likely reason we won't fall into permanent autocracy it's both these factors.
I'm glad you brought up 10 years ago, because it's actually quite striking how much more rambling and non-sensical he sounds than he did in 2015-2016.
The monkey wrench that will throw here is that if Trump really is declining mentally (which I think he is) that may make it more likely not less likely he'll continue to lash out and act in an unhinged manner. I do wonder if this is part of the reason (beyond just that he's surrounded himself with lackeys) that Trump doesn't seem to be listening to the "adults in the room" as much as the first term.
This is certainly where the functionally two-year long primary season combined with state administration of elections complicates things versus countries where elections are centrally controlled and can happen in a matter of weeks -- Trump can't suddenly flip a switch and substitute himself onto the ballot a month before voting.
For sure, I actually envision it more as him trying to pick a successor, hating the loss of attention, then flipping on them somewhere in the leadup to election day. I don't even think it'd be some big crisis of a possible third Trump term, just a thorn in the side of whoever gets the joy of being the next Republican candidate. Not that this is the guaranteed outcome, just what I think would happen if Trump goes the 'successor selection' route.
In the meantime, I love how he's freezing the 2028 nomination race by showing a bit of leg about running again. Vance must be steaming and thinking evil thoughts about his boss.
Probably after the midterms we'll start seeing more and more stories coming out of the administration about Trump's mental decline. No idea who the source will be but hmm could be someone sounding like VD Jance.
It's not gonna hold... when even the ever positive Mike Pesca is doubting it, you know it's not gonna hold. Like, have any of the guardrails held since November?
There is zero reputational penalty for making statements like this, and there will be zero self-reflection when Trump does not, in fact, run for a third term in 2028.
Putting on my election official hat for a moment, it doesn't help that people are usually pretty vague and sloppy about how they define "running for a third term".
The chances of Donald Trump holding a bunch of rallies themed around "write in your very favorite, very large and big president" are quite different from "Trump wins a regular primary and secures normal ballot access in all fifty states", and there are a lot of conceivable scenarios in between.
First, you would presumably concede that (1) Trump's brain is turning into more and more mush by the day and (2) Trump is going to be more visibly physically broken down by 2028 than he is today, such that even many GOP officeholders are going to be able to privately recognize that he isn't long for the world and that a third term would probably just be gifting the presidency to the VP candidate?
Second, the 22nd Amendment is a very bright line and *much* more so than the 14th Amendment insurrection clause, notwithstanding the profuse gaslighting from left-leaning legal reporters in 2024.
Third, barring Trump from running again in 2028 requires literally *NO* express cooperation from GOP officeholders -- I can guarantee that at least one blue state SOS will refuse to put Trump on the ballot and that will go to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS justices, who cannot be primaried and have no concerns about ever running for public office, can then say, "Gee, our hands are tied! You can't be on the ballot again, Mr. Trump." It's the "perfect crime" in that GOP officeholders can even go on Fox afterwards and denounce those accursed activist judges!
It's not even as if Trump ran totally unopposed in the 2024 primary. Does a thirsty bastard like DeSantis have enough sway over quiet functionaries in the Florida Republican party to keep Trump from even appearing on the primary ballot?
Well, yes, I agree that I would expect Trump's declining capacity to embolden more GOP challengers in 2028. (I am deeply skeptical that every Republican senator and governor in the country is chill with the idea that Donald Trump gets to automatically be President until he dies.) However, since people on the left overwhelmingly proceed on the premise that Republican politicians will literally never do anything contrary to Trump, I'm just pointing out that there's a mechanism by which Trump is prevented from running in 2028 that doesn't depend on any GOP politician actually crossing Trump.
I was in China recently and thought Xi had much less of a personality cult than portrayed in Western media or even compared to Trump. There is a lot of public propaganda around but it almost always depicts Sun Yat-Sen, Mao, and Deng, almost never Xi. Mao is on all the money, not Xi. People don’t talk about Xi, Xi doesn’t have any merch, etc… It still seemed like an institutionalist autocracy.
The story about China and freedom is also more complicated than sometimes portrayed. China is authoritarian in a lot of ways like the censorship. On the other hand, China is unilaterally expanding visa-free travel at a time when the US is imposing travel bans; there were more Africans wearing African-looking clothing in the Shanghai airport than you ever see in the US. China has not done anything comparable to Gaza or Ukraine. No wonder polls consistently now show China having a better global reputation than the US. And even a lot of media perceptions are just factually wrong, like I was surprised when all my Western apps worked on my phone in China without a VPN when I was connected to my cell carrier’s Chinese partner, just not local WiFi.
It’s personal rule, but Xi has not cultivated a cult of personality (yet at least) as a mechanism for maintaining power. Instead he, personally, seized all the control levers for the CCP (i.e. the highly effective at controlling all aspects of life in China institution) and uses it to keep other elites in line. The guy on the street just doesn’t matter that much there.
Complete centralization of power in one person, but without the cult of personality -- without the Turkmenistan flourishes that evan bear mentions elsethread -- how much does that also describe Putin's Russia?
Plus, how much do we know about the people Xi has chosen as advisors? Just because Trump selects completely unqualified people based on loyalty, it doesn't mean that Xi doesn't engage experts. And then of course Xi himself is infinitely more competent and experienced in governing, and probably infinitely more intelligent, than Trump.
We could even see this as a relative benefit for China: they've got personalist rule, but by someone who has paid his dues in the villages and risen through the ranks of the powermongers, rather than by someone who convinced a bunch of people to vote for him.
"Personalist rule" should absolutely be considered when looking at country's economic success. But then you have to look at the person.
"The elites tolerated Mr. Xi as he consolidated power through anticorruption campaigns, revised the Constitution to eliminate term limits and cracked down on the private sector, said Cai Xia, a retired professor at the Central Party School who has become a party critic. They stayed silent because he didn’t touch their privileges, she said.
But now his purges and China’s economic problems are hitting closer to home. “If this continues, it could lead the party elites to believe that it won’t be Xi who falls, but the party itself,” Ms. Cai said.
Mr. Xi could rule for another decade or two, if his health permits, but only if he maintains the loyalty of the party’s leaders. “One of the great vulnerabilities of the regime is when the elite begins to have doubts,” Mr. Kotkin said."
Also, I don’t know if this is what you intend, your comment implies that “No wonder polls consistently now show China having a better global reputation than the US” is reasonable, and that China is not that bad compared to the US. This is an indefensible view.
China routinely commits horrible human rights abuses and has an explicitly extractive and aggressive foreign policy. It bears no moral comparison with the USA, for all the faults of America. It is, in fact, bad.
Yes, he definitely sucks. However if you transposed China and America’s situations we probably would have conquered Greenland by now (and liquidated all prominent Democrats). I don’t think that is down to any great virtue gap between Xi and Trump, but rather the nature of the countries.
Trump working at *breaking* all the stuff that makes us different is by far the worst thing about him though (much as tariffs annoy me, attacking the Fed and destroying civil service and firing BLS head and ignoring judges etc etc etc is all much worse long term).
of course the view can be defended when one takes into account press suppression in China: no one really knows about the horrible human rights abuses (until they happen in their own China client country.)
Confusing what polls say with whether the popular opinion they indicate reflects truth or not.
China may not be as authoritarian in day to day life but Xi has clearly demonstrated he's willing to "go there" if he deems it necessary. Also, it's hard not to look at the extreme nature of COVID lockdowns that only Taylor Lorenz could love and not conclude there is not at least some version of a personal autocracy going on (it's hard to believe they would have gone on so long if Xi didn't have an iron grip on power generally).
"No wonder polls consistently now show China having a better global reputation than the US."
I've been saying since the Gulf War that China has been doing John Quincy Adams' "Goes Not Abroad in Search of Monsters" speech better than the United States and that that was going to come back to bite the US in the ass eventually: https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1821secofstateJQAdmas.pdf
Around 20 years ago I relocated to Atlanta and found that the local conservative AM talk station was also by far the best station for traffic news. So, I listened every morning and every evening during a long commute.
After a year or two, I started to notice an underlying theme in some of the hosts - particularly Limbaugh and Hannity but also even Boortz - of genuine admiration and preference for the dictatorial/personalist regimes around the world. It was subtle, but felt distinctly anti-American values to me then.
It came out in digging bits on China building some megaproject that inevitably was laden with corruption and appropriation of property by the government - something to be abhorred if it the American government did it - or some political opposition in Russia getting imprisoned after a show trial. Remember the minor kerfluffle about throwing Liberals out of helicopters? I heard that phrase thrown out regularly for years on the radio long before 2016.
Over the years, it became very apparent that there was a sizeable chunk of the talent and listeners that had no commitment or interest in democratic or small 'l' liberal values at all.
The rise of Trump and devolution of the Republican party into a personalist regime seems to flow naturally from that same source.
There is something admirable in the ability to build a megaproject, and it does require a degree of “trampling on rights” from the US perspective, because the US has too many veto points to get anything like that done. But now we’ve got the transparent corruption without the ability to actually build things.
The trouble with Limbaugh was that his use of language was mesmerizing. It's an interesting contrast to the bizarre language we see coming out of the White House which I would have the patience analyze if I didn't find it so confounding. It seems to be a mishmash of dog whistles, double-speak, hyperbole, and ideologically poisoned bureaucratese.
The utterly meaninglessness of these proclamations triggers my existential anxiety.
People keep wanting to find one cool trick to outcompete China. That ignores demographics. If China merely reached Portugal’s per-capita GDP, its economy would be about 1.4× the size of America’s. At Greece’s level it would be 1.2×, Spain’s 1.7×, and Italy’s 1.9×. None of those countries are models of technocratic puissance. They all have layers of EU regulation atop domestic sclerosis and red tape, none is committed to maximizing GDP, and none can afford to anger voters too much. Yet even muddling along to those kinds of outcomes would give China overwhelming scale. It doesn’t need to be Singapore or South Korea — it just needs to be Portugal.
IDK, I read this book by a guy who thought we could just increase the US population so the relative size advantage of China mattered less. Not politically viable obviously, maybe he was on to something. An abundance of Americans.
With better leadership, I think the US could continue to compete on level ground with China.
I think with 2024, too many voters said sayonara to our being a forward-looking society with a drive for progress and economic development. I'm more and more convinced that our future is to be poorer, meaner, and more isolated in the world. A Democratic win in 2028 could slow that decline, but too many Americans have checked out of that American dream to achieve anything like a consensus on it again.
In 2016 Will Saletan wrote that the GOP is a failed state and Trump is its warlord. This article really brings that home. Matt is pretty centrist and spends a lot of time punching left, but the Democrats of both the far left and of the center tend to be sincere. The lack of GOP principles is astounding and we will all pay the price.
To use the eighteenth-century language that much of US constitutional discourse is still stuck in, the distinction between an institutionalised and a personalised regime is the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of men.
They were very clear that this wasn't about democracy at all - they wanted a non-democratic (oligarchic) regime that did abide by the rule of law. Even if you have a dictator who can rule by decree, requiring them to make explicit public decrees rather than just fixing things for individuals they like and don't like makes a huge difference. If you can be confident that, first you know what the rules are - or, at least, you can pay a lawyer to tell you - and, second, that if you follow them, you'll be allowed to be as successful as you like, then investing makes sense. If not, then the best thing to do with your money is bribe people to leave you alone.
“ the distinction between an institutionalised and a personalised regime is the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of men.”
The linguistic elegance of “rule of men” versus “personalized regime” speaks to why the U.S. is “stuck” in 18th century language. Reminds me why the Founders’ words have endured.
The "rule of law" might be overrated when it amounts to the rule of lawyers (or those who can pay for them). Institutionalism might be worthless (or even counterproductive) when the entire credentialing system becomes self-serving, and the (consequently ossified) institutions are populated by those lacking in virtue or character.
"Maybe it’s all fine... maybe a totally MAGA-fied America will be okay too. But I’m awfully uncomfortable banking on it."
AYFKM?
"Maybe it's all fine"?!? It's already very obviously NOT FINE across a variety of metrics!
Yes, yes, I know. Matt Y is talking specifically about *the economy*. Maybe the economy will be fine, so that makes everything else okay?
I keep thinking to the day I did my naturalization ceremony and became a US citizen, how happy and proud I was, how happy my husband was for me, how we went to a local Cracker Barrel for a celebratory stack of pancakes and I told the waitress that this was my first meal as an American citizen and she smiled and congratulated me...
I believed, on that day, that America STOOD FOR SOMETHING! You know, all those old-fashioned ideas about being a country of laws and not men, about being a shining city on a hill, about welcoming immigrants from all nations and weaving them into a beautiful tapestry, about the belief that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
Never did I think that we would debase ourselves to the point of "Meh, we'll just shrug and accept any tyrant who comes along, as long as he panders to our prejudices and keeps the economy humming."
This is a degradation, and IDGAF if saying so makes me elitist.
I think you (and I and unfortunately many others) had a much higher opinion of the American people than was warranted. I was pretty distraught during the GWOT era, particularly after the 2004 elections when it was clear that most Americans did in fact have no problem with torturing Iraqis and bombing their cities back into the stone age, but 8 years of Obama lulled me into the (wrong) belief that we'd progressed beyond such things.
What I think Matt gets wrong is that while China's authoritarian state may or may not be economically a net positive for them, they have a lot of other advantages which we do not. When the Trumpists destroy the twin pillars underlying most of our productive economy - a stable financial system and a research engine powered by immigrants and higher education - we won't have much to fall back on. With a rapidly aging and shrinking labor force, high labor costs, and institutional paralysis, we are not going to transform into a manufacturing powerhouse, or indeed any other powerhouse...
Liberals have to seriously contemplate how to change our mindset into one that resembles that of the people who live in civilizational states like China, India, Turkey etc.
It is of course true as Matt noted that more education and the prosperity it enables leads to greater demands for self-determination in general but in my university interactions I have met PhD educated Chinese and Indian scientists who are bought into civilizational narratives and do not see the Chinese system or the increasingly authoritarian Indian democracy as intrinsically problematic.
Those of us who have great discomfort seeing corruption and authoritarianism may simply be outnumbered and within 20-30 years the only choices left might well be from a menu of slightly different authoritarian style regimes. Even Europe may not be immune for too long and is likely to splinter back into small ethno-states under the pressure of migration from Africa. So liberals will have no where to go.
I don’t want to be a fair-weather liberal who is for liberal values only as long as they are popular, but who goes “welp the Chinese and Indians are totes cool with authoritarian rule, so I guess I should be too.”
Saying that you need to contemplate how to exist in a world where your values are in a distinct minority is not the same as saying you need to be cool with it.
Some people given no choice in the matter will rationalize it (like some Chinese and Indian scientists) and try to be happy, others may choose to agitate and become dissidents. But what will you do when there is no place left where you can be a dissident?
This situation with Lisa Cook is really scary because it indicates that all federal agencies have now been politicized such that agencies will comb through all interactions people have had with them looking for any mistake or misstatement by Trump opponents. For those unfamiliar basically Trump is looking to fire a fed board member (any will do) to get lower rates, so the head of the FHFA found some 4 year old paperwork indicating she declared two houses as her primary residence which (even if true) is technically illegal but something that happens all the time and is really no sort of scandal in any sane world.
This will ruin the credibility of these agencies in everyone's eyes (even under Democratic administrations). It will also make it so nobody wants to work for the FHFA or IRS in a career capacity, since whenever Republicans are in charge your job will be to go dig up dirt on Democrats. Since Republicans don't really want the government to work it's less concerning for them, but I don't know how Democrats get people to trust government after this.
Yeah this is something I don't think a lot of people yet appreciate. There's so many laws and so much vagueness/potential for mischief that you can investigate practically anyone and get close enough to a real case to find some indictable count. Convictions would be harder, but you can definitely make anyone's life much worse and there seems to be no real way to effectively punish a government office that does that. "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime" isn't too far off...
and beyond that Trump's movement like other personalist movements promotes people with a ton of personal and political indiscretions leaving them with ample ammunition to ruin them should they waiver in their loyalty. See: Eric Adams.
For most of my life I watched the steady empowerment and giddy aggrandizement of the ‘imperial’ executive and the never-ending growth and power of the federal government. Apparently, Those who pushed this ‘backward-federalism’ never dreamed that someday a Trump would get to be the emperor and get to use all those nifty executive weapons and power tools to reverse their ‘progressive’ policies, kill or shrink their bloated or corrupt or dangerous agencies and replace their pet economic policies with his own personal ideas that the fans of imperial presidents hate and consider dictatorial. Until the wrong emperor comes along.
This is a laughable read. Trump is using executive power in a fundamentally different way than other modern presidents. I also didn't know cancer research was corrupt, but maybe you have access to better sources of information than me.
I guess I was thinking of 'bloated or corrupt or dangerous agencies' like USAID, the FAA, the Forest Service, the FDA, the CIA, the FBI... But since you mentioned it, I asked my pal Grok a simple, open-ended question: 'Is cancer research corrupt?'
Grok's answer:
Cancer research isn't inherently corrupt, but it’s a complex field with some issues that can raise eyebrows. The bulk of research is driven by scientists trying to understand and beat a brutal disease—motivated by curiosity, compassion, or both. Funding comes from governments, universities, charities, and pharma companies, and most researchers follow strict protocols to ensure data integrity. Peer review, while not perfect, catches a lot of nonsense.
That said, there are red flags. Big Pharma has a hand in much of the funding, and their profit motive can skew priorities—pushing lucrative drugs over unprofitable prevention strategies or generics. Some studies get cherry-picked or buried if results don’t align with corporate interests. Publication bias is real: journals love sexy, positive results, not null findings. And yeah, there’ve been cases of fraud—faked data or manipulated trials—but they’re rare and usually get sniffed out eventually.
On the flip side, the system’s not a monolith. Independent researchers, small labs, and nonprofits often challenge the status quo, digging into underfunded areas like rare cancers or environmental triggers. Crowdsourced efforts and open science are shaking things up too, making data more transparent.
If you’re digging for specifics, I can pull posts from X or web sources to see what people are saying about recent scandals or breakthroughs. Any particular angle you want me to chase down?
This is a weird argument to find on this blog. Cancer research is corrupt because it ultimately results in pharmaceuticals that private entities try to sell for a profit? The Grok response overall is just weird.
I'm familiar with the USAID talking points, but "the FAA is corrupt" is a new one for me.
The word 'or' in the phrase 'bloated or corrupt or dangerous agencies' is important. The FAA is not 'corrupt' or 'dangerous', but it used to be a typically bloated government bureaucracy (excuse the redundancy); now it's understaffed, supposedly, and technologically backwards, which it has been for decades (like the IRS). The CIA is the most dangerous. I won't defend Grok's answer but if you think cancer research and its chumminess with Big Pharma is not a fertile ground for corruption and regulatory capture over at FDA, you haven't been following the careers of doctors Fauci and Gottlieb.
There is a certain genius in Trump's comments about how the Smithsonian focuses too much of how bad slavery was. It really hits at the values and mores of the median voter. I'm trying to think what the left wing version of that would be.
Maybe think attacking bosses rather than billionaires? Bernie is always talking about billionaires as being the problem but they aren't personally annoying people every day. I have a professional job and I have a great boss. But tons over average people don't. Is that kind of messaging that's missing from the left?
A lot of people's immediate boss is a junior manager. Very often, there are insane corporate directives from the C-suite, but their immediate boss is trying to arrange to minimise the impact of them on the regular workers. "Your boss" to most people means their immediate line manager, not the CEO.
Talking about how Tesla is an achievement of the many people who work there and not just Elon, how Apple is much more than just Tim Cook, about how we give all the credit to the CEO and none to the people that actually do the work...
That's a very elite line of argument. It's not one likely to resonate with the media swing voter - a blue collar, non-educated white woman living in the suburbs of a midwest city.
It would certainly resonate with white collar employees at Tesla and Apple - but those are the people we least need to convince.
But you didn't. Which is the crux of my argument. The billionaire argument doesn't resonate with the median swing voter.
I would also add that Sam died 33 years ago and the Walton family isn't directly involved in running Walmart - it's in the hands of professional managers.
Attacking Romney as a private equity vulture worked pretty well. At this point, a lot of people have gone through the experience of having their workplace acquired and immediately changing for the worse.
He's very much not a billionaire. And that's an important distinction when people think billionaire they think of charismatic entrepreneur who built something. PE guys like Romney aren't that and do make a good target. Romney & Co. are very much bosses vs entrepreneurs.
Does it hit the median voter? I grew up in the literal median congressional district and pretty much all of 8th grade history was dedicated to how bad slavery was. 95%+ white kids in the school. Parents had no complaints about this.
The stifling of wind energy really blows my mind. It used to be that the loosely articulated GOP position on energy was "leave the market alone." You could accuse them of not understanding externalities, but that seemed to be their position. Now it seems that the GOP position on energy is "stuff liberals hate is good and should be subsidized, stuff they like is bad and should be banned."
It reminds me of an apocryphal story of a driving instructor taking a student out for a drive, a squirrel runs across the road, the student swerves to avoid the squirrel, nearly crashing the car. The driving instructor says "in that situation, just hit the squirrel." The next day they go out, another squirrel darts across the road. The driver yells "I'll hit the squirrel," the squirrel runs off the road, and the driver chases the squirrel in to a ditch.
I used to love Dilbert cartoons back in the 90s and 2000s.
In one classic strip, Dilbert’s Pointy Haired Boss denies his employees’ requests with a “…but you can give one to me” (e.g., “May I buy a new computer for myself?” “No, but you can order one for me.”)
Then Wally comes in with a live caterpillar in his hand: “May I eat this caterpillar?” “No, but you can give it to me.”
PBH thinks while munching on the caterpillar: “I wonder if they’ll ever spot the pattern.”
They just really don't like the aesthetics of it. I don't quite get it, but it's a very strong, very immediate reaction that has a decent amount of appeal, especially for people in, say, coastal NJ.
Solar on the other hand I don't understand as much, especially in areas where one can't effectively farm, but I suspect it's the same "it looks weird and different."
One of my favorite Penn & Teller Bullshit episodes back in the day was when they argued that the path to world peace is trade and economic interdependence. They did *not* say anything about that leading to democracy, and it's good that they didn't, because I do think that China has proved that dead wrong. But I do still think that the point of peace is applicable, not just because war would naturally sever economic exchange between the belligerents, but also because war itself is simply economically ruinous. (Except for the warmakers, perhaps, but that's similar to slavery being good business but not good economics.) I really hope that personalistic cults don't put that at risk.
And on that point, this resolves one question I had in the queue for Matt's mailbag in the future: comparing the PRI to today's GOP, and if the Republican Party could pull off a PRI style rule. Given this personalist vs. institutionalist (that's the I in the name!) dichotomy, sounds like they have a lot of work to do to get there.
I think that overall, trade makes interstate war less likely, rather than more likely, but Europe was incredibly integrated before World War I. I think the percentage of the European economy that was international trade before 1914 wouldn't be exceeded until the 1970s.
You're correct about the economic situation there. (I wrote a paper on motivations for warfare in college that included a case study of World War I in which I concluded it was a supremely irrational war from an economic perspective, contra communist historical theory.) That said, this is why I think it is genuinely existentially urgent to prevent "anti-life" (in Objectivist terms -- I'm not an Objectivist, but I think the "anti-life" frame is useful due to confusion over what is encompassed by the term "liberal" these days) politicians from gaining power whenever possible, because what led to WWI in major part was having people in power who failed to prioritize economic growth.
With Xi, it's hard to know exactly how personalist his rule really is since the regime can be opaque. Certainly he's more personalist than his predecessors were and cares a lot about staying in power, but maybe he just chooses not to interfere too much in economic policy due to lack of interest or whatever. It doesn't *seem* like your average Chinese businessman-on-the-street feels the oppressive shadow of the regime's cult of personality the way you would in Turkmenistan or Saddam-led Iraq.
As for Trump, it is worth noting that he is old and won't be around forever. His potential successors' views on liberal democracy are arguably every bit as bad as his, but I don't think any of them have the ability or inclination to lead a *personalist* dictatorship. (I could see J.D. Vance trying to set up a PRI-type situation though.)
He’s been pretty tough on the billionaires but I can’t say how that trickles down to the “successful but not so successful as to be an alternative power center” part of corporate China.
I still do not understand the mechanisms by which Trump imposes his control on other actors in the Republican Party. What are these people afraid of?
Is it simply that he'll speak ill of you? Write an all-caps tweet? That he'll support a primary opponent? Those don't seem sufficient to explain the Kadavergehorsam of the Republican political class.
I have always found it baffling that people admire him, think he is a good person, smart, witty, charismatic etc.. But now I'm talking about a different issue: why do they obey him? Saddam had secret police who would simply torture and kill you and your family -- okay, no mystery why people obeyed him. Does Trump have a squad of assassins? Did he when he was out of office? And who have been their victims?
The complete moral collapse of the Republican political elite is a mystery to me.
I would love to read a close chronology of the weeks after Jan. 6. The Republican Senate and House came as close to breaking with him on Jan. 7 as they ever have since 2015. But somehow, within a week, he brought them back under his will. What exactly happened? Death threats from constituents? Death threats from Trump? Blackmail on an industrial scale? What happened to Mitch? What happened to Lindsey? They came so close to getting the monkey off their backs, and then suddenly he was on top again.
I think it's simply that GOP primary voters love him. GOP officeholders don't need to be "afraid" of him necessarily for him to control them. If they cross him, they'll lose their primaries and won't be officeholders anymore. Some of them have in fact not been afraid and done just that (Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Charlie Dent, Anthony Gonzalez, etc.) and they're not around anymore.
[Brian Kemp has annoyed Trump and survived, but state politics are different. It is an interesting fact about the American electorate that as low-information as it seems to be, it seems to meaningfully understand the distinction between Governors and Senators, as non-swing states are much more willing to elect the former from the "out party" than the latter. We see the same dynamic with GOP electorates being willing to support Trump-annoyers in state offices than in Congress.]
" If they cross him, they'll lose their primaries...."
Maybe? But that seems like normal politics -- the Bush dynasty did that kinda stuff, Reagan did that kinda stuff. And yet, Republican rivals did not simply deflate into empty sacks when the Bush boys were riding high.
Plus, the threat of primaries applies only to a small subset of Republican elites. Lots of them don't depend for their meal tickets on getting votes every two years. And yet damned near all of them have folded.
Obama broke Republicans and they sought a deal with the devil. The longer they go along with his charade and transgressions the harder it is to leave because to deviate or reject Trump is acknowledging they are complicit in all the harm and incompetence of this amoral man.
"... longer they go along with his charade and transgressions ...."
Okay, that may explain some of their attitude now, during his second maladministration. But what about Jan.7-Jan. 14 of 2021? They had a perfect opportunity to wash their hands of all their past transgressions. And yet within a week, they all fell in line.
Because the shock wore off. They had developed rationalizations and excuses to shirk responsibility to Democrats (literally McConnell was saying it was Democrats’ job to bring the impeachment vote not his.)
Now they could remain complicit with Jan 6 and dismiss it.
My whole solution to this would have been proscription of those involved, but I am a history nerd.
They thought he was finished. Never coming back.
It's hard to remember how much of a non-entity Trump was for a couple years after Jan. 6. His campaign kickoff event at Mar-a-Lago on Nov. 22, 2022, was so pathetic that one of the major attendees was the weirdo guy who wore the "build a wall" suit. Matt Gaetz (Matt Gaetz!) said he couldn't make it because the weather was too bad to be flying from north to south Florida. The New York Post mocked him with the headline, "Florida Man Makes Announcement." The most prominent politician who attended was Madison Cawthorn, who had already been defeated in his primary.
All the Republican leaders continued to think he was yesterday's news and irrelevant (as they made googoo eyes at Ron DeSantis). Too bad the primary voters and those attending his boisterous rallies had a different idea.
https://www.bssnews.net/news/94411
It does make me a bit more sympathetic toward Merrick Garland and why he didn't go after Trump starting Jan. 20 2021 like gangbusters. For all intents and purposes, it was clear that Trump was finished. Why poke the bear by rushing criminal prosecution? Too bad the Republican base eventually disagreed about Trump's demise. But that wasn't really that predictable, no matter how clear it seems in hindsight.
Yeah, I think this is a lot of it. They thought they could get away with playing both sides, pretending to side with Trump to capture his people.
Yep, they thought their Trump problem was basically "solved" and never imagined that Trump could make a comeback.
It may have been good for them to avoid challenges in 2022, but it's given them more headaches now. That said, many seem to be happily adapting to the new world as it's easier than ever to stay in power (just be nice to Trump).
Lindsey Graham was yelled at in the airport by Trump supporters! They all got back in line.
"...yelled at in the airport by ...."
The yelling by itself is not a sufficient explanation of the behavior. Politicians get yelled at, and they ignore it. We could have lined the entire terminal with Columbia undergrads yelling about Gaza, and Lindsey would have ignored it.
So, what's different about these yells, or these yellers?
How did Obama “break” Republicans? What did he do that was so evil and oppressive that a deal with the orange douche was appealing? Was is just, uh, being in the Oval Office while having excessive levels of melanin?
"...while having excessive levels of melanin?"
That was the injury. What added the insult was the fact that he was really, really good at the job. They hated having a black man in the White House, but could have tolerated it more easily if he had confirmed all of their prejudices that black people are stupid lazy, incompetent, etc.. Instead, he was sharp, disciplined, on top of the facts, and ran one of the most corruption-free administrations in US history. It was unforgivable.
The only president of my lifetime who was both legitimately smart and could keep it in his pants.
What bullshit.
They didn't like obama because of his policies.
Adjust the like they didn't like clinton because of his polici
Just like they didn't like biden because of his policies
Race didn't have shit to do with it
That and having a perfect family. Insult to injury, that: a perfect family that's *Black.*
Obama was so schmexy it made the GOP faint.
Yes.
Obama came in on hope and gave: bailouts, more handouts and didn’t side with workers over the establishment. He even continued bush foreign policy. On top of that, growth was lackluster at best.
Combine that with the rise of social media and a very fractured 2016 primary (which they did again in 2024). And you get Trump.
You can quibble with any of these policies, but they all fall squarely within “politician from the other party does stuff I don’t like,” not “OMG this is a CATASTROPHE that must be undone by ANY MEANS NECESSARY including 100% uncritically supporting the ignorant buffoon and tinpot dictator wannabe.”
I think if Bush came after you in a primary, you simply had a much better shot of winning against him than you do against Trump.
The Bushes were different because their support was deeper with the chamber of commerce than with working stiffs. Cross the Bushes and your fund raising would take a hit. Cross Trump and people who usually don’t vote in primaries might show up to destroy your career.
Evangelicals really liked Bush because he was religious and his redemption arc really hit their sweet spot.
And then Trump came along and they realized that letting their id-fueled freak flag fly was so much tastier than all that Jesus stuff they thought they liked before.
I'll add that the main reason GOP primary voters love Trump is that he fights the culture war and the Lefts march through the institutions more effectively than any modern Republican politician ever has. GOP primary voters hadn't seen any "cultural" or "lifestyle" wins until Trump descended the escalator, so he is now their idol.
I mean...if we discount the entire Bush 2 presidency, maybe? Depending on age?
The left kept winning the culture war in the Bush era. That was one of the greatest advances in gay rights in history, even though state constitutional amendments made it look like the opposite on a formal legal level.
Gay marriage isn't the only culture war issue? I certainly remember the Dixie Chicks and the massive 'patriotism means supporting Bush and the War on Terror' push.
Republicans lost on that issue. The Iraq war became extremely unpopular.
I think that was 9/11 doing the work for him. Bush himself didn’t say anti-immigrant or anti-Muslim stuff.
Helps to explain why evangelicals have gone all in on him, despite Trump himself holding many traits they'd otherwise abhor.
Beat me to it. And while some have derided the likes of Jeff Flake, Lamar Alexander, Thom Tillis, etc. as being cowardly for quitting, and there's indeed a small sample size, that sample size has indicated that crossing Trump means getting primaried, and written out of GOP power.
The downside risk for Republicans, though, is that GOP primary voters keep nominating Trump like clowns that have not been as accepted with general voters, and it's caused Republicans to score several own goals that have impeded them from holding even more power. And that downside risk could hopefully implode when Trump's gone and there's no equivalent personalist at the top.
It’s not clear to me why but state and local level politics seems to be perceived as being much less zero sum than national politics. That means politicians and voters are more willing to both break with their party. Republicans in particular have made Congress and and the Presidency a life or death matter but have not succeeded in making that true of Governorships.
I have a few theories as to why. First, I think some of it is political talent. The typical state or local politician does not have the personality or political talent to convince people that voting for them is zero sum. Second, Congress and the President hold the keys to the federal judiciary which is increasingly where policy is made or unmade and where’s the state judiciary is not nearly as important to voters. Third, the press covers national politics so closely and largely ignores state and local level politics so national stuff feels zero sum in a way that state and local stuff doesn’t. Lastly, both parties (republicans more so) have empowered the executive such that things are more zero sum at the national level.
Interested in what others think is the reason for this or if I’m just wrong.
Had to look that one up.
"Kadavergehorsam is a German term meaning "corpse-like obedience," referring to absolute, unquestioning submission to another's will, like that of a mindless cadaver. The concept was popularized in the context of Jesuit orders and later became associated with German military and administrative obedience, particularly during the Prussian and Nazi eras, where it was used to justify carrying out orders without moral or ethical consideration."
Hey thanks, I was about to look that up!
"Boy, those Germans have a word for everything!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B01e7n4RzZc
Obligatory favorite German word:
https://www.reddit.com/r/feemagers/comments/de5irq/guys_the_literal_translation_for_light_bulb_in/
I hope the Japanese equivalent is 魚の球根:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC2OP_QINbw
Two years ago Mitt Romney said he was spending $5,000/day on security due to all the violent threats; and IIRC it was Tim Miller or someone else at the Bulwark that said in private GOP officials absolutely say they take votes they don't want to because they don't want their families threatened. Getting violent threats is horrible even if they're not carried out. IDK how people can still ask 'what are these people scared of'.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/opinion/mitt-romney-trump-retiring.html?unlocked_article_code=1.f08.YhoN.ZAeG9h0gWwxk&smid=url-share
“… IDK how people can still ask 'what are these people scared of'.…”
Well, the people asking could be ignorant of relevant facts. Or it could be that the facts cited don’t add up.
So Mitt has had to deal with security threats. Why haven’t the cops arrested the people making threats?
A guy threatened SCOTUS justices, and he was arrested:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/alaska-man-arrested-threatening-us-supreme-court-justices-their-family-members
That’s how it works: if you threaten government officials, then you get arrested.
Or at least, that’s how it works normally. So why not with the people threatening Mitt or Tim Miller?
Is the next step here a matter of complicity on the part of the police or prosecutors? Did Mitt complain about their being unresponsive to his concerns?
Trump pardoned hundreds of people who staged a somewhat violent failed coup on his behalf. Would you trust his security services to protect your family against people who are just making threatening phone calls?
Also, even if they wanted to, it may be hard to do. I know very little about policing tbh but I guess the threats come from burner phones that are hard to trace.
Eh I'd say the scared members of the 2nd Amendment party need to buy a gun and learn how to use it. Frankly Democrats should maybe consider doing the same. I'm only half kidding.
I mean, this seems like it’s one of the fundamental weaknesses in Binya’s argument and strength of dts—shouldn’t right wing crazy people be threatening Democrats as much or more than Republians? And if non-enforcement of threats is so ubiquitous, the set of left-aligned people willing to issue them may be smaller than the set of right-aligned people but if the 1970s and the Weather Underground etc. are any guide it’s extremely far from zero. Non-enforcement would make them hugely incentive-compatible. Partisan non-enforcement as proposed by evan bear is one possibility explaining their ostensible absence, but that still wouldn’t explain why the Dems aren’t just able to be threatened into compliance with the R agenda if threats by righties are (1) effective and (2) never subject to deterrence by law enforcement. There are some serious missing pieces to this narrative.
I think 'death threats on the internet' is an excuse to do what one wants to do anyway, or more apt in this scenario, not to do things that would be hard and frustrating.
I think there's just also a fundamental asymmetry where in a lot of ways the GOP is terrified of their base, whereas the Democratic party tends to have a kind of contempt for theirs.
"shouldn’t right wing crazy people be threatening Democrats as much or more than Republians?"
It's the same phenomenon we see on the left -- the far left people have massive rage at more moderate people but essentially ignore the right. Consider all the stuff about how Biden and Harris were personally committing genocide and were beyond contempt and how conscientious leftists couldn't POSSIBLY vote for such mass murderers. So you let Trump get elected? Okay.
Dismissing real-world evidence purely based on logic is often a sign the logic is wrong. Mitt Romney didn't spend $2m/year on security for no reason and while the other claims have been private, there've been too many I think to dismiss.
I won't pretend to have a logic-based "proof". But the fact is dysphemistic treadmill asked why certain people are behaving a certain way and repeatedly those people say it's at least in part because of the threats. Maybe it's an excuse, but even if it is, the fact there's quite a bit of reason to view it as credible matters.
Specifically on your logic, Dems and Reps are not the same. Dems can't vote with Trump, unless they switch party. They can take the odd bipartisan vote but ultimately being Dem means voting against the GOP. So, threats do not have the same incentive structure.
Apostates and heretics are dealt with far more severely that nonbelievers
"Buy a gun and learn how to use it"?
That comes back around to the main topic here -- which is the question of what conditions are advantageous to a nation and conducive to prosperity.
Well in a world where we're a failed state (I'm not sure exactly what point that is), this is what you do. I'd really like some 2A people to explain what they think the normie wonky types should do given the circumstances.
I do not follow.
Even the best efforts of law enforcement are not going to be 100% effective. Moreover, the threats are indicators of a high prevalence of proclivity toward violence that is not limited to those known to be making threats
I don’t know how new or different it is, but I do think it’s true that there’s a lot of willingness for a subset of the far right deep state hating Pizzagate types to make death threats to GOP politicians. I think it’s telling that Trump’s response to Epstein stuff lately is one of the first cracks you’ve seen for these folks.
It’s a bit surprising that they mostly don’t talk about this in public - but I guess talking about it in public gets you death threats as much as saying not so nice things about Trump.
I know someone who climbed pretty high in corporate America and then ended up retiring early. There explanation was that as they rose higher and higher and the money became bigger and bigger she began to encounter people who would do anything to get ahead.
I assume if you were in the running for a big promotion your first thought wouldn't be to begin executing on your plan to ruin your rival thought lies, sabotage, rumors, and any and all forms of political machinations. Trump is exactly that kind of person. And as a result rivals are scared of him - whatever your limits are his are 2x.
Hopefully not jinxing anything, but regarding your "Trump doesn't have a secret police" point: I think we may eat our words on that considering the recent developments of ICE. It's certainly heading in that direction.
ICE now has a budget in the same ballpark as the Marine corps/other nations' militaries (it'd be in the top 20 or so) and are filtering for ideological loyalty in their new hires. We haven't seen an American-style Savak/Stasi before, but i'd argue that that's because there hasn't been enough time yet and they just haven't been given explicit orders to start arresting and harassing people beyond the scope of those who can be profiled as "immigrants".
Give it time. ICE is going after "illegals" now, but the true danger is that there is now a huge, personalized paramilitary force that is gaining daily experience in repression tactics, and has seen no real resistance to it's trampling of multiple constitutional amendments.
The only difference between this 'gun' and the historical 'guns' of past secret police forces is that ICE isn't pointed in our general direction yet. But it's loaded and sitting on the table.
"...We haven't seen an American-style Savak/Stasi before,...."
I'd like to say, "but that's crazy-talk!" I worry that it may not be crazy-talk.
You and me both. We're in the 'cool zone' of history now, unfortunately.
"...the 'cool zone' of history now...."
The story about boiling frogs turns out to be fiction, but the obliviousness that we falsely accused the frogs of may be true of democracies.
Yes, which is why if the opposition (whoever that is) actually manages to win power they've got to purge them all. You may have to overstretch the Border Patrol or something to perform necessary duties but you can't trust anyone who is used to masking up and kidnapping people off the street.
There's also the fact that there have already been impersonators out there doing this to kidnap women. That adds a whole other layer of fear to this that the people arresting you might not even be real law enforcement, so how are you supposed to act in that situation?
In theory this would be a fairly legitimate reason for the use of a specific constitutional right (or self defense by any means, really, baseball bats, pepper spray, whatever).
From an external view, there's functionally no difference between masked, unidentified secret cops apprehending people without warrants and criminals kidnapping someone. Any psycho can buy a cop costume from Spirit Halloween and hurt people, as we've seen, which is why law enforcement, in the ideal free society, are required to identify themselves.
In practice however, good luck proving your innocence afterwards when the state throws the book at you if you happen to successfully make it through the 'self defense' part in one piece.
> In practice however, good luck proving your innocence afterwards when the state throws the book at you if you happen to successfully make it through the 'self defense' part in one piece.
Anecdotally at least, it seems judges and juries have been declining to indict in some of these cases (at least for relatively minor offenses).
I share this concern. I would not be surprised if someone tries to shoot it out with masked ICE officers in the near future.
I don't like this line of argument. There's a hint of "things aren't that bad *yet* but he's laying the groundwork for really bad things to come." First, he's an impetuous toddler and can't plan past tomorrow so the idea he has a master plan is ludicrous. But more importantly, like the guy who said the future is already here but just distributed unevenly, we *are* already in an authoritarian state, it's just distributed unevenly. What ICE is doing is *already* intolerable if you are potentially a subject of its depredations. That applies to, oh, maybe 2% of SB readers. It's a bad look to make the concern, hey, they may come after *me* next. Even if ICE never goes beyond harrassing/arresting/deporting brown people and leaves the rest of us alone, what this country is doing is unconscionable.
This is kind of a stretch man, nowhere do I say that what's already happened is tolerable. Pointing out that it can get worse by expanding into a broader form of repression (i.e. against election infrastructure next year if the army says no to illegal orders) is just another reason why this stuff is bad news, they don't cancel out.
Fair enough.
Just struck a nerve.
Seeing these arrests by masked people in minimalist uniforms with unmarked vehicles really is distressing.
I'm not sure how we should address this, but we really need to. At the very least any law enforcement out arresting people should have to wear uniforms that clearly identify their agency and the officer individually, and be maskless.
My crank unifying theory of politics right now is that the country is in a conservative mood, but Trump is so bad that Democrats are doing better than they otherwise would, and that everyone is misinterpreting this as the opposite. It makes Republicans totally acquiesce to him even though he's actually an albatross around their necks, and it makes Democrats think they can copy his worse instincts as a way to improve their performance.
I think people underestimate how much the epistemic bubble that is the right oriented media has become. This has provided a reliable source of votes and money that is not really critical about the overall direction of Republican politics. Having family members who had strong anti-Trump views eventually just shrug off his awfulness off, it is not surprising that there are a whole cadre of elected officials who are shrugged it off too.
I've said it before, but I think we underestimate how much the various Trump scandals literally don't happen in the Fox News universe.
It is genuinely a completely different reality (or unreality).
I sort of agree with this. I'll just say I'll amend this to say that the country clearly recoiled from the more extreme progressive culture war stuff that seemed to be in ascension circa 2020-2021 but that too many Trump loyalists have misinterpreted as the country wanting similarly right wing reactionary culture war policy instead. When in reality the banal explanation is people have "status quo bias" and are unlikely to be particularly enamored with anything too extreme either direction (slow and steady wins the race).
I will say I think the authoritarian moves made by the Trump administration is in itself a recognition that reactionary right wing culture war goals are not actually that popular. I think some of this is a combo of Trump's own ego/authoritarian tendencies and some administration officials who are "high on their own supply" and really think some "deep state" cabal of bureaucrats and university elites are the only thing standing in the way of the true desires of "the people". But I think some of it is at least a gut feeling recognition that a lot these moves are likely going to backfire at the ballot box so let's do we what we can to limit that backlash.
People are saying that these military interventions Trump has pursued in LA and DC are laying the groundwork for how he's going to undermine the elections in 2026 and 2028.
That's not my fear.
My fear is that the economy basically does OK and we muddle along and the Republicans just outright *win* the upcoming elections and the poison of MAGA and its jihad against all institutions aligned against it gets totally normalized and embedded in our society. That's when we become totally lost.
Boy, I hope the economy really turns lousy over the next year.
This is a good comment. One of the more underrated factors in American politics is that there is a very strong 'leave me the F alone/out of it' undercurrent especially in normie space. However instead of understanding the dynamic hard culture warriors tend to see rejection of their opponent's aggression and overreach as an appetite for their own obsessions and aesthetics.
Like in a certain way I think Tim Walz was really onto something with the 'these Trump people are weird' stuff. They are freaking weird and into a lot of things with very little popular currency or enthusiasm. The problem is that we've got people on our own side who are prominently into a lot of weird stuff too, and people know it, so it blunts the attack.
Agreed 1000%
A few things.
- think it’s an underrated story how many GOP officials come out and say they are actually frightened for their families. When we say Trump is a cult I don’t think we are really grappling with this. There is a good 20% of this country gripped in an actual Branch Davidian style cult and have drunk the kool - aid. If even a small percentage of those people are threatening politicians behind the scenes that really is a low key Saddam style intimidation (again on smaller scale)
- Related and someone else brought this up. GOP primary voters a disproportionately made up of these cultists. Think we underestimate how much control Trump has mentally over these voters.
- Trump is at around 42% approval rating. I said on Brian Buetler’s substack that this a proverbial “Mendoza” line; just high enough to keep his control over the party. Same as the first term. Because the economy was booming pre COVID and because economy has been…okay…so far. This remains his floor and allows Trump to maintain loyalty. I honestly think we are a bit of an inflection point here. PCE is clearly picking up. Job growth is clearly slowing. And SCOTUS is likely not adjudicating as to Trump’s tariff authority any time soon. Juicing the officials stats can only do so much to cover up people actually losing their jobs in reality. If this comes to pass (assuming he doesn’t ultimately TACO), it seems highly unlikely to me is approval rating can stay above the Mendoza line. So at that point, I do wonder how GOP officials start acting. Especially ones from swing states and districts.
It’s more socially acceptable to say you are afraid of crazies hurting your family than to say you are afraid of maga voters.
A lot of Republican lawmakers simply do want authoritarian rule now.
I think there is some level of truth to the idea that some elected Republicans and voters actually wanting at least some or all of this stuff to happen. Some of them are probably gleeful at the sight of masked ICE goons dragging people off the street. They want someone to just ignore judges and "do stuff" to advance whatever pieces of the anti-regulatory or anti-abortion or anti-DEI or administrative state they happen to oppose. There are lots of Republicans who don't want there to be public schools, or in some cases, a US Postal Service. Or they want an un-checked executive branch (as long as it's their executive). Some of them are Seven Mountain Mandate/dominionist nutjob theocrats who want conservative Christians to take over all aspects of U.S. society and usher in the end times, and see Trump as a useful vessel. The current speaker of the house, Mike Johnson, is one of these people (or at least adjacent to them). And there are a lot of craven opportunists in Congress who really have no guiding principles other than staying in office, sucking up as much money as they can, and/or getting a lot of attention -- Ted Cruz would be a good example.
Some of them are *probably* gleeful? Look at the comment section on of a few videos of said goons dragging people into vans and you'll see legions people beside themselves with joy. It's shameful.
Yeah, I think a lot of the "Why are Republicans going along with this" discourse is driven by the fact that the few reasonable Republicans occupy a disproportionate share of the discourse because they can actually block his actions. The vast majority of Republican office holders go along because they like Trump, like his policies, and don't much care about any of his transgressions.
Particularly in the House, there's a shrinking pool of Republican members of Congress who were in office pre-Trump and know a different way of doing things on Capitol Hill.
Per Shor, so do their voters: https://x.com/davidshor/status/1782503475705774495
Weird column from Matt. I think comparative poli-sci is good, but pointing out that the problem with Trump turning America into a dictatorship is that it will hurt growth feels like trying to prove his critics correct.
I thought about “trying to prove his critics correct” a bit more, and I was wrong. As Matt has observed multiple times, we tried to win the election with anti-dictatorship arguments and lost to cost-of-living and prosperity arguments.
I think there's something to this. Maybe they always wanted it, at least to the extent that every politician thinks that it would be better if their party had permanent control, but have to be a little careful for the future when they don't.
Like in basketball, every player works the refs, but they got to be careful how far they take it lest they get a technical foul. But now the Republican Party thinks it sees the opportunity not just to be in charge of hiring the refs, but also to decide who sits on the rules committee as well as who hires the commissioner, and they think they see the opportunity to permanently flip the game in their favor.
Republicans used the authoritarianism of private institutions as the reason to make the government authoritarian.
I've been surprised by how brazen Texas lawmakers have been about gerrymandering. No Overton window whatsoever, more than one has been on record saying this is purely for partisan reasons and it is their belief having more Republicans in Congress is better for Texas.
Not even trying to pretend it's being done for democratic reasons. I do think a huge portion of the GOP is flat out authoritarian these days.
They're also scared that some of his supporters are also dangerous.
"...some of his supporters are also dangerous...."
Well, this is one of the things I wonder about -- does Congressman Righteous Republican receive death-threats at his office?
But even then -- how does this work? If I were to phone in death threats to all of the Republicans whom I hate, then the FBI would jump right on my ass and I'd be sent straight to jail. Have we heard about people being jailed for death-threats to political leaders? I don't recall many.
What are the details? Have there been horse heads left in beds? Have the threats been organized or just lone-wolf? How many lone wolves? Again -- what's the mechanism?
I suspect that if a Republican congressman got a MAGA person arrested for making death threats, that would be a good way to make himself a cause celebre for people like Laura Loomer and a target of many more death threats in the future.
"... that would be a good way to make himself...."
You could be right. But an episode like this has either happened or it hasn't happened. If it has happened, why have we not heard about it? And if it has not happened, but the Republican is just afraid that it might happen, then we're back to the original question about the source of their fear.
Believe me, if I first threatened to kill an elected official, and then threatened that I would kill them if they called the cops on me, my name and mugshot would soon be in the papers.
Good questions. Obviously we don't know the answer to the first one.
Another point worth noting is who the head of the FBI is now. I don't know how large of an impact that has on day-to-day operations, but from a personal standpoint, he seems like the kind of guy who'd be happy to put *your* name and mugshot in the papers, but not someone making the same kinds of death threats but from the right.
I think people do receive lots of death threats, or at least scary messages close to threats. But I think getting scary Twitter DMs or similar from anonymous accounts is not treated as a big deal by the FBI.
I have all these Republican lawmakers receiving death threats and therefore going along with Trump on my list of people to feel sorry for, but they're like ten million lines below the judges who are constantly receiving death threats from MAGA types and yet keep on doing their damn jobs because they're good, patriotic Americans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/us/politics/federal-judges-threats.html
Character matters!
You have a ton of replies, but no answer to this very good question. I think the average well-adjusted American has been asking themselves this question for well on a decade now. I am only in my mid thirties, but I am certain I will be asking myself this question for the rest of my life, and never get a real answer.
I think that's why it is popular in shit-lib circles to refer to Trump's strongest supporters as being members of a cult - there's just not a more satisfactory answer
Trump will sue you, have federal law enforcement or the IRS investigate you into bankruptcy, if you have any foreign family or contacts like the Republican Senator who just posted about his adopted African daughter, Trump will probably try to deport them, or go after your companies—the feds have lots of ways to do this as we’re seeing with law firms, universities, corporations.
An underrated factor is that Trump has largely delivered on long-term Republican Party priorities. He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, and they successfully overturned Roe v. Wade. He has slashed taxes on the wealthy and gutted regulations. He has crushed the hated bureaucracy, neutered the Department of Education, and humiliated universities. He has killed public broadcasting and bullied mainstream media organizations into compliance. He has also, somehow, turned the tide on the long-term cultural dominance on the left.
Republican leadership (especially Mitch McConnell!) are pragmatic and they understand that these victories are important and enduring no matter how unsavory Trump's means have been.
Yes, and Republicans were lying about everything else they said they believed in (free markets, America playing a leading role in the world, good character being important in our leaders).
100% agreed here. All they had to do was show just a brief amount of spine, and they could have been done with Trump. 10 more votes and the problem would have gone away forever.
All that being said, they should have had the impeachment within a day or two, when the fear of what happened was fresh in their minds. And the impeachment should have been focused only on Jan 6th NOT on stuff before the election.
The articles should have been drawn up with Republican support, and prosecuted in a way to get republican support.
But Pelosi, played this as a typical partisan game, trying to score points. Again, and again, Democrats thought Trump was the easier opponent to beat (which I agree he is). But easier doesn't mean you can't lose.
We need two sane parties.
If the only way to convict Trump was to rush it by, what, a week or so while the fear was "fresh" I'd say that's a terrible reason to convict him.
Maybe, but I still wish they had done it
People overrate violence (or the threat of it) as a means of control, and they underrate social censure, humiliation and the carrot-and-stick of in-group dynamics. I'm sure the crowdsourced death threats don't hurt, but the real way Trump keeps the party in line is by making his rivals into pariahs and cucks within the social world (conservative politics) that they built their lives around.
Elected officials are social creatures almost by definition, and if you know your constituents and colleagues and the institutions in your community will judge you harshly for not supporting Trump, it has a gravitational pull that most people can't resist. (Very interested to see how the David and Goliath tale of Thomas Massie is going to play out.)
On the other side of the psychological ledger, Trump devotes a great deal of time to meting out favors to those Republicans who might be inclined to resist but decide to kiss the ring instead. As with the threat of violence, I think the rewards here are typically less concrete and more a matter of social currency: He can destroy you in the eyes of your people, or he can elevate you to his side. Marco Rubio is a living trophy to Trump's powers of social control. It's almost a born-again arc -- once among the gravest of sinners, he's now been washed clean and elevated to the left hand of the throne.
There are probably as many answers as there are Republicans, but one I think is probably underrated is the role of blackmail. Who knows what's in the National Enquirer's secret files? Trump does, or at least he might, and unlike Mitt Romney, most Republicans are not highly disciplined, clean-living Mormons.
Well, he IS smart, witty and charismatic. Good person? That’s in the eye of the beholder. But if I told you Obama wasn’t smart, witty and charismatic you’d probably say my partisanship was interfering with my judgement.
As far as why the Republican politicians follow him, it’s because he controls the opinion of a massive number of the voters they depend upon, and as President, he controls most of the US grift machine.
How did he regain control after January 6? No, it wasn’t death threats; it was threats of non-support from their constituents. In other words, “democracy”.
I was just listening to an interview with the authors of the book "How Trump Retook the White House and Democrats Lost America". In the interview, they noted how in 2022 when Trump announced his campaign from Mar-a-Lago, practically no one showed up. Even Hannity canceled a planned interview. It was barely covered; the New York Post said "Florida Man Makes Announcement", part of their merciless coverage of him*. And yet he clawed his way back, not because he had anyone under his thumb or in his pocket but because he was and is supported by the voters.
*https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/business/media/new-york-post-trump.html
Meanwhile, if you stroll over to the free speech crowd, they seem to be throwing their shoulders out for how aggressively they’re shrugging at this consolidation of personal rule.
Like, it can be true both that progressive-institutional overreach paved the way for this *and* that there’s currently an unprecedented concentration of power in one man that’s very, very bad. But audience capture, etc.
Edit: I basically mean TFP and Taibbi. I guess Greenwald, too, but I’m not sure his schtick was ever really “free speech” as such - more anti-corporate, anti-surveillance state. Not sure what he’s been up to, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he too is misplacing his skepticism of state censorship and surveillance at the moment.
Every time it seems as if people might be ready to get fed up with Trump's unprecedented concentration of power, I turn on NPR and hear some "homelessness advocate" trying to justify massive encampments, or (as a gay male) I'm being sold a moral panic on behalf of "queer trans people of color."
When that's the message coming from "the Resistance," voters see those far less vulnerable than themselves using "the most vulnerable" as a scourge on the middle class -- and the winner is... Donald Trump.
In the process -- to top it off -- Trump gets what he wants most: He remains the (seemingly ever-beleaguered) center of attention.
Agreed - and TFP, Taibbi, etc. are very effective at pushing the “beleaguered Donald Trump” narrative.
It’s pretty tragic what’s happened to NPR et al. There used to be a smart center-left media ecosystem, and now…it’s scattered, to say the least.
I guess at least the “homelessness advocate / trans queer people of color activist” clique has seen their relevance dramatically diminished since 2020-2021. What’s too bad is that their influence was diminishing organically - and then Trump & cie. came along and said “no, actually, we need to do a right-wing Cultural Revolution.”
The problem is that the NPR folks and their counterparts in "The Groups" still set the tone for public discourse among the Resistance. Every time it seems as if Trump's gone too far with his "right-wing Cultural Revolution,” there they are again -- always relentlessly scolding and pontificating in the background. (For that, you can always count on the likes of M[asha] Gessen!)
All Trump needs to say is, "See? What did I tell you? The Resistance is for 'They/Them'..." At this point, in fact, he doesn't need to say anything at all.
They prefer the term “unhoused persons advocates” now.
At least it's still less of a syllabic assault than "advocates for people experiencing homelessness"!
Unhousedness
"People experiencing homelessness," ostensibly with "noplace else to go." ;-)
Depends on the group, some like FIRE actually do have principles.
"... over to the free speech crowd...."
By which you mean whom?
ETA: thanks for your "Edit:"
Believe a good place to look is here. https://www.thefp.com/
If you notice, Matt lobs bombs there way all the time.
Take two seconds to even read just the headlines and you’ll see that it would be silly to call them just some new version of Fox News. There is clearly at least some criticisms of Trump administration policies.
But Bari made her name for herself being a very loud free speech warrior. At least in theory. And it was supposedly a high minded criticism of all forms of restricting speech
So given that background, the fact that the only article on main website today criticizing restricting speech is taking Berkeley to task for lefty overreach is pretty enlightening given how every single day there is basically some new Trump policy or pronouncement that threatens free speech in ways that go well beyond anything seen in 2020 or 2021.
So yeah, count me among those who thought and feel like they’ve been vindicated in thinking Bari was a charlatan from the very beginning when it comes to defending free speech.
Bari Weiss literally started her career in college getting Israel critics cancelled, how anyone could take her as a free speech defender is beyond me.
The recent news about Shari Redstone and 60 minutes is really enlightening here and also related given news reports that Bari might be brought in to oversee CBS news.
Combine this with FP putting out an article noting that because the famous photo of a kid with a protruding spine was actually a photo of a kid with a pre-existing condition and therefore reports of starvation in Gaza is dare I say "fake news"* and it's really hard not to conclude that Bari's real mission above anything else is defending anything Bibi does no matter what.
*I can't believe they published such a gross article. I'm sorry you can walk and chew gum at the same time. You absolutely can be pro-Israel, anti-Hamas and also at least show basic human decency when looking at how Bibi and his cabinet of reactionary goons are carrying out operations in Gaza right now.
“getting Israel critics cancelled”
How, exactly, did she do that?
She went after some professors who were anti Zionist.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Columbia_Unbecoming_controversy
That site characterizes it as an academic freedom issue, not free speech. But whatever.
Jesse Singal started throwing shade at TFP and how much Weiss has been captured by her audience. It’s a joke.
“… It’s a joke.….”
The joke is Singal’s throwing shade? Or Weiss pretending to care about free speech?
It’s Weiss’s dog and pony show.
The only jokes that Jesse gets involved with are when Katie makes him read something terrible.
Don't get him started on giantess cartoons...
And alas it looks like she's laughing all the way to the bank.
I had Matt Taibbi in mind. I get that he’s pissed about Russiagate and being threatened with imprisonment by Democratic backbenchers, but man, his free speech principles are pretty selectively applied.
He always practically had "useful idiot" tattooed on his forehead.
He’s an awful thinker. A lot people see that now but still give him credit for his OWS-era writing, but it was just as dumb. There was no evidence then, and certainly no evidence now, that the government was being secretly run by Goldman Sachs, but his reputation continued to coast on that nonsense.
I disliked him for slandering vampire squids and just making up the concept of a “blood funnel” because it made his pull quote juicier.
First they came for the vampire squids. I’m afraid Sex Whales will be next.
Thank you both.
Pre-Trump, I saw him as a kind of an amusing side attraction to legitimate mainstream journalism, who was doing fun things like going to snake handler events and singing Russian heavy metal to approximate speaking in tongues, but whom everyone knew not to take seriously. (This is similar to how I felt about Michael Hobbes at the time.) I thought everyone was in on the joke. He was supposed to be a bro-style alternative to the front page of Buzzfeed (whose social media manager then went to jail for January 6th) or your friend's cousin who would buy you beer in high school and thought his band was still going to be signed to a major label even though he's already 32. Like, if you took him seriously, you were doing media literacy wrong.
Didn’t he publish those false rape victim stories?
Which ones?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/business/media/rolling-stone-rape-story-case-guilty.html
Back in 2016-2017, I bought into the whole Trump is a Russian stooge story line...and I feel foolish for having believed it. But politics is indeed a dirty business and now I understand the whole Russian stooge narrative was a made-up pile of horse manure thanks to Taibbi's and others' work. It's the kind of work good investigative journalists are supposed to do, even if it makes team Blue feel a bit queasy.
Yeah. I have no issue with Taibbi muckraking about Russiagate stuff. It was a bad thing.
I do have a problem with him devoting a column to e.g. complaining about the NYT comments section instead of applying his free speech fire to clear violations of free speech by Trump et al.
I don’t care that he has a clear preference for Trump; I care that he keeps up the pretense that he’s evenhanded in his criticism when he’s very clearly not. He can’t be - his MAGA audience would tear him to shreds. And that’s fine as far as it goes, but own it!
I think those individuals and organizations you identify aren’t part of the free speech crowd, but are part of the anti-establishment crowd. Therefore, they have a lot of tolerance for many of the things that Trump is doing.
A large portion of the "Free Speech" crowd were more on the "don't criticize me for bad opinions" shtick. This is why they would lean so heavily on deflections to bad faith discussions on past criticisms for governments and corporations.
There's personalization of government, well articulated in today's post, and personalization of a party, which is implied but not discussed. Trump has successfully personalized the GOP. It will be super interesting to see, assuming the two term guardrail holds (wild that needs to be said) how the GOP manages a post-Trump nomination, and how the democratic party, remaining more of an institution, can leverage that organizational advantage to its benefit.
Trump is clearly aging mentally, just as Biden was - he's physically louder and he has always been more talkative than Biden, so the signs are different (he talks nonsense rather than seizing up, for instance), but, just to pick some obvious examples, his vocabulary and his capacity to absorb new information are way down on ten years go.
I think he's going to find that any sort of serious election contest in 2028 will expose his mental weaknesses. Obviously, he might be able to prevent such a contest, but I doubt things will go that far that quickly. I suspect that even if he can clear the constitutional obstacles to a run in 2028, he may not be physically/mentally up to it.
What is likely, though, is that he picks a successor. Which means that the 2028 nomination will not be truly post-Trump.
I don’t think any successor will have anything close to Trump’s charisma or parasocial relationship with voters. He is not going to let someone else cultivate that attention or relationship while he is in charge. My guess his successor will be a wet noodle.
I actually chatted with, uh, ChatGPT about who a successful successor to Trump would be, and we were both left scratching our heads (well, I did; ChatGPT convincingly simulated scratching its non-existent head). Vance? Too much of a dork, and Catholicism / mixed race family is a liability for core MAGA-heads. RFK Jr.? Some independent base of support, but ultimately limited. Hegseth / Gabbard / Noem / other toadies? Too niche. Sons? Too incompetent and even MAGA thinks they’re punchable dweebs.
Even ChatGPT’s “here are some possible scenarios” thing (it loves to generate lists!) was accompanied by “…but all of these have some big caveat.”
Please tell me that ChatGPT used the phrase "punchable dweeb." I might like the machine a bit better if it did.
No, that was me, I’m afraid.
"... that was me,...."
Have you considered a second career as a large language model?
AI will never replace us
I still think DJT Jr. is being severely underrated. All Trump has to do is make it clear he'll still be running things, and Jr will win a primary. The idea of making libs swallow a third (and potentially fourth) Trump term alone will give him him the nod among Republicans, regardless of his lack of charisma or competence.
And Trump can direct from sidelines well into his 80s if he doesn't have to maintain a presidential schedule. I think people are massively overestimating the odds of him passing in the next 5 years. Declining, yes, but he doesnt drink, has presidential health care, and his parents lived into their 90s.
Been on record as saying someone named Trump will be GOP nominee in 2028.
Key thing to recognize is he clearly does not care one iota about the GOP or GOP future. He doesn't really care about his kids in a meaningful way but he does care as they represent a reflection upon his legacy and his own ego driven greatness.
I think it's extremely likely Don Jr. runs and DJT does his best to indicate to GOP primary voters that if they like him they should vote for his son and that he'll really be running things if Jr is elected (he's clearly not doing his job now given often he is befuddled at press conferences as to questions regarding what is own administration is doing, but primary voters clearly ignore that).
I think it's very unlikely to work if we have a free and fair election in 2028 (especially if the economy is not doing great). The real worry in this scenario is something Matt and Brian brought up in the podcast this week. This time around he'll have more capacity to maneuver loyalist National Guard troops to DC. If he declares the 2028 results "rigged" what happens then if there is another coup attempt.
Yeah - the 2028 stolen election scenario really only makes sense if we're talking about a de facto third term, since Trump won't give a shit about anyone else and Vance/DeSantis/etc. don't have the shooters.
"parents lived into their 90s."
Wrong Mary Anne died at 88. Trump's sister died a few years ago at age 86.
Should have looked it up. Fred was 93 though, so it averages out.
Your lips to God's ears.
Yeah. I really don't want to count on "Trump is clearly old" to save us in the same way I don't want to count on "The economy tanking will save us". But forced to bet as to most likely reason we won't fall into permanent autocracy it's both these factors.
I'm glad you brought up 10 years ago, because it's actually quite striking how much more rambling and non-sensical he sounds than he did in 2015-2016.
The monkey wrench that will throw here is that if Trump really is declining mentally (which I think he is) that may make it more likely not less likely he'll continue to lash out and act in an unhinged manner. I do wonder if this is part of the reason (beyond just that he's surrounded himself with lackeys) that Trump doesn't seem to be listening to the "adults in the room" as much as the first term.
I honestly think that there’s a good chance he turns on his own chosen successor at some point
This is certainly where the functionally two-year long primary season combined with state administration of elections complicates things versus countries where elections are centrally controlled and can happen in a matter of weeks -- Trump can't suddenly flip a switch and substitute himself onto the ballot a month before voting.
For sure, I actually envision it more as him trying to pick a successor, hating the loss of attention, then flipping on them somewhere in the leadup to election day. I don't even think it'd be some big crisis of a possible third Trump term, just a thorn in the side of whoever gets the joy of being the next Republican candidate. Not that this is the guaranteed outcome, just what I think would happen if Trump goes the 'successor selection' route.
The problem is that the idiocy is baked into the baseline of voters' views of Trump. He's not held to normal standards.
Maybe Putin will lend him Medvedev, haha!
In the meantime, I love how he's freezing the 2028 nomination race by showing a bit of leg about running again. Vance must be steaming and thinking evil thoughts about his boss.
Probably after the midterms we'll start seeing more and more stories coming out of the administration about Trump's mental decline. No idea who the source will be but hmm could be someone sounding like VD Jance.
Can you catch VD from a couch? OMG, where's my cat!?
Now now. I'm fully prepared to believe that Vance has never had carnal relations with a couch if he comes out and vigorously denies it.
It's not gonna hold... when even the ever positive Mike Pesca is doubting it, you know it's not gonna hold. Like, have any of the guardrails held since November?
There is zero reputational penalty for making statements like this, and there will be zero self-reflection when Trump does not, in fact, run for a third term in 2028.
Sad.
It’s delusional for Trump to call for third term. It’s delusional his partisans indulge it.
Most likely his pudding brain will be soup by 2028.
I want to put the chance he runs at 0, but I can't. I think it's <2%(total, not conditional on anything), but that's still higher than I'd like.
Putting on my election official hat for a moment, it doesn't help that people are usually pretty vague and sloppy about how they define "running for a third term".
The chances of Donald Trump holding a bunch of rallies themed around "write in your very favorite, very large and big president" are quite different from "Trump wins a regular primary and secures normal ballot access in all fifty states", and there are a lot of conceivable scenarios in between.
It's gonna hold.
First, you would presumably concede that (1) Trump's brain is turning into more and more mush by the day and (2) Trump is going to be more visibly physically broken down by 2028 than he is today, such that even many GOP officeholders are going to be able to privately recognize that he isn't long for the world and that a third term would probably just be gifting the presidency to the VP candidate?
Second, the 22nd Amendment is a very bright line and *much* more so than the 14th Amendment insurrection clause, notwithstanding the profuse gaslighting from left-leaning legal reporters in 2024.
Third, barring Trump from running again in 2028 requires literally *NO* express cooperation from GOP officeholders -- I can guarantee that at least one blue state SOS will refuse to put Trump on the ballot and that will go to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS justices, who cannot be primaried and have no concerns about ever running for public office, can then say, "Gee, our hands are tied! You can't be on the ballot again, Mr. Trump." It's the "perfect crime" in that GOP officeholders can even go on Fox afterwards and denounce those accursed activist judges!
It's not even as if Trump ran totally unopposed in the 2024 primary. Does a thirsty bastard like DeSantis have enough sway over quiet functionaries in the Florida Republican party to keep Trump from even appearing on the primary ballot?
Well, yes, I agree that I would expect Trump's declining capacity to embolden more GOP challengers in 2028. (I am deeply skeptical that every Republican senator and governor in the country is chill with the idea that Donald Trump gets to automatically be President until he dies.) However, since people on the left overwhelmingly proceed on the premise that Republican politicians will literally never do anything contrary to Trump, I'm just pointing out that there's a mechanism by which Trump is prevented from running in 2028 that doesn't depend on any GOP politician actually crossing Trump.
I'm really surprised how bullish Polymarket is on JD Vance being the next president. He doesn't have the juice.
I was in China recently and thought Xi had much less of a personality cult than portrayed in Western media or even compared to Trump. There is a lot of public propaganda around but it almost always depicts Sun Yat-Sen, Mao, and Deng, almost never Xi. Mao is on all the money, not Xi. People don’t talk about Xi, Xi doesn’t have any merch, etc… It still seemed like an institutionalist autocracy.
The story about China and freedom is also more complicated than sometimes portrayed. China is authoritarian in a lot of ways like the censorship. On the other hand, China is unilaterally expanding visa-free travel at a time when the US is imposing travel bans; there were more Africans wearing African-looking clothing in the Shanghai airport than you ever see in the US. China has not done anything comparable to Gaza or Ukraine. No wonder polls consistently now show China having a better global reputation than the US. And even a lot of media perceptions are just factually wrong, like I was surprised when all my Western apps worked on my phone in China without a VPN when I was connected to my cell carrier’s Chinese partner, just not local WiFi.
It’s personal rule, but Xi has not cultivated a cult of personality (yet at least) as a mechanism for maintaining power. Instead he, personally, seized all the control levers for the CCP (i.e. the highly effective at controlling all aspects of life in China institution) and uses it to keep other elites in line. The guy on the street just doesn’t matter that much there.
It’s a different and interesting pattern.
"...It’s a different and interesting pattern...."
Complete centralization of power in one person, but without the cult of personality -- without the Turkmenistan flourishes that evan bear mentions elsethread -- how much does that also describe Putin's Russia?
Plus, how much do we know about the people Xi has chosen as advisors? Just because Trump selects completely unqualified people based on loyalty, it doesn't mean that Xi doesn't engage experts. And then of course Xi himself is infinitely more competent and experienced in governing, and probably infinitely more intelligent, than Trump.
We could even see this as a relative benefit for China: they've got personalist rule, but by someone who has paid his dues in the villages and risen through the ranks of the powermongers, rather than by someone who convinced a bunch of people to vote for him.
"Personalist rule" should absolutely be considered when looking at country's economic success. But then you have to look at the person.
"how much do we know about the people Xi has chosen as advisors?"
That he's been purging a lot of them:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/20/business/xi-jinping-china.html
Quote if you can't access:
"The elites tolerated Mr. Xi as he consolidated power through anticorruption campaigns, revised the Constitution to eliminate term limits and cracked down on the private sector, said Cai Xia, a retired professor at the Central Party School who has become a party critic. They stayed silent because he didn’t touch their privileges, she said.
But now his purges and China’s economic problems are hitting closer to home. “If this continues, it could lead the party elites to believe that it won’t be Xi who falls, but the party itself,” Ms. Cai said.
Mr. Xi could rule for another decade or two, if his health permits, but only if he maintains the loyalty of the party’s leaders. “One of the great vulnerabilities of the regime is when the elite begins to have doubts,” Mr. Kotkin said."
Also, I don’t know if this is what you intend, your comment implies that “No wonder polls consistently now show China having a better global reputation than the US” is reasonable, and that China is not that bad compared to the US. This is an indefensible view.
China routinely commits horrible human rights abuses and has an explicitly extractive and aggressive foreign policy. It bears no moral comparison with the USA, for all the faults of America. It is, in fact, bad.
Although Trump's current policy seems much more extractive than our policy has been in the past
Yes, he definitely sucks. However if you transposed China and America’s situations we probably would have conquered Greenland by now (and liquidated all prominent Democrats). I don’t think that is down to any great virtue gap between Xi and Trump, but rather the nature of the countries.
Trump working at *breaking* all the stuff that makes us different is by far the worst thing about him though (much as tariffs annoy me, attacking the Fed and destroying civil service and firing BLS head and ignoring judges etc etc etc is all much worse long term).
of course the view can be defended when one takes into account press suppression in China: no one really knows about the horrible human rights abuses (until they happen in their own China client country.)
Confusing what polls say with whether the popular opinion they indicate reflects truth or not.
Fair points, but I would suggest you have a word with the Uyghurs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China
China may not be as authoritarian in day to day life but Xi has clearly demonstrated he's willing to "go there" if he deems it necessary. Also, it's hard not to look at the extreme nature of COVID lockdowns that only Taylor Lorenz could love and not conclude there is not at least some version of a personal autocracy going on (it's hard to believe they would have gone on so long if Xi didn't have an iron grip on power generally).
I lived there for a long time and it clearly worsened under Xi. Censorship sure, but culture in general.
The hawkishness against China from the US is really unwarranted but China isn't one of the good guys either.
Why is it unwarranted?
"No wonder polls consistently now show China having a better global reputation than the US."
I've been saying since the Gulf War that China has been doing John Quincy Adams' "Goes Not Abroad in Search of Monsters" speech better than the United States and that that was going to come back to bite the US in the ass eventually: https://loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1821secofstateJQAdmas.pdf
Around 20 years ago I relocated to Atlanta and found that the local conservative AM talk station was also by far the best station for traffic news. So, I listened every morning and every evening during a long commute.
After a year or two, I started to notice an underlying theme in some of the hosts - particularly Limbaugh and Hannity but also even Boortz - of genuine admiration and preference for the dictatorial/personalist regimes around the world. It was subtle, but felt distinctly anti-American values to me then.
It came out in digging bits on China building some megaproject that inevitably was laden with corruption and appropriation of property by the government - something to be abhorred if it the American government did it - or some political opposition in Russia getting imprisoned after a show trial. Remember the minor kerfluffle about throwing Liberals out of helicopters? I heard that phrase thrown out regularly for years on the radio long before 2016.
Over the years, it became very apparent that there was a sizeable chunk of the talent and listeners that had no commitment or interest in democratic or small 'l' liberal values at all.
The rise of Trump and devolution of the Republican party into a personalist regime seems to flow naturally from that same source.
There is something admirable in the ability to build a megaproject, and it does require a degree of “trampling on rights” from the US perspective, because the US has too many veto points to get anything like that done. But now we’ve got the transparent corruption without the ability to actually build things.
The trouble with Limbaugh was that his use of language was mesmerizing. It's an interesting contrast to the bizarre language we see coming out of the White House which I would have the patience analyze if I didn't find it so confounding. It seems to be a mishmash of dog whistles, double-speak, hyperbole, and ideologically poisoned bureaucratese.
The utterly meaninglessness of these proclamations triggers my existential anxiety.
People keep wanting to find one cool trick to outcompete China. That ignores demographics. If China merely reached Portugal’s per-capita GDP, its economy would be about 1.4× the size of America’s. At Greece’s level it would be 1.2×, Spain’s 1.7×, and Italy’s 1.9×. None of those countries are models of technocratic puissance. They all have layers of EU regulation atop domestic sclerosis and red tape, none is committed to maximizing GDP, and none can afford to anger voters too much. Yet even muddling along to those kinds of outcomes would give China overwhelming scale. It doesn’t need to be Singapore or South Korea — it just needs to be Portugal.
IDK, I read this book by a guy who thought we could just increase the US population so the relative size advantage of China mattered less. Not politically viable obviously, maybe he was on to something. An abundance of Americans.
With better leadership, I think the US could continue to compete on level ground with China.
I think with 2024, too many voters said sayonara to our being a forward-looking society with a drive for progress and economic development. I'm more and more convinced that our future is to be poorer, meaner, and more isolated in the world. A Democratic win in 2028 could slow that decline, but too many Americans have checked out of that American dream to achieve anything like a consensus on it again.
In 2016 Will Saletan wrote that the GOP is a failed state and Trump is its warlord. This article really brings that home. Matt is pretty centrist and spends a lot of time punching left, but the Democrats of both the far left and of the center tend to be sincere. The lack of GOP principles is astounding and we will all pay the price.
To use the eighteenth-century language that much of US constitutional discourse is still stuck in, the distinction between an institutionalised and a personalised regime is the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of men.
They were very clear that this wasn't about democracy at all - they wanted a non-democratic (oligarchic) regime that did abide by the rule of law. Even if you have a dictator who can rule by decree, requiring them to make explicit public decrees rather than just fixing things for individuals they like and don't like makes a huge difference. If you can be confident that, first you know what the rules are - or, at least, you can pay a lawyer to tell you - and, second, that if you follow them, you'll be allowed to be as successful as you like, then investing makes sense. If not, then the best thing to do with your money is bribe people to leave you alone.
“ the distinction between an institutionalised and a personalised regime is the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of men.”
The linguistic elegance of “rule of men” versus “personalized regime” speaks to why the U.S. is “stuck” in 18th century language. Reminds me why the Founders’ words have endured.
The "rule of law" might be overrated when it amounts to the rule of lawyers (or those who can pay for them). Institutionalism might be worthless (or even counterproductive) when the entire credentialing system becomes self-serving, and the (consequently ossified) institutions are populated by those lacking in virtue or character.
See "Kafka, Franz." Also see: "Nomenklatura."
"Maybe it’s all fine... maybe a totally MAGA-fied America will be okay too. But I’m awfully uncomfortable banking on it."
AYFKM?
"Maybe it's all fine"?!? It's already very obviously NOT FINE across a variety of metrics!
Yes, yes, I know. Matt Y is talking specifically about *the economy*. Maybe the economy will be fine, so that makes everything else okay?
I keep thinking to the day I did my naturalization ceremony and became a US citizen, how happy and proud I was, how happy my husband was for me, how we went to a local Cracker Barrel for a celebratory stack of pancakes and I told the waitress that this was my first meal as an American citizen and she smiled and congratulated me...
I believed, on that day, that America STOOD FOR SOMETHING! You know, all those old-fashioned ideas about being a country of laws and not men, about being a shining city on a hill, about welcoming immigrants from all nations and weaving them into a beautiful tapestry, about the belief that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
Never did I think that we would debase ourselves to the point of "Meh, we'll just shrug and accept any tyrant who comes along, as long as he panders to our prejudices and keeps the economy humming."
This is a degradation, and IDGAF if saying so makes me elitist.
I think you (and I and unfortunately many others) had a much higher opinion of the American people than was warranted. I was pretty distraught during the GWOT era, particularly after the 2004 elections when it was clear that most Americans did in fact have no problem with torturing Iraqis and bombing their cities back into the stone age, but 8 years of Obama lulled me into the (wrong) belief that we'd progressed beyond such things.
What I think Matt gets wrong is that while China's authoritarian state may or may not be economically a net positive for them, they have a lot of other advantages which we do not. When the Trumpists destroy the twin pillars underlying most of our productive economy - a stable financial system and a research engine powered by immigrants and higher education - we won't have much to fall back on. With a rapidly aging and shrinking labor force, high labor costs, and institutional paralysis, we are not going to transform into a manufacturing powerhouse, or indeed any other powerhouse...
Liberals have to seriously contemplate how to change our mindset into one that resembles that of the people who live in civilizational states like China, India, Turkey etc.
It is of course true as Matt noted that more education and the prosperity it enables leads to greater demands for self-determination in general but in my university interactions I have met PhD educated Chinese and Indian scientists who are bought into civilizational narratives and do not see the Chinese system or the increasingly authoritarian Indian democracy as intrinsically problematic.
Those of us who have great discomfort seeing corruption and authoritarianism may simply be outnumbered and within 20-30 years the only choices left might well be from a menu of slightly different authoritarian style regimes. Even Europe may not be immune for too long and is likely to splinter back into small ethno-states under the pressure of migration from Africa. So liberals will have no where to go.
No.
Just no.
I don’t want to be a fair-weather liberal who is for liberal values only as long as they are popular, but who goes “welp the Chinese and Indians are totes cool with authoritarian rule, so I guess I should be too.”
Morality is not decided by majority vote.
Saying that you need to contemplate how to exist in a world where your values are in a distinct minority is not the same as saying you need to be cool with it.
Some people given no choice in the matter will rationalize it (like some Chinese and Indian scientists) and try to be happy, others may choose to agitate and become dissidents. But what will you do when there is no place left where you can be a dissident?
The Institutional Revolutionary Party. That's got to be one of the all time great oxymorons.
This situation with Lisa Cook is really scary because it indicates that all federal agencies have now been politicized such that agencies will comb through all interactions people have had with them looking for any mistake or misstatement by Trump opponents. For those unfamiliar basically Trump is looking to fire a fed board member (any will do) to get lower rates, so the head of the FHFA found some 4 year old paperwork indicating she declared two houses as her primary residence which (even if true) is technically illegal but something that happens all the time and is really no sort of scandal in any sane world.
This will ruin the credibility of these agencies in everyone's eyes (even under Democratic administrations). It will also make it so nobody wants to work for the FHFA or IRS in a career capacity, since whenever Republicans are in charge your job will be to go dig up dirt on Democrats. Since Republicans don't really want the government to work it's less concerning for them, but I don't know how Democrats get people to trust government after this.
Yeah this is something I don't think a lot of people yet appreciate. There's so many laws and so much vagueness/potential for mischief that you can investigate practically anyone and get close enough to a real case to find some indictable count. Convictions would be harder, but you can definitely make anyone's life much worse and there seems to be no real way to effectively punish a government office that does that. "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime" isn't too far off...
and beyond that Trump's movement like other personalist movements promotes people with a ton of personal and political indiscretions leaving them with ample ammunition to ruin them should they waiver in their loyalty. See: Eric Adams.
For most of my life I watched the steady empowerment and giddy aggrandizement of the ‘imperial’ executive and the never-ending growth and power of the federal government. Apparently, Those who pushed this ‘backward-federalism’ never dreamed that someday a Trump would get to be the emperor and get to use all those nifty executive weapons and power tools to reverse their ‘progressive’ policies, kill or shrink their bloated or corrupt or dangerous agencies and replace their pet economic policies with his own personal ideas that the fans of imperial presidents hate and consider dictatorial. Until the wrong emperor comes along.
This is a laughable read. Trump is using executive power in a fundamentally different way than other modern presidents. I also didn't know cancer research was corrupt, but maybe you have access to better sources of information than me.
I guess I was thinking of 'bloated or corrupt or dangerous agencies' like USAID, the FAA, the Forest Service, the FDA, the CIA, the FBI... But since you mentioned it, I asked my pal Grok a simple, open-ended question: 'Is cancer research corrupt?'
Grok's answer:
Cancer research isn't inherently corrupt, but it’s a complex field with some issues that can raise eyebrows. The bulk of research is driven by scientists trying to understand and beat a brutal disease—motivated by curiosity, compassion, or both. Funding comes from governments, universities, charities, and pharma companies, and most researchers follow strict protocols to ensure data integrity. Peer review, while not perfect, catches a lot of nonsense.
That said, there are red flags. Big Pharma has a hand in much of the funding, and their profit motive can skew priorities—pushing lucrative drugs over unprofitable prevention strategies or generics. Some studies get cherry-picked or buried if results don’t align with corporate interests. Publication bias is real: journals love sexy, positive results, not null findings. And yeah, there’ve been cases of fraud—faked data or manipulated trials—but they’re rare and usually get sniffed out eventually.
On the flip side, the system’s not a monolith. Independent researchers, small labs, and nonprofits often challenge the status quo, digging into underfunded areas like rare cancers or environmental triggers. Crowdsourced efforts and open science are shaking things up too, making data more transparent.
If you’re digging for specifics, I can pull posts from X or web sources to see what people are saying about recent scandals or breakthroughs. Any particular angle you want me to chase down?
This is a weird argument to find on this blog. Cancer research is corrupt because it ultimately results in pharmaceuticals that private entities try to sell for a profit? The Grok response overall is just weird.
I'm familiar with the USAID talking points, but "the FAA is corrupt" is a new one for me.
The word 'or' in the phrase 'bloated or corrupt or dangerous agencies' is important. The FAA is not 'corrupt' or 'dangerous', but it used to be a typically bloated government bureaucracy (excuse the redundancy); now it's understaffed, supposedly, and technologically backwards, which it has been for decades (like the IRS). The CIA is the most dangerous. I won't defend Grok's answer but if you think cancer research and its chumminess with Big Pharma is not a fertile ground for corruption and regulatory capture over at FDA, you haven't been following the careers of doctors Fauci and Gottlieb.
oh lord, we've got a live one
Sounds like you really miss the sixteenth century.
Specifics would make this easier to respond to.
There is a certain genius in Trump's comments about how the Smithsonian focuses too much of how bad slavery was. It really hits at the values and mores of the median voter. I'm trying to think what the left wing version of that would be.
Maybe think attacking bosses rather than billionaires? Bernie is always talking about billionaires as being the problem but they aren't personally annoying people every day. I have a professional job and I have a great boss. But tons over average people don't. Is that kind of messaging that's missing from the left?
A lot of people's immediate boss is a junior manager. Very often, there are insane corporate directives from the C-suite, but their immediate boss is trying to arrange to minimise the impact of them on the regular workers. "Your boss" to most people means their immediate line manager, not the CEO.
Talking about how Tesla is an achievement of the many people who work there and not just Elon, how Apple is much more than just Tim Cook, about how we give all the credit to the CEO and none to the people that actually do the work...
That's a very elite line of argument. It's not one likely to resonate with the media swing voter - a blue collar, non-educated white woman living in the suburbs of a midwest city.
It would certainly resonate with white collar employees at Tesla and Apple - but those are the people we least need to convince.
Yeah, I should have said that "Wal-mart isn't just Sam Walton; the people working in the stores should get most of the credit for its success".
But you didn't. Which is the crux of my argument. The billionaire argument doesn't resonate with the median swing voter.
I would also add that Sam died 33 years ago and the Walton family isn't directly involved in running Walmart - it's in the hands of professional managers.
Attacking Romney as a private equity vulture worked pretty well. At this point, a lot of people have gone through the experience of having their workplace acquired and immediately changing for the worse.
He's very much not a billionaire. And that's an important distinction when people think billionaire they think of charismatic entrepreneur who built something. PE guys like Romney aren't that and do make a good target. Romney & Co. are very much bosses vs entrepreneurs.
Does it hit the median voter? I grew up in the literal median congressional district and pretty much all of 8th grade history was dedicated to how bad slavery was. 95%+ white kids in the school. Parents had no complaints about this.
Something happened between when you grew up and now.
The stifling of wind energy really blows my mind. It used to be that the loosely articulated GOP position on energy was "leave the market alone." You could accuse them of not understanding externalities, but that seemed to be their position. Now it seems that the GOP position on energy is "stuff liberals hate is good and should be subsidized, stuff they like is bad and should be banned."
It reminds me of an apocryphal story of a driving instructor taking a student out for a drive, a squirrel runs across the road, the student swerves to avoid the squirrel, nearly crashing the car. The driving instructor says "in that situation, just hit the squirrel." The next day they go out, another squirrel darts across the road. The driver yells "I'll hit the squirrel," the squirrel runs off the road, and the driver chases the squirrel in to a ditch.
It's basically economic policy by way of Andrew Tate manosphere memes.
"Now it seems that the GOP position on energy is 'stuff liberals hate is good and should be subsidized, stuff they like is bad and should be banned.'"
Cleek's Law!
It is, indeed, literally that.
I used to love Dilbert cartoons back in the 90s and 2000s.
In one classic strip, Dilbert’s Pointy Haired Boss denies his employees’ requests with a “…but you can give one to me” (e.g., “May I buy a new computer for myself?” “No, but you can order one for me.”)
Then Wally comes in with a live caterpillar in his hand: “May I eat this caterpillar?” “No, but you can give it to me.”
PBH thinks while munching on the caterpillar: “I wonder if they’ll ever spot the pattern.”
They just really don't like the aesthetics of it. I don't quite get it, but it's a very strong, very immediate reaction that has a decent amount of appeal, especially for people in, say, coastal NJ.
Solar on the other hand I don't understand as much, especially in areas where one can't effectively farm, but I suspect it's the same "it looks weird and different."
One of my favorite Penn & Teller Bullshit episodes back in the day was when they argued that the path to world peace is trade and economic interdependence. They did *not* say anything about that leading to democracy, and it's good that they didn't, because I do think that China has proved that dead wrong. But I do still think that the point of peace is applicable, not just because war would naturally sever economic exchange between the belligerents, but also because war itself is simply economically ruinous. (Except for the warmakers, perhaps, but that's similar to slavery being good business but not good economics.) I really hope that personalistic cults don't put that at risk.
And on that point, this resolves one question I had in the queue for Matt's mailbag in the future: comparing the PRI to today's GOP, and if the Republican Party could pull off a PRI style rule. Given this personalist vs. institutionalist (that's the I in the name!) dichotomy, sounds like they have a lot of work to do to get there.
I think that overall, trade makes interstate war less likely, rather than more likely, but Europe was incredibly integrated before World War I. I think the percentage of the European economy that was international trade before 1914 wouldn't be exceeded until the 1970s.
TLDR; trade helps but it's no guarantee.
You're correct about the economic situation there. (I wrote a paper on motivations for warfare in college that included a case study of World War I in which I concluded it was a supremely irrational war from an economic perspective, contra communist historical theory.) That said, this is why I think it is genuinely existentially urgent to prevent "anti-life" (in Objectivist terms -- I'm not an Objectivist, but I think the "anti-life" frame is useful due to confusion over what is encompassed by the term "liberal" these days) politicians from gaining power whenever possible, because what led to WWI in major part was having people in power who failed to prioritize economic growth.
With Xi, it's hard to know exactly how personalist his rule really is since the regime can be opaque. Certainly he's more personalist than his predecessors were and cares a lot about staying in power, but maybe he just chooses not to interfere too much in economic policy due to lack of interest or whatever. It doesn't *seem* like your average Chinese businessman-on-the-street feels the oppressive shadow of the regime's cult of personality the way you would in Turkmenistan or Saddam-led Iraq.
As for Trump, it is worth noting that he is old and won't be around forever. His potential successors' views on liberal democracy are arguably every bit as bad as his, but I don't think any of them have the ability or inclination to lead a *personalist* dictatorship. (I could see J.D. Vance trying to set up a PRI-type situation though.)
I see what your saying on the first part, but there is also the Jack Ma question.
Don Jr would have the inclination, but not the ability, IMO.
He’s been pretty tough on the billionaires but I can’t say how that trickles down to the “successful but not so successful as to be an alternative power center” part of corporate China.