Will Trump Ultimately Be A Good Thing?

[Lexicus]

He knows how to demonstrate other people's disdain, perhaps because he's so full of it himself, but - yeah. He picks a tradewar with the Midwest's biggest grain customers, crushing the market, and he breaks the Republican playbook and puts us on the FDR dole. Not FDR-style dole, but literally the bill FDR passed. You ever wanted to get farmers on the same political side of an argument regarding free/trade protectionism and with labor? It's... something man, it's something.

This is the only actual class-based anything I've seen so far, so, okay. Fair enough. "Farmers" are like <2% of the population but okay, he's making a class-based appeal to the midwestern ones.

 

[Farm Boy]

California is the biggest agriculture state. They just get drowned out by the tradeports. You asked a farmer, you got an answer!

Edit: there was "labor" in there, too. That's not an accurate winnow of the sample size.

 

[amadeus]

This is part of a recurring pattern where I ask conservatives about Trump's economic appeal and they respond using nothing but cultural signifiers.

For one, I didn’t: I included the mining and manufacturing part. Second, you also included class, so I think of the cultural disconnect thing as part of that.

John Kerry had much the same problem compared to George W. Bush, as did George H.W. Bush did to Bill Clinton in 1992. Trump dialed it up to eleven, but we’re talking Trump.

 

[GenMarshall]

Something that struck me as particularly shrewd on Trump's part, was his dismissal on the notion of "woke" or "wokeness" or being at war with woke ideology. Trump essentially hand waived it as meaningless and unimportant, ostensibly because it was "poorly defined" or similar. But as you point out, Trump had already gone to battle against "political correctness", which is certainly one of the things that the current pejorative use of "woke" has evolved to encompass, particularly in DeSantis' use of the term as his personal slogan/bogeyman/strawman.

It seems to me that Trump, understanding branding so well, may be rejecting "woke" as a target, because he recognizes that "anti-woke" is DeSantis' thing and he does not want to give any air or legitimacy to it. By dismissing it as meaningless, he is essentially mocking DeSantis whole raison d'etre. He's effectively calling DeSantis' main cause stupid/silly, and by extension, calling DeSantis himself stupid, silly and pointless. Trump has his own catchphrases/slogans, like "Fake News" etc., and he is denying DeSantis the opportunity to create any good ones.

That’s the thing that struck me with Trump since I remember that he cultivated a group of people that have a distain for political overcorrectness and attracted a bunch of anti-SJWs to meme him into office. The same anti-SJWs who hold a distain for political correctness and leftist social justice advocacy; which would be described as wokeness in the present day. It came to a suprise to me that he’s rejecting woke and wokeness since I would have expected him to be on the war against wokeness since he cultivated the animosity towards political overcorrectness and SJW ideology (as it was known at the time) back in 2015-2016, and used the term woke and it’s derivatives during the latter half of his presidency.” (along with radical left, and Marxist).

My feeling is that he’s trying to set himself apart from DeSantis since he knows that there are people whom are not in the “Vote-Trump-no-matter-who” camp that are moving towards his rival since they view DeSantis as a “less bombastic version of Trump”, especially more so after January 6th. I find it hypocritical that Trump is chastising DeSantis for the use of woke and it’s derivatives when Trump himself did the same in the latter years of his presidency.

 

[Farm Boy]

Can you actually see Trump going after Disney? It doesn't seem Trump-y. I think there's meat, in that difference. Even if he is an assclown, he's not that assclown. DeSantis is flying high on the threat of "the end of born female sport."

 

[Narz]

On a related note, Biden does this too sometimes, particularly when he goes off script. That is part of Biden's appeal, that he relates to regular people, more so than many other politicians do.

And the unappeal of Harris who manages to string together a a couple of well manicured paragraphs that sound flowery but don't actually mean anything.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There are other posters out there. DeSantis just sucks.

Tell me which of the present R candidates you would regard as a poster, and not a reply guy.

Christie, maybe, because he's on the attack?

But even that means that his commentary is all about Trump. He gives you no other option. He "sucks all the air out of the room." Another of his inimitable skills.

Policy debate on the R trail has amounted to the question, "would you pardon Trump?" I'll let you guess what the uniform answer is.

--The Poster

 

[Lexicus]

Tell me which of the present R candidates you would regard as a poster, and not a reply guy.

Oh, none of em. They all suck.*

My guess is the "next Trump" will be someone we currently don't know about, just as Trump was a political nonentity right up to 2015.

*if reports that Vivek is running his campaign as a multi-level marketing scheme are accurate, he does not suck, he is a genius

 

[Sommerswerd]

Oh, none of em. They all suck.*

My guess is the "next Trump" will be someone we currently don't know about, just as Trump was a political nonentity right up to 2015.

*if reports that Vivek is running his campaign as a multi-level marketing scheme are accurate, he does not suck, he is a genius

MLM as to fundraising, voter recruitment, or both?

I'd agree that if he is doing either (or both) it's pretty shrewd, especially since I am guessing that the folks who are most enthralled by conspiracy theories are also more easily enticed by MLM schemes, because of the allure/spirit of "being in on" the next big thing and/or having some sort of insider knowledge.

 

[Lexicus]

MLM as to fundraising, voter recruitment, or both?

I'd agree that if he is doing either (or both) it's pretty shrewd, especially since I am guessing that the folks who are most enthralled by conspiracy theories are also more easily entice by MLM schemes, because of the allure/spirit of "being in on" the next big thing and/or having some sort of insider knowledge.

Just did a bit of research, he apparently tweeted that you (you as in anyone) can fundraise for his campaign and make a 10% cut. Considering his chances of winning, his campaign looks like a classic pyramid scheme to me, albeit I don't know how many people have taken him up on the 10% cut offer.

I think you're 100% correct on your take here since the tweet frames this as "breaking up a small oligopoly of political fundraisers."

 

[Lexicus]

It's going to get more and more clear the more high education high income suburban Republicans realize their home is with their Democrat people moving forward.

Meanwhile the Texas Republicans just passed a law to take away water breaks and rest time in the shade for people who work outside, amidst 100+ degree heat. But yes, the Republicans are clearly the political home of people who don't have college degrees.

Culture war, culture war, culture war. Culture war culture war.

 

[Zardnaar]

Meanwhile the Texas Republicans just passed a law to take away water breaks and rest time in the shade for people who work outside, amidst 100+ degree heat. But yes, the Republicans are clearly the political home of people who don't have college degrees.

Culture war, culture war, culture war. Culture war culture war.

PSA the Republicans may be full of crap.

 

[Hygro]

@Hygro, I think you may have inadvertently hit on the core of the talking-past-each-other here (my bolding of your quote). Music didn't slump or disappear. A band* was just as/more popular, but Elvis impersonators don't chart, as you said. Different artists became popular for different reasons, but there was not another "Elvis" for at least a generation or two, depending on who one wants to crown "the next Elvis". Other avenues to political relevancy will certainly exist; I don't think anyone doubts that. Just not that one.

* I keep coming back to this, but unless 4 people are going to become simultaneous Presidential candidates working in concert I just don't think the Beatles "count" here in this analogy

I think caring if it’s a band or a person overfits the analogy (Trump with Bannon is a band anyway) but it doesn’t matter, you and Gori think the Cult of Trump sundered the Republicans as much as added to it, and I think it mostly just added to it as they will use what works combined with that else each

I think it also galvanized the Democrats and I think irrespective of candidates, the Democrats finally are getting it policy wise, and the Republicans have a big demographic problem their new strategy doesn’t address. But I predict politics will still crazy and Republicans will find a way to get more votes than ever before, certainly in the next 20 years. For only three Republicans can stop the robots, or you know, whatever.

 

[Lexicus]

you and Gori think the Cult of Trump sundered the Republicans as much as added to it, and I think it mostly just added to it as they will use what works combined with that else each

For what it's worth I think the overestimation of the number of "Never Trump" Republicans is perfectly normal. Why? There are about 200 actual Never-Trump republicans in the whole country and like 198 of them have elite media jobs. Not literally of course (though I do believe the Atlantic, New York Times, and Washington Post collectively employ like 60% of all Never-Trumpers), but they are massively overrepresented in the elite media because the elite media people desperately want the Republican Party to reject Trump and be respectable so they can just pretend to be responsibly splitting the difference between two respectable sides.

If the Republican Party is Trump's party then these elite media people might have to think for themselves instead of just doing the appeal to moderation fallacy for 40 years and calling that a career.

 

[Sommerswerd]

For what it's worth I think the overestimation of the number of "Never Trump" Republicans is perfectly normal. Why? There are about 200 actual Never-Trump republicans in the whole country and like 198 of them have elite media jobs. Not literally of course (though I do believe the Atlantic, New York Times, and Washington Post collectively employ like 60% of all Never-Trumpers), but they are massively overrepresented in the elite media because the elite media people desperately want the Republican Party to reject Trump and be respectable so they can just pretend to be responsibly splitting the difference between two respectable sides.

If the Republican Party is Trump's party then these elite media people might have to think for themselves instead of just doing the appeal to moderation fallacy for 40 years and calling that a career.

Trump is extremely inconvenient to the "both sides are bad" narrative that so many have come to rely on. You see it in news media, but also anecdotally in day-to-day conversation.

 

[Farm Boy]

Meanwhile the Texas Republicans just passed a law to take away water breaks and rest time in the shade for people who work outside, amidst 100+ degree heat. But yes, the Republicans are clearly the political home of people who don't have college degrees.

Culture war, culture war, culture war. Culture war culture war.

You asked for a make-or-break economic/class anecdote, you got a 3-4 year input, found an example we both knew was going to be easy to find, then wrote it all back off as "culture war." GO BACK TO START, INPUTS NOT ALLOWED. w/e Lex!

One side is great. It's just great. Peachy keen, even. Hehehehe.

 

[Lexicus]

You asked for a make-or-break economic/class anecdote, you got a 3-4 year input, found an example we both knew was going to be easy to find, then wrote it all back off as "culture war." GO BACK TO START, INPUTS NOT ALLOWED. w/e Lex!

One side is great. It's just great. Peachy keen, even. Hehehehe.

My position is that a lot of the stuff you seem to consider economics and class is in fact culture war. For example, what you mentioned about Trump praising the correct brand of soup is just the mirror image of liberals who think their electric cars and organic salad greens make them more virtuous, it's just commodity fetishism all the way down.

I conceded that you made a valid point about Trump putting farmers on the dole, that's a class-based program of material benefit to....less than 2% of the population.

You alluded to labor but that was all you did. If you want me to respond to an argument you have to develop the argument and not just cryptically allude to it.

One side is great. It's just great.

The Democrats don't have to be peachy keen to be categorically better than the Republicans. "Not actively committing genocide against trans people" is not a high bar to clear.

 

[Zardnaar]

For what it's worth I think the overestimation of the number of "Never Trump" Republicans is perfectly normal. Why? There are about 200 actual Never-Trump republicans in the whole country and like 198 of them have elite media jobs. Not literally of course (though I do believe the Atlantic, New York Times, and Washington Post collectively employ like 60% of all Never-Trumpers), but they are massively overrepresented in the elite media because the elite media people desperately want the Republican Party to reject Trump and be respectable so they can just pretend to be responsibly splitting the difference between two respectable sides.

If the Republican Party is Trump's party then these elite media people might have to think for themselves instead of just doing the appeal to moderation fallacy for 40 years and calling that a career.

Alot of moderate Republicans would ve the normal right here. They ant lower taxes Reaganomics type stuff.

Culture war stuff isn't a big deal to them.

 

[Farm Boy]

I thought the offshoring of labor to hostile regimes was still in the realm of domestic labor's interests, but I could be wrong.

 

[Crezth]

Farm Boy have you ever spoken to a Trump voter before? Even a single time, perhaps...? Sincere question. I just wonder where you get your notion of Trump voters from.