What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Razgovory]

It's incredible how after 4 years this myth of "political genius Trump" still exists. The human mind's capacity to discover patterns where none exist is quite something.

Well he did do a hostile takeover of the entire Republican party and then went on to win the presidency having never held any elected office before just by shitposting on Twitter. If that makes him a dumdum what does that say about his opposition?

It makes his opposition people not favored by Vladimir Putin.

[DGuller]

It's incredible how after 4 years this myth of "political genius Trump" still exists. The human mind's capacity to discover patterns where none exist is quite something.

Well he did do a hostile takeover of the entire Republican party and then went on to win the presidency having never held any elected office before just by shitposting on Twitter. If that makes him a dumdum what does that say about his opposition?

Real world is not 100% deterministic, where smart people always defeat less smart people.  Sometimes a reckless idiot runs good for a while, before fundamentals catch up with him.  Hitler is the most obvious example in recent history.

[grumbler]

Real world is not 100% deterministic, where smart people always defeat less smart people.  Sometimes a reckless idiot runs good for a while, before fundamentals catch up with him.  Hitler is the most obvious example in recent history.

Idi Amin says "hi."

[DGuller]

Real world is not 100% deterministic, where smart people always defeat less smart people.  Sometimes a reckless idiot runs good for a while, before fundamentals catch up with him.  Hitler is the most obvious example in recent history.

Idi Amin says "hi."

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump did not do a hostile takeover of the GOP.  In 2009, after a dream war hero candidate respected by all sides lost to a neophyte Senator with a funny muslimmy sounding name, the GOP establishment in its desperation hitched its wagon to the Tea Party movement, a toxic mixture of opportunistic would-be populists, straight-up racists, and large base of extreme "low information" voters.  The Tea Party, despite being anti-conservative (in the Burkean sense) at its core, was permitted to take over the GOP brand consensually. In parallel, the GOP media arm descended further into "fake news" - outright nutters like Alex Jones were given a patina of respectability; political shock jocks like Coulter or Ingraham were treated as serious purveyors of information; and once sorta/almost respectful news people like Dobbs or Carlson went full idiot.

The Tea Party's raw, racist id manifested itself in the ridiculous Birther movement. Most respectable Republicans with national ambitions stayed away.  Trump embraced it with fervor.  Whether he did so strategically can be questioned.  But it rebounded to his advantage in a mass, free-for-primary where volume counted more than substance. Trump was THE tea party candidate par excellence.  He encapsulated all the forces that the GOP elders willfully let loose in the foolish hope they could control it.  They couldn't.  Trump won because he is the Hegelian spirit of this iron age of American politics.

[frunk]

It does seem like each time the Republicans lose a presidential election after holding the office they go crazy or at least give in to the crazier wings of their party.  Goldwater in 64, Reagan and the embrace of evangelicals in 80, the Republican Revolution in 94 and the rise of Gingrich,  Tea Partiers in 2010 and Trump in 2016.  Things certainly accelerated in 2009 but I don't think the problem started there.

The Democrats just get more milquetoast after losing, which I'm guessing is more moderate Republicans jumping over to bring them towards the center.  We'll see what happens in 2020. 

[Valmy]

Did we really get more milquetoast? I mean great news if true, but it seems like we are getting more radicals in here. Maybe they are just the noisy ones.

[Razgovory]

It does seem like each time the Republicans lose a presidential election after holding the office they go crazy or at least give in to the crazier wings of their party.  Goldwater in 64, Reagan and the embrace of evangelicals in 80, the Republican Revolution in 94 and the rise of Gingrich,  Tea Partiers in 2010 and Trump in 2016.  Things certainly accelerated in 2009 but I don't think the problem started there.

The Democrats just get more milquetoast after losing, which I'm guessing is more moderate Republicans jumping over to bring them towards the center.  We'll see what happens in 2020.

This has been bubbling up for a while now, and not just the US.  I think we are witnessing the end of the Post Cold war consensus.  Democracy, free markets, tolerance, and multi-nationalism.

[jimmy olsen]

Did we really get more milquetoast? I mean great news if true, but it seems like we are getting more radicals in here. Maybe they are just the noisy ones.

The Radicals haven't shown up yet. AOC is near the median politically for a millennial. Not the median of millennial democrats, but the median of the whole generation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/coming-generation-war/588670/

[Valmy]

I get that they are coming, I just figured their arrival was going to be a couple years ago.

[Admiral Yi]

Trump did not do a hostile takeover of the GOP.  In 2009, after a dream war hero candidate respected by all sides lost to a neophyte Senator with a funny muslimmy sounding name, the GOP establishment in its desperation hitched its wagon to the Tea Party movement, a toxic mixture of opportunistic would-be populists, straight-up racists, and large base of extreme "low information" voters.  The Tea Party, despite being anti-conservative (in the Burkean sense) at its core, was permitted to take over the GOP brand consensually. In parallel, the GOP media arm descended further into "fake news" - outright nutters like Alex Jones were given a patina of respectability; political shock jocks like Coulter or Ingraham were treated as serious purveyors of information; and once sorta/almost respectful news people like Dobbs or Carlson went full idiot.

The Tea Party's raw, racist id manifested itself in the ridiculous Birther movement. Most respectable Republicans with national ambitions stayed away.  Trump embraced it with fervor.  Whether he did so strategically can be questioned.  But it rebounded to his advantage in a mass, free-for-primary where volume counted more than substance. Trump was THE tea party candidate par excellence.  He encapsulated all the forces that the GOP elders willfully let loose in the foolish hope they could control it.  They couldn't.  Trump won because he is the Hegelian spirit of this iron age of American politics.

Really enjoyed this post Joan.  Top shelf stuff IMO.

[Tamas]

The Native Americans like where this logic is going ... 

I do NOT think they are looking forward to returning to Siberia.

[Malthus]

The Native Americans like where this logic is going ... 

I do NOT think they are looking forward to returning to Siberia.

Well, it is a long way from there to Africa, where we are all headed. 

[Valmy]

When everybody gets moved to the Kenya/Tanzania area real-estate will be at a premium.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Trump did not do a hostile takeover of the GOP.  In 2009, after a dream war hero candidate respected by all sides lost to a neophyte Senator with a funny muslimmy sounding name, the GOP establishment in its desperation hitched its wagon to the Tea Party movement, a toxic mixture of opportunistic would-be populists, straight-up racists, and large base of extreme "low information" voters.  The Tea Party, despite being anti-conservative (in the Burkean sense) at its core, was permitted to take over the GOP brand consensually. In parallel, the GOP media arm descended further into "fake news" - outright nutters like Alex Jones were given a patina of respectability; political shock jocks like Coulter or Ingraham were treated as serious purveyors of information; and once sorta/almost respectful news people like Dobbs or Carlson went full idiot.

The Tea Party's raw, racist id manifested itself in the ridiculous Birther movement. Most respectable Republicans with national ambitions stayed away.  Trump embraced it with fervor.  Whether he did so strategically can be questioned.  But it rebounded to his advantage in a mass, free-for-primary where volume counted more than substance. Trump was THE tea party candidate par excellence.  He encapsulated all the forces that the GOP elders willfully let loose in the foolish hope they could control it.  They couldn't.  Trump won because he is the Hegelian spirit of this iron age of American politics.

I mostly agree but I would emphasize that the degree to which it was "consensual" is hard to say. Ordinary traditional conservative voters like myself had little say in it, I continued to vote the way I always have. When the Tea Party came for Eric Cantor in my home district I put money and effort into supporting him--and he lost. That was sort of a watershed moment for me personally that the party elders who have been dancing this dance with the low information evangelicals and petty bigots for 40 years had lost control of the ship's rudder. A lot of traditional mainline so to speak Republicans were forced out of office and a lot of the party power brokers and money bundlers were faced with either embracing the new paradigm or making even harder choices. Personally I think we should have looked toward making harder choices, but it likely would have meant a lot more short term electoral losses. I do think the GOP is going to pay a far heavier "long term" price; but I'm also not sure by 2010 if there was any way to change direction at all. Whipping up the mob for a few generations isn't easily undone.