What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

I can't stand any of the American networks and kind of sympathise with conservative moans (and a lot of AR's moans about covid - I do not think that every report needs to be prefaced with a description of how many people are wearing masks so we can make a moral judgement about those people) about them

But I only watch them once every four years for elections so it's not normal times.

[Razgovory]

I read this in WaPo and thought it explained the Trumpist ideology fairly well.

While we're all stuck with the hold music of electoral ballots, here's an interlude to examine four words that have become both a tribal slogan and an expansive explanation of the thunderdome in which we currently find ourselves: "Make liberals cry again."

"Let's make liberals cry again!" Donald Trump Jr., the saddest adult son, encouraged crowds at an election-eve rally in Wisconsin. His father, meanwhile, went on to a different Midwestern rally to fondly reminisce about the time in 2016 when liberal women wept at the announcement of his victory: "At the end of the evening when they're all crying, and I remember they were crying," he asked Grand Rapids, Mich. "Remember?"

On Tuesday night, 25-year-old Republican Madison Cawthorn won a North Carolina district and, in his first public act as a future U.S. congressman, tweeted: "Cry more, lib."

"MAKE LIBERALS CRY AGAIN," reads a whole mess of muscle T's and travel mugs and baby onesies for sale on Etsy.

To point out that this is juvenile and mean and weird doesn't get at the half of it. "Make liberals cry again" is the more synergistic, ball-cap-friendly version of "Own the libs." A version of "Make America Great Again" that does away with the gauzy nostalgia and goes right for the bad sportsmanship. It is the version one uses when one wants to drop the pretense that this is about America at all and just acknowledge that it's about reveling in someone else's pain and perceived humiliation.

"Cry" is the most deliberate word in the phrase. It could have been subbed out for "pay." Make liberals pay again. That phrase would imply that liberals had done something bad, requiring retribution. It could have been subbed out for "lose," which would be a little gratuitous but still within the technical vocabulary of competition.

"Make them cry" turns the phrase specifically into a narrative of power. The president and his followers are so very strong and manly that they can make the liberals lose control of their emotions in the most helpless, ineffectual way. The liberals are babies, maybe, or even worse — feminine. To be made to cry is not about losing or paying. It is about humiliating. It is about strong people humiliating the people they see as weak, for the fun of it and because they can.

"Again" is the second-most interesting word in the phrase. It turns the sentence into a narrative with some backstory: The strong people (alpha conservatives) made the weak people (weak-kneed libs) cry before, and things were as they should be. With "make," it's clear this return to form will happen by force if necessary.

"Make liberals cry again" has nothing to do with the issues that were metaphorically on the ballot this election. It has nothing to do with the coronavirus. It has nothing do with health care. It is not related to lifting restrictions on businesses or lowering taxes or ending abortion or accomplishing any of the other tasks that Trump supporters solemnly told exit pollsters they came to do on Election Day.

It is a successful slogan because it transcends the issues. It does not require a set of coherent policy positions, nor bootstrapping grit, nor pious restraint. Just a strong desire to kick sand in the face of a beaten opponent. The cruelty, as Adam Serwer famously wrote in the Atlantic, is the point.

"Make liberals cry again" is also the most succinct example of why Trumpism won't end, even if Trump's time in office is ended for him. When the goal is not victory but humiliation, there is no way to tell when the game is over. It's not necessarily over when the Supreme Court is stacked, it's not over when Roe v. Wade is overturned. It's not over when all of Barack Obama's executive orders have been repealed or when Hillary Clinton goes to jail.

It's not over, ever, because liberals can always be made to cry more, and longer. Long after Trump's followers have forgotten why this was the goal, or what they gave up in order to achieve it, they can still make a liberal cry, again and again and again — a medicine for an ailment they will never cure.

[Sheilbh]

That also touches on one of the reasons I don't think Trumpism will go again. You have Cawthorn: "cry more, libs" and calling his opponent a "simp". You have at least one QAnon supporting Rep. Plus the other Trumpier Senators/Reps: Gaetz, Hawley, Cotton.

There is now an institutional wing to Trumpism within Congressional Republicans. This may be it's high-watermark, or they may bolster their numbers - but they have a presence that isn't just on Twitter or ephemerally tied to Trump.

[FunkMonk]

The real test of Trumpism without Trump is if any of his would-be successors can drive up turnout in rural/semi-rural areas the way Donald has. If one of them can keep that surging turnout like he has then it has a future inside the GOP.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - and to use a Farage-ism I would note that Tom Cotton has all the charisma of a damp dischcloth.

[DGuller]

I think sadistic cruelty is a force that powers both extremes.  On the right, there is no need to elaborate.  On the left, I firmly believe that what is behind the cancel culture is a desire to find socially acceptable victim, acceptable due to a misstep or personality flaw, and then just sink their teeth into them and revel in their public destruction.  It's like a bullied nerd finding a special needs kid and taking out their frustration and humiliation on them.

[Zoupa]

This seems to be a recurring theme for you. Can you point me to a well-known case of a person being "cancelled" (whatever that means) because of the leftist woke mob you so dislike?

I'm seriously drawing a blank here.

[Syt]

I see esp. the destruction of records as a very likely risk. He's paranoid about people spying on him or finding out things about him, so I would expect that he would try to get rid of anything that he considers potentially incriminating.

The Presidential records Act would seem to protect against that, but the pardon power makes the PRA invalid.  Trump could order a small group to defy the act and destory whatever he wants, then issue them a blanket pardon.

The only hope is that he is serious about the absurd idea of running again in 2024.

Is there any legal requirement for a handover period? I know in the past incoming presidents would have 100s if not 1000s of people cooperating with the previous administration to ensure a smooth transition. Is there anything keeping a Trump presidency from denying access to Biden people until the moment that he's sworn in?

[DGuller]

This seems to be a recurring theme for you. Can you point me to a well-known case of a person being "cancelled" (whatever that means) because of the leftist woke mob you so dislike?

I'm seriously drawing a blank here.

That weather forecaster in upstate New York who sad Martin Lither King Jr. a little too quickly.

[Berkut]

I think sadistic cruelty is a force that powers both extremes.  On the right, there is no need to elaborate.  On the left, I firmly believe that what is behind the cancel culture is a desire to find socially acceptable victim, acceptable due to a misstep or personality flaw, and then just sink their teeth into them and revel in their public destruction.  It's like a bullied nerd finding a special needs kid and taking out their frustration and humiliation on them.

Indeed. And that same things feeds back into empowering the far right, of course. As always, the radicals on both sides desperately need one another.

[Berkut]

The real test of Trumpism without Trump is if any of his would-be successors can drive up turnout in rural/semi-rural areas the way Donald has. If one of them can keep that surging turnout like he has then it has a future inside the GOP.

There is no "Trumpism". It is just the modern, "Tea Party" GOP. Trump is their President not because he molded them in his image, but because they molded him in theirs.

[Malthus]

The real test of Trumpism without Trump is if any of his would-be successors can drive up turnout in rural/semi-rural areas the way Donald has. If one of them can keep that surging turnout like he has then it has a future inside the GOP.

There is not "Trumpism". It is just the modern, "Tea Party" GOP. Trump is their President not because he molded them in his image, but because they molded him in theirs.

Indeed. Trump was successful precisely because he had no principles or morals, so he's the perfect "leader" to march in front of a populist movement.

All he had to do was sense what his followers wanted, and do that.

Thus relates to my thesis - that people looking for ideological consistency in populism are doomed to failure. Populist leaders are those who are adept at finding where the parade is marching and putting themselves at the head of it - not caring if it is marching off a cliff.

[Tamas]

The real test of Trumpism without Trump is if any of his would-be successors can drive up turnout in rural/semi-rural areas the way Donald has. If one of them can keep that surging turnout like he has then it has a future inside the GOP.

There is not "Trumpism". It is just the modern, "Tea Party" GOP. Trump is their President not because he molded them in his image, but because they molded him in theirs.

Indeed. Trump was successful precisely because he had no principles or morals, so he's the perfect "leader" to march in front of a populist movement.

All he had to do was sense what his followers wanted, and do that.

Thus relates to my thesis - that people looking for ideological consistency in populism are doomed to failure. Populist leaders are those who are adept at finding where the parade is marching and putting themselves at the head of it - not caring if it is marching off a cliff.

Excellent points by both of you.

[Sheilbh]

From Maggie Haberman: "Republicans have begun having discussions about how to broach the topic with Mr. Trump of focusing on life after the presidency, and what leaving quietly could mean for his family, his business and his own ability to remain in politics."

After four years the frog has been considering how to broach the topic with the scorpion of not stinging them, and what that could mean for both of them on the other side of the river.

[katmai]

Almost fucking over , thank god.