The Trump administration accidentally texted its War Plans to a journalist

[Norgy]

The more I read of Vance's various texts and statements, the more I wonder how he became such an anti-European.
Has he secretly been hanging around Languish? Read EUOT too much? Did I fuck his wife?

[Tamas]

The Trump administration certainly has made The Peter Principle out to be utter farce. These folks surpassed their competence level long, long ago in their ascent to their current positions. White male mediocrity at its absolute "finest". Yikes.

Was the racism really necessary?

[Grey Fox]

Yes.

[Duque de Bragança]

The Trump administration certainly has made The Peter Principle out to be utter farce. These folks surpassed their competence level long, long ago in their ascent to their current positions. White male mediocrity at its absolute "finest". Yikes.

Was the racism really necessary?

Yet, cis het was forgotten, for some reason.

[Tamas]

The Trump administration certainly has made The Peter Principle out to be utter farce. These folks surpassed their competence level long, long ago in their ascent to their current positions. White male mediocrity at its absolute "finest". Yikes.

Was the racism really necessary?

Yet, cis het was forgotten, for some reason.

To be fair, emphasis might be on the genetic inferiority stemming from whiteness not from being a man in which case a trans man could also justifiably fall under the negstive distinction.

[Oexmelin]

In societies largely shaped by inequality - and it would be quite something to argue current US isn't - there is a special brand of mediocrity that comes from people whose mediocre accomplishments - whatever they are - are magnified into success by belonging to groups that are historically favoured. Like being a man, in a sexist society. Or being white, in a racist society. This isn't to say that one can't be black and mediocre, or a woman and mediocre - but rather, that such mediocrity will usually not be rewarded with the success that mediocre white men enjoy, and certainly will not be expressed with the same arrogance that mediocre white men exude.

I would have thought that most of the Trump cabinet would appear as the perfect illustration of the concept.

[Tamas]

In societies largely shaped by inequality - and it would be quite something to argue current US isn't - there is a special brand of mediocrity that comes from people whose mediocre accomplishments - whatever they are - are magnified into success by belonging to groups that are historically favoured. Like being a man, in a sexist society. Or being white, in a racist society. This isn't to say that one can't be black and mediocre, or a woman and mediocre - but rather, that such mediocrity will usually not be rewarded with the success that mediocre white men enjoy, and certainly will not be expressed with the same arrogance that mediocre white men exude.

I would have thought that most of the Trump cabinet would appear as the perfect illustration of the concept.

So in certain situations you find it acceptable to assume a link between an individual's negative attributes and their race?

[HVC]

And that's why you lose elections. When people hear mediocre white men then don't think you're talking about privileged rich white men, but all white men. Just like if you say "thieving blacks"  people don't think about black people who happen to be thieves but that you're calling all black people thieves (replace with whatever minority stereotype you want). Normalizing one while condemning another is odd. Yes you can go on about privileges, but you'll keep losing elections. You can be happy or you can be right. In this case happy means winning elections.

[The Minsky Moment]

I would have thought that most of the Trump cabinet would appear as the perfect illustration of the concept.

I respectfully disagree.  I think that concept applies to sort of "Gentlemen C Scholars" that traditionally filled out the Ivy League ranks and then floated effortlessly into high government positions, which they filled in undistinguished manner, leaning on the experienced permanent staff to perform up to an acceptable level of competence.   Or to politically savvy glad-handers that know how to work club cloakrooms and get good with the political in crowd.

The Trump crowd is different for the most part.  Marco Rubio - who is not white - is the closest to a mediocrity in the cabinet, and he is Trump's one sop to the normies. RFK Jr. is not a mediocrity; neither is Hohman or Hegseth or Ratcliffe or much of the rest.  It is true that they lack competence and are completely overmatched by the responsibilities of their jobs.  But these are not people Peter Principled up because they are inoffensive and well connected.  They are fanatical culture warriors, chosen for fealty to a master, and with a dedicated program of vandalism. They are white men, in significant part because most people that fit that description are white men.  But being white men in this context is secondary; Trump is perfectly happy to use as many Kash Patels and Tulsi Gabbards as he can find to achieve the same goals.

[Sheilbh]

I totally agree. I think "mediocre white men" is largely a better description of the Democrats.

It seems to me utterly inadequate to describe the Republican Party. We are not seeing the results of mediocrity here, but something deeper and more malevolent.

I'd add it's one of the reasons I think we need to exile the political scientists, the social scientists, the behavioural economists, the policy nerds etc - because I do not think they're capable of comprehending the world right now. I think they were very shocked by Trump's success, they've been consistently surprised by what he's done and the outcomes and can't really convincingly explain any of it. The best explanation I've seen from that camp was the "whitelash" idea - but Trump's share of the white vote in 2016, 2020 and 2024 is unchanged, his increased support has come from Black and Hispanic voters. I think there's some recent work on 2024 and it looks like Trump won every category of male voters under 25 (so every race, education level etc) which is extraordinary (and I think the maleness and patriarchy matters). I think the far better contextualising, analytic frameworks, ways of understanding has come from the humanities - history and cultural studies have been a far better crutch for thinking than the data nerds.

[Razgovory]

And that's why you lose elections. When people hear mediocre white men then don't think you're talking about privileged rich white men, but all white men. Just like if you say "thieving blacks"  people don't think about black people who happen to be thieves but that you're calling all black people thieves (replace with whatever minority stereotype you want). Normalizing one while condoning another is odd. Yes you can go on about privileges, but you'll keep losing elections. You can be happy or you can be right. In this case happy means winning elections.

This is actually a severe problem.  White liberals tend to view white people much more negatively than any other group.  Dramatically more negative. 

 https://prlicari.medium.com/white-liberals-view-other-races-more-warmly-than-they-do-whites-why-c7886d356af5

This is by itself a weird phenomena, most people don't hold their own group in contempt.  Most moralizers use a simple: Us: good, Them: bad. form of thinking.  Leftwing ones simply reverse it.  Us: bad, Them: good. 

I think this is a factor in Identity politics.  If White people are the problem, and many white leftists believe this to be the case, then this is a problem for self esteem.  The Solution: Calve off other identities.

White people are the problem
White men or the problem
White straight men are the problem
White straight cis gendered men are the problem
White straight cis gendered neurotypical men are the problem

I can't help but wonder if the increased satisfaction that some people feel in adopting a new identity is tied to no longer being a part of a group they don't care for.

Of course, they still have some racial bias, even if it is unconscious.  https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liberals-present-themselves-as-less-competent-in-interactions-with-african-americans

[HVC]

I totally agree. I think "mediocre white men" is largely a better description of the Democrats.

It seems to me utterly inadequate to describe the Republican Party. We are not seeing the results of mediocrity here, but something deeper and more malevolent.

I'd add it's one of the reasons I think we need to exile the political scientists, the social scientists, the behavioural economists, the policy nerds etc - because I do not think they're capable of comprehending the world right now. I think they were very shocked by Trump's success, they've been consistently surprised by what he's done and the outcomes and can't really convincingly explain any of it. The best explanation I've seen from that camp was the "whitelash" idea - but Trump's share of the white vote in 2016, 2020 and 2024 is unchanged, his increased support has come from Black and Hispanic voters. I think there's some recent work on 2024 and it looks like Trump won every category of male voters under 25 (so every race, education level etc) which is extraordinary (and I think the maleness and patriarchy matters). I think the far better contextualising, analytic frameworks, ways of understanding has come from the humanities - history and cultural studies have been a far better crutch for thinking than the data nerds.

"It's the economy, stupid"* Liberals have moved away from progressive economic goals. Which makes sense since their donors are just as rich as the conservative ones. If you cant be progressive economically and you still want to be progressive generally all that's left is to be progressive socially.  Thus Democrats are now seen as caring more about social progressiveness. Which fine, you can be socially progressive too, but when people are paying a dollar an egg they don't care about that. Now conservatives leaders don't give a shit either, but they've come up with a clever plan never before seen in politics. They lie. So on the one hand you're disenchanting white voters while not picking up and minority voters, who on the whole generally have more population in lower economic classes and thus care much more about the cost of living. Democrats need to spend more time not just fight the conservative rot you see now but showing that they're a alternative economically too.


* just to be extra, extra clear i'm just using the quote, not calling you stupid

[Solmyr]

The more I read of Vance's various texts and statements, the more I wonder how he became such an anti-European.
Has he secretly been hanging around Languish? Read EUOT too much? Did I fuck his wife?

Did you fuck his couch?

[Syt]

"BUT HILLARY!!!!!1111"

Looking forward to the next few dozen Benghazi investigations.

[Josquius]

The more I read of Vance's various texts and statements, the more I wonder how he became such an anti-European.
Has he secretly been hanging around Languish? Read EUOT too much? Did I fuck his wife?

I do think you're actually quite close to the truth there.
Well.
Except maybe with your fucking.
As far as I know.