This is absolutely correct and I’ve been saying it for years. Get under his skin. Make him miserable. Every step of the way.
A lot of people said during Trump’s first term “Don’t bring up the fact that he hasn’t built a wall! That’s a good thing!” Yes, but his whole schtick is that he’s superhuman and makes things happen with a wave of his hand. Every defeat, every setback, builds on the last one.
As Josh Marshall said, all power is unitary. His stupid SecDef pick makes it harder for him to get tariffs in place. The fact that he can’t get tariffs in place makes it harder for him to carry out deportations. (Or, this is how it should work.)
It’s one of the few areas where we should emulate Republicans: just the daily creation of a picture of incompetence. Much easier for us than for them; we’ve got a lot more material to work with.)
I think the risk of this strategy is that the urge to "wait him out" turns into "humor him so he'll leave": yet more inaction and paralysis that enables him to violate yet another set of norms.
Like, if people "wait him out" right up until he declares he's running for 2028, and they haven't laid the groundwork to oppose him, they'll get caught wrong-footed *once again*.
Why can't both things be done at the same time? While "waiting him out," man/woman up the Democratic Party and find a leader. Let that leader be the bear that pokes Trump continuously. That's how I read the column; not to just ignore him.
I think my contention here is simply that “poking the bear” doesn’t require us to solely conceive of him as a lame duck, and that there is a danger to failing to clock his threat of consolidating dictatorial power.
And I think these actually go hand in hand! Competently executing on poking the bear will weaken his ability to consolidate power. But not as a mission to treat him like a lame duck; rather as a mission to end his movement.
A lot of supposedly smart people told us in the early 90s to ignore Rush Limbaugh and he’d disappear because he was so obviously ridiculous. That (checks notes) didn’t happen.
1. Not sure anyone in the political arena will have the guts to be the trump troll. Except maybe Walz if he’s not so fed up that he just cuts his losses and throws up his hands in disgust.
2. Why not just use trump’s playbook. At least one Dem should be planning to announce their 2028 run somewhere around 1/21/2025. I’d suggest more than one. Like maybe every Dem who sat on the 1/6 committee. Cheney maybe should announce too,
3. Again with the playbook, and to your point above, Dems should be planning to run a shadow government to the extent they can. Bypassing trump to reach out to and visit other world leaders as often as possible. Bonus points for actually getting press coverage out of it. Which will involve inventing interesting photo ops. Like maybe have Bernie Sanders show up at the Gulf with Claudia and sit in a lawn chair in a reenactment of his meme. Or maybe have a bunch of other elected officials do it. Have a whole meeting in lawn chairs. With press just far enough away that they can see but not hear.
4. Dems need to work on thickening their skin so that when Peter Doocy whines about their antics, they laugh instead of backpedaling, apologizing, cringing.
Oooh thanks! I didn't think about him not being able to go to other countries because of his felony convictions.Maybe he can only go to Russia and China? I love that other countries have the policy that he isn't allowed! Of course, he doesn't have to go anywhere to make our lives less comfortable right here at home.
This strategy of 'poke the bear' actually feels so much better than just waiting him out. Remember how annoyed he was when Tim Walz started calling him and his followers weird. At the same time that resonated as the perfect description of Maga and Trump. Really how could anyone not want to feed kids! Just waiting him out is short sighted and dangerous but over reacting to everything he throws against the wall to get attention just wears us out. Resistance has many paths and our foreign leaders are showing us some good ones to take.
Media is making a lot of money off of covering his every move, and this is responsible in a very large part for him becoming president the first time around, as well as this time. I'm not sure they have the guts to poke the bear unless it gets them more viewers and more money. Do you think that would work? Still, it's fun to think about the many ways it might be possible. Sarcasm. Eye rolling. Yawns?
Call me a dumb liberal, but I really need a lot more convincing of this "lame duck" status. Here's a trip down memory lane the last time we were assured of something so confidently:
* "Trump's lawyers made the ridiculous claim that the president is immune from prosecution, there is no way it would be taken up by SCOTUS"
* "SCOTUS seems to be taking a really long time to reject this ridiculous "immunity" case, they're obviously making sure they get it right!"
* "SCOTUS has agreed to hear this ridiculous case but it's only so that they can put this ridiculous question to bed"
* "SCOTUS has decided they're going to actually decide if the president is immune from crime or not! Well, they're clearly trying to buy him time but they will definitely rule against this silly thing!"
* The decision is made. Sonia Sotomayor's dissent: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
tell me why Trump doesn't just say, hey I'm running again, if you dont like it, take me to court! and see how that goes.
Trump can say that, sure, but that's not enough to get his name on the ballot in anywhere near fifty states. Why would Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Michigan or Arizona or Nevada put a constitutionally ineligble candidate on their ballot? Even Georgia might balk at a directive like that--Brad Raffensberger sure did. And what would Trump do if they refused? Say mean things about Josh Shapiro?
Now, you could argue that Trump will get the military to force states to comply, but if Trump has that kind of loyalty from the armed forces, he wouldn't need to bother with an election at all. So I don't think Trump running for a third term is something we need to worry about.
Agree this is the best way to fight Trump's chaos theory, his constant crazy threats. Don't respond with protest which just validates him, don't ignore and focus on a few of the more dangerous threats, instead attack his displays of dominance by belittling him.
Trump and MAGA operate in the world of performance. This attacks his image of power.
However, the problems Dems face after our demoralizing loss in November run deeper than Trump. We can't think we are back to business as usual when he's gone.
Trump won because too many voters get their worldview from rightwing infused media, much of it not explicitly news or politics oriented and mainly in social media. Young Trump voters you'd expect to support Harris had just delusional reasons for voting for Trump. They got that from the media they use, their entertainment.
Democrats don't have an equivalence to the robust rightwing media ecosystem with its sophisticated propaganda. Traditional media failed us, failed democracy, by letting Trump's lies go unchallenged, by emphasizing Republican favored issues and hiding positive news about Biden/Harris. But too many swing voters don't use traditional media anyway.
You can't let low information voters stew in rightwing messages for four years then think two months of campaign ads will change many minds. We need to build our own media ecosystem of podcasters and influencers. That's a big challenge but the alternative is losing elections we should win.
Yes, and: As I've been yakking about a lot lately, it's not enough to just spread the word about Dem accomplishments in the assumption that "the facts" will persuade the center-right fringe or the Dems who stayed home. Repub propaganda works because, no matter how vile and false it is, it's based on emotion--fear, resentment, and hate. And they repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. The Dems need a liberal version of that, which will just happen to include the added benefit that theirs--however emotionally charged--will be based on the truth. But the truth alone is not enough.
Absolutely Dems need emotional messaging. That would be a big improvement over policy based messaging. But if the messages don't reach low info voters we lose.
I've been tearing my hair out about Dems having poor messaging strategy for years. They just don't get marketing (my profession). Even worse, they only have money during campaign season so all of the ads are shown in two months of a general election. Then the money dries up or sits in a candidate's bank account waiting for the next election. There is no ongoing Democratic party messaging in off years. While Republicans see messaging strategy as a 365 days/year effort and use their controlled media and influencers accordingly. It's too late to change many minds when you show up with an ad barrage in September of the general election.
I find it interesting that Brian pointed to 3 leaders in their respective Countries, plus the leader of Denmark, all pushing back on Trump's crazy talk, and they are all women. Now maybe there are a few men out there who are poking the bear the way these women are, but I haven't heard of any. Bring me up to speed on globally powerful men who are willing to go toe to toe with this buffoon.
O.M.G. However, having had lots of personal experience with narcissists, I can say with great confidence that this bro relationship won'd survive for long.
It is quite clearly correct that Trump should be mocked without cease. Those on the left have recognized this again and again since 2015, but each time immediately go back to being “outraged,” “disgusted” and “hurt,” giving the cult exactly what they want and reinforcing the image of Trump as strong and avenging.
Commenters note that mockery doesn’t constitute substantive resistance. But neither Mr. Beutler’s essay, nor I think any comment above, notes the critical linkage between mockery and substantive resistance, one that synthesizes the present essay with Mr. Beutler’s 11-6-24 essay, “Reflections on America’s New Autocracy.”
Trump has no policy views; he isn’t capable of offering a coherent policy argument, nor does he have any interest in policy, or indeed anything beyond the satisfaction of his needs. The entirety of his worldview is as follows: he wants (a) money; (b) people to tell him he’s the best; (c) the opportunity to rub women’s body parts; and (d) the suffering of anyone who frustrates his obtaining any of these. He pursues these transactionally. What he can deliver in return is the loyalty of the Republican base and, now again, the modalities of presidential power. His first election was unexpected, and so his dealmaking was mostly ad hoc and in the realm of petty corruption. The loci of stateless concentrated wealth – from the Putins and bin Salmans to the tech billionaires - was ready for his second election, and so his deals are more consequential, a transfer of the nation’s – and necessarily, then, the world’s - collective capital into private hands.
Trump’s greatest usefulness to concentrated wealth is his unique ability to convince the Republican base that he is fighting for them, and for a better America, when the forces for whom he fronts are devising precisely the opposite: the dismantlement of America and the wringing of every bit of well-being out of its wretched population in a pathology of absolute rent-seeking. Trump can perform this act only with the illusion that he has agency: that he has purposes of his own devising, and that he acts on them. If mockery can reveal Trump as the pathetic, unformed nothing that he is, then there is nothing between the American public and the stateless billionaires and autocrats. If an opportunity yet remains, this is the best opportunity to reveal the GOP agenda for what it is: a final consolidation of wealth, and the end of civilized society.
"If there’s an ambitious, vain liberal out there who wants to be president, that person should appoint themselves Trump’s daily troll."
I've been saying this for weeks, although I query "vain" and you needn't want to be president. Any and all Dems should be doing this on a daily basis. Of course, the people who should be doing it are Jeffries and Schumer. They should be calling daily press conferences to mock Trump's idiocy. But neither seems to have the cojones. (I just got an email from Schumer, entitled "It's not the Congress we hoped for." I resisted the urge to write back, "You're not the Democratic leader we hoped for, either.") Swalwell and Moscowitz and AOC and Crockett are sharp, but we need a predictable go-to troll from the Dems, and not just from Colbert and Kimmel and Bluesky and bloggers.
Also, "die a pariah" is begging to be a lyric in a song.
This only works if it does not distract attention from things that really matter. E.G. Trump is nominating a General to head the Joint Chiefs who has expressed Nazi sympathies in the past and what leads the news are the yuks someone has had at Trump’s expense. This is more or less what happened in the general election where Trump played rope/ a-door and Democrats were gleeful. Thus the press was full of discussion about whether illegal aliens were eating pets in Ohio rather than discussing issues on which Harris and Trump differed or pointing out that the economy was in many ways not just back to normal or better.
this seems the emerging thinking among writers I trust, and I'm here for it. give him (and them) no quarter, no wan announcements about looking for ways to cooperate, etc etc. besides, what legislation they propose is likely to actually be helpful and worth sponsoring/supporting?
*Not “ahhh! this is dangerous!” but “whatever, clown!” Not “what about our norms!” but “try me.” Etc, etc. *
This. I think, in retrospect, the in-grained habit, in civil life, of trying to give people doubt, offer an opposing view and attempt to persuade, explain, have patience, etc. is unfortunately exactly what this kind of sociopath feeds on. He bends and extends that grace beyond all recognition. You have to just say no to obviously harmful and malevolent things.
This is absolutely correct and I’ve been saying it for years. Get under his skin. Make him miserable. Every step of the way.
A lot of people said during Trump’s first term “Don’t bring up the fact that he hasn’t built a wall! That’s a good thing!” Yes, but his whole schtick is that he’s superhuman and makes things happen with a wave of his hand. Every defeat, every setback, builds on the last one.
As Josh Marshall said, all power is unitary. His stupid SecDef pick makes it harder for him to get tariffs in place. The fact that he can’t get tariffs in place makes it harder for him to carry out deportations. (Or, this is how it should work.)
It’s one of the few areas where we should emulate Republicans: just the daily creation of a picture of incompetence. Much easier for us than for them; we’ve got a lot more material to work with.)
I think the risk of this strategy is that the urge to "wait him out" turns into "humor him so he'll leave": yet more inaction and paralysis that enables him to violate yet another set of norms.
Like, if people "wait him out" right up until he declares he's running for 2028, and they haven't laid the groundwork to oppose him, they'll get caught wrong-footed *once again*.
Why can't both things be done at the same time? While "waiting him out," man/woman up the Democratic Party and find a leader. Let that leader be the bear that pokes Trump continuously. That's how I read the column; not to just ignore him.
I think my contention here is simply that “poking the bear” doesn’t require us to solely conceive of him as a lame duck, and that there is a danger to failing to clock his threat of consolidating dictatorial power.
And I think these actually go hand in hand! Competently executing on poking the bear will weaken his ability to consolidate power. But not as a mission to treat him like a lame duck; rather as a mission to end his movement.
Got it! We agree.
A lot of supposedly smart people told us in the early 90s to ignore Rush Limbaugh and he’d disappear because he was so obviously ridiculous. That (checks notes) didn’t happen.
Mocking is not ignoring
There is a huge difference between humoring him and actively savagely ridiculing him while pointing and laughing
See the other comments on this thread.
1. Not sure anyone in the political arena will have the guts to be the trump troll. Except maybe Walz if he’s not so fed up that he just cuts his losses and throws up his hands in disgust.
2. Why not just use trump’s playbook. At least one Dem should be planning to announce their 2028 run somewhere around 1/21/2025. I’d suggest more than one. Like maybe every Dem who sat on the 1/6 committee. Cheney maybe should announce too,
3. Again with the playbook, and to your point above, Dems should be planning to run a shadow government to the extent they can. Bypassing trump to reach out to and visit other world leaders as often as possible. Bonus points for actually getting press coverage out of it. Which will involve inventing interesting photo ops. Like maybe have Bernie Sanders show up at the Gulf with Claudia and sit in a lawn chair in a reenactment of his meme. Or maybe have a bunch of other elected officials do it. Have a whole meeting in lawn chairs. With press just far enough away that they can see but not hear.
4. Dems need to work on thickening their skin so that when Peter Doocy whines about their antics, they laugh instead of backpedaling, apologizing, cringing.
I love number 3--Dems making state visits, particularly to countries where Trump is not allowed to go, now that he's a convicted felon.
Oooh thanks! I didn't think about him not being able to go to other countries because of his felony convictions.Maybe he can only go to Russia and China? I love that other countries have the policy that he isn't allowed! Of course, he doesn't have to go anywhere to make our lives less comfortable right here at home.
I also love #3!
This strategy of 'poke the bear' actually feels so much better than just waiting him out. Remember how annoyed he was when Tim Walz started calling him and his followers weird. At the same time that resonated as the perfect description of Maga and Trump. Really how could anyone not want to feed kids! Just waiting him out is short sighted and dangerous but over reacting to everything he throws against the wall to get attention just wears us out. Resistance has many paths and our foreign leaders are showing us some good ones to take.
Media is making a lot of money off of covering his every move, and this is responsible in a very large part for him becoming president the first time around, as well as this time. I'm not sure they have the guts to poke the bear unless it gets them more viewers and more money. Do you think that would work? Still, it's fun to think about the many ways it might be possible. Sarcasm. Eye rolling. Yawns?
One of the best advice columns I've read in a long, long time. I just wish Democrats would follow it.
Call me a dumb liberal, but I really need a lot more convincing of this "lame duck" status. Here's a trip down memory lane the last time we were assured of something so confidently:
* "Trump's lawyers made the ridiculous claim that the president is immune from prosecution, there is no way it would be taken up by SCOTUS"
* "SCOTUS seems to be taking a really long time to reject this ridiculous "immunity" case, they're obviously making sure they get it right!"
* "SCOTUS has agreed to hear this ridiculous case but it's only so that they can put this ridiculous question to bed"
* "SCOTUS has decided they're going to actually decide if the president is immune from crime or not! Well, they're clearly trying to buy him time but they will definitely rule against this silly thing!"
* The decision is made. Sonia Sotomayor's dissent: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
tell me why Trump doesn't just say, hey I'm running again, if you dont like it, take me to court! and see how that goes.
Trump can say that, sure, but that's not enough to get his name on the ballot in anywhere near fifty states. Why would Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Michigan or Arizona or Nevada put a constitutionally ineligble candidate on their ballot? Even Georgia might balk at a directive like that--Brad Raffensberger sure did. And what would Trump do if they refused? Say mean things about Josh Shapiro?
Now, you could argue that Trump will get the military to force states to comply, but if Trump has that kind of loyalty from the armed forces, he wouldn't need to bother with an election at all. So I don't think Trump running for a third term is something we need to worry about.
Agree this is the best way to fight Trump's chaos theory, his constant crazy threats. Don't respond with protest which just validates him, don't ignore and focus on a few of the more dangerous threats, instead attack his displays of dominance by belittling him.
Trump and MAGA operate in the world of performance. This attacks his image of power.
However, the problems Dems face after our demoralizing loss in November run deeper than Trump. We can't think we are back to business as usual when he's gone.
Trump won because too many voters get their worldview from rightwing infused media, much of it not explicitly news or politics oriented and mainly in social media. Young Trump voters you'd expect to support Harris had just delusional reasons for voting for Trump. They got that from the media they use, their entertainment.
Democrats don't have an equivalence to the robust rightwing media ecosystem with its sophisticated propaganda. Traditional media failed us, failed democracy, by letting Trump's lies go unchallenged, by emphasizing Republican favored issues and hiding positive news about Biden/Harris. But too many swing voters don't use traditional media anyway.
You can't let low information voters stew in rightwing messages for four years then think two months of campaign ads will change many minds. We need to build our own media ecosystem of podcasters and influencers. That's a big challenge but the alternative is losing elections we should win.
Yes, and: As I've been yakking about a lot lately, it's not enough to just spread the word about Dem accomplishments in the assumption that "the facts" will persuade the center-right fringe or the Dems who stayed home. Repub propaganda works because, no matter how vile and false it is, it's based on emotion--fear, resentment, and hate. And they repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. The Dems need a liberal version of that, which will just happen to include the added benefit that theirs--however emotionally charged--will be based on the truth. But the truth alone is not enough.
Absolutely Dems need emotional messaging. That would be a big improvement over policy based messaging. But if the messages don't reach low info voters we lose.
I've been tearing my hair out about Dems having poor messaging strategy for years. They just don't get marketing (my profession). Even worse, they only have money during campaign season so all of the ads are shown in two months of a general election. Then the money dries up or sits in a candidate's bank account waiting for the next election. There is no ongoing Democratic party messaging in off years. While Republicans see messaging strategy as a 365 days/year effort and use their controlled media and influencers accordingly. It's too late to change many minds when you show up with an ad barrage in September of the general election.
I find it interesting that Brian pointed to 3 leaders in their respective Countries, plus the leader of Denmark, all pushing back on Trump's crazy talk, and they are all women. Now maybe there are a few men out there who are poking the bear the way these women are, but I haven't heard of any. Bring me up to speed on globally powerful men who are willing to go toe to toe with this buffoon.
Yes, I have repeatedly noted that through the Trump years: if anyone has the guts to stand up to him, it's usually women. Hmm
Because we have a lot of experience with bullies.
I feel like the New Yorker gets it with its latest cover
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cover-story/cover-story-2025-01-20
O.M.G. However, having had lots of personal experience with narcissists, I can say with great confidence that this bro relationship won'd survive for long.
It doesn’t matter how many people adore him, he will always be a national embarrassment, as will his adoring fans.
It is quite clearly correct that Trump should be mocked without cease. Those on the left have recognized this again and again since 2015, but each time immediately go back to being “outraged,” “disgusted” and “hurt,” giving the cult exactly what they want and reinforcing the image of Trump as strong and avenging.
Commenters note that mockery doesn’t constitute substantive resistance. But neither Mr. Beutler’s essay, nor I think any comment above, notes the critical linkage between mockery and substantive resistance, one that synthesizes the present essay with Mr. Beutler’s 11-6-24 essay, “Reflections on America’s New Autocracy.”
Trump has no policy views; he isn’t capable of offering a coherent policy argument, nor does he have any interest in policy, or indeed anything beyond the satisfaction of his needs. The entirety of his worldview is as follows: he wants (a) money; (b) people to tell him he’s the best; (c) the opportunity to rub women’s body parts; and (d) the suffering of anyone who frustrates his obtaining any of these. He pursues these transactionally. What he can deliver in return is the loyalty of the Republican base and, now again, the modalities of presidential power. His first election was unexpected, and so his dealmaking was mostly ad hoc and in the realm of petty corruption. The loci of stateless concentrated wealth – from the Putins and bin Salmans to the tech billionaires - was ready for his second election, and so his deals are more consequential, a transfer of the nation’s – and necessarily, then, the world’s - collective capital into private hands.
Trump’s greatest usefulness to concentrated wealth is his unique ability to convince the Republican base that he is fighting for them, and for a better America, when the forces for whom he fronts are devising precisely the opposite: the dismantlement of America and the wringing of every bit of well-being out of its wretched population in a pathology of absolute rent-seeking. Trump can perform this act only with the illusion that he has agency: that he has purposes of his own devising, and that he acts on them. If mockery can reveal Trump as the pathetic, unformed nothing that he is, then there is nothing between the American public and the stateless billionaires and autocrats. If an opportunity yet remains, this is the best opportunity to reveal the GOP agenda for what it is: a final consolidation of wealth, and the end of civilized society.
"If there’s an ambitious, vain liberal out there who wants to be president, that person should appoint themselves Trump’s daily troll."
I've been saying this for weeks, although I query "vain" and you needn't want to be president. Any and all Dems should be doing this on a daily basis. Of course, the people who should be doing it are Jeffries and Schumer. They should be calling daily press conferences to mock Trump's idiocy. But neither seems to have the cojones. (I just got an email from Schumer, entitled "It's not the Congress we hoped for." I resisted the urge to write back, "You're not the Democratic leader we hoped for, either.") Swalwell and Moscowitz and AOC and Crockett are sharp, but we need a predictable go-to troll from the Dems, and not just from Colbert and Kimmel and Bluesky and bloggers.
Also, "die a pariah" is begging to be a lyric in a song.
This only works if it does not distract attention from things that really matter. E.G. Trump is nominating a General to head the Joint Chiefs who has expressed Nazi sympathies in the past and what leads the news are the yuks someone has had at Trump’s expense. This is more or less what happened in the general election where Trump played rope/ a-door and Democrats were gleeful. Thus the press was full of discussion about whether illegal aliens were eating pets in Ohio rather than discussing issues on which Harris and Trump differed or pointing out that the economy was in many ways not just back to normal or better.
this seems the emerging thinking among writers I trust, and I'm here for it. give him (and them) no quarter, no wan announcements about looking for ways to cooperate, etc etc. besides, what legislation they propose is likely to actually be helpful and worth sponsoring/supporting?
*Not “ahhh! this is dangerous!” but “whatever, clown!” Not “what about our norms!” but “try me.” Etc, etc. *
This. I think, in retrospect, the in-grained habit, in civil life, of trying to give people doubt, offer an opposing view and attempt to persuade, explain, have patience, etc. is unfortunately exactly what this kind of sociopath feeds on. He bends and extends that grace beyond all recognition. You have to just say no to obviously harmful and malevolent things.
https://lincolnproject.us/ does this every day of the week.