Superb! The good, the bad and the ugly, yet you left me with hope. Brian, I am going to read this essay again after I've had a chance for it to sink in. Well Done
Something you mention here that I think is very important is the degree to which the fascist right has been ahead of the technological curve on manufacturing online consensus. They tend to do this through a mix of buying/owning the platforms (which lets them set the platform's agenda), while at the same time using botnets to create the appearance of agreement from the masses. Every right-wing X post instantly gets 100,000 botted likes, the Melania movie gets an instant 99% audience approval, and so on. These technologies are relatively new, and most people haven't yet caught on (and might never caught on) to how fake a botnet-generated cultural consensus actually is.
A lot of us have a reflexive habit of looking at the comments to see 'what people think.' Fascists have realized this and make an effort to deliberately control the comments, while liberals gawk. At this point there's no way to know if those top comments in a public space are actually representative, or if they're the result of deliberate enemy action.
I wrote recently about how Democrats need to get more serious about regulating online spaces. I'd be curious about your thoughts on how we might approach this side of the battle against the right better. If Dems win back power, how might they practically regulate the online world in order to tamp down on manufactured consent and billionaires putting their thumbs on the media scale? How could we use the apparatus of government to purge our feeds of the next generation of MAGA AIslop and Elon's algorithmic control? Removing the right's ability to pollute the information ecosystem with manufactured lies seems like a key part in making sure the next fascist doesn't manage to get elected. Call it a Beutlerian Jihad.
I can't help but think that Substack is also a major contributor to that. I don't see it here in Brian's comments, but there is a lot of right wing engagement in the comments sections of other liberal pundits. I can't help but think it influences their takes.
Brian, appreciate the piece, but I'd push back in a respect. A broad critique of mine is what I observe as the overwhelming tendency to think of the polis as composed of Democrats and MAGA: the two "sides." To me this disappears the overwhelming demographic that might be known as the Oblivious.
It's astounding to me how many people, including those in the middle and professional classes, haven't the slightest awareness of the national civic realm, have no critical perspective on it, and don't have an interest in it. I attribute this to decades of forces that have replaced civic engagement as a shared obligation with civic engagement as a consumer choice that one simply can ignore if the choices aren't beguiling. This is why I think the MSM - in their normalizing of the GOP, their both-sidesing, and their depiction of politics as just a game if one is interested - have been far more corrosive of democracy than Right-wing media. In every society, 28% will be authoritarian followers. MAGA is irretrievable. So every election should come out at 70-30. It's the 50% that make up the Oblivious middle who are at fault for our falling so far short of this.
Long story short(er), I read your piece as emphasizing the role of political culture (& our ability to assess it), when I question whether half the population - the population that wanders aimlessly toward the polls on election day, or not - even participates in or is aware of this culture.
I so appreciate this clear eyed explanation of how a Trump could and did succeed. His continued success is not inevitable. This essay is a keeper and one I will share. Thanks Brian! Nothing left to do but subscribe!!
The way reporters frame their coverage of a debate can also affect the public’s reactions. After one of Gore’s 2000 debates the immediate polling showed that the majority of viewers thought Gore had won. However after a few days of the media trashing his performance polls started showing that the public thought Bush had won.
The media clearly hated Gore and it showed. During one debate with Sen. Bradley in NH reporters who were watching in another room openly booed and hissed at Gore’s answers. Bradley had had such favorable media coverage touting how smart and impressive he was I was shocked at how unimpressive he was when interviewed. The media was also clearly biased in favor of Bush because he was “more fun to have a beer with”. A lot of people are dead because we elected a fun guy instead of a boring, serious one.
"MAGA is relentless, like an invasive species, and Trump has strong survival instincts"---this is spot on. What a wonderful summary of our moment. Thank you!
Another conclusion: what we see is the strongest force in contemporary national American Politics: the anti incumbency reaction. No matter who is currently on top, people quickly will be "against current thing". The problematic thing with that is that Republicans can be as awful as they want, at the end of the day even worst opposition figure is better in eyes of voters to best incumbent one. And democrats, as always, will instead run towards the imaginary median centrist voter.
The "political optimal strategy" might be presenting oneself as the incumbent and underdog, no matter the facts. Victor Orban from Hungary became a quasi-dictator, but in eyes of his voters he is still the underdog fighting against the overwhelming nefarious liberal forces ruling Hungary and Europe. Path for democrats is obvious - they should use "rich people" as the establishment, controlling USA no matter who wins elections. This way even current president might not be seen as incumbent.
And lest we forget: that the authors of "Project 2025" are NOW Trump's Handlers. Trump may very well be a demented nincompoop, but his Handlers are intelligent, and very, very dangerous to the other 8 billion of us on Planet Earth!
Maybe the real indication that Trump's quest for ultimate dominance is over is when major representatives of the Christian nationalist right turn on him realizing that, no matter how personally vile and irreligious he is, he is no longer their best bet to suppress all the tings they hate and fear--feminism, LGBTQ+ and trans people, irreverent comedy, eroticism in art and music, third world culture and, in too many cases, merely being non-white.
The contradiction that such a person can, for reasons beyond us, be God's instrument of their eventual takeover of the nation has lasted surprisingly long, but may ultimately unravel.
The youngs making fun of Biden being old was pure arrogant agism. Really disappointing, as I thought they were better than that. Age and death come for us all, as they’ll one day find out. Perhaps they’ll also learn that with age, sometimes, comes wisdom.
And with age, sometimes, comes confusion and debility. And those things were clearly what came with Biden's aging, and young people and old people alike noticed it, and they were entitled to notice it no matter how many pundits insisted they should ignore what their eyes and ears were telling them.
The thing is that Harris was in place as VP to succeed him if needed. And it’s not like DJT was any less debilitated. He was even then at least as debilitated as well as being a convicted criminal sociopathic sadopopulist. That was the relevant comparison. It never made sense to consider Biden’s age in a vacuum the way they did.
For the love of Christ, nobody was considering his age in a vacuum. They were considering the increasingly visible fact that, mentally and physically, he was aging *very poorly and rapidly*.
But look, yell all you want at young people for not wanting a mentally, physically, and politically weak president, and for not being satisfied with "well, at least the vice president isn't obviously decrepit." Do it loudly enough and maybe they'll Vote Blue No Matter Who next time. I know I always respond positively to scolding, don't you?
Moreover, that potential for Biden-to-Harris succession as needed was what people had already voted for in the 2020 election that the Biden-Harris ticket won.
I love that so many Olympic athletes feel comfortable speaking out.
Superb! The good, the bad and the ugly, yet you left me with hope. Brian, I am going to read this essay again after I've had a chance for it to sink in. Well Done
Something you mention here that I think is very important is the degree to which the fascist right has been ahead of the technological curve on manufacturing online consensus. They tend to do this through a mix of buying/owning the platforms (which lets them set the platform's agenda), while at the same time using botnets to create the appearance of agreement from the masses. Every right-wing X post instantly gets 100,000 botted likes, the Melania movie gets an instant 99% audience approval, and so on. These technologies are relatively new, and most people haven't yet caught on (and might never caught on) to how fake a botnet-generated cultural consensus actually is.
A lot of us have a reflexive habit of looking at the comments to see 'what people think.' Fascists have realized this and make an effort to deliberately control the comments, while liberals gawk. At this point there's no way to know if those top comments in a public space are actually representative, or if they're the result of deliberate enemy action.
I wrote recently about how Democrats need to get more serious about regulating online spaces. I'd be curious about your thoughts on how we might approach this side of the battle against the right better. If Dems win back power, how might they practically regulate the online world in order to tamp down on manufactured consent and billionaires putting their thumbs on the media scale? How could we use the apparatus of government to purge our feeds of the next generation of MAGA AIslop and Elon's algorithmic control? Removing the right's ability to pollute the information ecosystem with manufactured lies seems like a key part in making sure the next fascist doesn't manage to get elected. Call it a Beutlerian Jihad.
I can't help but think that Substack is also a major contributor to that. I don't see it here in Brian's comments, but there is a lot of right wing engagement in the comments sections of other liberal pundits. I can't help but think it influences their takes.
Brian, appreciate the piece, but I'd push back in a respect. A broad critique of mine is what I observe as the overwhelming tendency to think of the polis as composed of Democrats and MAGA: the two "sides." To me this disappears the overwhelming demographic that might be known as the Oblivious.
It's astounding to me how many people, including those in the middle and professional classes, haven't the slightest awareness of the national civic realm, have no critical perspective on it, and don't have an interest in it. I attribute this to decades of forces that have replaced civic engagement as a shared obligation with civic engagement as a consumer choice that one simply can ignore if the choices aren't beguiling. This is why I think the MSM - in their normalizing of the GOP, their both-sidesing, and their depiction of politics as just a game if one is interested - have been far more corrosive of democracy than Right-wing media. In every society, 28% will be authoritarian followers. MAGA is irretrievable. So every election should come out at 70-30. It's the 50% that make up the Oblivious middle who are at fault for our falling so far short of this.
Long story short(er), I read your piece as emphasizing the role of political culture (& our ability to assess it), when I question whether half the population - the population that wanders aimlessly toward the polls on election day, or not - even participates in or is aware of this culture.
I so appreciate this clear eyed explanation of how a Trump could and did succeed. His continued success is not inevitable. This essay is a keeper and one I will share. Thanks Brian! Nothing left to do but subscribe!!
The way reporters frame their coverage of a debate can also affect the public’s reactions. After one of Gore’s 2000 debates the immediate polling showed that the majority of viewers thought Gore had won. However after a few days of the media trashing his performance polls started showing that the public thought Bush had won.
The media clearly hated Gore and it showed. During one debate with Sen. Bradley in NH reporters who were watching in another room openly booed and hissed at Gore’s answers. Bradley had had such favorable media coverage touting how smart and impressive he was I was shocked at how unimpressive he was when interviewed. The media was also clearly biased in favor of Bush because he was “more fun to have a beer with”. A lot of people are dead because we elected a fun guy instead of a boring, serious one.
“Gored by the Media Bull”
https://prospect.org/2002/12/18/gored-media-bull/
"MAGA is relentless, like an invasive species, and Trump has strong survival instincts"---this is spot on. What a wonderful summary of our moment. Thank you!
“ I personally know UFC-loving libs and opera-loving MAGAs.”
Well, the Nazis liked Wagner.
Another conclusion: what we see is the strongest force in contemporary national American Politics: the anti incumbency reaction. No matter who is currently on top, people quickly will be "against current thing". The problematic thing with that is that Republicans can be as awful as they want, at the end of the day even worst opposition figure is better in eyes of voters to best incumbent one. And democrats, as always, will instead run towards the imaginary median centrist voter.
The "political optimal strategy" might be presenting oneself as the incumbent and underdog, no matter the facts. Victor Orban from Hungary became a quasi-dictator, but in eyes of his voters he is still the underdog fighting against the overwhelming nefarious liberal forces ruling Hungary and Europe. Path for democrats is obvious - they should use "rich people" as the establishment, controlling USA no matter who wins elections. This way even current president might not be seen as incumbent.
You should vote regardless of how close you think the election is or isn’t. FFS.
And lest we forget: that the authors of "Project 2025" are NOW Trump's Handlers. Trump may very well be a demented nincompoop, but his Handlers are intelligent, and very, very dangerous to the other 8 billion of us on Planet Earth!
Maybe the real indication that Trump's quest for ultimate dominance is over is when major representatives of the Christian nationalist right turn on him realizing that, no matter how personally vile and irreligious he is, he is no longer their best bet to suppress all the tings they hate and fear--feminism, LGBTQ+ and trans people, irreverent comedy, eroticism in art and music, third world culture and, in too many cases, merely being non-white.
The contradiction that such a person can, for reasons beyond us, be God's instrument of their eventual takeover of the nation has lasted surprisingly long, but may ultimately unravel.
the smell of blood is in the water (his declining public persona) will bring out the sharks, will bring out the voters.
That which haunts me likely haunts us all: the black swan event that for good or evil may turn the day.
The youngs making fun of Biden being old was pure arrogant agism. Really disappointing, as I thought they were better than that. Age and death come for us all, as they’ll one day find out. Perhaps they’ll also learn that with age, sometimes, comes wisdom.
And with age, sometimes, comes confusion and debility. And those things were clearly what came with Biden's aging, and young people and old people alike noticed it, and they were entitled to notice it no matter how many pundits insisted they should ignore what their eyes and ears were telling them.
The thing is that Harris was in place as VP to succeed him if needed. And it’s not like DJT was any less debilitated. He was even then at least as debilitated as well as being a convicted criminal sociopathic sadopopulist. That was the relevant comparison. It never made sense to consider Biden’s age in a vacuum the way they did.
For the love of Christ, nobody was considering his age in a vacuum. They were considering the increasingly visible fact that, mentally and physically, he was aging *very poorly and rapidly*.
But look, yell all you want at young people for not wanting a mentally, physically, and politically weak president, and for not being satisfied with "well, at least the vice president isn't obviously decrepit." Do it loudly enough and maybe they'll Vote Blue No Matter Who next time. I know I always respond positively to scolding, don't you?
I’m not yelling at anybody.
Blocked
Moreover, that potential for Biden-to-Harris succession as needed was what people had already voted for in the 2020 election that the Biden-Harris ticket won.
I disagree with so many parts of this that I don't know where to start, but I'll leave this comment here until I can get my thoughts in order.
He certainly won the election,”
I think not. He and Musk both admitted otherwise. You guys never addressing this is weird.