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
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 be seen as incumbent.
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.
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.
Maybe the real indication that Trump's quest for ultimate dominance is over is when major representqtives 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.
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!!
"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!
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
I love that so many Olympic athletes feel comfortable speaking out.
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 be seen as incumbent.
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/
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.
Maybe the real indication that Trump's quest for ultimate dominance is over is when major representqtives 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.
“ I personally know UFC-loving libs and opera-loving MAGAs.”
Well, the Nazis liked Wagner.
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.
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!!
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.
"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!