While neither a Trump nor Harris supporter, I have a few observations as a long-time Reagan Republican.
Certainly, one is grievance. Romney was called awful names, including by Democrat supporters, a Hitler and Nazi, just like every other GOP Presidential candidate in my lifetime, including Ronald Reagan.
Paul Ryan wanted to reorganize our welfare programs. He wanted to see which were duplicates. He wanted to study if the programs were achieving what Congress intended. He wanted to eliminate duplicate programs. For that, he was vilified as a man who tried to throw Granny off a cliff. Republicans (prior to this miscreant group in the current GOP), were accused of wanting to kill women and children if they ever discussed trimming the increase in Welfare programs.
My personal belief is that I can effectively argue that rather than ending poverty, much of what we did over the last 50 years has sustained poverty. I still firmly believe that giving a man a fish for his hunger is not as good as teaching a man to fish so he’ll eat every day. I believe in work and believe that able-bodied men and women should work for the help American taxpayers are giving them.
Yes, of course, some people cannot work. Young mothers with even younger children need childcare; they also need training or education. Republicans had always believed in a hand-up over a handout.
And yet, someone who is clearly a decent man was vilified by Democrats. John McCain and Mitt Romney were called awful names. Let me ask you how you feel about Donald Trump compared to those two.
Normal? Republicans had normal but if they didn’t meet the standards of Democrats the hyperbole and hyperbolic speech was ramped up. Then we get Conservative Talk Radio, which ramped up the rhetoric. Now, finally, we get Donald Trump.
A vile sociopath with misogynist tendencies who bought a beauty pageant so he could walk through the dressing, hoping to catch a glimpse of whatever sexual perversion he was interested in.
The result of Joe Biden’s election was a wholesale rejection of everything Trump, changing Title Nine rules to force colleges to allow biological males to compete against our daughters. Brought DEI to every government organization so they could tell white Americans they were privileged and didn’t deserve it, and got it at the expense of people of color. This caused more resentment.
To add to the resentment in the country, Joe Biden decided to open the border and invite anyone who could make it to the border he would let him in. It caused a colossal dislocation, the result of which angered Americans and caused them to turn against immigration. Even to the point that a majority support deporting illegal immigrants.
Things do not happen in a vacuum. Everything has a cause and effect. I have said that if Harris loses, it will likely be due to Biden’s open border. It will have been caused by local DAs allowing hordes of shoplifters to break into stores, by idiotic ideas like giving sex change surgeries in prison for illegal immigrants. Progressive Democrat ideas scare the bejesus out of normal Americans.
Noah, you have stated that the country is moving to the right. As I said, there is a cause and effect. Trump’s rise is that effect. It is useless to argue about who started it. Talk Radio, the Tea Party movement, I really do not care at this point. I am politically homeless, and the Party of Reagan is no longer. I don’t blame myself. I blame the norm-breaking crazy ass insanity of Progressive Democrats they hijacked the Democrat Party.
I yearn for normal, I am begging for normal. I thought we had normal, but something broke normal in the GOP, and it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Until your Party acknowledges its part in it, there will not be a moving forward moment.
I share your disgust at the treatment of Romney in 2012.
But I think the sad truth is that that era, for all its partisan mudslinging -- and let's not forget the birthers and the other wackos on the right -- was far calmer than now!
The seeds of the unrest of the late 2010s were certainly sown by the hyperpartisanship of earlier years. But in 2012, I could still choose to ignore the stupidity of national politics and just live a normal individual life. By 2017 that had become impossible.
I know we'll always have *some* degree of political hyperventilation, lies, and idiocy -- on both sides. But having a calm nation means having the freedom to tune all that stuff out if I choose to. Under Trump, I have less of that freedom. Biden has begun to restore that freedom a bit, and Harris would continue that restoration, I think.
I think you're overfitting on US-specific history when what drives these conflicts is inherent to human nature. Nothing will change if Trump loses or wins, because these trends aren't driven by Trump to begin with and never were.
When you said the 1970s were quiet, for example, I had a hollow laugh. My parents came of age in 1970s Britain which saw relentless chaos followed by near total economic collapse thanks to its hard left government policies (e.g. full employment regardless of inflation). The election of Thatcher turned it around, and yet the British left not only loathed Thatcher with the intensity of a thousand suns at the time, it still loathes Thatcher with the same intensity to this very day! Thatcher was an articulate chemist but leftists who weren't even born when Thatcher was in power danced and sang "ding dong the witch is dead" the day she finally passed away.
There's nothing unique about Trump. Nothing. He doesn't even talk differently to other politicians, even though it may feel like that. Look at the rhetoric Biden, Harris or Clinton deploy against the right: it's the language of hate. Look at the rhetoric European left wing leaders deploy against their local right: it's the same language of fear and hate, no different to that used by their comrades in America. Trump is absent, but the attitude and drama isn't.
He described the late 70s and 80s as "tranquil", which is a perfectly fine thing to write as this is a US blog that blogs about American things. I'm not claiming Noah's wrong about that, only that it's a very US specific take when wokeness and left/right turmoil are universal things. In Europe the 70s was an absolute basket case time, and things only really got tranquil in the 90s.
<Certainly, one is grievance. Romney was called awful names, including by Democrat supporters, a Hitler and Nazi, just like every other GOP Presidential candidate in my lifetime, including Ronald Reagan.>
As I seem to recall, the Republicans returned the favor by accusing every Democratic politician after Bill Clinton to be a closeted radical. Let's not forget the whole scandal that erupted over Obama's affiliation with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or the hysteria surrounding Saul Alinsky, or (perhaps most outrageous) the widely-believed accusation (made by Trump, of all people) that "Barack the Magic Negro" Obama was a radical Muslim foreigner who scammed and race-carded his way into the White House. Grievances and name-calling cut both ways.
<Paul Ryan wanted to reorganize our welfare programs. He wanted to see which were duplicates. He wanted to study if the programs were achieving what Congress intended. He wanted to eliminate duplicate programs. For that, he was vilified as a man who tried to throw Granny off a cliff. Republicans (prior to this miscreant group in the current GOP), were accused of wanting to kill women and children if they ever discussed trimming the increase in Welfare programs.>
As I recall, the Ryan fiscal program called for extensive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Medicare would've been turned into a voucher whose value would only increase at the rate of inflation (not healthcare sectoral inflation, mind you), offloading an increasing % of senior healthcare spending onto retirees. The whole "throw Granny off a cliff" narrative was itself a reaction to the right-wing hysteria of the Bush years, as well as the infamous (and malicious) accusation that Obamacare would result in "death panels" that would cart off senior citizens to the morgue if their treatment got too expensive. Again, grievance and hysterical exaggeration cut both ways.
<My personal belief is that I can effectively argue that rather than ending poverty, much of what we did over the last 50 years has sustained poverty. I still firmly believe that giving a man a fish for his hunger is not as good as teaching a man to fish so he’ll eat every day. I believe in work and believe that able-bodied men and women should work for the help American taxpayers are giving them.>
Do you have any proof on this? As far as I'm concerned, poverty in the US has fallen dramatically over the past 40-odd years (at least using alternative metrics that account for government benefits and updated info on poor household income). There are noteworthy failures in welfare spending (public housing and cash welfare come to mind), but much of that is attributable to benefit cliffs that emerge when you use means-testing and "targeted" programs rather than broad universal ones.
<And yet, someone who is clearly a decent man was vilified by Democrats. John McCain and Mitt Romney were called awful names. Let me ask you how you feel about Donald Trump compared to those two.>
The latter, as I recall, was mocked as a "Massachusetts liberal" by people running against him in the 2012 primary debates (debates which, mind you, included such noteworthy tidbits as candidates talking about putting crocodiles in the Rio Grande to deter illegal immigration).
Both Democrats and Republicans should quit acting like the political crisis of Trumpism was caused by polarization and incivility towards one another. Polarization and incivility are symptoms of a broader malaise in American society, one that has both economic and cultural roots. You want to end Trumpism? Deal with those root problems, or at least find a way of papering them over.
Don't act like the Republicans were the innocent oppressed victim in all this. If we really wanted to get accurate, I could easily argue that it all started when John Birch conservatives accused Dwight D. Eisenhower of being a closeted communist. Or Thomas Jefferson accusing Alexander Hamilton of betraying the republican ideals of a Revolution. Y'all have such a victim mentality...
This is really hilarious coming from the Left, an ideology that is literally organized around sacred victim classes today.
Smart liberalism is possible. Smart progressivism is possible (eg Noah). But smart identarianism? That's an oxymoron. Even Noah and Matt Yglegias recognize that the Left's embrace of identity politics (the politics of victimhood) has been a disaster.
<This is really hilarious coming from the Left, an ideology that is literally organized around sacred victim classes today.>
It may surprise you to realize this, but there's no single monolithic ideology that dominates either the "Left" or the "Right"; both are just a constellation of social and ideological groupings that often conflict with one another but are united in their opposition to the other side. The Left doesn't have a monopoly on victimhood fixation; I remember during the Obama years how conservatives wailed and gnashed about how America was going to hell in a handbasket all eight years: Obama Derangement Syndrome is just a diet version of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Of course they're not homogenous. But there is an overriding ideology of each side. When I was growing up it was "government good" and "government evil". Bill Clinton kind of ended that one with his "era of big government is over" line. Today, it's fair to say one side embraces the group oppressor/oppressed dynamic of intersectional postmodernism (and the sacred victimology that creates) and the other rejects it. In that sense, the Left has fully embraced postliberalism while the right is still struggling to do so.
Is that a flattening of the narrative and a cramming of divergent groups into a box? Sure. But is that overall characterization actually wrong?
(Note, I see identarianism rising on the right as well, which worries me greatly, since that kind of ethnic and racial and sexual tribalism is death for a diverse, pluralistic society like ours,)
I voted for Romney, and yea: I don't like how many Democrats decry every Republican as a Nazi and a Fascist when it suits their needs. I am sure Jonah Goldberg has the receipts.
But come on dude: I do not buy for one iota that the rise of Donald Trump is directly related to the name calling at Mitt Romney in 2012. That's just silliness, especially when we know Donald Trump was active in 2012: he was the dude spearheading the birther conspiracy against Barack Obama! It seems to me, and again: I voted for Mitt Romney, that the vitriol we saw in 2012 was less, and the vitriol against Romney was less, than the attacks on Obama (and then on Hillary Clinton).
Furthermore, Obama DID give Paul Ryan and other Republicans an opportunity to come together and make a grand bargain. We can debate who's at fault, both to a degree, but Obama did try to negotiate a fiscal grand bargain in 2012.
So let's be honest about what party is doing the ratcheting. Name calling from Democrats in 2012 is simply not equivalent to the birther conspiracies against Obama (and I ALSO recall plenty of emails from Republicans calling Obama a devout Muslim communist when I was younger so its not like Republicans were not also responsible for name calling in 2012 and before). But there's a huge difference between what has happened since. When Hillary lost: she conceded. When it came time to certify the votes: Joe Biden shut down his own party and told them it's over. Barack Obama invited Trump to the White House.
Donald Trump and the Republicans did none of those things. Mitch McConnell cowardly refused to comment on the election until the Electoral College voted. Trump physically and rhetorically tried to steal the election, and when it came time to hold Trump accountable: the Republicans refused to do anything to stop Trump. They then nominated him AGAIN for President in 2024.
Sure, Democrats should own up to their own rhetorical problems (I don't think calling Trump a Fascist is helpful), but they are not the equivalent to Republican ones.
No it is the name calling for decades. They were not kind to anyone in my lifetime. They described them as horrid people who will kill women and children. I am and only telling you why Trump has so many followers. Cause and effect my friend.
LOL, you can read everything I have every written and I doubt you’ll find any excuse for his miscreant behavior. Perhaps one. His droning of Suleimani. That was a great idea.
Earl, sometimes you have really nuanced takes that I appreciate and other times you seem to forget all context and nuance and seem to forget history...
> Certainly, one is grievance. Romney was called awful names, including by Democrat supporters, a Hitler and Nazi, just like every other GOP Presidential candidate in my lifetime, including Ronald Reagan.
Romney was called awful names but I definitely don't remember people calling him a Nazi or comparing him to Hitler. I do remember people referring to the lies his campaign told as similar to what Goebbels did, but I don't remember Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney being called Nazis. Reagan also may have been a decent President but he also did some terrible things (see war on drugs, and the aids epidemic). Everything you've just said about how candidates were called awful names is very similar to every Democrat being called a socialist or Communist right? Your entire point could have been made without the woe is me and my party because some Democrats in media said some things that I didn't like or were too ignorant of the poor choice of rhetoric they used. I feel like you are misrepresenting reality here at best or trying to gaslight at worst.
> Paul Ryan wanted to reorganize our welfare programs. He wanted to see which were duplicates. He wanted to study if the programs were achieving what Congress intended. He wanted to eliminate duplicate programs. For that, he was vilified as a man who tried to throw Granny off a cliff. Republicans (prior to this miscreant group in the current GOP), were accused of wanting to kill women and children if they ever discussed trimming the increase in Welfare programs.
Paul Ryan didn't give a damn about any of the programs we have to support people until he was on the Ways & Means committee and saw how these programs were literally helping people, he even discusses this at different times about how he didn't think certain government programs were necessary and he campaigned against them until he saw them firsthand.. This feels like a bad faith comment.
> My personal belief is that I can effectively argue that rather than ending poverty, much of what we did over the last 50 years has sustained poverty. I still firmly believe that giving a man a fish for his hunger is not as good as teaching a man to fish so he’ll eat every day. I believe in work and believe that able-bodied men and women should work for the help American taxpayers are giving them.
> Yes, of course, some people cannot work. Young mothers with even younger children need childcare; they also need training or education. Republicans had always believed in a hand-up over a handout.
I honestly would love to hear you talk about this, and your solutions to end poverty for people in a way that solves for people of every circumstance. Most states already have a work requirement for benefits or tie benefits into looking for active employment. The issue gets more complicated if you have dependents but aren't working or maybe have other issues as well preventing full time employment. The devil is in the details of course, and to say that Republicans have always believed in a hand up vs a hand out is not true over the last 25 - 30 years. Popular Republicans have wanted to gut or just get rid of programs all together. Democrat policies over the decades have data supporting how they reduce poverty, if you have other ideas please present them over just blind critiquing, that's easy stuff.
> Normal? Republicans had normal but if they didn’t meet the standards of Democrats the hyperbole and hyperbolic speech was ramped up. Then we get Conservative Talk Radio, which ramped up the rhetoric. Now, finally, we get Donald Trump.
Weird way to blame Democrats in a round about way? Last I checked Republicans still win elections (George Bush as President and Trump), so clearly flawed candidates and flawed Republicans can win in America, we pretty much have a divided government (Senate / House), to make it seem like Democrats were the only ones who engaged in hyperbolic speech and somehow their speech was worse is bad faith again. Are you forgetting them calling Obama not a real citizen, a muslim, etc? Like come on... Things were still calmer than then now mate.
> The result of Joe Biden’s election was a wholesale rejection of everything Trump, changing Title Nine rules to force colleges to allow biological males to compete against our daughters. Brought DEI to every government organization so they could tell white Americans they were privileged and didn’t deserve it, and got it at the expense of people of color. This caused more resentment.
You and I have had this argument before, but where in the changes to Title IX rules does it force colleges to allow biological males to compete against daughters? I have a daughter and she doesn't compete against any biological males. I guess I should be happy that you are no longer saying men when you repeat that talking point though.... Title IX bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in order to protect women. Your comments like this come off as extremely transphobic to be honest, and the rule changes were in response to GOP led states that wanted to ban trans people from existing, using restrooms or competing in sports. In fact many lawmakers who have pushed for athletic bans haven’t even been able to use examples in their own states, instead pointing to a handful of high-profile cases elsewhere in other states. Also have you ever attended a DEI meeting at all? It doesn't demonize white Americans or make them feel like they have privilege they don't deserve, a lot of these types of sessions or trainings talks about how most people in America have some general level of privilege, and what we can do to reduce our implicit bias. It's clear to me that you are either being willfully ignorant or again debating in bad faith.
> To add to the resentment in the country, Joe Biden decided to open the border and invite anyone who could make it to the border he would let him in. It caused a colossal dislocation, the result of which angered Americans and caused them to turn against immigration. Even to the point that a majority support deporting illegal immigrants.
> Most people know and accept that we in America do not want open borders, but there should be a better path to citizenship. Biden definitely messed up here, however you seemingly ignore that Republicans torpedoed what would have been the most consequential border bill in decades that also increased funding for Border Patrol as well. Now MAGA type Republicans have moved to also wanting to deport immigrants that are legally...
> Things do not happen in a vacuum. Everything has a cause and effect. I have said that if Harris loses, it will likely be due to Biden’s open border. It will have been caused by local DAs allowing hordes of shoplifters to break into stores, by idiotic ideas like giving sex change surgeries in prison for illegal immigrants. Progressive Democrat ideas scare the bejesus out of normal Americans.
Man you really thing about sex stuff a lot. Please look up how many sex change surgeries have happened to illegal immigrants and get back to me. It like never happens? Even basic cosmetic surgeries don't happen in America anymore. Most Democrats and Republicans don't support open borders or allowing people who commit nonviolent crimes to just get off. Thank goodness that a lot of super liberal ideas like the ones you are describing aren't happening in America!
> Noah, you have stated that the country is moving to the right. As I said, there is a cause and effect. Trump’s rise is that effect. It is useless to argue about who started it. Talk Radio, the Tea Party movement, I really do not care at this point. I am politically homeless, and the Party of Reagan is no longer. I don’t blame myself. I blame the norm-breaking crazy ass insanity of Progressive Democrats they hijacked the Democrat Party.
Nice way to absolve yourself of all the exaggerated falsehoods that you just spouted and to also ignore the Republican and Conservative party in America having any culpability. Just blame the handful of Progressive Democrats that as you can see with the Harris nomination don't run the party like they thought they did. I think you are mixing up actual governance of people in elected positions with the loud mouths online.
> I yearn for normal, I am begging for normal. I thought we had normal, but something broke normal in the GOP, and it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Until your Party acknowledges its part in it, there will not be a moving forward moment.
I agree with you. I want our government to function and to be more normal. If you have been paying any attention over the last couple of years, the "Dem Party" has pivoted on a lot of issues to see where they moved too far in certain directions. You can literally look at how most of the "Squad" members have lost seats, AOC has moderated, and basically writers like Noah and Josh Barrow constantly talk about what the Dems need to do better, and the Harris campaign is running a pretty centrist campaign. But the way your comment at the end still blames the Democrats is insane, no matter what political party I vote for or support, or what someone may call me, I'd never support Donald Trump or people like him. The Republican Party had a chance to pick Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Nikki Haley, etc and other people like that. To blame Democrats for that instead of the character of the voters is just poor form. Hyper partisanship in any way is bad, and maybe that is the fault of the 2 party system, I dunno but expecting Democrats to fix Republican party problems is BS.
I blame the long slow hate the enemy campaign of conservatives.
Trump was merely a seed of hate that landed in the hate fertilized soiled earth spread by conservatives since the mid 1980s.
Rush Limbaugh the Acolyte of Hate, was never moderated by conservatives. Along with the Religious Right, Falwell, NRA, Gingrich, THEY chose to make war on the Left. They gave up on cooperation, moderation, and win win. Conservatives went all in on We win always and you Lefty must always lose. They began this Unilateral scorched earth campaign under Reagan and Bush, through these agents.
I don't wanna hear conservatives blame us (me who left conservatives after they hated others) blame the left.
Really good points here. One point I think is severely underdiscussed is Democrats' "Not My President" reaction to Trump's win in 2016. That's inflammatory and anti-democratic rhetoric if we really boil it down, and it does not shock me at all that it would have further fueled the resentment you so eloquently describe here. And all the "Nazi" and "fascist" name-calling for years and years to the point that it only fueled resentment and didn't mean anything by the time Trump, who himself isn't even guaranteed to fit the bill, took the stage.
Tangentially, I really think Paul Ryan could/should have been the right's Pete Buttigeig if he hadn't drank the Trump kool-aid.
"Not My President" does not equal lets try to violently overturn an election. Also Paul Ryan could've been the right wing version of Pete B except he got ran out of the party like most halfway decent Republicans.
"Not My President" (Minority Opinion of Trump among Dems) != (does not equal) "Not The President" (Majority Opinion of Biden among Republicans)
What is also lost is "Not My President" is a minority opinion that existed mostly among the deranged on Twitter and Tumblr, that essentially zero federally elected officials held of Trump.
What you appear to be missing is that "Not The President" is a majority opinion of Biden that exists among most federally elected Republican Officials, along with most Republicans.
If you're going to try and equivocate, you need to take in the context of the situation, IMO.
I never argued they were equivalent, friend. I just said it’s underdiscussed. Of course I wouldn’t equate “Not My President” with January 6/the big lie/etc. That doesn’t change the fact that I don’t think it was a good look or good faith from people who very rightly would later be appalled by January 6. And while I agree that there wasn’t federal-level acknowledgement of “Not My President,” I feel just from personal memory like it was still more widespread than you detail here.
Important to recognize the distinctions — yes. Thank you. But that doesn’t make it right in isolation if you ask me.
You have an idiosyncratic interpretation of "Not My President." It just means that "My" president doe not call immigrant rapists, do not impose a Muslim Ban, doe not use intentional cruelty to dissuade people from entering illegally, dpes not reduce taxes on high income people and create large deficits, does nor reduce _legal_ immigration, does not impose tariffs to reduce the trade deficit, does not undermine the Ukraine government that even then was threatened fy Russia.
I mean I’m an idiosyncratic person, so fair enough, And none of what you’re saying is wrong per se. But I just feel like when that man’s entire movement hinges on making people feel disenfranchised, or rather tapping into feelings of disenfranchisement, delegitimizing that perso’’s constitutional victory doesn’t go very far toward encouraging any of those voters to change their minds
I will point to the fact that it probably was no more than 50,000 people out of a nation of 320 million that ever said or thought the words "not my president" of which 90% need really good therapy and probably 50% couldn't even vote (too young). An overestimation if anything - I would be surprised if that number wasn't 100 times smaller!
And there's a very big difference between "not my President" and "not the President. For one: I don't think the first statement, in the case of Trump, is even that egregious. Trump went out of his way to show that he was not willing to support non-Republicans whenever it suited him.
Of course there’s a big difference; I never said there wasn’t. But I do think it opened a bad door, fueled resentment, put things on the table that shouldn’t have been.
Ok James, listen to the most recent episode of “Honestly” for an explainer on how trumps lies differ from lies coming from the liberal elite institutions.
Just 2 minutes in and it makes my point perfectly.
Again, I do not support trump, but at least i make an effort to understand a phenomenon through an unbiased lens, not a partisan or tribal one
> Throughout the past 60 years, presidents from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush have been criticized and called Nazi by their opponents
> Chicago Mayer Richard Daley (a democrat) claimed that Richard Nixon (a republican) asking for an election recount was "Hitler type" propaganda (New York Times, Wherweins, Austin Daley Sees Plot in Vote Recount, Dec. 2, 1960).
> LBJ was also likened to Hitler because of his policy of merging big business with government and labor through his "Great Society" reforms. Representative William Miller claimed that this merger was comparable to Hitler's fascism, as the alliance between the government and business gave Hitler increased power (N.Y. Times, Finney, John, Miller Attacks Big Government, Oct 28, 1964).
We disagree,... and that is ok. However, accusing me of lying is different. I am describing why those in the GOP are mad. Decades of calling Republicans Nazi’s and racists. Ridiculing not our ideas but saying we will kill women and children with our budget concerns. It is bullshit and lies.
I'm actually far more worried if Trump wins. The Democratic Party has convinced a sizeable pool of their voters that a Trump victory will really bring fascism to America. This was a cynical election ploy (Biden might be so clueless he believes it, but most of them are just playing the namecalling game as they always have), but the Democrat rank-and-file activists actually believe it. And they will act on it.
My worst possible outcomes:
1) Trump ahead on election night but his lead evaporates and Harris wins by <50K votes in 2-3 states. This would be the worst outcome for social and institutional trust.
2) Harris loses convincingly on election night. Would make the left-wing violence of 2020 look tame. Might even take us into 1968 territory.
3) Harris wins by a landslide. Would promote long-term social stability (normalcy) again, but at the cost of truly bizarre social policies and dangerous international ones.
Trump has said again and again ways he wants to bring fascism to the USA. He did not accept the last election results and tried to commit a coup. Why do you ignore the words coming out of his mouth?
It might be kinda fun to think about what President Biden might do should Harris be elected. He'll have about 60 days to right some wrongs. For instance, yank Musk's security clearance and be sure that he reported every last contact with a foreigner as required by the rules and regs. If so, then open the investigations, etc. Get tough on Israel and maybe China.
This kind of "fun" is what fuels the crazy people on both sides and validates decisions to riot, commit acts of violence, etc. You are feeding the John Wick scenario (aka murder porn).
Nancy, you’re navigating the TDS warp stream—pause and take a step back. Embrace the bigger picture, and allow yourself to see beyond the immediate details. The middle is inviting you, a space where perspectives converge and clarity unfolds. Here, the core awaits, offering balance and insight. Step into it.
Using the power of government is also enforcing the law. Political opponents may be how you wish to discuss Trump or Musk, I see them as oligarchs who violated rule of law and need to be held accountable for their actions.
When you say "it might be kind of fun" to fantasize about a lame duck President using his office to hurt his political opposition, that doesn't sound like "enforcing the law".
Comments like that feed the narrative that Trump is a victim and the Democrats are out to get him by any means necessary, legal or not.
There is no need to bring back the 2010s.. Right wing wackiness never went away for a second during Biden's presidency. It will not go away after a trump defeat. Left wing wackiness was partially suppressed by the Democratic Party during the Biden Presidency, but if Trump loses, they may be emboldened to resurface with all their demands.
Extreme demands by the left go all the way back to the 1930s, and extreme demands by the right go back to Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. This has been a divided country for decades, and it will continue to be so into the foreseeable future.
I think Noah's optimism is one of his very best qualities and I generally share it. But this hope is delusional.
One thing about Noah's analysis is realistic—the easiest way for America to lose its hyper- focus on politics is to shift it to silly entertainments. I don't think that's really very helpful—what we need to shift to is intelligent discussion, in which our leaders so seldom engage.
The "let's not bring back the wacky 2010s" argument was also expressed as something like "elect Harris or the leftists are gonna bring wokeness back" at one point.
Yeah I'm worried you may have underestimated the importance of Trump in driving the wacky 2010s on the left. His election empowered the fringe left and his re-election may end up doing the same.
The Nature of Trumps 2024 coalition, which will contain more young black and brown people (overwhelmingly young men) and fewer college educated suburbanites (especially women) than his 2016 coalition, along with Harris’s courting of center right voters will push against a simple re-emergence of 2010s era “wokeness”.
If anything, I suspect the cultural impact of a second Trump term will be a more pronounced classism against the “deplorables”, which to be frank will be refreshing in its honesty in comparison to the sublimated classism of “wokeness”.
I think we will now see. I'm trying to push back on any return to "resistance" or wokeness on the left - here's hoping we can clean house and claim the center. It's easier now - lets see if the center holds when things get crazy as the first appointments and policies come in.
So far my prediction has been spot on in describing the comment section of the Bulwark, and the people who said “Kamala didn’t fail, America failed her.”
It’s not a winning political argument, but it IS the first step in getting college educated liberals to moderate. “The public are pigs, the pigs love slop, I need to promise the pigs slop and sneak medicine in it or the other guys will feed them slop with poison in it” is a way to get 2014 VOX readers to support moderation as a purely tactical measure.
The best part of the past four years is I could completely tune out politics regularly and not panic about it. Until it became clear Biden was behind Trump at the end of 2023, and into 2024, I honestly was not thinking about politics as much on a daily basis. If Trump returns to office it will be constant dread...again. I really do not want another four years like the Trump term.
Dread about what? I'm legitimately curious because I don't understand this attitude that I hear so frequently from liberals. I'm an independent and a reluctant Trump supporter, but I don't wake up every day in dread over Biden policies. And I won't do it under Harris if she wins.
Why would the occupant of the oval office cause you personal fear? What do you really think Donald Trump (with a 51-52 seat Senate and a 225 seat House majority) could actually do that would make you wake up in dread every day?
-He could declare martial law and use troops on American civilians, like he has promised and pushed to do multiple times
-He could make SCOTUS more conservative and they could take more rights away from us. I am gay, add another conservative to the court (or perhaps replace Roberts) and suddenly many things could go away
-He has promised to kick out illegal immigrants proactively, which would be both a huge spend AND cause inflation
-He could pull us out of NATO, or at least make being a member of NATO meaningless
-He could also undermine our elections further. I personally think he'll run for re-election. I don't care what the Constitution says: I don't think anyone will be able to stop him
-He could slap tariffs on a large amount of imports, which would be awful for trade AND be inflationary
-He has promised to undermine the independence of the Fed AND the justice department.
And his policies, bluntly, are absolutely awful. Raising tariffs, cutting taxes, and spending more on border enforcement and the military (as he has proposed) would massively expand the deficit and the debt. That would be inflationary, and make my life more difficult. Abandoning our allies would be a complete failure of geopolitics. More conservative judges (especially if they are more in the mold of Aileen Cannon) would be disastrous.
Sure, if Trump were just a normal politician I probably wouldn't worry about it. But he isn't normal, and pretending otherwise is simply ignoring what we know about the man after nearly a decade of this awful human being poisoning our soul.
Trump isn't going to declare martial law. COVID presented him the greatest opportunity ever to become a dictator (and in March of 2020, I was actually concerned he might). He made no attempt to do so.
SCOTUS ideology is a pendulum. It's been swinging Leftward for a 2 generations and may swing rightward. That's democracy. Unless you think the court should embrace liberalism by authoritarian means, I'm not sure what the alternative is. I do get this one though, especially in your case. I guess I would suggest you look at what happened after Dobbs. There are a lot of pro-lifers who were shocked at the pro-abortion ballot amendments in even very red states. I would expect a similar outcome if Obergefell were to be revoked -- different states would have different rules, but I'll bet very few would completely overturn gay marriage.
On immigration, the question is pretty basic: do you think we should have a border? Donald Trump thinks we should and those who cross it without permission should be kicked out. Based on their actions, Biden and Harris clearly do not believe this. I would love to see a "comprehensive immigration plan" but the Right has good reasons not to trust the Left on this issue anymore. The question is, do YOU think people who jump the US border should be kicked out or allowed to stay?
On trade, how will trade barriers will fill your life with dread? I mean, come on.
I'm afraid the DOJ impartiality ship sailed a few years ago when they started arresting pro-lifers and investigating parents who were too loud at school board meetings. Or when the Obama IRS started intentionally denying non-profit status to conservative Tea Party groups. That genie can't be put back in the bottle; the DOJ is now a political tool, whether you or I like it or not. (And I don't either.)
I think your criticism of his spending plans is completely legit, and I agree with you. Both candidates are terrible on inflation and our long-term debt trajectory, but he's a lot worse. But we're not going to become Venezuela or Zimbabwe in the next 4 or 8 years. Also, since those things require Congress, I don't think either candidate will be able to change much from a budgetary perspective. There will be some tweaking of the tax code under Trump and Harris will throw money at left-wing pet projects, but it will be minor in either case,
I respect your answers, and thanks. If Trump does win on Tuesday though, I hope you won't really be living in daily fear. No politician is worth that. Life is too short.
I am a gay man, and no SCOTUS isn't just a 'pendulum' and I have no faith in the people Trump has allied himself with. His Vice-President is opposed to gay marriage, as was his previous vice-president, as are many of his SCOTUS choices.
I think we should have a border: and so does Harris. They've literally done a ton to close the border, and pretending they haven't is absurd.
And YOU may not worry about trade, but I do! Most of the stuff I buy isn't made in the US! My companies buy a bunch of raw materials overseas! Trump completely overturning free trade would be very, very bad for the US and the world!
Nothing you said has made me feel any better. I get that you, a 'reluctant' Trump supporter (you do not seem reluctant at all) may have convinced yourself that Trump clearly can't cause any problems, but that's not true! It's just not true. "I hope you don't live in daily fear" Well thanks for hoping that dude, but it's not my fault that your preferred candidate is running and acting the way he is: instead of asking me to calm down, perhaps you should reconsider who you're voting for
Trade theory isn't about what's good for your business; it's about what's good for America overall. A nation is more than a consumer utility maximization function. If you're interested in a legitimate academic treatment on post-Ricardian trade theory, I recommend Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests by Gomory and Baumol from MIT Press. That was the book that finally let me leave my reflexive libertarian free-trade biases behind.
If the Democratic Party believes in border enforcement they're doing a great job of hiding it. (see data above) Waiting until 4 months before an election to issue a bunch of EOs that Biden could have issued anytime during the last 3 1/2 years is just political pandering.
And no, mercantilism is a crappy idea and I’m frankly disinterested in proving that to you. There is more than enough information to prove that tariffs are self defeating.
I think there is no event of the social media chaos situation as big as any of those things (not even the election of Donald Trump or the George Floyd protests) so there can’t be things as big as that that define it.
Other than the music, the 70s were pretty bad. Political corruption, organized crime, pollution, deteriorating inner cities, smoking, inflation, unemployment, etc. I hope we’re not going back to all of that.
Reread the piece on politicized pseudoscience linked above which took me back to this astute one on politically directed science or as Roger Pielke Jr. described it in a recent post, ‘tactical science’.
A thoughtful piece Noah, but I’m not there with you yet.
This is a fascinating time for anyone studying the decline of democracy.
Harris appears to have zero foundation- she will embrace anything that is in the flow of ziegiest- she supported open immigration / now she is for border security, she supported defund police / now she is advocate for strong police presence, she supported no prosecution of non violent crime - you guessed it.
Her positions on reproductive rights, a wealth tax, adding PD and DC as states, increasing the SCOTUS bench, eliminating the filibuster, giving money to entrepreneurs of color, etc is clear. Her positions on Isreal and Ukraine don’t readily come to mind.
I think Trump wins in significant fashion but not with my vote. If Harris pulls through it will not be with my vote.
I’m having a hard time with the calm part of your argument. But I do welcome it.
Thanks for writing this Noah. I agree 1000%! I think people have forgotten how *exhausting* those 4 years of hyperpolitization were, and how much better off we are without it. That comedian's "jokes" are a good reminder of that.
From my perspective the left has not backed off their extremist demands one bit. Among other things, they are now demanding that:
1. The government should be able to declare things "misinformation" and censor it
2. Civil rights laws that protect me from discrimination should be ignored. (And even when the supreme court rules against them, many of their allies in the universities just ignore them with impunity)
You define the problem as one of "unrest" and "craziness," and say that it is abating. And I also see it as a positive that there are no longer street battles between right and left. But that's just vibes. The exercise of governemnt power against my rights may not be as exciting, but I care about it 100x more than a riot. The left may not send a mob to the capitol, but they weaponize bureaucracy against their political opponents. If I have to choose between "a climate of bitterness, anger, and controversy in every online space" or the levers of power being used against me, I will choose the former every time.
All of the things you are complaining about that the "left" is doing is also being done by individuals in power on the "right".
> The left may not send a mob to the capitol, but they weaponize bureaucracy against their political opponents. If I have to choose between "a climate of bitterness, anger, and controversy in every online space" or the levers of power being used against me, I will choose the former every time.
It's a joke that we literally see the "MAGA folks" weaponizing bureaucracy to try and overturn election results, do mass deportations, take away the rights of women, etc. And you are mad because the government says that certain accounts usually run by bots or foreign agencies are using misinformation to sow discord? How has the government personally interfered with your freedom or speech? Additionally, you have people on the right openly making up lies about Puerto Ricans, Haitians and LGBTQ group members and wanting to actively discriminate against them and you say that civil rights laws that protect you from discrimination are being ignored? Please provide details on how you are harmed right now because civil rights laws are being ignored.
You sound like you used a lot of words to basically excuse wanting to vote for Trump or support people like him...
The violation of rights against the groups you clam are all people saying mean things about them. That's not a rights violation. You don't have a right not to be insulted. Mass deportations are dumb, but are specifically against people who don't have rights to be here.
Did you even read or watch what you sent over? Again, you keep blaming the left but all the things you said could apply to people on the right as well (Think Book Bans, mandatory bible and prayer in schools, kneeling for the flag etc.) Stop with the faux outrage and just admit you are okay with this stuff from a conservative perspective but not liberal.
Re Freedom of Speech: You are comparing apples and oranges on the pressure of private companies to censor, you agree to terms of service. Additionally, read the first amendment, and rulings regarding free speech, there is no such thing as absolutist speech. This was a once in a lifetime pandemic and over a million Americans died. Again those concerns were way overblown. Now you could say you believe in free speech absolutism, that still doesn't mean that private firms have to abide by your right to free speech. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities, such as businesses, organizations, and private schools. Private entities can regulate speech on their platforms and within their workplace. The First Amendment does allow the government to restrict speech in certain situations, such as when the speaker has a special relationship with the government, like being a government employee or a public school student. The government can also restrict speech through content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, or large signs, so when it comes to public safety, especially if those views are being amplified by bots or nefarious actors it is allowed to act. Now we can argue whether it can be abused and what protections we have against it. But to say it is personally impacting you negatively is bad faith and you know it.
Re Race Based hiring: Similar to the Rooney Rule in the NFL, looking at a diverse set of candidates and making that mandatory is not openly admitting to hiring based on race. The number 1 beneficiaries of affirmative action as it related to hiring was white women in America. You are arguing in bad faith... Race is a stupid concept anyway since we are all one human race. How do you hear "We must interview a diverse set of candidates" = "We must hire the most diverse candidate". You are literally pushing a narrative and engaging in a strawman.
I never said that saying mean things about people are a violation of rights, what I am saying is that wanting to push legislation to make certain citizens less equal than others is an issue. Mass deportations are dumb, I'm happy we agree on that. However Trump and Vance have said that those mass deportations aren't just going to be directed towards people that are here illegally. You know the biggest enemy is the one within... You also know that Puerto Ricans are citizens right?
You have sidestepped the fact that I did not bring up an example of companies censoring people of their own free will, which is their own 1A right. The issue is the government pressuring companies to censor on its behalf. That's government censorship and clearly a violation. Whether or not it is personally impacting me is completely irrelevant. Violating other citizens rights is no better than violating mine. And in the case of censorship, violating one person's rights violates everyone's because there is a speaker and a listener.
I am not ok with any of those things you claim that I am ok with. But I do have to point out that the "book bans" (no books were banned, only taken out of libraries) you speak of are not 1A violations because of the fact that, as you pointed out, 1A does not apply when "the speaker has a special relationship with the government, like being a government employee or a public school student." As for school prayer, I am, and always have been, an atheist, but I will happily get down on my knees and praise Jesus before I will accept dumbing down of schools in the name of "equality". And, unfortunately, that seems to be the choice I face.
As for the race in hiring issue, let's cut the crap. I know companies and universities hire/admit based on race, and you know it too. If you want to defend that, fine, we can respectfully disagree, but if you want to continue to pretend that it doesn't happen even in the face of glaring examples like this (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/) then I just don't think we have anything to talk about. I feel like I have to play word games whenever I disagree with a Democrat. At least when Republicans disagree with me they come right out and say "abortion should be illegal" or "we shouldn't support Ukraine" instead of being sneaky about it.
> You have sidestepped the fact that I did not bring up an example of companies censoring people of their own free will, which is their own 1A right. The issue is the government pressuring companies to censor on its behalf. That's government censorship and clearly a violation. Whether or not it is personally impacting me is completely irrelevant. Violating other citizens rights is no better than violating mine. And in the case of censorship, violating one person's rights violates everyone's because there is a speaker and a listener.
I literally didn't... This is what was in my previous reply
"The First Amendment does allow the government to restrict speech in certain situations, such as when the speaker has a special relationship with the government, like being a government employee or a public school student. The government can also restrict speech through content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, or large signs, so when it comes to public safety, especially if those views are being amplified by bots or nefarious actors it is allowed to act. Now we can argue whether it can be abused and what protections we have against it. But to say it is personally impacting you negatively is bad faith and you know it."
You either are being willfully obtuse or arguing in bad faith... Again...
> I am not ok with any of those things you claim that I am ok with. But I do have to point out that the "book bans" (no books were banned, only taken out of libraries) you speak of are not 1A violations because of the fact that, as you pointed out, 1A does not apply when "the speaker has a special relationship with the government, like being a government employee or a public school student." As for school prayer, I am, and always have been, an atheist, but I will happily get down on my knees and praise Jesus before I will accept dumbing down of schools in the name of "equality". And, unfortunately, that seems to be the choice I face.
I'm sorry I misstated or said you were okay with things you weren't okay with. And maybe we just aren't agreeing on semantics but if books are not allowed in certain places would that not qualify as a ban? If you will also get down on your knees and pray for Jesus before you accept the dumbing down of schools doesn't that mean you just are performative and have no actual principles? Wouldn't certain schools and states treating the bible as a history textbook and pushing religion on kids actually meet the criteria of dumbing down? I'm sorry you seem to have went off on a tangent and I'm not following the dumbing down of schools comment it wasn't really part of the original conversation... You can have equal treatment of kids in school without dumbing down standards in my opinion...
> As for the race in hiring issue, let's cut the crap. I know companies and universities hire/admit based on race, and you know it too. If you want to defend that, fine, we can respectfully disagree, but if you want to continue to pretend that it doesn't happen even in the face of glaring examples like this (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/) then I just don't think we have anything to talk about. I feel like I have to play word games whenever I disagree with a Democrat. At least when Republicans disagree with me they come right out and say "abortion should be illegal" or "we shouldn't support Ukraine" instead of being sneaky about it.
Again maybe we are arguing semantics, but you again are saying that places are hiring just on race, and that frankly isn't true. Making race or gender a consideration doesn't mean that overrides all other qualifications. You are choosing data from universities to see what their selections are for acceptance into Med School, but while it does show that black and hispanic students maybe scoring less on the MCAT or their GPA it doesn't say that they are just being admitted on race... This a bit of an inference but unless you have examples of them literally turning away kids that are more qualified to just hire on racial preference you are arguing in bad faith. The 4 schools included in this data are all in Michigan (University of Michigan, Michigan State, Wayne State and Oakland University) and Michigan prohibits racial discrimination or racial preferences during the admission process. Unless you can prove that they are turning away equally qualified kids from their Med Schools we can't really have a good faith debate. I don't support hiring just because of someone's ethnic group, and in regards to Dr's I think we all want to make sure we have the best Doctors. We also know that their is a shortage of Doctors in the country. I'm not sure if this data was cherry picked by AEI to support their general "Center Right Positions", but you can look at the demographics for University of Michigan's Med School here: (https://medschool.umich.edu/programs-admissions/md-program/md-program-our-community/u-m-medical-school-profiles-demographics) and the majority of kids admitted are still White...
I also love how you call me a Democrat just because we disagree, but I would never just call myself a Democrat, that just happens to be the party I vote for 80% of the time, but isn't my identity or impact how I decide to debate, or argue. I just believe words, nuance and general pragmatism matter and I'm very specific. You are accusing me of being sneaky, but I'm not sure about what exactly? I can totally admit that I am sure for some people they do hire on ethnicity depending on the situation, but in the 2 examples you have cited as glaring, as 1 company and 4 universities the data and general approach just don't align. Like I said before ". How do you hear "We must interview a diverse set of candidates" = "We must hire the most diverse candidate". You are literally pushing a narrative and engaging in a strawman." I don't agree with hiring just based on skin color or ethnicity. However if companies or schools want to consider the demographic makeup of their workers or school class after all things being equal they meet the minimum requirements I don't mind. You clearly do, that is fine, we can agree to disagree.
Tim Walz having an opinion about misinformation as it relates to speech is not the same as making policy decisions. He isn't on the Supreme Court, nor has he drafted legislation to limit speech. That said disinformation and misinformation can be a valid national security issue depending on if it is being weaponized or not.
You are arguing in bad faith, and using a small sound bite when talking about a nuanced issue, is not the same as ignoring civil rights law, this is the 1A which still doesn't give you as a person unlimited free speech.... On another note Tim Walz is hardly "Left"... Only in America... If you really cared about 1A then you should be sounding the alarm over how Trump has threatened to take away the broadcasting licenses of ABC, CBS, MNBC and lock up people who criticize him. But you won't because it doesn't fit your narrative and strawman arguments
How do you protect people’s civil rights *without* considering their gender and race? (Gender and race *will* affect things, regardless of what the organization says, so if the organization doesn’t consider gender and race, then it can’t do anything to intervene if the hiring team has somehow, either intentionally or unintentionally, engaged in badly biased processes.)
We already had this EXACT SAME conversation when Biden got elected. Did he calm it down? Did he govern as the 50 state moderate he pretended to be? My work is more awful than ever. My neighborhood is more filthy than ever.
She is going to do what her donors want, and that's to keep the revolution going. And when the backlash comes it will be even worse. The only reason Trump is doing so bad is because he is an awful person. Wehn, not if, we get a populist who can rile up the crowds and isn't credibly accused of rape, shit is really going to hit the fan.
Agreed. We elected a nice old man with a lifetime of political experience who promised a return to normalcy.
What we got was an open border, an emboldened Russia, a military recruiting crisis, DOE using Title 9 to force boys into girls' locker rooms, near 10% inflation for over a year, DOJ investigating parents showing up at school board meetings, rampant unpunished theft and assault, and a concerted effort to use the court system to imprison the leading opposition candidate.
Yeah. Totally normal. People feel like they were sold a bridge in 2020. Some of those people will vote for Trump. And the Democrats have only themselves to blame for it.
Yes. Of course he has. One of the single best things about Biden is that you could wake up each morning and forget who was president. Sure, he's a partisan Democrat, but he did not indulge in the same kind of constant baiting as Trump.
For example, Bloomberg reports that his investment in green technology has gone to GOP districts by a factor of 4 to 1.
If your work sucks or neighborhood is terrible, that's on y'all. My neighborhood really has reset to a level of congeniality. My neighbors, no lie, have a front lawn covered in both Trump and Harris signs, as the spouses have an open political fight, but it's more cute than angry. Like, they keep buying bigger signs to spite the other. It's adorable.
> We already had this EXACT SAME conversation when Biden got elected. Did he calm it down? Did he govern as the 50 state moderate he pretended to be? My work is more awful than ever. My neighborhood is more filthy than ever.
Really? Crime is down, he has never denied or slowed aid to any state, he has even pushed major infrastructure in places that didn't have it before. If your neighborhood is more filthy than ever you should blame yourself and your neighbors not the President. Also its hard for anyone to know what you do for work, but if it is more awful than ever, maybe find a new job?
Crime is down, according to whom? The FBI that just just flipped and then doubled their numbers for 2022? why should I trust their numbers for 2023 when my own neighborhood is seeing more crime, not less. The simple fact is that the National Crime Victimization Survey numbers show crime is still high, what's more, their numbers for 2022 and the NEW FBI numbers for 2022 are now in line. Given the recent FBI revisions, if there is a divergence between the two one source is clearly more credible than the other.
But this requires not being a libtard. And this is the whole thing, right here. I complain about quality of life, and you throw gamed statistics at me like a castrated eunuch with a spreadsheet where your dick used to be. You fucking suck and your argument is dumb. If soyjacks like you are what Harris brings it's not going to calm down shit. I'm not voting for anyone associated with you, and a lot of people agree because you are bad at this.
> Crime is down, according to whom? The FBI that just just flipped and then doubled their numbers for 2022? why should I trust their numbers for 2023 when my own neighborhood is seeing more crime, not less. The simple fact is that the National Crime Victimization Survey numbers show crime is still high, what's more, their numbers for 2022 and the NEW FBI numbers for 2022 are now in line. Given the recent FBI revisions, if there is a divergence between the two one source is clearly more credible than the other.
Yes according to both the FBI and the National Crime Victimization Survey show that even with the most recent revisions crime is still trending down... The rate of violent victimization excluding simple assault for males decreased from 9.5 per 1,000 persons in 2022 to 6.9 per 1,000 in 2023. A smaller percentage of robbery victimizations that occurred in 2023 (42%) than in 2022 (64%) were reported to police. That is literally from the National Crime Victimization Survey that you are referencing. Again this is national though, so if you are seeing crime go up in your neighborhood that is an issue and that should be addressed...
> But this requires not being a libtard. And this is the whole thing, right here. I complain about quality of life, and you throw gamed statistics at me like a castrated eunuch with a spreadsheet where your dick used to be. You fucking suck and your argument is dumb. If soyjacks like you are what Harris brings it's not going to calm down shit. I'm not voting for anyone associated with you, and a lot of people agree because you are bad at this.
Just wow mate, all of the personal attacks are coming out I see and name calling. You know what they say, when you can't attack the argument attack the person I guess. First of all, you have every right to complain about quality of life, however the idea that a single President is going to personally make your economic life, or quality of life in your neighborhood better all other things remaining the same is just massive hopium and naivety...
Also I have never been arrested, participated in crimes or have done anything but tried to be an active and positive member of my community, so for you to say that you aren't going to vote for anyone associated with me that doesn't even make sense, I'm not on the ballot nor do I associate or personally know any of the candidates... I'm bad at what exactly? Agreeing with you or understanding the difference between trends at a national level vs at your town level? There is a huge difference between macro and micro. Good luck with your random outbursts of aggression, we are all fellow citizens. Not every disagreement needs to end in a childish insult just because your ego got hurt.
> When, not if, we get a populist who can rile up the crowds and isn't credibly accused of rape
That will never happen because of how rape accusations are used. Trump was never credibly accused either - the accusers couldn't really have been less credible, doing things like reporting it decades after it supposedly happened, forgetting the year in which it happened, contradicting themselves and so on. The left will always think every populist or right winger is a rapist because they automatically accept any such claim at face value no matter how unlikely or obviously false, because there's no punishment for making such claims, and because there are plenty of left wing women willing to make them for political benefit.
That's why none of the allegations or even convictions of Trump moved the needle at all. Trump's supporters don't believe any of the claims were credible, based on the substance of the proceedings. His enemies automatically accepted that they were. That won't change.
> have acted to exclude the Palestine protesters and to tamp down on leftism in general.
Looks like leftist agitation has become unpopular with certain members of the donor classes.
It’s obviously, by the way, less radical to oppose Israel’s actions after a whole year than to want to defund the police or decolonise Shakespeare, or argue for totally open borders. It’s a centrist dad position in most of the world.
Opposing Israel’s actions over the past year is common. But occupying campuses demanding that the university divest its investment in Boeing is like throwing soup on paintings - it’s more about drawing attention to yourself than about asking anyone to do anything to help the situation you are ostensibly talking about.
Agree with the general gist of the article. I fear, though, if Trump, a convicted criminal, is returned to power—
—Yes, general unrest will probably exceed that of 2020. I hearken back to several things here:
One, Trump has always seen Tiananmen Square as a praiseworthy thing. Perhaps more pertinently, he’s a convicted criminal.
He’ll want to strike fear into everyone early, to show his “authority” and how big and strong he is.
He’ll probably want protests put down on day one, so no Women’s March or anything like it happens. And he’ll want it done with as much open violence and “strength” as possible.
Trump craves this. We all underestimate how much he craves it. To him, it’s the same thing as simple “revenge against enemies”. The man can’t help himself. We all underestimate how likely his first few days are to be marked with this, if nothing else to push his likely purge of the federal government (run by Elon Musk, also with certain levels of low-key violence) out of the headlines.
I agree, though, he’s on track to win, and decisively. The polls either show him on track to win a slight plurality of the popular vote, or they’re herding.
For the sake of our collective sanity, we should hope he doesn’t. The 2010’s and their aftermath were bad enough. We should not follow them with worse.
I share your concern. I think the "secret" Trump has with Speaker Johnson is to declare a bogus state of emergency on his first day in office, and use his enhanced powers to do things that would otherwise be unconstitutional, like shutting down media outlets, jailing his opponents, and in general turning the United States into an outpost of Putin's Russia.
While neither a Trump nor Harris supporter, I have a few observations as a long-time Reagan Republican.
Certainly, one is grievance. Romney was called awful names, including by Democrat supporters, a Hitler and Nazi, just like every other GOP Presidential candidate in my lifetime, including Ronald Reagan.
Paul Ryan wanted to reorganize our welfare programs. He wanted to see which were duplicates. He wanted to study if the programs were achieving what Congress intended. He wanted to eliminate duplicate programs. For that, he was vilified as a man who tried to throw Granny off a cliff. Republicans (prior to this miscreant group in the current GOP), were accused of wanting to kill women and children if they ever discussed trimming the increase in Welfare programs.
My personal belief is that I can effectively argue that rather than ending poverty, much of what we did over the last 50 years has sustained poverty. I still firmly believe that giving a man a fish for his hunger is not as good as teaching a man to fish so he’ll eat every day. I believe in work and believe that able-bodied men and women should work for the help American taxpayers are giving them.
Yes, of course, some people cannot work. Young mothers with even younger children need childcare; they also need training or education. Republicans had always believed in a hand-up over a handout.
And yet, someone who is clearly a decent man was vilified by Democrats. John McCain and Mitt Romney were called awful names. Let me ask you how you feel about Donald Trump compared to those two.
Normal? Republicans had normal but if they didn’t meet the standards of Democrats the hyperbole and hyperbolic speech was ramped up. Then we get Conservative Talk Radio, which ramped up the rhetoric. Now, finally, we get Donald Trump.
A vile sociopath with misogynist tendencies who bought a beauty pageant so he could walk through the dressing, hoping to catch a glimpse of whatever sexual perversion he was interested in.
The result of Joe Biden’s election was a wholesale rejection of everything Trump, changing Title Nine rules to force colleges to allow biological males to compete against our daughters. Brought DEI to every government organization so they could tell white Americans they were privileged and didn’t deserve it, and got it at the expense of people of color. This caused more resentment.
To add to the resentment in the country, Joe Biden decided to open the border and invite anyone who could make it to the border he would let him in. It caused a colossal dislocation, the result of which angered Americans and caused them to turn against immigration. Even to the point that a majority support deporting illegal immigrants.
Things do not happen in a vacuum. Everything has a cause and effect. I have said that if Harris loses, it will likely be due to Biden’s open border. It will have been caused by local DAs allowing hordes of shoplifters to break into stores, by idiotic ideas like giving sex change surgeries in prison for illegal immigrants. Progressive Democrat ideas scare the bejesus out of normal Americans.
Noah, you have stated that the country is moving to the right. As I said, there is a cause and effect. Trump’s rise is that effect. It is useless to argue about who started it. Talk Radio, the Tea Party movement, I really do not care at this point. I am politically homeless, and the Party of Reagan is no longer. I don’t blame myself. I blame the norm-breaking crazy ass insanity of Progressive Democrats they hijacked the Democrat Party.
I yearn for normal, I am begging for normal. I thought we had normal, but something broke normal in the GOP, and it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Until your Party acknowledges its part in it, there will not be a moving forward moment.
I share your disgust at the treatment of Romney in 2012.
But I think the sad truth is that that era, for all its partisan mudslinging -- and let's not forget the birthers and the other wackos on the right -- was far calmer than now!
The seeds of the unrest of the late 2010s were certainly sown by the hyperpartisanship of earlier years. But in 2012, I could still choose to ignore the stupidity of national politics and just live a normal individual life. By 2017 that had become impossible.
I know we'll always have *some* degree of political hyperventilation, lies, and idiocy -- on both sides. But having a calm nation means having the freedom to tune all that stuff out if I choose to. Under Trump, I have less of that freedom. Biden has begun to restore that freedom a bit, and Harris would continue that restoration, I think.
I think you're overfitting on US-specific history when what drives these conflicts is inherent to human nature. Nothing will change if Trump loses or wins, because these trends aren't driven by Trump to begin with and never were.
When you said the 1970s were quiet, for example, I had a hollow laugh. My parents came of age in 1970s Britain which saw relentless chaos followed by near total economic collapse thanks to its hard left government policies (e.g. full employment regardless of inflation). The election of Thatcher turned it around, and yet the British left not only loathed Thatcher with the intensity of a thousand suns at the time, it still loathes Thatcher with the same intensity to this very day! Thatcher was an articulate chemist but leftists who weren't even born when Thatcher was in power danced and sang "ding dong the witch is dead" the day she finally passed away.
There's nothing unique about Trump. Nothing. He doesn't even talk differently to other politicians, even though it may feel like that. Look at the rhetoric Biden, Harris or Clinton deploy against the right: it's the language of hate. Look at the rhetoric European left wing leaders deploy against their local right: it's the same language of fear and hate, no different to that used by their comrades in America. Trump is absent, but the attitude and drama isn't.
Are you speaking to Noah or me. Because if I said the e70 were calm, they were anything but.
He described the late 70s and 80s as "tranquil", which is a perfectly fine thing to write as this is a US blog that blogs about American things. I'm not claiming Noah's wrong about that, only that it's a very US specific take when wokeness and left/right turmoil are universal things. In Europe the 70s was an absolute basket case time, and things only really got tranquil in the 90s.
<Certainly, one is grievance. Romney was called awful names, including by Democrat supporters, a Hitler and Nazi, just like every other GOP Presidential candidate in my lifetime, including Ronald Reagan.>
As I seem to recall, the Republicans returned the favor by accusing every Democratic politician after Bill Clinton to be a closeted radical. Let's not forget the whole scandal that erupted over Obama's affiliation with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or the hysteria surrounding Saul Alinsky, or (perhaps most outrageous) the widely-believed accusation (made by Trump, of all people) that "Barack the Magic Negro" Obama was a radical Muslim foreigner who scammed and race-carded his way into the White House. Grievances and name-calling cut both ways.
<Paul Ryan wanted to reorganize our welfare programs. He wanted to see which were duplicates. He wanted to study if the programs were achieving what Congress intended. He wanted to eliminate duplicate programs. For that, he was vilified as a man who tried to throw Granny off a cliff. Republicans (prior to this miscreant group in the current GOP), were accused of wanting to kill women and children if they ever discussed trimming the increase in Welfare programs.>
As I recall, the Ryan fiscal program called for extensive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Medicare would've been turned into a voucher whose value would only increase at the rate of inflation (not healthcare sectoral inflation, mind you), offloading an increasing % of senior healthcare spending onto retirees. The whole "throw Granny off a cliff" narrative was itself a reaction to the right-wing hysteria of the Bush years, as well as the infamous (and malicious) accusation that Obamacare would result in "death panels" that would cart off senior citizens to the morgue if their treatment got too expensive. Again, grievance and hysterical exaggeration cut both ways.
<My personal belief is that I can effectively argue that rather than ending poverty, much of what we did over the last 50 years has sustained poverty. I still firmly believe that giving a man a fish for his hunger is not as good as teaching a man to fish so he’ll eat every day. I believe in work and believe that able-bodied men and women should work for the help American taxpayers are giving them.>
Do you have any proof on this? As far as I'm concerned, poverty in the US has fallen dramatically over the past 40-odd years (at least using alternative metrics that account for government benefits and updated info on poor household income). There are noteworthy failures in welfare spending (public housing and cash welfare come to mind), but much of that is attributable to benefit cliffs that emerge when you use means-testing and "targeted" programs rather than broad universal ones.
<And yet, someone who is clearly a decent man was vilified by Democrats. John McCain and Mitt Romney were called awful names. Let me ask you how you feel about Donald Trump compared to those two.>
The latter, as I recall, was mocked as a "Massachusetts liberal" by people running against him in the 2012 primary debates (debates which, mind you, included such noteworthy tidbits as candidates talking about putting crocodiles in the Rio Grande to deter illegal immigration).
Both Democrats and Republicans should quit acting like the political crisis of Trumpism was caused by polarization and incivility towards one another. Polarization and incivility are symptoms of a broader malaise in American society, one that has both economic and cultural roots. You want to end Trumpism? Deal with those root problems, or at least find a way of papering them over.
Yes it is amazing, you call people names and they then call you names....Thank you for proving my point.
Don't act like the Republicans were the innocent oppressed victim in all this. If we really wanted to get accurate, I could easily argue that it all started when John Birch conservatives accused Dwight D. Eisenhower of being a closeted communist. Or Thomas Jefferson accusing Alexander Hamilton of betraying the republican ideals of a Revolution. Y'all have such a victim mentality...
"Republicans have a victim mentality"
This is really hilarious coming from the Left, an ideology that is literally organized around sacred victim classes today.
Smart liberalism is possible. Smart progressivism is possible (eg Noah). But smart identarianism? That's an oxymoron. Even Noah and Matt Yglegias recognize that the Left's embrace of identity politics (the politics of victimhood) has been a disaster.
<This is really hilarious coming from the Left, an ideology that is literally organized around sacred victim classes today.>
It may surprise you to realize this, but there's no single monolithic ideology that dominates either the "Left" or the "Right"; both are just a constellation of social and ideological groupings that often conflict with one another but are united in their opposition to the other side. The Left doesn't have a monopoly on victimhood fixation; I remember during the Obama years how conservatives wailed and gnashed about how America was going to hell in a handbasket all eight years: Obama Derangement Syndrome is just a diet version of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Of course they're not homogenous. But there is an overriding ideology of each side. When I was growing up it was "government good" and "government evil". Bill Clinton kind of ended that one with his "era of big government is over" line. Today, it's fair to say one side embraces the group oppressor/oppressed dynamic of intersectional postmodernism (and the sacred victimology that creates) and the other rejects it. In that sense, the Left has fully embraced postliberalism while the right is still struggling to do so.
Is that a flattening of the narrative and a cramming of divergent groups into a box? Sure. But is that overall characterization actually wrong?
(Note, I see identarianism rising on the right as well, which worries me greatly, since that kind of ethnic and racial and sexual tribalism is death for a diverse, pluralistic society like ours,)
Yes, each side has been responsible for increasingly extremist rhetoric.
I voted for Romney, and yea: I don't like how many Democrats decry every Republican as a Nazi and a Fascist when it suits their needs. I am sure Jonah Goldberg has the receipts.
But come on dude: I do not buy for one iota that the rise of Donald Trump is directly related to the name calling at Mitt Romney in 2012. That's just silliness, especially when we know Donald Trump was active in 2012: he was the dude spearheading the birther conspiracy against Barack Obama! It seems to me, and again: I voted for Mitt Romney, that the vitriol we saw in 2012 was less, and the vitriol against Romney was less, than the attacks on Obama (and then on Hillary Clinton).
Furthermore, Obama DID give Paul Ryan and other Republicans an opportunity to come together and make a grand bargain. We can debate who's at fault, both to a degree, but Obama did try to negotiate a fiscal grand bargain in 2012.
So let's be honest about what party is doing the ratcheting. Name calling from Democrats in 2012 is simply not equivalent to the birther conspiracies against Obama (and I ALSO recall plenty of emails from Republicans calling Obama a devout Muslim communist when I was younger so its not like Republicans were not also responsible for name calling in 2012 and before). But there's a huge difference between what has happened since. When Hillary lost: she conceded. When it came time to certify the votes: Joe Biden shut down his own party and told them it's over. Barack Obama invited Trump to the White House.
Donald Trump and the Republicans did none of those things. Mitch McConnell cowardly refused to comment on the election until the Electoral College voted. Trump physically and rhetorically tried to steal the election, and when it came time to hold Trump accountable: the Republicans refused to do anything to stop Trump. They then nominated him AGAIN for President in 2024.
Sure, Democrats should own up to their own rhetorical problems (I don't think calling Trump a Fascist is helpful), but they are not the equivalent to Republican ones.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-tells-african-american-audience-gop-ticket-would-put-them-back-in-chains/
That dumb dumb was the VP.
Took 30 seconds you lazy millennial.
Man, what an epic waste of an afternoon bro.
So when Donald Trump says outrageous things they're evidence he's a dangerous fascist and a low-class individual.
When Joe Biden does it, he's just drawing a metaphorical comparison that you Trump-voting plebes just can't understand.
Got it.
Isn’t the argument that “well yeah this is bad but Trump is worse”, isn’t that just a whataboutism? isn’t that a cop out?
This is why Trump is going to win.
Nobody wants to take responsibility for the bullshit in their own backyard and as a result, you lose credibility it’s a losing strategy.
See Van Jones’ recent comments.
The first team to owning their own bullshit without whataboutist bullshit cowardly language wins
No it is the name calling for decades. They were not kind to anyone in my lifetime. They described them as horrid people who will kill women and children. I am and only telling you why Trump has so many followers. Cause and effect my friend.
LOL, you can read everything I have every written and I doubt you’ll find any excuse for his miscreant behavior. Perhaps one. His droning of Suleimani. That was a great idea.
I’m merely saying Goldberg claims to have them
Jonah Goldberg is a famous writer. He started the Dispatch and wrote Liberal Fascism. You can tell him that but he’ll laugh
Earl, sometimes you have really nuanced takes that I appreciate and other times you seem to forget all context and nuance and seem to forget history...
> Certainly, one is grievance. Romney was called awful names, including by Democrat supporters, a Hitler and Nazi, just like every other GOP Presidential candidate in my lifetime, including Ronald Reagan.
Romney was called awful names but I definitely don't remember people calling him a Nazi or comparing him to Hitler. I do remember people referring to the lies his campaign told as similar to what Goebbels did, but I don't remember Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney being called Nazis. Reagan also may have been a decent President but he also did some terrible things (see war on drugs, and the aids epidemic). Everything you've just said about how candidates were called awful names is very similar to every Democrat being called a socialist or Communist right? Your entire point could have been made without the woe is me and my party because some Democrats in media said some things that I didn't like or were too ignorant of the poor choice of rhetoric they used. I feel like you are misrepresenting reality here at best or trying to gaslight at worst.
> Paul Ryan wanted to reorganize our welfare programs. He wanted to see which were duplicates. He wanted to study if the programs were achieving what Congress intended. He wanted to eliminate duplicate programs. For that, he was vilified as a man who tried to throw Granny off a cliff. Republicans (prior to this miscreant group in the current GOP), were accused of wanting to kill women and children if they ever discussed trimming the increase in Welfare programs.
Paul Ryan didn't give a damn about any of the programs we have to support people until he was on the Ways & Means committee and saw how these programs were literally helping people, he even discusses this at different times about how he didn't think certain government programs were necessary and he campaigned against them until he saw them firsthand.. This feels like a bad faith comment.
> My personal belief is that I can effectively argue that rather than ending poverty, much of what we did over the last 50 years has sustained poverty. I still firmly believe that giving a man a fish for his hunger is not as good as teaching a man to fish so he’ll eat every day. I believe in work and believe that able-bodied men and women should work for the help American taxpayers are giving them.
> Yes, of course, some people cannot work. Young mothers with even younger children need childcare; they also need training or education. Republicans had always believed in a hand-up over a handout.
I honestly would love to hear you talk about this, and your solutions to end poverty for people in a way that solves for people of every circumstance. Most states already have a work requirement for benefits or tie benefits into looking for active employment. The issue gets more complicated if you have dependents but aren't working or maybe have other issues as well preventing full time employment. The devil is in the details of course, and to say that Republicans have always believed in a hand up vs a hand out is not true over the last 25 - 30 years. Popular Republicans have wanted to gut or just get rid of programs all together. Democrat policies over the decades have data supporting how they reduce poverty, if you have other ideas please present them over just blind critiquing, that's easy stuff.
> Normal? Republicans had normal but if they didn’t meet the standards of Democrats the hyperbole and hyperbolic speech was ramped up. Then we get Conservative Talk Radio, which ramped up the rhetoric. Now, finally, we get Donald Trump.
Weird way to blame Democrats in a round about way? Last I checked Republicans still win elections (George Bush as President and Trump), so clearly flawed candidates and flawed Republicans can win in America, we pretty much have a divided government (Senate / House), to make it seem like Democrats were the only ones who engaged in hyperbolic speech and somehow their speech was worse is bad faith again. Are you forgetting them calling Obama not a real citizen, a muslim, etc? Like come on... Things were still calmer than then now mate.
> The result of Joe Biden’s election was a wholesale rejection of everything Trump, changing Title Nine rules to force colleges to allow biological males to compete against our daughters. Brought DEI to every government organization so they could tell white Americans they were privileged and didn’t deserve it, and got it at the expense of people of color. This caused more resentment.
You and I have had this argument before, but where in the changes to Title IX rules does it force colleges to allow biological males to compete against daughters? I have a daughter and she doesn't compete against any biological males. I guess I should be happy that you are no longer saying men when you repeat that talking point though.... Title IX bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in order to protect women. Your comments like this come off as extremely transphobic to be honest, and the rule changes were in response to GOP led states that wanted to ban trans people from existing, using restrooms or competing in sports. In fact many lawmakers who have pushed for athletic bans haven’t even been able to use examples in their own states, instead pointing to a handful of high-profile cases elsewhere in other states. Also have you ever attended a DEI meeting at all? It doesn't demonize white Americans or make them feel like they have privilege they don't deserve, a lot of these types of sessions or trainings talks about how most people in America have some general level of privilege, and what we can do to reduce our implicit bias. It's clear to me that you are either being willfully ignorant or again debating in bad faith.
> To add to the resentment in the country, Joe Biden decided to open the border and invite anyone who could make it to the border he would let him in. It caused a colossal dislocation, the result of which angered Americans and caused them to turn against immigration. Even to the point that a majority support deporting illegal immigrants.
> Most people know and accept that we in America do not want open borders, but there should be a better path to citizenship. Biden definitely messed up here, however you seemingly ignore that Republicans torpedoed what would have been the most consequential border bill in decades that also increased funding for Border Patrol as well. Now MAGA type Republicans have moved to also wanting to deport immigrants that are legally...
> Things do not happen in a vacuum. Everything has a cause and effect. I have said that if Harris loses, it will likely be due to Biden’s open border. It will have been caused by local DAs allowing hordes of shoplifters to break into stores, by idiotic ideas like giving sex change surgeries in prison for illegal immigrants. Progressive Democrat ideas scare the bejesus out of normal Americans.
Man you really thing about sex stuff a lot. Please look up how many sex change surgeries have happened to illegal immigrants and get back to me. It like never happens? Even basic cosmetic surgeries don't happen in America anymore. Most Democrats and Republicans don't support open borders or allowing people who commit nonviolent crimes to just get off. Thank goodness that a lot of super liberal ideas like the ones you are describing aren't happening in America!
> Noah, you have stated that the country is moving to the right. As I said, there is a cause and effect. Trump’s rise is that effect. It is useless to argue about who started it. Talk Radio, the Tea Party movement, I really do not care at this point. I am politically homeless, and the Party of Reagan is no longer. I don’t blame myself. I blame the norm-breaking crazy ass insanity of Progressive Democrats they hijacked the Democrat Party.
Nice way to absolve yourself of all the exaggerated falsehoods that you just spouted and to also ignore the Republican and Conservative party in America having any culpability. Just blame the handful of Progressive Democrats that as you can see with the Harris nomination don't run the party like they thought they did. I think you are mixing up actual governance of people in elected positions with the loud mouths online.
> I yearn for normal, I am begging for normal. I thought we had normal, but something broke normal in the GOP, and it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Until your Party acknowledges its part in it, there will not be a moving forward moment.
I agree with you. I want our government to function and to be more normal. If you have been paying any attention over the last couple of years, the "Dem Party" has pivoted on a lot of issues to see where they moved too far in certain directions. You can literally look at how most of the "Squad" members have lost seats, AOC has moderated, and basically writers like Noah and Josh Barrow constantly talk about what the Dems need to do better, and the Harris campaign is running a pretty centrist campaign. But the way your comment at the end still blames the Democrats is insane, no matter what political party I vote for or support, or what someone may call me, I'd never support Donald Trump or people like him. The Republican Party had a chance to pick Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Nikki Haley, etc and other people like that. To blame Democrats for that instead of the character of the voters is just poor form. Hyper partisanship in any way is bad, and maybe that is the fault of the 2 party system, I dunno but expecting Democrats to fix Republican party problems is BS.
I blame the long slow hate the enemy campaign of conservatives.
Trump was merely a seed of hate that landed in the hate fertilized soiled earth spread by conservatives since the mid 1980s.
Rush Limbaugh the Acolyte of Hate, was never moderated by conservatives. Along with the Religious Right, Falwell, NRA, Gingrich, THEY chose to make war on the Left. They gave up on cooperation, moderation, and win win. Conservatives went all in on We win always and you Lefty must always lose. They began this Unilateral scorched earth campaign under Reagan and Bush, through these agents.
I don't wanna hear conservatives blame us (me who left conservatives after they hated others) blame the left.
Look in the mirror conservatives.
Really good points here. One point I think is severely underdiscussed is Democrats' "Not My President" reaction to Trump's win in 2016. That's inflammatory and anti-democratic rhetoric if we really boil it down, and it does not shock me at all that it would have further fueled the resentment you so eloquently describe here. And all the "Nazi" and "fascist" name-calling for years and years to the point that it only fueled resentment and didn't mean anything by the time Trump, who himself isn't even guaranteed to fit the bill, took the stage.
Tangentially, I really think Paul Ryan could/should have been the right's Pete Buttigeig if he hadn't drank the Trump kool-aid.
"Not My President" does not equal lets try to violently overturn an election. Also Paul Ryan could've been the right wing version of Pete B except he got ran out of the party like most halfway decent Republicans.
Correct, and I don’t believe I ever equated them.
"Not My President" (Minority Opinion of Trump among Dems) != (does not equal) "Not The President" (Majority Opinion of Biden among Republicans)
What is also lost is "Not My President" is a minority opinion that existed mostly among the deranged on Twitter and Tumblr, that essentially zero federally elected officials held of Trump.
What you appear to be missing is that "Not The President" is a majority opinion of Biden that exists among most federally elected Republican Officials, along with most Republicans.
If you're going to try and equivocate, you need to take in the context of the situation, IMO.
I never argued they were equivalent, friend. I just said it’s underdiscussed. Of course I wouldn’t equate “Not My President” with January 6/the big lie/etc. That doesn’t change the fact that I don’t think it was a good look or good faith from people who very rightly would later be appalled by January 6. And while I agree that there wasn’t federal-level acknowledgement of “Not My President,” I feel just from personal memory like it was still more widespread than you detail here.
Important to recognize the distinctions — yes. Thank you. But that doesn’t make it right in isolation if you ask me.
You have an idiosyncratic interpretation of "Not My President." It just means that "My" president doe not call immigrant rapists, do not impose a Muslim Ban, doe not use intentional cruelty to dissuade people from entering illegally, dpes not reduce taxes on high income people and create large deficits, does nor reduce _legal_ immigration, does not impose tariffs to reduce the trade deficit, does not undermine the Ukraine government that even then was threatened fy Russia.
I mean I’m an idiosyncratic person, so fair enough, And none of what you’re saying is wrong per se. But I just feel like when that man’s entire movement hinges on making people feel disenfranchised, or rather tapping into feelings of disenfranchisement, delegitimizing that perso’’s constitutional victory doesn’t go very far toward encouraging any of those voters to change their minds
I will point to the fact that it probably was no more than 50,000 people out of a nation of 320 million that ever said or thought the words "not my president" of which 90% need really good therapy and probably 50% couldn't even vote (too young). An overestimation if anything - I would be surprised if that number wasn't 100 times smaller!
And there's a very big difference between "not my President" and "not the President. For one: I don't think the first statement, in the case of Trump, is even that egregious. Trump went out of his way to show that he was not willing to support non-Republicans whenever it suited him.
Of course there’s a big difference; I never said there wasn’t. But I do think it opened a bad door, fueled resentment, put things on the table that shouldn’t have been.
Paul Ryan did not drink the Trump kool-aid
I think you misplaced conservative talk radio in your sequence of events, and ignored its casual impact on Democrats' level of invective.
Ok James, listen to the most recent episode of “Honestly” for an explainer on how trumps lies differ from lies coming from the liberal elite institutions.
Just 2 minutes in and it makes my point perfectly.
Again, I do not support trump, but at least i make an effort to understand a phenomenon through an unbiased lens, not a partisan or tribal one
Romney didn't win nor ever have much of a serious chance. Here's a useful essay from 2005 on the topic of presidents being called Nazis or Hitler:
https://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/classes/33d/projects/media/AnalogiesUSPresHitlerMegan.htm
> Throughout the past 60 years, presidents from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush have been criticized and called Nazi by their opponents
> Chicago Mayer Richard Daley (a democrat) claimed that Richard Nixon (a republican) asking for an election recount was "Hitler type" propaganda (New York Times, Wherweins, Austin Daley Sees Plot in Vote Recount, Dec. 2, 1960).
> LBJ was also likened to Hitler because of his policy of merging big business with government and labor through his "Great Society" reforms. Representative William Miller claimed that this merger was comparable to Hitler's fascism, as the alliance between the government and business gave Hitler increased power (N.Y. Times, Finney, John, Miller Attacks Big Government, Oct 28, 1964).
> Bush is said to have Nazism in his blood, and therefore of course Bush must be one as well claim liberals (http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/bush_nazi.html).
There is nothing new about Trump.
We disagree,... and that is ok. However, accusing me of lying is different. I am describing why those in the GOP are mad. Decades of calling Republicans Nazi’s and racists. Ridiculing not our ideas but saying we will kill women and children with our budget concerns. It is bullshit and lies.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Biden claim he would put black ppl back in chains?
Dude, wtf is that?
Rather than argue about who should use Google, why don't you just do it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gII8D-lzbA
Yes. He said it. It's on tape. And it's been reported for years.
James, you asked for a citation. I gave it to you. I'm not involved in your process argument. I'm just answering your question.
Does your google machine work? Or are you just lazy?
Then search for it and call me out if I’m wrong. I literally said “correct me if I’m wrong”. Or don’t believe me. I don’t give a fuck.
Given Trump's determination to claim that if he loses it has to be fraud, the calmdown might have to wait until Harris is actually inaugurated.
I'm actually far more worried if Trump wins. The Democratic Party has convinced a sizeable pool of their voters that a Trump victory will really bring fascism to America. This was a cynical election ploy (Biden might be so clueless he believes it, but most of them are just playing the namecalling game as they always have), but the Democrat rank-and-file activists actually believe it. And they will act on it.
My worst possible outcomes:
1) Trump ahead on election night but his lead evaporates and Harris wins by <50K votes in 2-3 states. This would be the worst outcome for social and institutional trust.
2) Harris loses convincingly on election night. Would make the left-wing violence of 2020 look tame. Might even take us into 1968 territory.
3) Harris wins by a landslide. Would promote long-term social stability (normalcy) again, but at the cost of truly bizarre social policies and dangerous international ones.
What a great choice we have.
Trump has said again and again ways he wants to bring fascism to the USA. He did not accept the last election results and tried to commit a coup. Why do you ignore the words coming out of his mouth?
It might be kinda fun to think about what President Biden might do should Harris be elected. He'll have about 60 days to right some wrongs. For instance, yank Musk's security clearance and be sure that he reported every last contact with a foreigner as required by the rules and regs. If so, then open the investigations, etc. Get tough on Israel and maybe China.
Any other ideas?
This kind of "fun" is what fuels the crazy people on both sides and validates decisions to riot, commit acts of violence, etc. You are feeding the John Wick scenario (aka murder porn).
If Musk failed to report his foreign contacts then he has violated the conditions of a security clearance. Enforcing the law is hardly fascist.
Nancy, you’re navigating the TDS warp stream—pause and take a step back. Embrace the bigger picture, and allow yourself to see beyond the immediate details. The middle is inviting you, a space where perspectives converge and clarity unfolds. Here, the core awaits, offering balance and insight. Step into it.
Because using the power of govt to hurt your political opponents isn't fascist at all.
Using the power of government is also enforcing the law. Political opponents may be how you wish to discuss Trump or Musk, I see them as oligarchs who violated rule of law and need to be held accountable for their actions.
When you say "it might be kind of fun" to fantasize about a lame duck President using his office to hurt his political opposition, that doesn't sound like "enforcing the law".
Comments like that feed the narrative that Trump is a victim and the Democrats are out to get him by any means necessary, legal or not.
So sorry you lack any sense of humor, especially black humor.
> Let's not bring back the wacky 2010s.
There is no need to bring back the 2010s.. Right wing wackiness never went away for a second during Biden's presidency. It will not go away after a trump defeat. Left wing wackiness was partially suppressed by the Democratic Party during the Biden Presidency, but if Trump loses, they may be emboldened to resurface with all their demands.
Extreme demands by the left go all the way back to the 1930s, and extreme demands by the right go back to Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. This has been a divided country for decades, and it will continue to be so into the foreseeable future.
I think Noah's optimism is one of his very best qualities and I generally share it. But this hope is delusional.
One thing about Noah's analysis is realistic—the easiest way for America to lose its hyper- focus on politics is to shift it to silly entertainments. I don't think that's really very helpful—what we need to shift to is intelligent discussion, in which our leaders so seldom engage.
The "let's not bring back the wacky 2010s" argument was also expressed as something like "elect Harris or the leftists are gonna bring wokeness back" at one point.
Yeah I'm worried you may have underestimated the importance of Trump in driving the wacky 2010s on the left. His election empowered the fringe left and his re-election may end up doing the same.
The Nature of Trumps 2024 coalition, which will contain more young black and brown people (overwhelmingly young men) and fewer college educated suburbanites (especially women) than his 2016 coalition, along with Harris’s courting of center right voters will push against a simple re-emergence of 2010s era “wokeness”.
If anything, I suspect the cultural impact of a second Trump term will be a more pronounced classism against the “deplorables”, which to be frank will be refreshing in its honesty in comparison to the sublimated classism of “wokeness”.
Well now we'll find out!! :)
I think we will now see. I'm trying to push back on any return to "resistance" or wokeness on the left - here's hoping we can clean house and claim the center. It's easier now - lets see if the center holds when things get crazy as the first appointments and policies come in.
So far my prediction has been spot on in describing the comment section of the Bulwark, and the people who said “Kamala didn’t fail, America failed her.”
It’s not a winning political argument, but it IS the first step in getting college educated liberals to moderate. “The public are pigs, the pigs love slop, I need to promise the pigs slop and sneak medicine in it or the other guys will feed them slop with poison in it” is a way to get 2014 VOX readers to support moderation as a purely tactical measure.
The best part of the past four years is I could completely tune out politics regularly and not panic about it. Until it became clear Biden was behind Trump at the end of 2023, and into 2024, I honestly was not thinking about politics as much on a daily basis. If Trump returns to office it will be constant dread...again. I really do not want another four years like the Trump term.
Dread about what? I'm legitimately curious because I don't understand this attitude that I hear so frequently from liberals. I'm an independent and a reluctant Trump supporter, but I don't wake up every day in dread over Biden policies. And I won't do it under Harris if she wins.
Why would the occupant of the oval office cause you personal fear? What do you really think Donald Trump (with a 51-52 seat Senate and a 225 seat House majority) could actually do that would make you wake up in dread every day?
Then you aren't paying attention
-He could declare martial law and use troops on American civilians, like he has promised and pushed to do multiple times
-He could make SCOTUS more conservative and they could take more rights away from us. I am gay, add another conservative to the court (or perhaps replace Roberts) and suddenly many things could go away
-He has promised to kick out illegal immigrants proactively, which would be both a huge spend AND cause inflation
-He could pull us out of NATO, or at least make being a member of NATO meaningless
-He could also undermine our elections further. I personally think he'll run for re-election. I don't care what the Constitution says: I don't think anyone will be able to stop him
-He could slap tariffs on a large amount of imports, which would be awful for trade AND be inflationary
-He has promised to undermine the independence of the Fed AND the justice department.
And his policies, bluntly, are absolutely awful. Raising tariffs, cutting taxes, and spending more on border enforcement and the military (as he has proposed) would massively expand the deficit and the debt. That would be inflationary, and make my life more difficult. Abandoning our allies would be a complete failure of geopolitics. More conservative judges (especially if they are more in the mold of Aileen Cannon) would be disastrous.
Sure, if Trump were just a normal politician I probably wouldn't worry about it. But he isn't normal, and pretending otherwise is simply ignoring what we know about the man after nearly a decade of this awful human being poisoning our soul.
Trump isn't going to declare martial law. COVID presented him the greatest opportunity ever to become a dictator (and in March of 2020, I was actually concerned he might). He made no attempt to do so.
SCOTUS ideology is a pendulum. It's been swinging Leftward for a 2 generations and may swing rightward. That's democracy. Unless you think the court should embrace liberalism by authoritarian means, I'm not sure what the alternative is. I do get this one though, especially in your case. I guess I would suggest you look at what happened after Dobbs. There are a lot of pro-lifers who were shocked at the pro-abortion ballot amendments in even very red states. I would expect a similar outcome if Obergefell were to be revoked -- different states would have different rules, but I'll bet very few would completely overturn gay marriage.
On immigration, the question is pretty basic: do you think we should have a border? Donald Trump thinks we should and those who cross it without permission should be kicked out. Based on their actions, Biden and Harris clearly do not believe this. I would love to see a "comprehensive immigration plan" but the Right has good reasons not to trust the Left on this issue anymore. The question is, do YOU think people who jump the US border should be kicked out or allowed to stay?
On trade, how will trade barriers will fill your life with dread? I mean, come on.
I'm afraid the DOJ impartiality ship sailed a few years ago when they started arresting pro-lifers and investigating parents who were too loud at school board meetings. Or when the Obama IRS started intentionally denying non-profit status to conservative Tea Party groups. That genie can't be put back in the bottle; the DOJ is now a political tool, whether you or I like it or not. (And I don't either.)
I think your criticism of his spending plans is completely legit, and I agree with you. Both candidates are terrible on inflation and our long-term debt trajectory, but he's a lot worse. But we're not going to become Venezuela or Zimbabwe in the next 4 or 8 years. Also, since those things require Congress, I don't think either candidate will be able to change much from a budgetary perspective. There will be some tweaking of the tax code under Trump and Harris will throw money at left-wing pet projects, but it will be minor in either case,
I respect your answers, and thanks. If Trump does win on Tuesday though, I hope you won't really be living in daily fear. No politician is worth that. Life is too short.
Trump has suggested he would use the military against Americans:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-suggests-hell-use-the-military-on-the-enemy-from-within-the-u-s-if-hes-reelected
I am a gay man, and no SCOTUS isn't just a 'pendulum' and I have no faith in the people Trump has allied himself with. His Vice-President is opposed to gay marriage, as was his previous vice-president, as are many of his SCOTUS choices.
I think we should have a border: and so does Harris. They've literally done a ton to close the border, and pretending they haven't is absurd.
And YOU may not worry about trade, but I do! Most of the stuff I buy isn't made in the US! My companies buy a bunch of raw materials overseas! Trump completely overturning free trade would be very, very bad for the US and the world!
Nothing you said has made me feel any better. I get that you, a 'reluctant' Trump supporter (you do not seem reluctant at all) may have convinced yourself that Trump clearly can't cause any problems, but that's not true! It's just not true. "I hope you don't live in daily fear" Well thanks for hoping that dude, but it's not my fault that your preferred candidate is running and acting the way he is: instead of asking me to calm down, perhaps you should reconsider who you're voting for
Trade theory isn't about what's good for your business; it's about what's good for America overall. A nation is more than a consumer utility maximization function. If you're interested in a legitimate academic treatment on post-Ricardian trade theory, I recommend Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests by Gomory and Baumol from MIT Press. That was the book that finally let me leave my reflexive libertarian free-trade biases behind.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/
If the Democratic Party believes in border enforcement they're doing a great job of hiding it. (see data above) Waiting until 4 months before an election to issue a bunch of EOs that Biden could have issued anytime during the last 3 1/2 years is just political pandering.
You clearly ignored the past year to your benefit
And no, mercantilism is a crappy idea and I’m frankly disinterested in proving that to you. There is more than enough information to prove that tariffs are self defeating.
Well said, Noah.
> it began in 2013-14 with Gamergate
Is this really truly an era-defining thing? Wild.
Yes, Gamergate was definitely one of the important seeds. But even if you don’t mention it (like this article I appreciated back in 2018: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/from-where-i-sit-the-trump-era-began-in-2014/ ) 2014 or so seems like the phase transition.
Having a hard time wrapping my head around this. Major events are like, say, 2008 financial crisis, Iraq war, 9/11, fall of Soviet Union, etc. etc.
Gamergate?! What fraction of people in the US have heard of the term and understand the details?
I think there is no event of the social media chaos situation as big as any of those things (not even the election of Donald Trump or the George Floyd protests) so there can’t be things as big as that that define it.
Other than the music, the 70s were pretty bad. Political corruption, organized crime, pollution, deteriorating inner cities, smoking, inflation, unemployment, etc. I hope we’re not going back to all of that.
Reread the piece on politicized pseudoscience linked above which took me back to this astute one on politically directed science or as Roger Pielke Jr. described it in a recent post, ‘tactical science’.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-politically-guided-science-is?triedRedirect=true
A thoughtful piece Noah, but I’m not there with you yet.
This is a fascinating time for anyone studying the decline of democracy.
Harris appears to have zero foundation- she will embrace anything that is in the flow of ziegiest- she supported open immigration / now she is for border security, she supported defund police / now she is advocate for strong police presence, she supported no prosecution of non violent crime - you guessed it.
Her positions on reproductive rights, a wealth tax, adding PD and DC as states, increasing the SCOTUS bench, eliminating the filibuster, giving money to entrepreneurs of color, etc is clear. Her positions on Isreal and Ukraine don’t readily come to mind.
I think Trump wins in significant fashion but not with my vote. If Harris pulls through it will not be with my vote.
I’m having a hard time with the calm part of your argument. But I do welcome it.
Sam
Thanks for writing this Noah. I agree 1000%! I think people have forgotten how *exhausting* those 4 years of hyperpolitization were, and how much better off we are without it. That comedian's "jokes" are a good reminder of that.
From my perspective the left has not backed off their extremist demands one bit. Among other things, they are now demanding that:
1. The government should be able to declare things "misinformation" and censor it
2. Civil rights laws that protect me from discrimination should be ignored. (And even when the supreme court rules against them, many of their allies in the universities just ignore them with impunity)
You define the problem as one of "unrest" and "craziness," and say that it is abating. And I also see it as a positive that there are no longer street battles between right and left. But that's just vibes. The exercise of governemnt power against my rights may not be as exciting, but I care about it 100x more than a riot. The left may not send a mob to the capitol, but they weaponize bureaucracy against their political opponents. If I have to choose between "a climate of bitterness, anger, and controversy in every online space" or the levers of power being used against me, I will choose the former every time.
All of the things you are complaining about that the "left" is doing is also being done by individuals in power on the "right".
> The left may not send a mob to the capitol, but they weaponize bureaucracy against their political opponents. If I have to choose between "a climate of bitterness, anger, and controversy in every online space" or the levers of power being used against me, I will choose the former every time.
It's a joke that we literally see the "MAGA folks" weaponizing bureaucracy to try and overturn election results, do mass deportations, take away the rights of women, etc. And you are mad because the government says that certain accounts usually run by bots or foreign agencies are using misinformation to sow discord? How has the government personally interfered with your freedom or speech? Additionally, you have people on the right openly making up lies about Puerto Ricans, Haitians and LGBTQ group members and wanting to actively discriminate against them and you say that civil rights laws that protect you from discrimination are being ignored? Please provide details on how you are harmed right now because civil rights laws are being ignored.
You sound like you used a lot of words to basically excuse wanting to vote for Trump or support people like him...
Tim Walz Has a very different view on freedom of speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-JL5Szxnzk
And they pressure private companies to censor: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-some-covid-19-content-during-the-pandemic
Companies openly admit to hiring based on race, which is explicitly banned by the civil rights act of 1964, so I don't even see how you can make such a ridiculous claim. “Now we’re saying every position has to consider gender and race,” - the CEO of VMWare. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/19/no-job-hire-made-unless-minority-candidate-interviewed-vmware-ceo.html
The violation of rights against the groups you clam are all people saying mean things about them. That's not a rights violation. You don't have a right not to be insulted. Mass deportations are dumb, but are specifically against people who don't have rights to be here.
Did you even read or watch what you sent over? Again, you keep blaming the left but all the things you said could apply to people on the right as well (Think Book Bans, mandatory bible and prayer in schools, kneeling for the flag etc.) Stop with the faux outrage and just admit you are okay with this stuff from a conservative perspective but not liberal.
Re Freedom of Speech: You are comparing apples and oranges on the pressure of private companies to censor, you agree to terms of service. Additionally, read the first amendment, and rulings regarding free speech, there is no such thing as absolutist speech. This was a once in a lifetime pandemic and over a million Americans died. Again those concerns were way overblown. Now you could say you believe in free speech absolutism, that still doesn't mean that private firms have to abide by your right to free speech. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities, such as businesses, organizations, and private schools. Private entities can regulate speech on their platforms and within their workplace. The First Amendment does allow the government to restrict speech in certain situations, such as when the speaker has a special relationship with the government, like being a government employee or a public school student. The government can also restrict speech through content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, or large signs, so when it comes to public safety, especially if those views are being amplified by bots or nefarious actors it is allowed to act. Now we can argue whether it can be abused and what protections we have against it. But to say it is personally impacting you negatively is bad faith and you know it.
Re Race Based hiring: Similar to the Rooney Rule in the NFL, looking at a diverse set of candidates and making that mandatory is not openly admitting to hiring based on race. The number 1 beneficiaries of affirmative action as it related to hiring was white women in America. You are arguing in bad faith... Race is a stupid concept anyway since we are all one human race. How do you hear "We must interview a diverse set of candidates" = "We must hire the most diverse candidate". You are literally pushing a narrative and engaging in a strawman.
I never said that saying mean things about people are a violation of rights, what I am saying is that wanting to push legislation to make certain citizens less equal than others is an issue. Mass deportations are dumb, I'm happy we agree on that. However Trump and Vance have said that those mass deportations aren't just going to be directed towards people that are here illegally. You know the biggest enemy is the one within... You also know that Puerto Ricans are citizens right?
You have sidestepped the fact that I did not bring up an example of companies censoring people of their own free will, which is their own 1A right. The issue is the government pressuring companies to censor on its behalf. That's government censorship and clearly a violation. Whether or not it is personally impacting me is completely irrelevant. Violating other citizens rights is no better than violating mine. And in the case of censorship, violating one person's rights violates everyone's because there is a speaker and a listener.
I am not ok with any of those things you claim that I am ok with. But I do have to point out that the "book bans" (no books were banned, only taken out of libraries) you speak of are not 1A violations because of the fact that, as you pointed out, 1A does not apply when "the speaker has a special relationship with the government, like being a government employee or a public school student." As for school prayer, I am, and always have been, an atheist, but I will happily get down on my knees and praise Jesus before I will accept dumbing down of schools in the name of "equality". And, unfortunately, that seems to be the choice I face.
As for the race in hiring issue, let's cut the crap. I know companies and universities hire/admit based on race, and you know it too. If you want to defend that, fine, we can respectfully disagree, but if you want to continue to pretend that it doesn't happen even in the face of glaring examples like this (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/) then I just don't think we have anything to talk about. I feel like I have to play word games whenever I disagree with a Democrat. At least when Republicans disagree with me they come right out and say "abortion should be illegal" or "we shouldn't support Ukraine" instead of being sneaky about it.
> You have sidestepped the fact that I did not bring up an example of companies censoring people of their own free will, which is their own 1A right. The issue is the government pressuring companies to censor on its behalf. That's government censorship and clearly a violation. Whether or not it is personally impacting me is completely irrelevant. Violating other citizens rights is no better than violating mine. And in the case of censorship, violating one person's rights violates everyone's because there is a speaker and a listener.
I literally didn't... This is what was in my previous reply
"The First Amendment does allow the government to restrict speech in certain situations, such as when the speaker has a special relationship with the government, like being a government employee or a public school student. The government can also restrict speech through content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, or large signs, so when it comes to public safety, especially if those views are being amplified by bots or nefarious actors it is allowed to act. Now we can argue whether it can be abused and what protections we have against it. But to say it is personally impacting you negatively is bad faith and you know it."
You either are being willfully obtuse or arguing in bad faith... Again...
> I am not ok with any of those things you claim that I am ok with. But I do have to point out that the "book bans" (no books were banned, only taken out of libraries) you speak of are not 1A violations because of the fact that, as you pointed out, 1A does not apply when "the speaker has a special relationship with the government, like being a government employee or a public school student." As for school prayer, I am, and always have been, an atheist, but I will happily get down on my knees and praise Jesus before I will accept dumbing down of schools in the name of "equality". And, unfortunately, that seems to be the choice I face.
I'm sorry I misstated or said you were okay with things you weren't okay with. And maybe we just aren't agreeing on semantics but if books are not allowed in certain places would that not qualify as a ban? If you will also get down on your knees and pray for Jesus before you accept the dumbing down of schools doesn't that mean you just are performative and have no actual principles? Wouldn't certain schools and states treating the bible as a history textbook and pushing religion on kids actually meet the criteria of dumbing down? I'm sorry you seem to have went off on a tangent and I'm not following the dumbing down of schools comment it wasn't really part of the original conversation... You can have equal treatment of kids in school without dumbing down standards in my opinion...
> As for the race in hiring issue, let's cut the crap. I know companies and universities hire/admit based on race, and you know it too. If you want to defend that, fine, we can respectfully disagree, but if you want to continue to pretend that it doesn't happen even in the face of glaring examples like this (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/) then I just don't think we have anything to talk about. I feel like I have to play word games whenever I disagree with a Democrat. At least when Republicans disagree with me they come right out and say "abortion should be illegal" or "we shouldn't support Ukraine" instead of being sneaky about it.
Again maybe we are arguing semantics, but you again are saying that places are hiring just on race, and that frankly isn't true. Making race or gender a consideration doesn't mean that overrides all other qualifications. You are choosing data from universities to see what their selections are for acceptance into Med School, but while it does show that black and hispanic students maybe scoring less on the MCAT or their GPA it doesn't say that they are just being admitted on race... This a bit of an inference but unless you have examples of them literally turning away kids that are more qualified to just hire on racial preference you are arguing in bad faith. The 4 schools included in this data are all in Michigan (University of Michigan, Michigan State, Wayne State and Oakland University) and Michigan prohibits racial discrimination or racial preferences during the admission process. Unless you can prove that they are turning away equally qualified kids from their Med Schools we can't really have a good faith debate. I don't support hiring just because of someone's ethnic group, and in regards to Dr's I think we all want to make sure we have the best Doctors. We also know that their is a shortage of Doctors in the country. I'm not sure if this data was cherry picked by AEI to support their general "Center Right Positions", but you can look at the demographics for University of Michigan's Med School here: (https://medschool.umich.edu/programs-admissions/md-program/md-program-our-community/u-m-medical-school-profiles-demographics) and the majority of kids admitted are still White...
I also love how you call me a Democrat just because we disagree, but I would never just call myself a Democrat, that just happens to be the party I vote for 80% of the time, but isn't my identity or impact how I decide to debate, or argue. I just believe words, nuance and general pragmatism matter and I'm very specific. You are accusing me of being sneaky, but I'm not sure about what exactly? I can totally admit that I am sure for some people they do hire on ethnicity depending on the situation, but in the 2 examples you have cited as glaring, as 1 company and 4 universities the data and general approach just don't align. Like I said before ". How do you hear "We must interview a diverse set of candidates" = "We must hire the most diverse candidate". You are literally pushing a narrative and engaging in a strawman." I don't agree with hiring just based on skin color or ethnicity. However if companies or schools want to consider the demographic makeup of their workers or school class after all things being equal they meet the minimum requirements I don't mind. You clearly do, that is fine, we can agree to disagree.
Have you never heard a speech by Kamala Harris?
Here's Tim Walz doing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-JL5Szxnzk
Tim Walz having an opinion about misinformation as it relates to speech is not the same as making policy decisions. He isn't on the Supreme Court, nor has he drafted legislation to limit speech. That said disinformation and misinformation can be a valid national security issue depending on if it is being weaponized or not.
You are arguing in bad faith, and using a small sound bite when talking about a nuanced issue, is not the same as ignoring civil rights law, this is the 1A which still doesn't give you as a person unlimited free speech.... On another note Tim Walz is hardly "Left"... Only in America... If you really cared about 1A then you should be sounding the alarm over how Trump has threatened to take away the broadcasting licenses of ABC, CBS, MNBC and lock up people who criticize him. But you won't because it doesn't fit your narrative and strawman arguments
I can see how you might read that as a version of (1). But I don’t see how that involves ignoring civil rights law.
You can see how I might read that? How else could I?
“Now we’re saying every position has to consider gender and race,”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/19/no-job-hire-made-unless-minority-candidate-interviewed-vmware-ceo.html
How do you protect people’s civil rights *without* considering their gender and race? (Gender and race *will* affect things, regardless of what the organization says, so if the organization doesn’t consider gender and race, then it can’t do anything to intervene if the hiring team has somehow, either intentionally or unintentionally, engaged in badly biased processes.)
Consideration does not mean hired mate. Are you being willfully obtuse?
Harris isn't going to calm things down.
We already had this EXACT SAME conversation when Biden got elected. Did he calm it down? Did he govern as the 50 state moderate he pretended to be? My work is more awful than ever. My neighborhood is more filthy than ever.
She is going to do what her donors want, and that's to keep the revolution going. And when the backlash comes it will be even worse. The only reason Trump is doing so bad is because he is an awful person. Wehn, not if, we get a populist who can rile up the crowds and isn't credibly accused of rape, shit is really going to hit the fan.
Agreed. We elected a nice old man with a lifetime of political experience who promised a return to normalcy.
What we got was an open border, an emboldened Russia, a military recruiting crisis, DOE using Title 9 to force boys into girls' locker rooms, near 10% inflation for over a year, DOJ investigating parents showing up at school board meetings, rampant unpunished theft and assault, and a concerted effort to use the court system to imprison the leading opposition candidate.
Yeah. Totally normal. People feel like they were sold a bridge in 2020. Some of those people will vote for Trump. And the Democrats have only themselves to blame for it.
💯
Yes. Of course he has. One of the single best things about Biden is that you could wake up each morning and forget who was president. Sure, he's a partisan Democrat, but he did not indulge in the same kind of constant baiting as Trump.
For example, Bloomberg reports that his investment in green technology has gone to GOP districts by a factor of 4 to 1.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-opinion-biden-ira-sends-green-energy-investment-republican-districts/
If your work sucks or neighborhood is terrible, that's on y'all. My neighborhood really has reset to a level of congeniality. My neighbors, no lie, have a front lawn covered in both Trump and Harris signs, as the spouses have an open political fight, but it's more cute than angry. Like, they keep buying bigger signs to spite the other. It's adorable.
> We already had this EXACT SAME conversation when Biden got elected. Did he calm it down? Did he govern as the 50 state moderate he pretended to be? My work is more awful than ever. My neighborhood is more filthy than ever.
Really? Crime is down, he has never denied or slowed aid to any state, he has even pushed major infrastructure in places that didn't have it before. If your neighborhood is more filthy than ever you should blame yourself and your neighbors not the President. Also its hard for anyone to know what you do for work, but if it is more awful than ever, maybe find a new job?
Crime is down, according to whom? The FBI that just just flipped and then doubled their numbers for 2022? why should I trust their numbers for 2023 when my own neighborhood is seeing more crime, not less. The simple fact is that the National Crime Victimization Survey numbers show crime is still high, what's more, their numbers for 2022 and the NEW FBI numbers for 2022 are now in line. Given the recent FBI revisions, if there is a divergence between the two one source is clearly more credible than the other.
But this requires not being a libtard. And this is the whole thing, right here. I complain about quality of life, and you throw gamed statistics at me like a castrated eunuch with a spreadsheet where your dick used to be. You fucking suck and your argument is dumb. If soyjacks like you are what Harris brings it's not going to calm down shit. I'm not voting for anyone associated with you, and a lot of people agree because you are bad at this.
> Crime is down, according to whom? The FBI that just just flipped and then doubled their numbers for 2022? why should I trust their numbers for 2023 when my own neighborhood is seeing more crime, not less. The simple fact is that the National Crime Victimization Survey numbers show crime is still high, what's more, their numbers for 2022 and the NEW FBI numbers for 2022 are now in line. Given the recent FBI revisions, if there is a divergence between the two one source is clearly more credible than the other.
Yes according to both the FBI and the National Crime Victimization Survey show that even with the most recent revisions crime is still trending down... The rate of violent victimization excluding simple assault for males decreased from 9.5 per 1,000 persons in 2022 to 6.9 per 1,000 in 2023. A smaller percentage of robbery victimizations that occurred in 2023 (42%) than in 2022 (64%) were reported to police. That is literally from the National Crime Victimization Survey that you are referencing. Again this is national though, so if you are seeing crime go up in your neighborhood that is an issue and that should be addressed...
> But this requires not being a libtard. And this is the whole thing, right here. I complain about quality of life, and you throw gamed statistics at me like a castrated eunuch with a spreadsheet where your dick used to be. You fucking suck and your argument is dumb. If soyjacks like you are what Harris brings it's not going to calm down shit. I'm not voting for anyone associated with you, and a lot of people agree because you are bad at this.
Just wow mate, all of the personal attacks are coming out I see and name calling. You know what they say, when you can't attack the argument attack the person I guess. First of all, you have every right to complain about quality of life, however the idea that a single President is going to personally make your economic life, or quality of life in your neighborhood better all other things remaining the same is just massive hopium and naivety...
Also I have never been arrested, participated in crimes or have done anything but tried to be an active and positive member of my community, so for you to say that you aren't going to vote for anyone associated with me that doesn't even make sense, I'm not on the ballot nor do I associate or personally know any of the candidates... I'm bad at what exactly? Agreeing with you or understanding the difference between trends at a national level vs at your town level? There is a huge difference between macro and micro. Good luck with your random outbursts of aggression, we are all fellow citizens. Not every disagreement needs to end in a childish insult just because your ego got hurt.
> When, not if, we get a populist who can rile up the crowds and isn't credibly accused of rape
That will never happen because of how rape accusations are used. Trump was never credibly accused either - the accusers couldn't really have been less credible, doing things like reporting it decades after it supposedly happened, forgetting the year in which it happened, contradicting themselves and so on. The left will always think every populist or right winger is a rapist because they automatically accept any such claim at face value no matter how unlikely or obviously false, because there's no punishment for making such claims, and because there are plenty of left wing women willing to make them for political benefit.
That's why none of the allegations or even convictions of Trump moved the needle at all. Trump's supporters don't believe any of the claims were credible, based on the substance of the proceedings. His enemies automatically accepted that they were. That won't change.
As always, really well written.
> have acted to exclude the Palestine protesters and to tamp down on leftism in general.
Looks like leftist agitation has become unpopular with certain members of the donor classes.
It’s obviously, by the way, less radical to oppose Israel’s actions after a whole year than to want to defund the police or decolonise Shakespeare, or argue for totally open borders. It’s a centrist dad position in most of the world.
Opposing Israel’s actions over the past year is common. But occupying campuses demanding that the university divest its investment in Boeing is like throwing soup on paintings - it’s more about drawing attention to yourself than about asking anyone to do anything to help the situation you are ostensibly talking about.
Agree with the general gist of the article. I fear, though, if Trump, a convicted criminal, is returned to power—
—Yes, general unrest will probably exceed that of 2020. I hearken back to several things here:
One, Trump has always seen Tiananmen Square as a praiseworthy thing. Perhaps more pertinently, he’s a convicted criminal.
He’ll want to strike fear into everyone early, to show his “authority” and how big and strong he is.
He’ll probably want protests put down on day one, so no Women’s March or anything like it happens. And he’ll want it done with as much open violence and “strength” as possible.
Trump craves this. We all underestimate how much he craves it. To him, it’s the same thing as simple “revenge against enemies”. The man can’t help himself. We all underestimate how likely his first few days are to be marked with this, if nothing else to push his likely purge of the federal government (run by Elon Musk, also with certain levels of low-key violence) out of the headlines.
I agree, though, he’s on track to win, and decisively. The polls either show him on track to win a slight plurality of the popular vote, or they’re herding.
For the sake of our collective sanity, we should hope he doesn’t. The 2010’s and their aftermath were bad enough. We should not follow them with worse.
I share your concern. I think the "secret" Trump has with Speaker Johnson is to declare a bogus state of emergency on his first day in office, and use his enhanced powers to do things that would otherwise be unconstitutional, like shutting down media outlets, jailing his opponents, and in general turning the United States into an outpost of Putin's Russia.