Trump Hysteria

I’d say the often hysterical reaction to the election of Trump and his executive orders is baffling to me, but based on my view of politics, it isn’t baffling at all – it’s something I expected.  However, I don’t see much in the way of rational, principled justification for the kind of over-the-top anti-Trump behavior we find not only at the street level, but also in the implied (if not outright) consent and support such intimidating and violent tactics are often provided in public forums by many politicians and media figures. We’ve had people call for the removal of Trump by “any means necessary” and calling for impeachment, military coups and even assassination.

From my perspective, the hysteria is fueled by two things; an identity-politics, virtue-signalling culture that is largely bereft of critical thinking skills and any foundation of reasoned, civil discourse; and an information/media complex that signals, via various figures of authority or popularity, preferred behaviors. (I’ll leave out my third view: that third-party manipulators are paying for agitation towards political and financial ends).

I voted for Trump purely because I agreed with virtually all of his platform.  Usually when I encounter someone who didn’t vote for Trump, I immediately notice an obvious emotional quality to their perspective – they hate or are disgusted by the guy personally, but can’t even tell me what his policy positions are.  They immediately assume I am racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, etc.

I wonder if it’s possible to have a rational discussion about Trump and his policies and actions since being elected with anyone who voted against him?  Do any of you think the way he is being characterized by the mainstream media is unfair?  Do any of you think that there has been a double-standard from the way people and the press reacted to Obama’s actions, and the way they are reacting to Trump’s? Do any of you think the election was “illegitimate”?

371 thoughts on “Trump Hysteria

  1. Kantian Naturalist: I have neither the time nor patience to pretend that civil dialogue with fascists is possible or desirable.

    I see claims of fascism from many on the left lately. Are you claiming that Trump is literally a fascist? Are you claiming that some of his supporters are? Or are you tarring everyone who didn’t support Clinton with that brush?

  2. Frankie: That sounds like you and yours, keiths. You don’t seem to know what evidence is and you sure as hell cannot produce the science that shows blind and mindless processes produced living organisms and its diversity.

    ..

  3. Richardthughes,

    would a history of multiple bankruptcies leaving others holding the bag suffice? Or perhaps the many times he didn’t pay the agreed amount to little guys and said the could either settle or he’d crush them with litigation?

    This is what you believe. What is your source? You sound like you have been spun like a top.

  4. colewd,

    This is what you believe. What is your source? You sound like you have been spun like a top.

    You sound like someone whose hero can do no wrong. Google ‘Trump business practice’ for a selection. Of course, all spin – everything can be denied by the determined, as we see repeatedly hereabouts.

    But let’s see those tax returns, anyway.

  5. GlenDavidson:

    I don’t think there’s anything about the popular (state) vote in the 12th amendment.That’s why there was a short-lived attempt to get electors to switch their votes away from Trump, there’s nothing in the constitution that ties their votes to the popular (state) vote, or to anything else that I can see (the state can decide on electors and how they’re supposed to vote, IMO).Many states have fines against electors voting contrary to the popular (state) vote.

    Glen Davidson

    I was really hoping to see those laws challenged this election cycle. If ever there was a time for the Electoral College to fulfill their duty of ensuring that no one unfit for the office became President, this was that time (regardless of which major party candidate won). Instead they rolled over.

  6. AhmedKiaan:
    Acartia,

    That’s because canadians aren’t dumbass suckers who’ve been talked into believing that all these terrible oppressive gummint regulations are holding back wealth and freedom.

    Low-info voters in the US eat that nonsense up with a spoon.

    (IDK how much you know about Murkin politics, but it all goes back to the 1950’s and 60’s when the gummint told white racists that they had to associate with Negroes. The white rural racist types have hated the federal gummint ever since. Telling them regulations were terrible was an easy sell once they hated the feds)

    Your logical fallacy is Poisoning the Well.

  7. Richardthughes,

    What about buggy whips and leeches for medicine? Why would be subsidize dying industries?

    There is an infinite supply of coal and oil, you know …

  8. Patrick: I see claims of fascism from many on the left lately. Are you claiming that Trump is literally a fascist? Are you claiming that some of his supporters are? Or are you tarring everyone who didn’t support Clinton with that brush?

    I don’t think that Trump is himself a fascist, as I don’t think he has a coherent ideology. I think that Steve Bannon is, and he’s the one calling the shots in the Oval Office.

    And I think that many (but by no means all) of Trump’s supporters are. The desire for a strong-man — an authoritarian leader who can magically fix all the problems — together with lack of respect for democratic norms, a xenophobic hostility to Mexicans and Arabs, and suspicion of intellectuals, such as climate scientists and journalists, are close enough to fascism that to refrain to calling them ‘fascists’ out of a misguided need for ‘civility’ would be foolish.

    As I said, that doesn’t apply to all of Trump’s supporters, but it is certainly true of much of his ‘base’.

    But I don’t think that Trump would have won if he hadn’t been able to exploit the economic insecurities of those who have been harmed by the sorts of neoliberal economic policies that Clinton has long supported.

  9. Allan Miller:
    . . .
    If one needs it explaining what it’s like to not look down one’s nose at Others, to not live in perpetual fear and loathing of every member of a set because some members of that set are wrong ‘uns, one probably won’t understand the answer.
    . . . .

    What I’m seeing here in the U.S. is that it is the Hillary supporters, and more generally the “mainstream media”, who are looking down their noses at everyone suspected of voting for Trump. The identity politics is overwhelming at the moment.

    I would hope that the left might recognize that a significant part of the problem is the power that has accrued to the presidency and to the federal government. They were very happy to let Obama use it but now they’re finding out why it’s a bad idea. I don’t expect they’ll actually learn that lesson.

    Fear and Loathing, though. Hunter Thompson wrote magnificently about Nixon and the corruption in both parties in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72. I wish he was still around. He might have been the only writer who could do justice to Trump.

  10. Allan Miller:
    The Mexican wall thing … if he was a proper thinker, like me, he would have offered full statehood to Mexico and the Central American republics, then filled the Panama Canal with sharks. Millions of illegals removed at a stroke, at the cost of a few sharks.

    Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  11. Kantian Naturalist:

    Despite it all, I still think that the Trump regime will go down in history as the last, pathetic, dying gasp of straight white male privilege. At any rate, I will do everything in my extremely limited power to help construct that narrative.

    Instead of constructing narratives, why not just tell the truth? SJWs are disdained for a reason.

  12. Alan Fox:
    Naive and pointless question: why didn’t Clinton and Sanders compromise and run on a joint ticket?

    Democrats have to run left to win the nomination and steer right to win the general election. Sanders wouldn’t have allowed that.

  13. petrushka:
    Integrity was Hillary’s Catch-22. She seemed to think she needed vast amounts of money and vast numbers of paid internet minions in order to win, but this was interpreted by many as evidence of dishonesty.

    Well, that and the actual dishonesty.

    My opinion, for the two cents it’s worth, is that if Hillaryhad spent the previous decade exploring policy with the general public, and building an image of personal integrity, she would have walked away with the election. With a fraction of the money.

    If she were able to do that she wouldn’t be Hillary Clinton.

  14. Erik:
    . . .
    Would your day-to-day life be one bit different if Hillary had won?
    . . . .

    The biggest difference day-to-day is going to be the impact of the Supreme Court appointments. If Trump continues with people like Gorsuch, we’re going to be better on the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and perhaps 9th and 10th amendments. I don’t think Roe v Wade will be overturned, but reproductive rights could suffer.

    Clinton would have packed the court with big government liberals.

    Regardless of which direction you prefer, that is arguably the greatest impact this election will have on the country long term. (Unless Trump gets us into a war with China.)

  15. Kantian Naturalist:
    . . .
    And sure, both options really were disgusting. But all it took is a few razor-thin margins in three or four states and we have an incompetent delusional loon powered by xenophobic resentment instead of a highly competent and only slightly corrupt administrator.

    A more than slightly corrupt authoritarian with no respect for the constitution, not unlike what we have now but with the support of the mainstream media. Trump is dangerous in foreign affairs but Clinton would have been dangerous to individual rights.

  16. Patrick,

    Long term if this persists America will make all the consumer goods for the knowledge economy that China has become.

  17. Patrick: Instead of constructing narratives, why not just tell the truth? SJWs are disdained for a reason.

    Sure. Because when you’re accustomed to privilege, the demand for equality looks like oppression.

  18. Kantian Naturalist: Sure. Because when you’re accustomed to privilege, the demand for equality looks like oppression.

    Yes, by all means, keep your privilege above those fly-over people.

    Just face it, you helped to put Trump into power by caring only about your privileged sort. Think about it in your cabin next time, oh rebel.

    Glen Davidson

  19. GlenDavidson: Yes, by all means, keep your privilege above those fly-over people.

    Just face it, you helped to put Trump into power by caring only about your privileged sort. Think about it in your cabin next time, oh rebel.

    You’re hilarious!

  20. GlenDavidson,

    The fact you seem to have no qualms about making very personal judgments about me specifically, when you know nothing at all about me apart from what I’ve said at TSZ and AtBC, suggests that something has gone badly awry here.

    I was making a comment about white straight male privilege and why it is pernicious.

    If you want to make a judgment about the extent to which I fail to critique my own privilege, let me know; I have a futon you can sleep on while you follow me around for a few days. (Hope you like cats!)

  21. Kantian Naturalist:
    GlenDavidson,

    The fact you seem to have no qualms about making very personal judgments about me specifically, when you know nothing at all about me apart from what I’ve said at TSZ and AtBC, suggests that something has gone badly awry here.

    Oh well, I guess you don’t understand much about your own herd thinking and privilege. Maybe you should step outside of your privileged little world for once.

    I was making a comment about white straight male privilege and why itis pernicious.

    Yes, because you don’t know fuck about privilege except what the privileged say about it.

    If you want to make a judgment about the extent to which I fail to critique my own privilege, let me know; I have a futon you can sleep on while you follow me around for a few days. (Hope you like cats!)

    Yeah, I don’t care about your critique of your own privilege. I just know that you’re pretty good at sucking up to privilege. Don’t worry, it’ll get you what you want.

    Glen Davidson

  22. colewd: You sound like you have been spun like a top.

    colewd: Liberal playbook first page, demonize your opponent.

    You can work out what I think of you.

  23. William J. Murray,

    They’re doomed because these jobs have low and diminishing value in a modern economy. I know regressives like you want to turn the clock back a few hundred years, but it wont happen. Their plight brings me no joy, but tell them to get off the sinking ship and find a job in the modern economy.

    eidtz

  24. Patrick: Trump is dangerous in foreign affairs but Clinton would have been dangerous to individual rights.

    I rather despise all politicians, but I await the judgement of history on the last 16 years of foreign policy. I would like to see a non-interventionist policy. I wish for it, and it has been promised, but I see little sign that it will happen.

    China seems to be a busy boy. They have in the last two months, gone from five percent of the New York Times online clicks, to fifty percent, while the NYT is completely blocked by the Chinese firewall.

    I suspect Russian hacking.

  25. Kantian Naturalist: I don’t think that Trump is himself a fascist, as I don’t think he has a coherent ideology. I think that Steve Bannon is, and he’s the one calling the shots in the Oval Office.

    And I think that many (but by no means all) of Trump’s supporters are. The desire for a strong-man — an authoritarian leader who can magically fix all the problems — together with lack of respect for democratic norms, a xenophobic hostility to Mexicans and Arabs, and suspicion of intellectuals, such as climate scientists and journalists, are close enough to fascism that to refrain to calling them ‘fascists’ out of a misguided need for ‘civility’ would be foolish.

    As I said, that doesn’t apply to all of Trump’s supporters, but it is certainly true of much of his ‘base’.

    I disagree, but only based on anecdotal data. I grew up around people like “typical Trump supporters” (if that’s even meaningful rather than a stereotype) and they’re conservative but not fascist.

    I do think that hurling that epithet around wildly does not benefit the left. If you want to make sure people keep supporting Trump, insult and ostracize them whenever possible.

  26. Kantian Naturalist:

    Instead of constructing narratives, why not just tell the truth? SJWs are disdained for a reason.

    Sure. Because when you’re accustomed to privilege, the demand for equality looks like oppression.

    Non-sequitur, but I hope you feel better for having got that out of your system.

    If the “Trump regime” really is “the last, pathetic, dying gasp of straight white male privilege. ” then you should be able to prove it with evidence and reason. Constructing a “narrative” wouldn’t be necessary.

  27. Kantian Naturalist:

    I was making a comment about white straight male privilege and why itis pernicious.

    If you want to make a judgment about the extent to which I fail to critique my own privilege, let me know; I have a futon you can sleep on while you follow me around for a few days. (Hope you like cats!)

    Look at how privileged you are, thinking you deserve a stalker.

  28. petrushka: I rather despise all politicians,

    Another thing I like about you.

    but I await the judgement of history on the last 16 years of foreign policy. I would like to see a non-interventionist policy. I wish for it, and it has been promised, but I see little sign that it will happen.

    Foreign policy is going to be a disaster under Trump. I share your desire for the U.S. to be non-interventionist. That requires a clear understanding of the issues and a coherent vision. We’re not getting that from The Donald in Chief.

  29. colewd: Liberal playbook first page, demonize your opponent.

    Sooooo, what can we dig up that has been thrown at people like Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and others, from conservatives? Nothing. We will find nothing. Conservatives would never demonize their political opponents. No, liberals invented and are the sole, or major abusers of that tactic. Right? Right Bill?

  30. Patrick: I do think that hurling that epithet around wildly does not benefit the left. If you want to make sure people keep supporting Trump, insult and ostracize them whenever possible.

    I disagree. If people want “extreme vetting” of Muslims and increased deporting of Mexicans, then they owe me an explanation of why their views are substantially different than the German who were calling for “Juden herraus!” in the 1930s. Because from where I sit, it doesn’t look or feel any different.

  31. Rumraket,

    Sooooo, what can we dig up that has been thrown at people like Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and others, from conservatives? Nothing. We will find nothing. Conservatives would never demonize their political opponents. No, liberals invented and are the sole, or major abusers of that tactic. Right? Right Bill?

    Of course they will. I am just calling out the tactic. I am not sure if Rich was spinning the Irish yarn or he is the Irish yarn 🙂

  32. Patrick: If the “Trump regime” really is “the last, pathetic, dying gasp of straight white male privilege. ” then you should be able to prove it with evidence and reason. Constructing a “narrative” wouldn’t be necessary.

    It would be a judgment of history that will be written long after I’m gone about the events in which I hope to participate.

  33. William J. Murray: They’re not dying because of lack of resources; they’re dying because of regulations.

    The price of natural gas has dropped fifty percent since 2008 while the price of coal has remain the same, the reduction of coal in electric generator has followed that curve,

  34. colewd:
    Richardthughes,

    This is what you believe.What is your source?You sound like you have been spun like a top.

    If you’re actually serious about learning this (for once–I’ve noticed that you ask questions but never seriously consider responses that don’t comport with your biases), I invite you to read the Blumenthal piece on just those matters that I posted earlier on this this thread. If not (and for reasons just given, I assume not), I think you should stop pretending and shut the fuck up.

    Re mung’s ridiculous claim that obama and Clinton are just as much in bed with Wall Street, I remind you who passed Dodd-Frank and who (with his Goldman-Sachs aides) wants to repeal it.

    Patrick’s remarks are, predictably, too stupid to merit any response at all.

  35. William J. Murray: They’re not dying because of lack of resources; they’re dying because of regulations.

    Those nasty regulations that have reduced the incidents of black lung and Delhi levels of air pollution?

  36. walto,

    Re mung’s ridiculous claim that obama and Clinton are just as much in bed with Wall Street, I remind you who passed Dodd-Frank and who (with his Goldman-Sachs aides) wants to repeal it.

    I will read what you cited. I just want real facts which are very hard to come by these days. Dodd-Frank is an over regulated bill in my opinion and needs to be modified. Have you gone through the re fi nightmare.

  37. colewd,

    Never mind the global economy, toxic asset classes, wholesale industrial meltdown – Colewd has a refi to do!

Leave a Reply