Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni
Also, celebrity-ism. And anti-establisment-ism.Kraken wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:09 am I hope this will be a short thread. I just want to poll the room.
The term has legs. IDK if it will wind up in the big-boy club with "fascism" or "communism" because there seems to be no underlying ideology. But both its advocates and its opponents keep bandying it about, so it will probably find some lasting niche among the -ism's.
I think it's a special blend of authoritarianism + racism + xenophobia + exceptionalism + nativism, but I'm sure trumpists must have a very different definition. When trumpsters endorse trumpism, what do they mean?
"Reaganism" became a thing because there was an ideology behind it -- small government, low taxes, trickle-on economics. If trumpism has one unifying principle, it's stigginit to the libs. All of those dolts will agree on that much.Jaymann wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:59 am What malchior said. I have seen interviews of those dolts standing side by side contradicting each other. It's like the rubes who got fleeced by his underhanded contribution scams but still love Florida Man.
I think what most MAGAs believe is that America has been somehow taken advantage of by international agreements, regulations that other countries don't have to follow, norms of respectable national behavior, and especially the attitudes of elites whose loyalty is to abstract principles rather than to American pre-eminence. If we were just tough enough, they believe, we would swing our dick around and win in all these areas where they believe we are losing.ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:20 am It's a demagogue-led version of America First. Heck, you could probably get both pro and anti Trump people to agree on the America First part (they just disagree on what America First really means). If any part of Trumpism survives, it will be the America First part (because the demagogue-led version is highly dependent on the wanna be demagogue).
Don't forget thinly veiled racism. And maybe "Fuck you, I'm getting mine-ism"
I don't know about the fuck you part, but "Mine!" does a good starting job of summing up Trumpism, I think. A deeper look makes it more complex but Mine is at the core. From Mine comes the organizing in groups to protect it. From Mine comes the perception of entitlement and taking what you think you are entitled to from those outside (and potentially turning on others in your group). From Minecomes the idea that taking from you is an act of aggression and you are the cause of all of the things and deserve them and no one else does because those things came from your pocket. Trump, directly, is a "fuck you" and that appeals to radicals but I think cult of Trump is bigger than the "fuck you" part. I think many Trumpets want to be left alone with theirs and well, the minimum for taxes can go to roads and roads cannot cost much when you pay for them and that's about it. They don't even want to pay for their thin blue line they purport to love until it stands between them and theirs.Paingod wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:35 am Don't forget thinly veiled racism. And maybe "Fuck you, I'm getting mine-ism"
Oh, you don't? I think it was pretty overt.
I disagree. If I were to define the core tenet of Trumpism in a word, it would "STIGGINIT". Anything that makes liberals angry/unhappy/suffer is good, even if that comes at one's own expense.LordMortis wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:33 am I don't think "fuck you" is a necessary conditional for being a Trumpet, even if the ven diagram of "mine" and "fuck you" has a heavy heavy overlap. A bet with excellent odds? Yes. Easy to paint the picture. Youbetcha. Part of the defining characteristic. I don't think so.
I agree one of their core goals is to just stick it to the libs. Doesn't matter how or if it impacts them too as long as it makes the others upset.Skinypupy wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:55 amI disagree. If I were to define the core tenet of Trumpism in a word, it would "STIGGINIT". Anything that makes liberals angry/unhappy/suffer is good, even if that comes at one's own expense.LordMortis wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:33 am I don't think "fuck you" is a necessary conditional for being a Trumpet, even if the ven diagram of "mine" and "fuck you" has a heavy heavy overlap. A bet with excellent odds? Yes. Easy to paint the picture. Youbetcha. Part of the defining characteristic. I don't think so.
Every other objective seems to be quite secondary, imo.
You are missing the forest for the trees. You left out the most important thing - Trump himself. Yes, he stands for all of those things but without Trump, it's not the same. It seriously could stand for almost anything at this point - I've seen Trump change positions on some issues and his cult just follows after him, regardless of the inconsistency. It's all about Trump, nothing more, nothing less.Kraken wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:09 am I hope this will be a short thread. I just want to poll the room.
I think it's a special blend of authoritarianism + racism + xenophobia + exceptionalism + nativism, but I'm sure trumpists must have a very different definition. When trumpsters endorse trumpism, what do they mean?
This guy gets it. Trump pulled various subcultures into his orbit, but for Trumpers, it's all about Trump.Grifman wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:42 pmYou left out the most important thing - Trump himself. - It seriously could stand for almost anything at this point - I've seen Trump change positions on some issues and his cult just follows after him, regardless of the inconsistency. It's all about Trump, nothing more, nothing less.
I wish that were true, but I disagree 100% with that premise.Grifman wrote:You are missing the forest for the trees. You left out the most important thing - Trump himself. Yes, he stands for all of those things but without Trump, it's not the same. It seriously could stand for almost anything at this point - I've seen Trump change positions on some issues and his cult just follows after him, regardless of the inconsistency. It's all about Trump, nothing more, nothing less.Kraken wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:09 am I hope this will be a short thread. I just want to poll the room.
I think it's a special blend of authoritarianism + racism + xenophobia + exceptionalism + nativism, but I'm sure trumpists must have a very different definition. When trumpsters endorse trumpism, what do they mean?
I don't think it's about Trump. It's about who Trump gives them permission to be.Little Raven wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:11 pmThis guy gets it. Trump pulled various subcultures into his orbit, but for Trumpers, it's all about Trump.Grifman wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:42 pmYou left out the most important thing - Trump himself. - It seriously could stand for almost anything at this point - I've seen Trump change positions on some issues and his cult just follows after him, regardless of the inconsistency. It's all about Trump, nothing more, nothing less.
Nothing else matters.
Yes, but don't confuse Trump voters and Trumpers. One is a very small subgroup of the other.
Anal retentive is a thing.Holman wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:32 pmI don't think it's about Trump. It's about who Trump gives them permission to be.Little Raven wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:11 pmThis guy gets it. Trump pulled various subcultures into his orbit, but for Trumpers, it's all about Trump.Grifman wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:42 pmYou left out the most important thing - Trump himself. - It seriously could stand for almost anything at this point - I've seen Trump change positions on some issues and his cult just follows after him, regardless of the inconsistency. It's all about Trump, nothing more, nothing less.
Nothing else matters.
Every other Republican candidate has for decades claimed (even when their own policies contradicted it) to support tolerance, justice, and supporting the aspirations of all Americans. They reminded us that we are all created equal, and that we all have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They presented themselves as alternatives to Liberals in methods, not in ends.
Meanwhile, huge portions of the Republican base have been on the wrong side of history for decades on Civil Rights, women's equality, international cooperation, economic opportunity, the climate crisis, etc. Many of them still remember hating the uppity black radicals who made America so complicated in the 60s and 70s, and then the whining feminists and gays and activists who did the same later on.
Then Trump came along and told them that *they* were actually right all this time. "Making America Great Again" means reversing course on every single issue where reactionaries have had to give ground for the past two or three generations. Every GOP candidate who ever mouthed platitudes about equality instantly became cast as not just a fraud but a RINO.
Trump let bigots be bigots and promised that they needn't be ashamed of it. Think of the incredible relief that must be for people who've been holding it in all this time.
Then can trumpism outlive Trump?Grifman wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:42 pmYou are missing the forest for the trees. You left out the most important thing - Trump himself. Yes, he stands for all of those things but without Trump, it's not the same. It seriously could stand for almost anything at this point - I've seen Trump change positions on some issues and his cult just follows after him, regardless of the inconsistency. It's all about Trump, nothing more, nothing less.Kraken wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:09 am I hope this will be a short thread. I just want to poll the room.
I think it's a special blend of authoritarianism + racism + xenophobia + exceptionalism + nativism, but I'm sure trumpists must have a very different definition. When trumpsters endorse trumpism, what do they mean?
QAnon and associated theories have made huge inroads into the Christian Right.LordMortis wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:56 pm I missed the memo but today I noticed Trump flags up again, an upside down US flag, a blue line flag
This flag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Flag
This flag (sort of. It was a really cheap looking pine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tree_Flag
Is it flag of month club day? Is this a Chauvin conviction reaction thing?
I suspect that, like Reaganism today, how Trumpism will be used in 20 years will be highly context dependent. It'll be used to invoke celebrity culture spilling into the political sphere, cults of personality, nativism, populism, isolationism. Social media campaigns, no-nothingism, and the chasing of outrage for the sake of outrage.Kraken wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:16 pmReaganism came to mean low taxes, small government, nationalism, and individualism, and people still use the term. What will trumpism mean in 20+ years? Or will the term die with him?
The enemy of my enemy is my ally.Holman wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:23 pmQAnon and associated theories have made huge inroads into the Christian Right.
Yep, good point, important distinction.Little Raven wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:33 pmYes, but don't confuse Trump voters and Trumpers. One is a very small subgroup of the other.
In their 2018 book, “The Rise of Andrew Jackson,” historians David and Jeanne Heidler make a distinction between Jacksonites (the Tennessean’s supporters in the 1820s and “those willing to use Jackson’s popularity to achieve political power”) and Jacksonians (those who supported his ideological precepts, including universal white manhood suffrage, territorial expansion, and opposition to the central bank of the time).
With Trump’s presidency two years in the past but with his influence still strong and his ambition to return to the White House unabated, it now is possible to see that the Jackson phenomenon has a Trump analogue. We might think of contemporary Republicans as Trumpites (those willing to use his popularity to achieve political power) and Trumpians (true believers in election denial, assaults on the conventions of American civic life, and rejection of established international institutions).
...
The tension between Trumpites and Trumpians is perhaps the most important inflection point in contemporary American politics. It was the leitmotif of the Trump presidential years and is even more important in Trump’s post-White House period, when his influence as a kingmaker has waned and increasing number of Republicans believe he is an anchor, rather than a rocket booster, for GOP candidates. Every prominent election denier whom Trump supported in last year’s midterm elections was defeated.
As a result, while the number of Trumpians has remained steady, the ranks of Trumpites have been seriously depleted.
Gawd, I hope that is an overstatement.The tension between Trumpites and Trumpians is perhaps the most important inflection point in contemporary American politics.
IMHO, also an excuse for the GOP/ conservatives to ignore what they did to their party.LawBeefaroni wrote:Trumpsim is an excuse. It's an excuse to be racist or believe Qanon shit or reduce taxes or whatever.
It's a convenient broad brush to use to oppose conservativism.
Eye of the beholder type stuff.
This is the zombie idea of the election IMO. It keeps getting kicked around a lot in the press but when you look at the big picture it's really tough to make. A strong counter-case IMO to this 'prominence' arguments is that hundreds of election deniers that Trump supported sit in the House and Senate right now.Kraken wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:15 amEvery prominent election denier whom Trump supported in last year’s midterm elections was defeated.
I think this model is a distinction without much usefulness. Despite disturbances like the Speaker nonsense and talk of GOP civil war, the GOP will flock to whomever holds the standard next year.As a result, while the number of Trumpians has remained steady, the ranks of Trumpites have been seriously depleted.
Agreed. Pragmatically, democracy both did not collapse in 2022 and it was not saved. It did better than I had hoped for but as it turns out democracy may just embrace corrupt authoritarianism that seeks to gain and keep power at any cost and end up being a bad call from where I sit.malchior wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 12:30 pm It keeps getting kicked around a lot in the press but when you look at the big picture it's really tough to make. A strong counter-case IMO to this 'prominence' arguments is that hundreds of election deniers that Trump supported sit in the House and Senate right now.
Political and legal experts are sounding the alarm after a New York Times deep dive details how Donald Trump and his top allies are planning to massively reorganize the entire executive branch to hand him unprecedented power and decimate the constitutional basis of checks and balances should he win re-election next year.
"Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands," The New York Times' Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman report.
...
The New York Times' report on Monday reveals Trump and his allies' "plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control."
Trump, for example, would bring what Congress created to be independent agencies, like the "Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control."
He would "impound" taxpayer funds Congress appropriated and refuse to spend them, a practice outlawed under disgraced President Richard Nixon.
...
“The president’s plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn’t been done since F.D.R.’s New Deal,” said McEntee, "who is now involved in mapping out the new approach," The Times reports.
“Our current executive branch,” McEntee added, “was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”
Russell T. Vought, who lead Trump's Office of Management and Budget, told The Times: “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them.”
Tho Heinlein was writing about his conception of the Reverend Nehemiah Scudder from Revolt in 2100, Trump is the same thing - tho not even anywhere near religious or devout (and '50's McCarthyism leaned into this too).“As for … the idea that we could lose our freedom by succumbing to a wave of religious hysteria, I am sorry to say that I consider it possible. I hope that it is not probable. But there is a latent deep strain of religious fanaticism in this, our culture; it is rooted in our history and it has broken out many times in the past.
“It is with us now; there has been a sharp rise in strongly evangelical sects in this country in recent years, some of which hold beliefs theocratic in the extreme, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-libertarian.
“It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics. This is equally true whether the faith is Communism or Holy-Rollerism; indeed it is the bounden duty of the faithful to do so. The custodians of the True Faith cannot logically admit tolerance of heresy to be a virtue.
“Nevertheless this business of legislating religious beliefs into law has never been more than sporadically successful in this country — Sunday closing laws here and there, birth control legislation in spots, the Prohibition experiment, temporary enclaves of theocracy such as Voliva’s Zion, Smith’s Nauvoo, and a few others. The country is split up into such a variety of faiths and sects that a degree of uneasy tolerance now exists from expedient compromise; the minorities constitute a majority of opposition against each other.
“Could it be otherwise here? Could any one sect obtain a working majority at the polls and take over the country? Perhaps not — but a combination of a dynamic evangelist, television, enough money, and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make Billy Sunday’s efforts look like a corner store compared to Sears Roebuck.
“Throw in a Depression for good measure, promise a material heaven here on earth, add a dash of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Negrosim, and a good large dose of anti-“furriners” in general and anti-intellectuals here at home, and the result might be something quite frightening — particularly when one recalls that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as pluralities in enough states can constitute a working majority in Washington.”