I'm willing to believe that there's an "American national character," and that there's a "deep flaw" in it. I believe that it's complicated because I believe every goddamn thing is complicated, but I also believe that some of the answers are out there in plain sight. The big one is that many straight white men (and the women who love, or at least marry, them) believed that no matter how difficult their lives were, they were on top of the heap, and just like the non-slave-owning white southerners of the Civil War era they identified with those who really were on top of the heap. The 1960s and what followed blew that apart. It turned out that if you fought like hell to be included in the body politic, you could actually achieve some degree of (apparent) inclusion. Many of those white guys hadn't figured this out, and as a result they hated the people of color and the women who had managed to get a toehold than they did the white guys at the top. Trump speaks to these frustrated, angry people even though he doesn't have much of substance to offer them.
I disagree in the sense that throughout history when the cult leader is gone ( either by death or prison) the cult loses all it's power and eventually ( not necessarily immediately) dies too.
But there is plenty of hate out there that isn't part of the maga cult. I know people who claim that they are Reagan Democrats and Independents ( and despise trump) that have as much racism, bigotry, misogyny, and ultra conservative views as maga.
My father, then bureau chief of the London Daily Telegraph, published a book in 1970 entitled America in Retreat. America, he wrote, was "a country divided against itself, full of doubts and fear and looking inwards. The tide may well be turning away from acceptance of the policy recommendations of an educated élite -- and against the élite. The day of the simplistic know-nothing yahoo may be dawning". Plus ça change and all that. The American electorate, as Madison and co well understood, has always had its share of simplistic yahoos, as have all electorates. What's new is that the yahoos have been empowered to give one of their own a real shot at the White House. How did that happen? Too much democracy at the nominating phase. Same thing happened in the UK. The Conservatives opened the choice of leader to the rank-and-file and the rank-and-file gave them Boris Johnson. In 2016, no serious Republican wanted Trump to be the nominee, but the party having surrendered its choice to the mob -- the GOP id -- that's what it got, good and hard, as Mencken would say. Earlier versions of Trump -- Wallace, Buchanan, Perot -- were un-nominatable. What has broken down is the filtration system that parties provided.
Great piece! No doubt many disaffected people have attached to this “cult”, and some people are just lazy haters, who need a target. But isn’t the real question, not what this malignant movement is, but why? And why are otherwise, seemingly normal people tolerating the lies, ugliness and violence?
It is very complicated, but we ignore it at our peril.
Provocative article. You may be over analyzing the problem. Interestingly, none of his designees or acolytes seems to have a fraction of his drawing power. I think we are looking at a personality cult unique to Trump. When he is finally seen off by defeat or otherwise, things may well equalize.
I'm willing to believe that there's an "American national character," and that there's a "deep flaw" in it. I believe that it's complicated because I believe every goddamn thing is complicated, but I also believe that some of the answers are out there in plain sight. The big one is that many straight white men (and the women who love, or at least marry, them) believed that no matter how difficult their lives were, they were on top of the heap, and just like the non-slave-owning white southerners of the Civil War era they identified with those who really were on top of the heap. The 1960s and what followed blew that apart. It turned out that if you fought like hell to be included in the body politic, you could actually achieve some degree of (apparent) inclusion. Many of those white guys hadn't figured this out, and as a result they hated the people of color and the women who had managed to get a toehold than they did the white guys at the top. Trump speaks to these frustrated, angry people even though he doesn't have much of substance to offer them.
Yes.
Can you tell I came of political age in the late '60s? <g>
I disagree in the sense that throughout history when the cult leader is gone ( either by death or prison) the cult loses all it's power and eventually ( not necessarily immediately) dies too.
But there is plenty of hate out there that isn't part of the maga cult. I know people who claim that they are Reagan Democrats and Independents ( and despise trump) that have as much racism, bigotry, misogyny, and ultra conservative views as maga.
The current R party owns it but it is everywhere.
My father, then bureau chief of the London Daily Telegraph, published a book in 1970 entitled America in Retreat. America, he wrote, was "a country divided against itself, full of doubts and fear and looking inwards. The tide may well be turning away from acceptance of the policy recommendations of an educated élite -- and against the élite. The day of the simplistic know-nothing yahoo may be dawning". Plus ça change and all that. The American electorate, as Madison and co well understood, has always had its share of simplistic yahoos, as have all electorates. What's new is that the yahoos have been empowered to give one of their own a real shot at the White House. How did that happen? Too much democracy at the nominating phase. Same thing happened in the UK. The Conservatives opened the choice of leader to the rank-and-file and the rank-and-file gave them Boris Johnson. In 2016, no serious Republican wanted Trump to be the nominee, but the party having surrendered its choice to the mob -- the GOP id -- that's what it got, good and hard, as Mencken would say. Earlier versions of Trump -- Wallace, Buchanan, Perot -- were un-nominatable. What has broken down is the filtration system that parties provided.
Great piece! No doubt many disaffected people have attached to this “cult”, and some people are just lazy haters, who need a target. But isn’t the real question, not what this malignant movement is, but why? And why are otherwise, seemingly normal people tolerating the lies, ugliness and violence?
It is very complicated, but we ignore it at our peril.
Thank you.
Or as Hillary put it short and sweet: basket of deplorables
The answer might be simply that propaganda and what our circle thinks works better than we would like to admit and there’s plenty of it all around us.
Provocative article. You may be over analyzing the problem. Interestingly, none of his designees or acolytes seems to have a fraction of his drawing power. I think we are looking at a personality cult unique to Trump. When he is finally seen off by defeat or otherwise, things may well equalize.