That's still a bit of a mystery to me, watching it all unfold from half a world away.
And yet ... well, okay, first:
In the same post you quoted from (#175, above), I had something to say about who is lying and why they are doing it.
Actually, James, thank you for pointing to #175; unfortunately, I linked to #193 in this thread instead of
#2↗ in the "Blind Spot" thread; what I quoted was from the other thread. It's a direct quote: "The answer, I think, has something to do with being consistently and repeatedly fed a whole bunch of lies, and coming to believe them."
But if viability,
i.e., why it is even possible, is still a bit of a mystery to you, then your analysis in that other post was entirely speculative. Moreover, consider the contrast: To the one, "progressive media and commentators and analysts might just be a little too
nice about the whole business"; to the other—
• "That somebody - whoever it was - strikes me as somebody who was on the ball back in 2016."
• "There are clues to be found, if you put in a little effort in trying to find out the truth, rather than just making assumptions that make you feel comfortable."
• "But I guess it's simpler for some to try to blame all the Trump supporters for being bad people to the core. Because that requires less thinking, I guess. It also means you're free to demonise people and misrepresent (some of) them. And some people just can't help themselves when it comes to trying to demonise other people."
—remember what you're agreeing with, a proposition that:
• "One thing that Trump's election should have taught all of us 'liberals' is that we shouldn't be merely dismissing the views of people who voted for him as obviously crazy, or motivated by racism or sexism or any of those other bad things."
That is to say, are progressives being too
nice about the whole business, or are liberals being too mean to these rightists?
See, the thing is, what you and the NYT editor, as well as the 2016 proposition, all have in common is that the narratives you tell presuppose an ahistorical political circumstance.
As I
suggested above↑, one of the reasons they might actually get what they think they want is that enough people would help them along the way. To a certain degree, we can probably discuss that part of the mystery in the Blind Spot thread, instead of weighing this one down. While voter behavior is relevant to this thread, we could easily bury the broader discussion.
Additionally, part of that other discussion will also overlap with your thread about the
prospect of civil war↗, a point that arises specifically because the Republican officials who won elections in Texas can't get what they want by abiding the law. And, y'know, this mess isn't new; compared to the question of who lied to conservative voters, it's worth observing that we are experiencing the late end of what began
over a decade ago when Speaker Boehner failed to pass an immigration bill, told President Obama to use executive authority to address the issue, and then sued to stop him from doing so. But, yeah, even in your civil war thread, I
reached back↗ to 2015 on the point that conservatives are "doing it to themselves; they're setting themselves up for a revolt".
†
Still, the thing about agreement is that the detail matters. There are a few paragraphs on American media, but there is a certain sterility about it, kind of a,
¿Yeah, and? For me, though, the discussion in the other thread probably colors my perception of what is missing. The thing is, what you describe is not new. To wit, "However, thay
are encouraged. Constantly and actively." Yeah, and?
And when you talk about declining political power, it's like you're trying to piece together something that's already known. But when we compare this analysis to your speculative romanticization of Trump voters in the Blind Spot thread, it would appear you're sending mixed signals. When, in this thread, you say, "Another way to put it is this," you then spend two paragraphs doing what you disagree with in the other thread. It is not, for instance, that you are somehow wrong to juxtapose left-leaning media, but, rather, that the superficial telling implicitly equalizes and thereby understates the significance of right-wing media. If we gather up enough of those superficial false equivalences, you'll find they can bear significant influence over basic narratives.
It's also a little late to parse out "conservatives" from Trump supporters. That talking point is actually kind of a tell, generally speaking, but in your case it's also thematic. The short form, as of about
sixteen months ago↗, is that while it seems important for some to separate the two, I just don't see how that works compared to the last forty years, at least.
And you seem to have missed the point about intelligent design: Those folks are part of who you're crying for, James.
Consider "the whole thing about fearing a decline or loss of power, resenting it and then vigorously demanding their 'right' to it." Are you going to blame that on right-wing media? Meanwhile, compared to your speculative fancy in the other thread, we can only wonder at the tack.
And, really, after everything else, we're down to ignorance and noncompetency? Okay, but that "bit of a mystery" shouldn't really be so mysterious, and that "peculiar sort of blindness and naïveté" both discredits Trump voters and would dissent from your hyperbolic analysis casting those people as victims.
It's like your point about how they think they're sticking it to the Man. Sure, whatever, but you're kind of late:
•
2016↗: "Do Donald Trump's voters actually care? Is that question remotely relevant? Once again we face the linchpin of the great #trumpswindle, whether Trump voters are marks or in on the grift".
•
2017↗: "We're watching the emergence of that long-rumored silent majority; whether or not it actually achieves a proper majority is its own question, and depends on a fundamental #trumpswindle question about who is a mark or in on the grift."
•
2019↗: "We can look at low-key grift like our neighbor pushes and wonder if he is a mark or thinks himself in on the swindle."
•
2019↗: "The irony arises because Republican anti-institutionalism elects its antithesis, and this actually seems to be the point, and so obviously that one of the reasons I use the hashtag #trumpswindle is to wonder if President Trump's supporters think themselves in on the grift."
•
2019↗: "… the enduring question of whether Trump supporters think themselves in on the grift … It's already clear that regardless of whether they think they're in on the grift, they are, in the Trump outlook, somem manner of easy marks."
•
2020↗: "Are his voters marks, or ―... okay, yeah, they're marks, sure, but do they really think they're in on the grift?"
•
2020↗: "… recall a basic juxtaposition: In my bleedingheart world, it is possible for you to have fallen for the rightist grift, taken part in it, and served it well for years, and still, technically, be innocent. Then again, many people would not appreciate that sense of being forgiven for being a helpless victim …"
•
2020↗: "Are Trump supporters merely marks, or are they in on the grift? Inasmuch as they can be considered in on the grift, they are as anxious or marks and useful of tools as any con artist could hope for."
In re voter behavior, sure, it's relevant to election prognostication, but it's also messy inasmuch as the words just pile up as we explore the history relevant to this or that bit of wide-eyed, presupposing credulity. Like that last, actually, from 2020: It's about the cruelty of the Trump agenda, and observes Serwer's analysis, ca. 2018, why Trump voters "will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them". It's a bit different than your description of Trump voters as victims, and in the moment it occurs to wonder if it's just simpler for you to pretend they are so weak and naïve and gullible.
For instance, when Nikki Haley blames Obama for racial division, or aruges the murder of nine Black people by a white supremacist complaining about Black people taking over the country wasn't about racism, there really isn't any question who she's pandering to, or why.
It's not always a question of being half a world away. Rather, you're just not watching all that closely, and, sure, whatever, it's another country, to you, but if the reasons why such fallacious wishful thinking might carry forward are really so mysterious, maybe that's on you.
