X Close

The Donald Trump Monster Movie Until the credits roll, both parties are trapped

(Mario Tama/Getty Images)


August 3, 2023   5 mins

In Hollywood sci-fi movies from the Fifties, there is often a moment when the US military drops an atomic bomb on a monster. It then invariably emerges from the radioactive cloud unscathed — to the disappointment and horror of those looking on.

Today, something like that disappointment and horror can be found in the response of America’s political establishment to the as-yet unstoppable Donald Trump. His Democratic enemies have deployed two impeachments and multiple lawsuits, some more frivolous than others, but they have proven as ineffective in stopping his return as the A-bomb was in halting the Martian invaders in The War of the Worlds (1953). Consider the latest RealClearPolitics average of polls: 53.9% of Republican voters favour Trump for the 2024 presidential election, compared to only 18.1% for his closest challenger, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The other candidates, including entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and former vice-president Mike Pence, are in the single digits.

Will Trump’s indictment this week, which charged him with plotting to overturn his 2020 defeat, shift the dial? It seems unlikely. Only 19% of likely Republican primary voters believe that Trump “threatened American democracy” by challenging the 2020 election results, while only 17% believe that he has committed serious crimes. Moreover, when it comes to the presidential election itself, among registered voters, Monday’s polls showed Trump and Biden in a dead heat, with each winning 43% of the vote. If helped by third-party candidates who tend to siphon off otherwise Democratic voters, Trump could not only be nominated again by the Republican party, but also elected to a second term.

All of this is good news for Trumpism, defined as the cult of personality of Donald Trump. But for the other two tendencies in the Republican Party — post-Trumpism and pseudo-Trumpism — it is not good news at all.

As a political framework, Post-Trumpism seeks to build a new conservative governing philosophy that rejects the Goldwater-Reagan-Bush fusion of economic libertarianism, military adventurism and lip service to social conservatism that dominated the Republican party. In his first campaign and his presidency, Trump took a chainsaw to American conservative establishment’s three-legged stool. He substituted narrow transactional economic nationalism — symbolised by tariffs and a “border wall” to block the flow of illegal immigration — for the Reagan Right’s traditional support for free trade and cheap-labour immigration. While President George W. Bush had championed a global democratic revolution, Trump rejected crusading neoconservatism for a kind of Nixonian Realpolitik, denouncing the Iraq War and refraining from starting any other new “wars of choice”. And, despite his opposition to abortion and transgender military service members, Trump reflected the trend of Republican voters in embracing gay rights.

Since the Sixties, there has been a large constituency of American voters, mostly but not exclusively white and non-college-educated, who have preferred a combination of economic nationalism, moderate social policies, and fewer foreign wars and military engagements. However, the growing influence in both parties of wealthy individuals and corporate donors, who tend to share libertarian economic and social views, combined with the decline of trade unions and old-fashioned political party machines, meant that this synthesis was unrepresented by donor-dependent Clinton Democrats and Bush Republicans. It is no coincidence that the two presidential candidates who had the most success in mobilising voters with these third-way views — the Dallas electronics billionaire H. Ross Perot, who won 19% of the popular vote in 1992, the highest percentage since 1912, and the New York real estate mogul Donald Trump in 2020 — were able to finance at least part of their own campaigns.

Like Perot, Trump benefited from a combination of issues that made him a favourite among many white working-class voters in Midwestern industrial states. Comparisons of Trump and his supporters to fascists are the dishonest propaganda of partisan Democrats, who compared Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush to Hitler, too.  The genuine equivalents of Trump are contemporary leaders of the populist Right in the UK and Europe, such as Boris Johnson and the late Silvio Berlusconi. With varying degrees of success, Trump and his European peers succeeded in tapping into concerns about trade, immigration and cultural Leftism that had driven many voters who had left social-democratic parties for the nationalist Right.

The problem for all these movements is the challenge of becoming a permanent wing, if not the dominant wing, of the Right once the charismatic tribune has passed from the scene. In the Republican Party, foreshadowing what a post-Trumpist wing would look like, politicians such as Senators Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio, and J.D. Vance have broken with legacy Reaganism on issues ranging from child benefits to the legitimacy of labour unions to worker safety. So far, however, most elected Republicans have been unwilling to repudiate the Reaganite consensus, while they wait to see if Trumpism was an ephemeral flash in the pan. Paradoxically, the longer Trump is active in politics and monopolises attention, the more the development of post-Trumpism without Trump is delayed.

What about other factions in the Republican party? At this point, many Never-Trumpers have abandoned the party altogether for the Democrats. That leaves what might be called pseudo-Trumpists — opportunistic Republican politicians and strategists trying to borrow some issues from Trump, without alienating the substantial group of legacy Reaganites.

This group includes Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, once a typical Reagan-Bush conservative, and Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, who worked in finance, hardly a bastion of conservative populism. Like Youngkin, DeSantis has refused to adopt the economic heresies of Trump about entitlements and trade, for fear of offending the free-marketeers and hawks of the old Reagan coalition. In response, the Trump campaign has shrewdly seized upon his past votes for cutting Social Security and Medicare, in an attempt to undercut the appeal of the Florida governor to working-class Republican voters. For now, it’s working.

From afar, this might all seem like a gift for the Democrats. But it isn’t. Paradoxically, the persistence of Trumpism also hurts Democratic party coalition-building in the long run, if not immediately.

No doubt many Democrats would welcome a Biden-Trump rematch. After all, apocalyptic and hysterical opposition to Trump united the Democratic Party’s otherwise fragile coalition: a peculiar assortment of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street tycoons; green crony capitalists seeking government subsidies; virtue-signalling professionals in the non-profit and academic sectors; public-sector unions; and socially moderate black and Hispanic voters wary of a Republican Party with a history of flirting with racists.

This rhetoric of anti-Trumpism, however, will make it more difficult for Democrats to win back voters, including growing numbers of Hispanics and some black voters, who have left the Democrats for the Republicans in recent elections. According to the logic of anti-Trumpism, if ex-Democrats who voted for Trump once or twice are America’s version of the Nazis, then it would be immoral to appeal to their votes. And it would be just as immoral to acknowledge that Trump has exploited legitimate concerns about bad trade deals and illegal immigration. As long as Trump is around to serve as a demonic figure whom the Democratic base can unite against, it will be difficult to argue that the Democrats need to modify their policies to have broader electoral appeal.

Trump’s legacy, then, might end up resembling that of William Jennings Bryan, the “Great Commoner” and agrarian populist who won the nomination of the Democratic Party in 1896, 1900 and 1908. Like Trump, Bryan was a polarising figure, adored by his followers and viewed by the Eastern Seaboard establishment as a dangerous demagogue who threatened democracy and civilisation. And like Trump, Bryan led his party to permanently break with its older small-government, anti-statist ideology. Without Bryan’s campaigns as an icebreaker, the more thoughtful and moderate reformism of later Progressives and New Dealers might not have come about. But before others could separate the worthwhile from the eccentric in his legacy, Bryan had to depart from the scene. More than a century later, the same may be true of Donald Trump.


Michael Lind is a columnist at Tablet and a fellow at New America. His latest book is Hell to Pay: How the Suppression of Wages is Destroying America.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

170 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago

Interesting, well balanced read. He makes a significant point about the growing influence of wealth and corporations in both parties.

People should check out Tablet magazine. Some really in-depth, insightful essays over there.

Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Especially by Mr. Lind.

Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Especially by Mr. Lind.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago

Interesting, well balanced read. He makes a significant point about the growing influence of wealth and corporations in both parties.

People should check out Tablet magazine. Some really in-depth, insightful essays over there.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
11 months ago

An interesting article with, I assume, a valid analysis of Trump but, as so often, lazily getting Boris completely wrong. But, as this piece is about America, let’s not dwell on that.
I believe the number of indictments against Trump is now something like 78. Two or three would be credible but 78 is clearly a political campaign, especially as the Justice Dept seems to have a marked lack of curiosity about Hunter’s laptop and Joe’s garage full of classified documents.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
11 months ago

There were quite a few indictments against Al Capone, I believe, even if most of them failed. Was that a witchhunt, too?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

They had to eventually resort to tax evasion to get the infamous mob boss. To remove any potential confusion: I’m talking about Capone, of course.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
11 months ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

If Alan Dershowitz’s analysis of the most recent indictment of Trump is correct, every human on earth is guilty of capital crimes. All they need do is open theirs mouths and speak.

Jimjim McHale
Jimjim McHale
11 months ago

Thank you! Whatever Trump did when he was President surely made the USA better. We don’t vote for a personality, we vote for someone who can do the job.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
11 months ago
Reply to  Jimjim McHale

YAY! The author mentions the other side…a peculiar assortment of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street tycoons; green crony capitalists seeking government subsidies; virtue-signalling professionals in the non-profit and academic sectors; public-sector unions;”
NO thank you.

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
11 months ago
Reply to  Jimjim McHale

What did the Donald do apart from throwing ketchup at the WH walls? Oh and use a sharpie to mess up maps?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
11 months ago
Reply to  Jimjim McHale

YAY! The author mentions the other side…a peculiar assortment of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street tycoons; green crony capitalists seeking government subsidies; virtue-signalling professionals in the non-profit and academic sectors; public-sector unions;”
NO thank you.

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
11 months ago
Reply to  Jimjim McHale

What did the Donald do apart from throwing ketchup at the WH walls? Oh and use a sharpie to mess up maps?

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
11 months ago

All Dershowitz has to do is keep his mouth shut and dream about underage girls! Vieux croûton!

Jimjim McHale
Jimjim McHale
11 months ago

Thank you! Whatever Trump did when he was President surely made the USA better. We don’t vote for a personality, we vote for someone who can do the job.

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
11 months ago

All Dershowitz has to do is keep his mouth shut and dream about underage girls! Vieux croûton!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

They had to eventually resort to tax evasion to get the infamous mob boss. To remove any potential confusion: I’m talking about Capone, of course.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
11 months ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

If Alan Dershowitz’s analysis of the most recent indictment of Trump is correct, every human on earth is guilty of capital crimes. All they need do is open theirs mouths and speak.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
11 months ago

There were quite a few indictments against Al Capone, I believe, even if most of them failed. Was that a witchhunt, too?

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
11 months ago

An interesting article with, I assume, a valid analysis of Trump but, as so often, lazily getting Boris completely wrong. But, as this piece is about America, let’s not dwell on that.
I believe the number of indictments against Trump is now something like 78. Two or three would be credible but 78 is clearly a political campaign, especially as the Justice Dept seems to have a marked lack of curiosity about Hunter’s laptop and Joe’s garage full of classified documents.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
11 months ago

Very heartening to read the NYT poll: Trump supporters simply do not attach any importance to this incessantly expanding list of indictments.

Though this may seem somewhat esoteric, I suspect for many of his supporters, the true goal of a Trump presidency is in fact to clear the way for post-Trumpism. The hysteria and dirty tricks he is bringing to light are actually a boon to the process, heaping discredit on so many ideas and institutions that will, one hopes, be destroyed under Trump 2024, so that later they can be rebuilt by post-Trumpists. You could say I am more optimistic about this outcome than the author of this piece.

Of course, as always with Trump, anything can happen. . .

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
11 months ago
Reply to  Paul Hendricks

The true goal of a Trump presidency is to boost Mr Trump’s ego! Why on Earth anyone takes this three time loser seriously is beyond me. (And once scraping in, but nonetheless losing the popular vote by a large margin). Ok he, perhaps surprisingly is an important figure in a polarised moment, but he is sui generis and represents compete political dead end. He will constantly attack, rather than support, anyone looking to succeed him and move his legacy, such as it is, forward, often on the most petty and vindictive grounds. And as we now know, his White House was completely chaotic much of the time, with Trump endlessly falling out with his own lieutenants. A successful long-term political movement that does not make!

The Right have to get out of this tinpot saviour mentality and start doing some actual hard work (which they are supposed culturally to support) and the long road to power that the Progressive Left have been so successful in. Otherwise it will be defeat after defeat.

January 6th was a perfect illustration of this. Of course the Democrats have hysterically overplayed this as an attempted coup etc. But seeing as it had absolutely no chance of anything that could be called a political success, turned off millions of Americans who might otherwise have supported him in future, it was an absolutely futile gesture. People can demonise the never Trumpers all they wish, but they exist in significant numbers. Together with the left and centrist voters concentrated in cities they outnumber Trump’s admittedly impressively loyal (but I’d say largely misled) “base”.

Last edited 11 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Can he still run for the Presidency as a convicted felon?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

Depends on the felony. Not those in the latest indictment they’re saying: charges of deliberate anti-constitutional acts or “anti-patriotism”.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Would ‘we’ call that High Treason I wonder.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

That sort of language exists in early US state documents but Trump’s prosecutors haven’t quite gone there. Low Treason?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

We used to call that Petty Treason.
The sentence was also slightly modified.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

Off with half yer head?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Hanged but NO quartering for most.
Burning for ALL ladies!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

Haha! The Old Clemency.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

Haha! The Old Clemency.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Hanged but NO quartering for most.
Burning for ALL ladies!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

Off with half yer head?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

We used to call that Petty Treason.
The sentence was also slightly modified.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

That sort of language exists in early US state documents but Trump’s prosecutors haven’t quite gone there. Low Treason?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Would ‘we’ call that High Treason I wonder.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

Depends on the felony. Not those in the latest indictment they’re saying: charges of deliberate anti-constitutional acts or “anti-patriotism”.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Republicans are cowards really and are more interested in protecting what privilege they have. They’re scared he will run as an independent if they dump him.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Your first sentence applies equally to Democrats and everyone else capitulating to the authoritarian lunacy of the far left.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Your first sentence applies equally to Democrats and everyone else capitulating to the authoritarian lunacy of the far left.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

I agree with your comment; I think his personal qualities disqualify him from office – a serial adulterer is almost certainly a serial liar and if he lies to those he is close to he will certainly lie when he considers it expedient to those he does not know.
I am perhaps not qualified to comment as I am in UK not US but the difference between Trump and Boris seems minimal other than that Trump owns a comb.

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  Judy Johnson

To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, I prefer DT’s off-the-cuff, spontaneous lies to the Biden administration’s well-crafted lies.

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
11 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

It takes one incompetent, unscrupulous hack (JP) to recognise another (DT).

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
11 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

It takes one incompetent, unscrupulous hack (JP) to recognise another (DT).

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  Judy Johnson

To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, I prefer DT’s off-the-cuff, spontaneous lies to the Biden administration’s well-crafted lies.

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

We take him seriously because, unlike you, we consider his policies during his tenure as mostly successful, unlike those of his successor. We also aren’t obsessed with his personality/ego, as you appear to be.

philip kern
philip kern
11 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

This. I sat out two elections (as did all but two of my evangelical friends) because of his moral failings. But many view his tenure as successful despite his personality and the chaotic nature of his administration. His main accomplish may be his exposing the corruption embedded in the US political and justice system. I’m sure Republicans have abused the structures of power, but nothing comes close to what the Democrats have been doing of late. I know it has become a cliche, but Nixon engaged in child’s play compared to this, and even Kennedy’s stolen election rankles less (possibly because of the way Nixon responded).
What I hate most in all this is that as a conservative, I want to maintain a trust in the structures that hold together society. Marriage, the family, education, the courts, and government itself have all been undermined in recent years.

philip kern
philip kern
11 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

This. I sat out two elections (as did all but two of my evangelical friends) because of his moral failings. But many view his tenure as successful despite his personality and the chaotic nature of his administration. His main accomplish may be his exposing the corruption embedded in the US political and justice system. I’m sure Republicans have abused the structures of power, but nothing comes close to what the Democrats have been doing of late. I know it has become a cliche, but Nixon engaged in child’s play compared to this, and even Kennedy’s stolen election rankles less (possibly because of the way Nixon responded).
What I hate most in all this is that as a conservative, I want to maintain a trust in the structures that hold together society. Marriage, the family, education, the courts, and government itself have all been undermined in recent years.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Why on earth, you ask?
ï»żAnswer: the other side is “…a peculiar assortment of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street tycoons; green crony capitalists seeking government subsidies; virtue-signalling professionals in the non-profit and academic sectors; public-sector unions;”

Bruce Buteau
Bruce Buteau
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

I seem to recall Henry Tudor as a sui generis figure, intent on destroying his opponents. Of course, the Tudors didn’t amount to much historically.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Can he still run for the Presidency as a convicted felon?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Republicans are cowards really and are more interested in protecting what privilege they have. They’re scared he will run as an independent if they dump him.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

I agree with your comment; I think his personal qualities disqualify him from office – a serial adulterer is almost certainly a serial liar and if he lies to those he is close to he will certainly lie when he considers it expedient to those he does not know.
I am perhaps not qualified to comment as I am in UK not US but the difference between Trump and Boris seems minimal other than that Trump owns a comb.

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

We take him seriously because, unlike you, we consider his policies during his tenure as mostly successful, unlike those of his successor. We also aren’t obsessed with his personality/ego, as you appear to be.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Why on earth, you ask?
ï»żAnswer: the other side is “…a peculiar assortment of Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and Wall Street tycoons; green crony capitalists seeking government subsidies; virtue-signalling professionals in the non-profit and academic sectors; public-sector unions;”

Bruce Buteau
Bruce Buteau
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

I seem to recall Henry Tudor as a sui generis figure, intent on destroying his opponents. Of course, the Tudors didn’t amount to much historically.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
11 months ago
Reply to  Paul Hendricks

The true goal of a Trump presidency is to boost Mr Trump’s ego! Why on Earth anyone takes this three time loser seriously is beyond me. (And once scraping in, but nonetheless losing the popular vote by a large margin). Ok he, perhaps surprisingly is an important figure in a polarised moment, but he is sui generis and represents compete political dead end. He will constantly attack, rather than support, anyone looking to succeed him and move his legacy, such as it is, forward, often on the most petty and vindictive grounds. And as we now know, his White House was completely chaotic much of the time, with Trump endlessly falling out with his own lieutenants. A successful long-term political movement that does not make!

The Right have to get out of this tinpot saviour mentality and start doing some actual hard work (which they are supposed culturally to support) and the long road to power that the Progressive Left have been so successful in. Otherwise it will be defeat after defeat.

January 6th was a perfect illustration of this. Of course the Democrats have hysterically overplayed this as an attempted coup etc. But seeing as it had absolutely no chance of anything that could be called a political success, turned off millions of Americans who might otherwise have supported him in future, it was an absolutely futile gesture. People can demonise the never Trumpers all they wish, but they exist in significant numbers. Together with the left and centrist voters concentrated in cities they outnumber Trump’s admittedly impressively loyal (but I’d say largely misled) “base”.

Last edited 11 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
11 months ago

Very heartening to read the NYT poll: Trump supporters simply do not attach any importance to this incessantly expanding list of indictments.

Though this may seem somewhat esoteric, I suspect for many of his supporters, the true goal of a Trump presidency is in fact to clear the way for post-Trumpism. The hysteria and dirty tricks he is bringing to light are actually a boon to the process, heaping discredit on so many ideas and institutions that will, one hopes, be destroyed under Trump 2024, so that later they can be rebuilt by post-Trumpists. You could say I am more optimistic about this outcome than the author of this piece.

Of course, as always with Trump, anything can happen. . .

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
11 months ago

Part of the problem with moving on from Trump is Republican leadership and its intellectual elites from places like National Review do not want to move to a more populist post-Trump place. No, what they want is a return to the Paul Ryan/George W. Bush era of the party. Seriously, if you want to see this in action, look at the GOP field. It is a neocon cult of personality around Regan that pretends the last twenty years did not happen. These clowns are acting like they are fighting for the nomination circa 2004! I wanted to move on from Trump. Hell, I wish we could get another Eisenhower. Yes, Trump changed the direction of the party. Unfortunately, his own personality, ego, and his naĂŻve trust of those around him often got in the way of his platform. Having a useless GOP congressional majority where they thought sabotaging him was more important than anything their voters wanted (see immigration or trade anything) did not help. There are promising leaders for the future such as J.D. Vance or Brian Kemp, but they are currently outnumbered by the Lindsey Graham’s and Ted Cruz’s. At this point, voters are willing to burn the party to the ground if need be because hey you’re just going to get screwed over anyway and some people have voiced aloud belief that if they ignore you and wait, you will just go away. 

Last edited 11 months ago by Matt Hindman
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Gotta move away from elites to common folk. Such as down-to-earth hillbilly and Yale Law School grad JD Vance and silver spoon ivy leaguer straight-shootin’ regular guy Donald Trump. Oh, and DeSantis isn’t elite either: His views are too correct and normal to earn that label.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Gotta move away from elites to common folk. Such as down-to-earth hillbilly and Yale Law School grad JD Vance and silver spoon ivy leaguer straight-shootin’ regular guy Donald Trump. Oh, and DeSantis isn’t elite either: His views are too correct and normal to earn that label.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
11 months ago

Part of the problem with moving on from Trump is Republican leadership and its intellectual elites from places like National Review do not want to move to a more populist post-Trump place. No, what they want is a return to the Paul Ryan/George W. Bush era of the party. Seriously, if you want to see this in action, look at the GOP field. It is a neocon cult of personality around Regan that pretends the last twenty years did not happen. These clowns are acting like they are fighting for the nomination circa 2004! I wanted to move on from Trump. Hell, I wish we could get another Eisenhower. Yes, Trump changed the direction of the party. Unfortunately, his own personality, ego, and his naĂŻve trust of those around him often got in the way of his platform. Having a useless GOP congressional majority where they thought sabotaging him was more important than anything their voters wanted (see immigration or trade anything) did not help. There are promising leaders for the future such as J.D. Vance or Brian Kemp, but they are currently outnumbered by the Lindsey Graham’s and Ted Cruz’s. At this point, voters are willing to burn the party to the ground if need be because hey you’re just going to get screwed over anyway and some people have voiced aloud belief that if they ignore you and wait, you will just go away. 

Last edited 11 months ago by Matt Hindman
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
11 months ago

The term “non-college educated” is, more accurately, non-college indoctrinated. Even the STEM courses are steeped in racial and sexual grievance. Very little education is to be expected in these expensive but useless buy-a-degree institutions.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

So an autodidact can still escape the Educated Class?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The autodidact is in a class of him/herself.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

Nice.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

Nice.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The autodidact is in a class of him/herself.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
11 months ago

Spot the person who didn’t get into college?
Bitter much?!?!

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

Don’t know how to break this to you, you insufferable elitist but when many of us look at some of the pampered, weak, cowardly, vile, conformist, jargon-spewing soulless automatons who are graduating from our supposed institutes of higher learning, we’re not exactly overcome with envy. Revulsion and contempt, yes. Envy? Not by a long shot.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

Don’t know how to break this to you, you insufferable elitist but when many of us look at some of the pampered, weak, cowardly, vile, conformist, jargon-spewing soulless automatons who are graduating from our supposed institutes of higher learning, we’re not exactly overcome with envy. Revulsion and contempt, yes. Envy? Not by a long shot.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

So an autodidact can still escape the Educated Class?

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
11 months ago

Spot the person who didn’t get into college?
Bitter much?!?!

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
11 months ago

The term “non-college educated” is, more accurately, non-college indoctrinated. Even the STEM courses are steeped in racial and sexual grievance. Very little education is to be expected in these expensive but useless buy-a-degree institutions.

Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
11 months ago

A pleasure to read an article that is insightful and well presented, and also good to know that old fashioned journalism isn’t dead yet.

Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
11 months ago

A pleasure to read an article that is insightful and well presented, and also good to know that old fashioned journalism isn’t dead yet.

Murray Morison
Murray Morison
11 months ago

And no mention in the article, as far as I could see, of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who apparently is polling at 20%. Even Unherd journalists adding to the omertĂ  around such a well informed, interesting candidate. And before the uninformed leap in with unfounded attacks, he had all his children vaccinated. He is critical of Fauci and the extraordinary way HIV was mishandled. This is the reason his powerful book is simply ignored. It is too well authenticated.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
11 months ago
Reply to  Murray Morison

“he had all his children vaccinated.”
His kids are in their 20’s and 30’s. Are they still relying on daddy to get their shots? Somehow I doubt it…
His stupid comments about covid being engineered to target certain ethnicities have confirmed him as a conspiracy nut. (no doubt this comment will draw out the resident UnHerd swivel eyed loons who agree with him!)

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
11 months ago

Love your description of the resident Unherds!

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
11 months ago

Love your description of the resident Unherds!

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
11 months ago
Reply to  Murray Morison

“he had all his children vaccinated.”
His kids are in their 20’s and 30’s. Are they still relying on daddy to get their shots? Somehow I doubt it…
His stupid comments about covid being engineered to target certain ethnicities have confirmed him as a conspiracy nut. (no doubt this comment will draw out the resident UnHerd swivel eyed loons who agree with him!)

Murray Morison
Murray Morison
11 months ago

And no mention in the article, as far as I could see, of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who apparently is polling at 20%. Even Unherd journalists adding to the omertĂ  around such a well informed, interesting candidate. And before the uninformed leap in with unfounded attacks, he had all his children vaccinated. He is critical of Fauci and the extraordinary way HIV was mishandled. This is the reason his powerful book is simply ignored. It is too well authenticated.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
11 months ago

Interesting analysis. But it misses one aspect: Once it is well established that the President can pressure states, the vice president etc. to change the result off the presidential election, will there be room for a change of powerin the future? Or will the US join the Turkey of Erdogan,the Hungary of Orban, the India of Modi and various Latin Amrcian countries in ranks of fake democracies?

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
11 months ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

It already is a military and intelligence dictatorship.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago

And a rather transparent one at that.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

And with the support of the far left, increasingly restricting our freedom of speech and of movement.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago

And a rather transparent one at that.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

And with the support of the far left, increasingly restricting our freedom of speech and of movement.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
11 months ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

That point needed to be made. Allow me to ask: Fascism is a reaction, not an action, correct? The action is primary, the reaction secondary. What is the action? The totalitarianism into which communism quickly turned?

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
11 months ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

It already is a military and intelligence dictatorship.

Michael McElwee
Michael McElwee
11 months ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

That point needed to be made. Allow me to ask: Fascism is a reaction, not an action, correct? The action is primary, the reaction secondary. What is the action? The totalitarianism into which communism quickly turned?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
11 months ago

Interesting analysis. But it misses one aspect: Once it is well established that the President can pressure states, the vice president etc. to change the result off the presidential election, will there be room for a change of powerin the future? Or will the US join the Turkey of Erdogan,the Hungary of Orban, the India of Modi and various Latin Amrcian countries in ranks of fake democracies?

david lee ballard
david lee ballard
11 months ago

Populist Republicans don’t take Trump indictments seriously the same way Leftists and Democrats don’t take the public and private crimes and grift of the Biden family seriously ‍♂

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
11 months ago

Does this mean the DOJ is run by Leftists and Democrats?

michael harris
michael harris
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Do lawyers lurk in the woods?

michael harris
michael harris
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Do lawyers lurk in the woods?

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
11 months ago

Does this mean the DOJ is run by Leftists and Democrats?

david lee ballard
david lee ballard
11 months ago

Populist Republicans don’t take Trump indictments seriously the same way Leftists and Democrats don’t take the public and private crimes and grift of the Biden family seriously ‍♂

Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
11 months ago

I agree with almost everything here except the part about Democrats thinking it would be immoral to try to win back Trump voters. There may be progressive pundits who think so, but Biden isn’t that stupid.
He has continued many of Trump’s policies on immigration and kept tariffs on the Chinese as a clear signal to working class voters, and his economic policies have been the most populist of any Democrat since LBJ. Believe me, Biden will try to appeal to Trump voter as the election nears.
It is true that he has to kowtow to his woke base of bourgeois social justice tweeters, but it is too soon to tell how important cultural issues will be in the general election. Given the mountain of legal troubles for the Donald, it looks more and more likely that Biden will bury him in a 2024 rematch.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago
Reply to  Benjamin Greco

How do spiraling inflation and a government handout to rich colleges under the guise of ‘student loan forgiveness’ qualify as economically populist? And as for ‘he has to kowtow to his woke base of bourgeois social justice tweeters’ that’s absolute crap. The SJWs are not a majority in the US, far from it. That he has capitulated to them and their insane demands is evidence that he’s weak, corrupt and unfit to serve. You don’t have to be a Trump acolyte to see that.

Last edited 11 months ago by Studio Largo
Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago
Reply to  Benjamin Greco

How do spiraling inflation and a government handout to rich colleges under the guise of ‘student loan forgiveness’ qualify as economically populist? And as for ‘he has to kowtow to his woke base of bourgeois social justice tweeters’ that’s absolute crap. The SJWs are not a majority in the US, far from it. That he has capitulated to them and their insane demands is evidence that he’s weak, corrupt and unfit to serve. You don’t have to be a Trump acolyte to see that.

Last edited 11 months ago by Studio Largo
Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
11 months ago

I agree with almost everything here except the part about Democrats thinking it would be immoral to try to win back Trump voters. There may be progressive pundits who think so, but Biden isn’t that stupid.
He has continued many of Trump’s policies on immigration and kept tariffs on the Chinese as a clear signal to working class voters, and his economic policies have been the most populist of any Democrat since LBJ. Believe me, Biden will try to appeal to Trump voter as the election nears.
It is true that he has to kowtow to his woke base of bourgeois social justice tweeters, but it is too soon to tell how important cultural issues will be in the general election. Given the mountain of legal troubles for the Donald, it looks more and more likely that Biden will bury him in a 2024 rematch.

j watson
j watson
11 months ago

Article seems to forget Trump had 4 yrs in office and accomplished exactly what?

The guy has a poor record and always puts his own interests first. The ‘art of the Grifter’ should be his next book.

Intense disagreement with Democrat/Progressive politics (however one might define this) entirely legit. You lose credibility when you back a complete Con artist and Crook as your alternative.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  j watson

His Man of the People status among his followers is his greatest successful con to date. The notion of his being on anyone’s side but his own and those immediately around him–while they serve his every whim–is laughable, if not too funny.

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Policy accomplishments don’t lie.

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Policy accomplishments don’t lie.

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Accomplishments include the border, no wars, Abraham accords, humming economy, improved nsfta (from the US point of view). Not so good on healthcare. Compared to Biden he was a star. Focus on policies not personality

j watson
j watson
11 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Err border hardly solved. Wars? Ran from Afghan and policies encouraged Putin. If economy had been humming he’d have won in 20. It wasn’t. And Covid you conveniently forgot.
And this before rest of the shambolic happenings.

Darwin K Godwin
Darwin K Godwin
11 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Yes, Harry. I would contract any brawler whose right hook concerned the enlightened as much as Trump’s right hook. The left debases itself by cowering in the corner and mewling technical defense violations at the ref. They got nothing to offer.

j watson
j watson
11 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Err border hardly solved. Wars? Ran from Afghan and policies encouraged Putin. If economy had been humming he’d have won in 20. It wasn’t. And Covid you conveniently forgot.
And this before rest of the shambolic happenings.

Darwin K Godwin
Darwin K Godwin
11 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Yes, Harry. I would contract any brawler whose right hook concerned the enlightened as much as Trump’s right hook. The left debases itself by cowering in the corner and mewling technical defense violations at the ref. They got nothing to offer.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  j watson

His Man of the People status among his followers is his greatest successful con to date. The notion of his being on anyone’s side but his own and those immediately around him–while they serve his every whim–is laughable, if not too funny.

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Accomplishments include the border, no wars, Abraham accords, humming economy, improved nsfta (from the US point of view). Not so good on healthcare. Compared to Biden he was a star. Focus on policies not personality

j watson
j watson
11 months ago

Article seems to forget Trump had 4 yrs in office and accomplished exactly what?

The guy has a poor record and always puts his own interests first. The ‘art of the Grifter’ should be his next book.

Intense disagreement with Democrat/Progressive politics (however one might define this) entirely legit. You lose credibility when you back a complete Con artist and Crook as your alternative.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
11 months ago

Let’s make it real simple. The West has been ruled for about a century by an educated class that presently has no interest in the needs and grievances of the ordinary middle class. That’s because the educated class uses the middle class as its political “enemy” and poses as the “ally” of the “oppressed peoples.”
In my Narrative, first there was Nixon, then there was Reagan, and then there was Trump. All of them were Literally Hitler to the sensitive set.
I’d recommend that the educated class steps away from the smelling salts and let Trump win. Because Trump Version 2.0 won’t be quite such a walk in the park.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
11 months ago

Let’s make it real simple. The West has been ruled for about a century by an educated class that presently has no interest in the needs and grievances of the ordinary middle class. That’s because the educated class uses the middle class as its political “enemy” and poses as the “ally” of the “oppressed peoples.”
In my Narrative, first there was Nixon, then there was Reagan, and then there was Trump. All of them were Literally Hitler to the sensitive set.
I’d recommend that the educated class steps away from the smelling salts and let Trump win. Because Trump Version 2.0 won’t be quite such a walk in the park.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
11 months ago

What is perhaps most frightening is Trump’s supporters utter blindness and ignorance to the predominate view of the rest of the world, that Trump is laughed at as a toe curlingly embarrasing ill-educated , verbose quasi illiterate and comic figure with zero credibility.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago

This sounds exactly like Justin Trudeau.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Decent comeback but DJT for sure takes the prize for international embarrassment.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Except Trudeau won re-election.
Twice.
This is the part where Jim starts blubbering and whining about voters in Quebec and Ontario.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago

Ya. He keeps winning elections with less voter support than the opposition. All whine about that until the cows come home.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago

Ya. He keeps winning elections with less voter support than the opposition. All whine about that until the cows come home.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Decent comeback but DJT for sure takes the prize for international embarrassment.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Except Trudeau won re-election.
Twice.
This is the part where Jim starts blubbering and whining about voters in Quebec and Ontario.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
11 months ago

Are you confusing Biden with Trump?

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago

Which is utterly irrelevant as he got them to do what was needed ie spend more on defence, new nsfta, etc. And look at who was laughing.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago

This sounds exactly like Justin Trudeau.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
11 months ago

Are you confusing Biden with Trump?

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago

Which is utterly irrelevant as he got them to do what was needed ie spend more on defence, new nsfta, etc. And look at who was laughing.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
11 months ago

What is perhaps most frightening is Trump’s supporters utter blindness and ignorance to the predominate view of the rest of the world, that Trump is laughed at as a toe curlingly embarrasing ill-educated , verbose quasi illiterate and comic figure with zero credibility.

Christopher
Christopher
5 months ago

Trump as an insider made one huge mistake he won’t make again. “ Draining the swamp” assuming the system would work with him to do the badly needed deed. Entrenched bureaucrats from both sides of the isle worked to keep the stagnant stench of “ self above country” the norm. He’s learned and will have a bigger broom to sweep out those to where they belong, outside looking in.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
11 months ago

More stories about Trump.
There is a more important person than Donald Trump in the United States – namely the President.
Why not a few stories about the guy in charge, rather than endless stories about somebody else?

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

The President? Is he still alive?

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

Technically, no. Is that important?

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

Technically, no. Is that important?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

There are stories every day about Joe Biden, who is most certainly not in charge, but unless you read independent journalists, you’ll never see them in the hack factories known as the MSM.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

Honest question: Do you read or listen to enough of the much and deservedly reviled MSM to know what they are saying for yourself?
Rhetorical question: Does propaganda become truth when it’s turned inside out?

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

How many stories about the President are on the Guardian website today?
I count 6 about Trump.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I’ve not counted but I’m not sure how that answers my direct question to Ms Barrows (to which I don’t expect or think I am “owed” an answer).
As someone who started looking at the Guardian website about 5 years ago, I find their coverage very skewed (of course) and most, not all of it, a bit ridiculous or preachy. And they’ve grown worse in those 5 years. But then again the price is right and their interviews and meet-cute stories are often pretty fun.
I’m actually heartened when someone with seemingly hardened or strident socio-political views (not you in particular) at least checks the other side of the fence, even if it is to hate read, as with me sometimes when I take my sensitive, mostly-liberal feelings with me to Breitbart or FoxNews.com and such. And sometimes I find things that I have to admit make sense to me at such places (oh dear!). Seeing the absurdity–and intermittent lapses into sense–on both sides is making me into something of an insistent centrist here in my middle years. It’s making me into something anyway.

Last edited 11 months ago by AJ Mac
Steven Carr
Steven Carr
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I never look at Breitbart, and very rarely look at Fox News Youtube videos.
You might like the ‘Washington Examiner’ , or perhaps like to hate 🙂

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Breitbart is way too much for me for the most part. When I gritted my teeth and peeked at it yesterday though their top story was not supportive of Trump or his purported innocence–which enraged their commenters!
I have looked at the Washington Examiner but think I found it boring, although the Post is often too lefty for me, especially in the abusive, moronic comments section. Might check out the WE out again.
Better examples of non-left sites where I find quite a lot to like are The Spectator, The WSJ, The Dispatch, and this one. Of course this website, though it averages out right-of center, is varied, in a chaotic and unpredictable way. I’m still not sure what to make of it but I have to applaud UnHerd for publishing (most) of my opinionated oversharing takes.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Breitbart is way too much for me for the most part. When I gritted my teeth and peeked at it yesterday though their top story was not supportive of Trump or his purported innocence–which enraged their commenters!
I have looked at the Washington Examiner but think I found it boring, although the Post is often too lefty for me, especially in the abusive, moronic comments section. Might check out the WE out again.
Better examples of non-left sites where I find quite a lot to like are The Spectator, The WSJ, The Dispatch, and this one. Of course this website, though it averages out right-of center, is varied, in a chaotic and unpredictable way. I’m still not sure what to make of it but I have to applaud UnHerd for publishing (most) of my opinionated oversharing takes.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

It’s not that difficult to find news from both sides of the fence. Daily Mail online and real clear politics both do a good job in this regard.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Not difficult, no. But I don’t think it’s the norm to seek genuine viewpoint diversity or “pierce your own bubble” these days.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Not difficult, no. But I don’t think it’s the norm to seek genuine viewpoint diversity or “pierce your own bubble” these days.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I never look at Breitbart, and very rarely look at Fox News Youtube videos.
You might like the ‘Washington Examiner’ , or perhaps like to hate 🙂

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

It’s not that difficult to find news from both sides of the fence. Daily Mail online and real clear politics both do a good job in this regard.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I’ve not counted but I’m not sure how that answers my direct question to Ms Barrows (to which I don’t expect or think I am “owed” an answer).
As someone who started looking at the Guardian website about 5 years ago, I find their coverage very skewed (of course) and most, not all of it, a bit ridiculous or preachy. And they’ve grown worse in those 5 years. But then again the price is right and their interviews and meet-cute stories are often pretty fun.
I’m actually heartened when someone with seemingly hardened or strident socio-political views (not you in particular) at least checks the other side of the fence, even if it is to hate read, as with me sometimes when I take my sensitive, mostly-liberal feelings with me to Breitbart or FoxNews.com and such. And sometimes I find things that I have to admit make sense to me at such places (oh dear!). Seeing the absurdity–and intermittent lapses into sense–on both sides is making me into something of an insistent centrist here in my middle years. It’s making me into something anyway.

Last edited 11 months ago by AJ Mac
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’m not Ms. Barrows, but share her views, by and large. I have studied the MSM for many years and have come to the conclusion that the only thing that can be trusted is the dateline mentioned. Journalism died about 20 years ago. It is all editorial at this point, on both sides.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Ok then. Who do you trust, if anyone?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Ok then. Who do you trust, if anyone?

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

How many stories about the President are on the Guardian website today?
I count 6 about Trump.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’m not Ms. Barrows, but share her views, by and large. I have studied the MSM for many years and have come to the conclusion that the only thing that can be trusted is the dateline mentioned. Journalism died about 20 years ago. It is all editorial at this point, on both sides.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

Bravo, well put.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

Honest question: Do you read or listen to enough of the much and deservedly reviled MSM to know what they are saying for yourself?
Rhetorical question: Does propaganda become truth when it’s turned inside out?

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

Bravo, well put.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

The President? Is he still alive?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

There are stories every day about Joe Biden, who is most certainly not in charge, but unless you read independent journalists, you’ll never see them in the hack factories known as the MSM.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
11 months ago

More stories about Trump.
There is a more important person than Donald Trump in the United States – namely the President.
Why not a few stories about the guy in charge, rather than endless stories about somebody else?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago

“His Democratic enemies have deployed two impeachments and multiple lawsuits, some more frivolous than others, but they have proven as ineffective in stopping his return as the A-bomb was in halting the Martian invaders in The War of the Worlds (1953)”
Trump was impeached first because he tried to persuade the leader of a foreign country to get dirt on his political opponent. The second impeachment executed because he incited an insurrection at the capital. Period. That’s motive enough. If the American public refuse to take that into consideration when they vote that’s on them.
I’m not naive enough to think there was zero political oppotunity in both but both impeachments were warranted.
I read a lot lately of people referring to Trump as a populist like you. That rich! Like this article there is no substance to that. Trump never gave two cents about the working class.

Karen Fleming
Karen Fleming
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I don’t think the author was supporting Trump in his opening. Nor do I think he was supporting the Democrats. I read it as telling the facts of the situation and his article then went on to explain what the future may look like. He seemed pretty cynical to me, attributing only political manipulation as their primary motivation to win over people and secure their votes. I disagree. Although I might be very naive – I admit. But I do think most of the candidates seeking the highest office have a certain set of ideas that they think will be best for America. And of course they must consider how best to express them and at the same time appeal to the most voters. Not an easy task.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

No, he probably didn’t, but he wasn’t demonizing them or calling them dangerous ‘deplorable’ either.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Interesting that you refer to Jan. 6 as an insurrection.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

TDS

QED?

It was no more than ‘A fart in a windstorm’.

Last edited 11 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
11 months ago

.. or a comedy sketch of police/ security guards showing a bunch of people in funny outfits the Capitol.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
11 months ago

I heard it was the most dangerous act of violence perpetrated on the U.S. since Pearl Harbor! Image what children will read in textbooks, if they are still printed, in 10 years time? It’s amazing how deadly those mostly gray- haired, fat, light beer drinking, unarmed men can be made out to be. They appeared to be so threatening that the capitol police showed them around. At least according to some of the videos. There’s always two sides to every coin.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
11 months ago

I heard it was the most dangerous act of violence perpetrated on the U.S. since Pearl Harbor! Image what children will read in textbooks, if they are still printed, in 10 years time? It’s amazing how deadly those mostly gray- haired, fat, light beer drinking, unarmed men can be made out to be. They appeared to be so threatening that the capitol police showed them around. At least according to some of the videos. There’s always two sides to every coin.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
11 months ago

.. or a comedy sketch of police/ security guards showing a bunch of people in funny outfits the Capitol.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Insurrection:
a violent uprising against an authority or government

What part of that definition doesn’t fit?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

The only act of inexcusable violence was that of Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the Capitol Police shooting dead in ‘cold blood’ at ‘point blank range’, one Ms Ashli Babbitt, who also happened to be unarmed at the time.

I gather Byrd was later decorated for gallantry.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago

Ashli Babbitt got what she deserved. She was forcibly trying to enter the Capital and warned like all of themt to stop. People get shot all the time in that situation. She was no hero. She was an insurrectionist.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Nonsense!
Byrd panicked and killed her.
If he had waited a second he could have easily arrested her with the minimum of fuss. After all he was twice her size, and she only an hysterical woman.

As ‘we’ used to say “Cowards shoot first!”

You no doubt are a bit of a loud mouthed gun slinger? Although weren’t you originally a Londoner? What went wrong may I ask?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

That’s a pretty cruel take, dude. She deserved to be detained but c’mon. Don’t reserve all your outrage or compassion for one side of a binary divide.

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

There is no “all the time” here. What nonsense.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

There it is, the ugly, vindictive, retributive true face of the ‘social justice’ crowd.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Nonsense!
Byrd panicked and killed her.
If he had waited a second he could have easily arrested her with the minimum of fuss. After all he was twice her size, and she only an hysterical woman.

As ‘we’ used to say “Cowards shoot first!”

You no doubt are a bit of a loud mouthed gun slinger? Although weren’t you originally a Londoner? What went wrong may I ask?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

That’s a pretty cruel take, dude. She deserved to be detained but c’mon. Don’t reserve all your outrage or compassion for one side of a binary divide.

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

There is no “all the time” here. What nonsense.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

There it is, the ugly, vindictive, retributive true face of the ‘social justice’ crowd.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago

Ashli Babbitt got what she deserved. She was forcibly trying to enter the Capital and warned like all of themt to stop. People get shot all the time in that situation. She was no hero. She was an insurrectionist.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

To quote CNN ‘Tell me where it says protests have to be peaceful’

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I dont care what CNN said by definition that was an insurrection.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Check the US Constitution, First Amendment.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

I dont care what CNN said by definition that was an insurrection.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago
Reply to  Steven Carr

Check the US Constitution, First Amendment.

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

All of it.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Anyone looking at Jan, 6 objectively would not call it an insurrection. It was a riot. Insurrection would require guns, not costumes.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

What part of the definitioin does not fit what they were doing?

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

So I guess the people who died that day were killed by costumes?

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
11 months ago

No, Babbitt was shot. No-one else was killed on the day.

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
11 months ago

No, Babbitt was shot. No-one else was killed on the day.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

What part of the definitioin does not fit what they were doing?

Danielle Treille
Danielle Treille
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

So I guess the people who died that day were killed by costumes?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

The only act of inexcusable violence was that of Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the Capitol Police shooting dead in ‘cold blood’ at ‘point blank range’, one Ms Ashli Babbitt, who also happened to be unarmed at the time.

I gather Byrd was later decorated for gallantry.

Steven Carr
Steven Carr
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

To quote CNN ‘Tell me where it says protests have to be peaceful’

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

All of it.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Anyone looking at Jan, 6 objectively would not call it an insurrection. It was a riot. Insurrection would require guns, not costumes.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

insurrection (1459): the action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority or governmental restraint; with plural, an instance of this, an armed rising, a revolt; an incipient or limited rebellion. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Perhaps the term is a bit strong. What do you call it?

Last edited 11 months ago by AJ Mac
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

A fracas.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

“What’s all this then?”

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Exactly!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Exactly!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago

“What’s all this then?”

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Anyone looking at Jan, 6 objectively would not call it an insurrection. It was a riot. Insurrection would require guns, not costumes.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

No where in the diffinition of Insurrection mentions guns. Thats silly.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

A serious insurrection is normally described as an ‘armed insurrection’.
This wasn’t one of those, in fact it was very far from it.

Incidentally have you ever seen or taken part in an armed insurrection?

And in anticipation of your question, yes I have, in fact quite a few of them.

ps. I know little of Mr Trump and am in no way a supporter of his.
However even he must be a better option than the ossified corpse currently running the place?

Last edited 11 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

You mention in passing having taken part in an armed insurrection. That’s an extremely interesting statement. What are the specifics? Not asking to be antagonistic, this genuinely piques my curiosity.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Studio Largo

Sadly as a signatory to the Official Secrets Act (1911) I can say no more.

Last edited 11 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

Ah, I see.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Studio Largo

Yes unfortunate but there it is!

However if Mr UnHerd Reader thinks the 6th ofJanuary 2020 last, was an Insurgency he is in for a bit of a shock when the real thing happens!

He might like to make a brief study of the various insurgencies the British Army was involved in suppressing post 1945. To wit :-

1945-8: Jewish Revolt in Palestine.*
1946: Dutch East Indies.
1948-60: Malaya.
1953-56: Canal,Zone, Egypt.
1952-60: Kenya, Mau Mau.
1956-60: Cyprus*.
1963-7: Aden & South Arabia.
1964-66: Borneo.
1969-97: Northern Ireland.

(* Denotes particularly revolting behaviour by the ‘Insurgents’.)

Last edited 11 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Studio Largo

I attempted a slightly fuller reply, but the CENSOR has forbidden it!

Somethings MUST remain UnHerd it seems.

As at: 07.51 BST. 07.08.23.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Studio Largo

Yes unfortunate but there it is!

However if Mr UnHerd Reader thinks the 6th ofJanuary 2020 last, was an Insurgency he is in for a bit of a shock when the real thing happens!

He might like to make a brief study of the various insurgencies the British Army was involved in suppressing post 1945. To wit :-

1945-8: Jewish Revolt in Palestine.*
1946: Dutch East Indies.
1948-60: Malaya.
1953-56: Canal,Zone, Egypt.
1952-60: Kenya, Mau Mau.
1956-60: Cyprus*.
1963-7: Aden & South Arabia.
1964-66: Borneo.
1969-97: Northern Ireland.

(* Denotes particularly revolting behaviour by the ‘Insurgents’.)

Last edited 11 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Studio Largo

I attempted a slightly fuller reply, but the CENSOR has forbidden it!

Somethings MUST remain UnHerd it seems.

As at: 07.51 BST. 07.08.23.

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

Ah, I see.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Studio Largo

Sadly as a signatory to the Official Secrets Act (1911) I can say no more.

Last edited 11 months ago by Charles Stanhope
UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago

So you are misrepresenting the term. “Arms” doesn’t necessarily mean “guns”. You can be “armed” with a fork. You can be “armed” with a stick. Stop your false narrative please:

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

There are two types of people on this little planet of ours:
Those with loaded guns, and those ‘armed’ with sticks and forks.

Which would you rather be?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

There are two types of people on this little planet of ours:
Those with loaded guns, and those ‘armed’ with sticks and forks.

Which would you rather be?

Studio Largo
Studio Largo
11 months ago

You mention in passing having taken part in an armed insurrection. That’s an extremely interesting statement. What are the specifics? Not asking to be antagonistic, this genuinely piques my curiosity.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago

So you are misrepresenting the term. “Arms” doesn’t necessarily mean “guns”. You can be “armed” with a fork. You can be “armed” with a stick. Stop your false narrative please:

harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Arms implies more than zip ties

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

A serious insurrection is normally described as an ‘armed insurrection’.
This wasn’t one of those, in fact it was very far from it.

Incidentally have you ever seen or taken part in an armed insurrection?

And in anticipation of your question, yes I have, in fact quite a few of them.

ps. I know little of Mr Trump and am in no way a supporter of his.
However even he must be a better option than the ossified corpse currently running the place?

Last edited 11 months ago by Charles Stanhope
harry storm
harry storm
11 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Arms implies more than zip ties

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Sure I’ll allow the that the i-word is a little strong, though some certainly were armed in one way or another, with murderous intent–which, I admit, does not by itself distinguish it from a riot.
However riot is far too weak a term for what happened. An attempt to overturn an election result from inside a federal hall of government, with coordinated menace (by leaders of the Boogaloo Bois, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, etc., many of whom orchestrated menace from afar), with the endorsement of the president, which only ended when the president finally told them (after hours of watching it all unfold on TV while people around him pleaded with him to make some de-escalatory statement) “we love you, go home”–ain’t no regular riot. It should at least be called the Capitol Riot, in capital letters, or something. If they had reached the inner chamber of the Senate or House before the legislative branch retreated to a “secure location”: Do you doubt there would have been political murders, beginning with the Vice President and the Speaker of the House?
If your key concern is term-inflation or partisan-exaggeration, one can also object to ludicrous minimizations like “sightseers in patriotic protest”. Or using “J6ers” as some sly attempt to self-associate with 76ers. I did not like or accept similar minimizations (“mostly peaceful protests”; “crying out for racial justice” with weapons and explosives) during the left-wing riots in 2020 either.
Not an Insurrection, ok. More than a mere riot.

Last edited 11 months ago by AJ Mac
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

My concern is partisan exaggeration and accuracy. It was simply not an insurrection. No one was seriously trying to overthrow the govt – at least by action, maybe not by deluded intention.

I’m on board with it being more consequential than a typical riot and I’m fine with calling it anything, as long as it’s accurate. It was a dark day in American history fueled by the derangement of Trump.

Calling it an insurrection is a manipulation of language for partisan purposes. I’m as biased as the next guy – I flat out think the Democrats are more dangerous than Trump despite his deranged personality – but we should at least strive for accuracy.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I accept all of that as a fairminded stipulation or understandable opinion. Those of us who aren’t keen fomenters of an actual Second Civil War should avoid “triggering” exaggerations and understatements, in this case “insurrection”/”treason” one the one hand and “patriotic protest” /”sightseeing tour” on the other.
So while I still don’t see how what happened doesn’t fit pretty well with at least one dictionary definition of “insurrection”, I can see that this is unhelpful language that has become a point of needless contention, and I won’t use it myself anymore. I’m going with Capitol Riot or Jan 6th Riot for now. I’d suggest capitalizing it the first time it’s used in whatever context then, sure, call it “the riot” thereafter, but not the “fracas” or “kerfuffle” please. Onward.

Last edited 11 months ago by AJ Mac
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Done. Capitol Riot it is. I did a brief search for a more accurate term but couldn’t find anything.

Last edited 11 months ago by Jim Veenbaas
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Thanks, Jim. I agree it ain’t perfect and I’d be happy to use a better, consensus term.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
11 months ago