X Close

Trump colluded with the Swamp His promise of a materialist revolution was a lie

America will never have nice things again (Scott Eisen/Getty Images)

America will never have nice things again (Scott Eisen/Getty Images)


August 22, 2023   6 mins

In a radio address to the nation, delivered in 1943 as the tide of war was beginning to turn, Franklin Roosevelt surveyed the progress on America’s home front as it churned out materiel at lightning pace: “I saw thousands of workers on the production line, making airplanes, and guns and ammunition 
 I saw hundreds of thousands of soldiers. They are mastering the superior weapons that we are pouring out of our factories.” Marvelling at the industrial might of the emerging superpower, Roosevelt declared: “The American people have accomplished a miracle.”

His speech spoke to the unbreakable sense of unity and purpose that defined the Greatest Generation, but it was also indicative of how Americans conceived of their politics and government. Throughout the modern era, from the Industrial Revolution onwards, politics was fundamentally about conflict over the material conditions of life: the organisation of production, the focus of investment, the contest of classes and interests — these were always up for grabs. Indeed, in his soaring inaugural speech 10 years earlier, FDR was eminently grateful that, despite the depths of the country’s Depression-era troubles, they nonetheless concerned “thank God, only material things”.

But then something happened not long after the Roosevelt era. In the post-war years, as the children of the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers, grew up and came of age amid an unprecedented level of mass middle-class affluence, a different conception of politics took hold. By the Sixties, issues relating to self-expression and cultural recognition became more important than economic questions. Ronald Inglehart, the late political scientist and founder of the World Values Survey, saw this shift reflected in survey data and called it “post-materialism”: a seismic break with the practical orientation of generations that gave rise to culture war as the new paradigm of American politics.

It began on the Left with the emergence of the counterculture and the various political and lifestyle movements associated with it. By the decade’s end, though, the Right under the leadership of Richard Nixon and Phyllis Schlafly eventually caught on and began to mobilise voters primarily on the basis of their own conservative moral, symbolic and affective attachments as a means of fighting the counterculture.

This was something new in US history. Up to this point, the main cleavages in each era were grounded in differences over competing models of political economy. Hamiltonian nationalism against Jeffersonian agrarianism; the Southern slaveocracy against Northern industrialisation; New Deal liberals against small government conservatives. This is not to say that earlier Americans were not moralistic: they pursued moral and material progress together, often channelling their deeply held moral convictions into larger projects of material economic transformation. Other cleavages either arose from economic divisions (racial inequities stemmed from the legacy of slavery — an economic institution) or were secondary to it (Prohibition, for instance, borne of lifestyle differences between Protestant and Catholics, may have been prominent in its day but it never superseded the centrality of the economic divides).

Every decade since the Sixties witnessed a reversal of this logic, whereby moral and cultural issues largely determined whether one was on the Right or Left, even more than policy differences over taxes or regulation. By the Nineties, even as the two parties claimed to be fighting over the size of government, the motivations underlying vicious partisan feuds became rooted more in irrepressible cultural antagonisms. This was evident in the strange, outsized significance placed on the personal foibles of Bill Clinton by his conservative enemies, who treated the first Boomer president and his feminist wife Hillary as the ultimate embodiments of the Sixties ethos, even as he shared their programme of free-market globalisation. In effect, the culture war amounted to the de-politicisation of the economic and the ultra-politicisation of the personal: the persistent polarising power of social issues such as abortion, guns and battles over school curricula — as factories were leaving the Midwest and widespread economic inequality was taking off — can be understood in light of this paradigm.

These trends reached their fullest expression in the latter half of the 2010s, after the failures of both the post-racial aspirations of the Obama era and the lopsided recovery from the Great Recession laid bare the exhaustion of the status quo on both the mainstream Left and Right. The election of Donald Trump has been interpreted as a revolt of conservative America and as an escalation of the culture war. And while that was the ultimate result of his presidency, his first campaign for the White House was actually, in many ways, a repudiation of the logic of the culture war and a bold reassertion of materialist politics.

After all, underneath the vulgar and bombastic Trump-style that debuted on the day of the escalator ride, there was a pointed critique of globalisation and the outlines of an alternative political economy. Candidate Trump criticised free trade and financialisaton while his bromides on immigration, though needlessly crude and provocative, could be read as a blueprint — not for a white ethnostate — but for a system of greater labour market security that could materially benefit working-class Americans of all races. Even on wedge issues, Trump, a socially liberal New Yorker, rejected the dogmatism of social conservatives in his party: he happily held up a Pride flag and said he didn’t care where Caitlyn Jenner went to the bathroom; he also had little time for the abortion issue, pointing out that Planned Parenthood did “very good work for millions of women”. As if mocking the pieties of the GOP, Trump said: “I’m a conservative, but at this point, who cares?” It seemed for a moment as if Trump would attempt the politically impossible: to reduce the salience of intractable moral issues while refocusing America’s energies on rebuilding its decaying towns and cities, perhaps even presiding over an industrial renaissance while punishing Wall Street plutocrats — just like Roosevelt did.

However, upon entering office, the promise of a genuine materialist revolution evaporated. President Trump made two tacit bargains, one with conservative elites and another with liberal ones. To please Republicans, he governed like a conventional Reagan-Bush conservative on economics as well as culture: he passed Paul Ryan’s tax cuts for the benefit of multinationals, who used the money for buybacks (and made only the most halting progress on trade); he then assented to the hard-line demands of social conservatives such as Mike Pence, reinforcing the rigidity of the culture war.

With liberals, the bargain was more subtle but no less cynical: by upping the intensity of his culture-war antics and abandoning the heterodox economic positions he ran on, he provided his foes with cheap fodder for their own media circus, galvanising the “Resistance”, giving “rocket fuel” to the New York Times, and handing the Democrats victory in 2018 and 2020. (Had he taxed the rich or expanded healthcare, he would have confounded the Democrats — maybe won a second term.) In exchange, the President got to sit back, act out, not put in the work of governing, and still endlessly occupy the spotlight.

Nowhere is Trump’s collusion with the Swamp he was supposed to drain more glaring than in his failure to settle the immigration issue: he passed over the chance for comprehensive reform when his party had full control of Congress and refused to endorse the policy of mandatory E-Verify, which would have worked a thousand times better than a symbolic wall (which, by the way, was also not built). Beneath all of Trump’s bravado and slogans, he essentially sustained the open borders status quo which enriched both red and blue-state elites — not to mention his own family business — and passed it on to Joe Biden.

With another election looming next year, the compelling economic critique that Trump introduced seven years ago has vanished; and in line with the purely symbolic thrust of post-materialism, Trump himself — having been detached from any specific, discernible policies — has become a symbol that signifies nothing tangible; he’s a mere trigger for the emotions of both supporters and detractors. The unending psychodrama of the Trump indictments has taken up all the attention of the media and political classes while saying nothing about economics, trade, immigration or anything else of substance. Where America could be debating the best way to re-industrialise the Midwest or the most efficient means to fund infrastructure, it is lost in a sea of legal trivia about misplaced documents and hare-brained conspiracy theories about stolen elections. Republican efforts to make Hunter Biden the centre of the national psychodrama are just as illustrative of America’s decline as a serious country.

While ordinary Americans are still concerned with bread-and-butter issues and consistently remain moderate on most culture-war issues, their bipartisan leadership has succumbed to post-materialism, which is, at the end of the day, an elite disease. One may be tempted to hope that, since Inglehart first recorded its symptoms among Left-wing Boomers over 40 years ago, the post-materialist mind virus will eventually die out with that decadent generation. However, worryingly, the very same symptoms are even more visible among Millennials and Gen Zs. In fact, it’s come full circle, with the countercultural Right now openly proclaiming its desire to imitate the post-materialist sensibilities of the Sixties: the result is that young conservatives, no less than their progressive enemies, are just as incapable of thinking in practical economic or institutional terms and now only covet the immaterial “cultural power” that they believe is their due.

Here, the unfortunate tale of Nate Hochman is most telling. Once heralded as a champion of the young Right, he was disgraced and fired from Ron DeSantis’s campaign after he was revealed to be the maker of a bizarre video that appeared to feature an obscure Nazi symbol. As today’s young Americans become the first generation ever that’s set to be materially worse off than their parents, this rising star didn’t die on the hill of any grand policy or programme that might have been too radical for his superiors to contemplate; instead, he was felled by his attachment to a set of aesthetics, demonstrating how the next generation of American elites is effectively trapped in a self-referential world of symbols and memes that is everyday more removed from reality. This is post-materialism in a nutshell; and it is why America can’t have nice things and — if this is what the future looks like — why America will never have nice things again.


Michael Cuenco is a writer on policy and politics. He is Associate Editor at American Affairs.

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

93 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
9 months ago

Missing from this analysis are

1) the anti-Chinese and other protectionist measures which led to US companies shifting production back to the US

2) the rise in real wages for the average worker post 2015 partly as a result – after thirty five years of stagnation.

Trump’s enduring popularity with his base may have a more materialist basis than the author is willing to concede.

Richard Pearse
Richard Pearse
9 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

3) List of judges whom he would select for the Supreme Court.
4). Treaties between Israel and Arab nations.
5). Deletion of multiple Regulations that were strangling US business.

In short, the author of this article seems to be an annoying twerp.

Ray Zacek
Ray Zacek
9 months ago
Reply to  Richard Pearse

I do not find the corruption, influence peddling and mendacity of the Bidens to be mere psychodrama.

Ray Zacek
Ray Zacek
9 months ago
Reply to  Richard Pearse

I do not find the corruption, influence peddling and mendacity of the Bidens to be mere psychodrama.

Mvc 14
Mvc 14
9 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

“Trump himself — having been detached from any specific, discernible policies”
The author clearly hasn’t watched any of the stream of policy videos Trump has produced. Not that I watch them either, but at least I’m aware of them.

Last edited 9 months ago by Mvc 14
Richard Pearse
Richard Pearse
9 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

3) List of judges whom he would select for the Supreme Court.
4). Treaties between Israel and Arab nations.
5). Deletion of multiple Regulations that were strangling US business.

In short, the author of this article seems to be an annoying twerp.

Mvc 14
Mvc 14
9 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

“Trump himself — having been detached from any specific, discernible policies”
The author clearly hasn’t watched any of the stream of policy videos Trump has produced. Not that I watch them either, but at least I’m aware of them.

Last edited 9 months ago by Mvc 14
Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
9 months ago

Missing from this analysis are

1) the anti-Chinese and other protectionist measures which led to US companies shifting production back to the US

2) the rise in real wages for the average worker post 2015 partly as a result – after thirty five years of stagnation.

Trump’s enduring popularity with his base may have a more materialist basis than the author is willing to concede.

T Bone
T Bone
9 months ago

Clickbait title. Nothing in the article hinted at “swamp collusion.”

The “culture war” like “austerity” is a silencing mechanism used exclusively by the Left and Left’s controlled opposition in the Republican Party (or any Conservative party for that matter). Its a gaslight because the Left is using a Bait and Switch method to provoke Conservatives into a culture war because the Left can’t win an argument on basic economics like taxes and spending.

Can a Conservative politician make a simple argument for lower taxes and less government spending? Well, No because the Left will just revert to a Critical Theory or Angry Earth analysis. The Left will say the tax cuts are a “racist dogwhistle” meant to preserve the status quo, IE whiteness. Likewise, if the Right recommends cuts, it will be accused of trying to kill people on government benefits or escalating the “Climate Crisis” to name a few. Find a Republican Presidential candidate not branded as a racist, you won’t. It’s as American a tradition as Apple Pie.

The Left has no arguments because their inflationary tent city policies are insane and its obvious to anyone in a blue jurisdiction. All the Left has is salacious personal attacks meant to “seize the moral highground” and apparently the Right is expected to just sit there and take it. Not happening anymore.

I don’t want Trump to win the nomination. I much prefer DeSantis or even RFK but our media can’t allow that to happen because Trump is their bottom line. So most of us will just suck it up and vote for the least bad option between two octogenarians…the Orange guy.

Last edited 9 months ago by T Bone
T Bone
T Bone
9 months ago

Clickbait title. Nothing in the article hinted at “swamp collusion.”

The “culture war” like “austerity” is a silencing mechanism used exclusively by the Left and Left’s controlled opposition in the Republican Party (or any Conservative party for that matter). Its a gaslight because the Left is using a Bait and Switch method to provoke Conservatives into a culture war because the Left can’t win an argument on basic economics like taxes and spending.

Can a Conservative politician make a simple argument for lower taxes and less government spending? Well, No because the Left will just revert to a Critical Theory or Angry Earth analysis. The Left will say the tax cuts are a “racist dogwhistle” meant to preserve the status quo, IE whiteness. Likewise, if the Right recommends cuts, it will be accused of trying to kill people on government benefits or escalating the “Climate Crisis” to name a few. Find a Republican Presidential candidate not branded as a racist, you won’t. It’s as American a tradition as Apple Pie.

The Left has no arguments because their inflationary tent city policies are insane and its obvious to anyone in a blue jurisdiction. All the Left has is salacious personal attacks meant to “seize the moral highground” and apparently the Right is expected to just sit there and take it. Not happening anymore.

I don’t want Trump to win the nomination. I much prefer DeSantis or even RFK but our media can’t allow that to happen because Trump is their bottom line. So most of us will just suck it up and vote for the least bad option between two octogenarians…the Orange guy.

Last edited 9 months ago by T Bone
Catherine Jordan
Catherine Jordan
9 months ago

Alert: Elephant in the room! The covid lockdowns! operation warp speed! How did the author neglect to mention those doozies!. Trump allowed nefarious swamp denizens, Fauci, Birx, intelligence, who knows who else .. to push him into shutting down the economy to stop covid. Thus started 2.5 years of insanity. Trump didn’t really seem convinced that covid was much more than a very bad flu- dangerous for the old and the ill, but not for anyone else. And Trump, like every human with a brain wondered how masks and lockdowns would do anything besides possibly slow the spread.
The big question is, why did Trump allow the bureaucrats and spooks to persuade him to lockdown the economy?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

Trump made a lot of awful personnel decisions – staggeringly so. Maybe he was more interested in people he thought were boot lickers, but they we’re actually back stabbers.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

It’s probably something to do with him being an utter moron

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

Well, you’d know all about that, wouldn’t you?

Mark Phillips
Mark Phillips
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Stop bigging him up.

Mark Phillips
Mark Phillips
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Stop bigging him up.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

Well, you’d know all about that, wouldn’t you?

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

It’s probably something to do with him being an utter moron

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago

The answer to that ‘big question’ is the same reason that Boris also supinely capitulated! To put it bluntly, lack of moral fibre.
This is all part of the COVID DIVIDEND. It may yet destroy us all.
As WSC said so pithily ‘Experts are on tap, NOT on top.’

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

Trump made a lot of awful personnel decisions – staggeringly so. Maybe he was more interested in people he thought were boot lickers, but they we’re actually back stabbers.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago

The answer to that ‘big question’ is the same reason that Boris also supinely capitulated! To put it bluntly, lack of moral fibre.
This is all part of the COVID DIVIDEND. It may yet destroy us all.
As WSC said so pithily ‘Experts are on tap, NOT on top.’

Catherine Jordan
Catherine Jordan
9 months ago

Alert: Elephant in the room! The covid lockdowns! operation warp speed! How did the author neglect to mention those doozies!. Trump allowed nefarious swamp denizens, Fauci, Birx, intelligence, who knows who else .. to push him into shutting down the economy to stop covid. Thus started 2.5 years of insanity. Trump didn’t really seem convinced that covid was much more than a very bad flu- dangerous for the old and the ill, but not for anyone else. And Trump, like every human with a brain wondered how masks and lockdowns would do anything besides possibly slow the spread.
The big question is, why did Trump allow the bureaucrats and spooks to persuade him to lockdown the economy?

AC Harper
AC Harper
9 months ago

Goodness gracious, Trump is the politician that keeps on providing column inches. He is either too Right Wing, not Right Wing enough, colludes with the Swamp, tries to drain the Swamp, upsets the status quo, maintains the status quo. I guess he is the Universal Deplorable for political commentators, whatever their orientation. And yet many people would vote for him again.

When you’re up to your neck in alligators, it’s hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.

Last edited 9 months ago by AC Harper
AC Harper
AC Harper
9 months ago

Goodness gracious, Trump is the politician that keeps on providing column inches. He is either too Right Wing, not Right Wing enough, colludes with the Swamp, tries to drain the Swamp, upsets the status quo, maintains the status quo. I guess he is the Universal Deplorable for political commentators, whatever their orientation. And yet many people would vote for him again.

When you’re up to your neck in alligators, it’s hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.

Last edited 9 months ago by AC Harper
Peter Joy
Peter Joy
9 months ago

‘…he then assented to the hard-line demands of social conservatives such as Mike Pence…’
And what, exactly, were the ‘hard-line demands’ of social conservatives to which he assented? I’m scratching my head on that one. I can’t think of any. Was there a Federal ban on homosexuality or abortion or a ban on women in the armed forces that Trump and the Republicans forced through Congress – but I somehow missed it?

Last edited 9 months ago by Peter Joy
Peter Joy
Peter Joy
9 months ago

‘…he then assented to the hard-line demands of social conservatives such as Mike Pence…’
And what, exactly, were the ‘hard-line demands’ of social conservatives to which he assented? I’m scratching my head on that one. I can’t think of any. Was there a Federal ban on homosexuality or abortion or a ban on women in the armed forces that Trump and the Republicans forced through Congress – but I somehow missed it?

Last edited 9 months ago by Peter Joy
Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
9 months ago

Oh. So Trump failed to deliver for the Deplorables. You mean like Roosevelt failed to deliver a return to prosperity to the workers in eight years of the failed New Deal?

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago

Roosevelt was elected 4 times.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

Unlike the genocidal Mao, whom he sponsored over Chiang-Kai-Shek and the Stalin whose enslavement of Eastern Europe he facilitated. What a great man!

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

I doubt he had a Communist takeover of China in mind. Mao was not a major player until about 1945-46, just a useful regional proxy force with which to counter the Japanese, the Pacific rival (along with the British, French and Dutch Empires) FDR was concerned to crush.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

True. The Australian government ended up with twenty brand-new locomotives they were ready to send to the Nationalists in 1949.

If you go to Nanjing, you can visit Madame Chiang’s chateau.

It includes a very large organ.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Not many of those in China judging by the reactions of Chinese ladies.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Not many of those in China judging by the reactions of Chinese ladies.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Peter Joy

True. The Australian government ended up with twenty brand-new locomotives they were ready to send to the Nationalists in 1949.

If you go to Nanjing, you can visit Madame Chiang’s chateau.

It includes a very large organ.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

My Lithuanian in-laws detested the man until the day they died. Probably still do.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

I doubt he had a Communist takeover of China in mind. Mao was not a major player until about 1945-46, just a useful regional proxy force with which to counter the Japanese, the Pacific rival (along with the British, French and Dutch Empires) FDR was concerned to crush.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

My Lithuanian in-laws detested the man until the day they died. Probably still do.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
9 months ago

True, albeit on a pack of lies and false promises every time. He was a near-dictator, like Woodrow Wilson.
Still, better even a character like them in charge than J. Edgar Hoover, Big Tech-CIA or the Council for Foreign Relations gang.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

Unlike the genocidal Mao, whom he sponsored over Chiang-Kai-Shek and the Stalin whose enslavement of Eastern Europe he facilitated. What a great man!

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
9 months ago

True, albeit on a pack of lies and false promises every time. He was a near-dictator, like Woodrow Wilson.
Still, better even a character like them in charge than J. Edgar Hoover, Big Tech-CIA or the Council for Foreign Relations gang.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago

Roosevelt’s New Deal was ultimately saved by the British Empire idiotically deciding to go to war on an unaffordable scale, for the second time in 25 years.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

Quite so. Evidence has mounted up in recent decades that in fact Chamberlain’s approach to the great slump was far more effective than Roosevelt’s and that by the end of the thirties, Britain was in business again. Moreover, he – and incidentally Daladier – were quite right to avoid total war in 38 and the mystery is: why did they put the chestnuts they had taken out of the fire at Munich, straight back into that same fire over Poland? Further evidence has emerged that Poland was beginning to realise it had no realistic choice other than to give into Berlin’s admittedly unpleasant demands. Then came the western “guarantee”. Some are beginning to hint or suggest that the west was already the victim of well placed communist infiltrators; that the Polish guarantee, for instance, was an initiative of an already red or reddened Foreign Office. And this, of course, was more or less in obedience to Stalin’s aim of embroiling Europe in a war which could only, ultimately, benefit Bolshevism – so, as things turned out – it did. And when one considers the raft of pro-communist blunders thereafter, from “Unconditional Surrender” to the sponsoring of Tito over the Chetniks and the appalling Mao over Chiang-Kai-Shek, the pattern emerges unmistakably. The left used to be very fond of telling “Secret History” – well, the real secrecy is theirs, as usual.

Tony Price
Tony Price
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

“Berlin’s admittedly unpleasant demands” – you sound like Prince Andrew talking about Eptein’s behaviour as ‘unbecoming’. Between them Hitler and Stalin murdered millions of Poles – maybe we should have just let them get on with it without a murmur? And Chiang-Kai-Shek was just as ‘appalling’ as Mao.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Tony Price

The Poles made a some very poor value judgements in the period 1938-39, which perhaps explains why they were so easily ‘hoovered off’ the map of Europe between 1772-1795.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

True. Colonel Beck simply did not realise who or what he was dealing with in the Berlin of his day. He imagined – like so many military conservatives of that era – Petain, Horthy, Darlan, Badoglio, Mannerheim – that the German regime would behave like the Second Reich and establish a broad economic hegemony over the continent. And perhaps, without war, and facing east not west, this – under the sustained influence of junker-soldiers in the German establishment – is what might have taken place: not ideal, but better than the actual result. The grisly political personnel of the Berlin government were given their opportunity to turn crime into iniquity precisely by the process of total war.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

I’m not seeing that in the Simon Newman book ‘March 1939 : The British Guarantee to Poland’ which answers some of your questions above.

Beck surely saw the Nazification of the Free City of Danzig and knew the Third Reich wasn’t the Second.
He had also connived with them to grab a few slices of Czechoslovakia for his own country in 1938.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

I’m not seeing that in the Simon Newman book ‘March 1939 : The British Guarantee to Poland’ which answers some of your questions above.

Beck surely saw the Nazification of the Free City of Danzig and knew the Third Reich wasn’t the Second.
He had also connived with them to grab a few slices of Czechoslovakia for his own country in 1938.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

True. Colonel Beck simply did not realise who or what he was dealing with in the Berlin of his day. He imagined – like so many military conservatives of that era – Petain, Horthy, Darlan, Badoglio, Mannerheim – that the German regime would behave like the Second Reich and establish a broad economic hegemony over the continent. And perhaps, without war, and facing east not west, this – under the sustained influence of junker-soldiers in the German establishment – is what might have taken place: not ideal, but better than the actual result. The grisly political personnel of the Berlin government were given their opportunity to turn crime into iniquity precisely by the process of total war.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Where to begin with this thoroughly inadequate reply? Your focus on language rather than substance? Your preposterous ignorance with regard to the relative iniquity of communists and nationalists in China? Your failure to note that Stalin and Hitler were facilitated in their butchery of the Poles by the very war which our “guarantee” helped to precipitate? And we did let them get on with it, didn’t we? Our “murmurs” were in North Africa, the Atlantic, the skies over Britain and western Europe – itself trashed and bombed and scarred by the war partially precipitated by our foolish “guarantee”. Even after the six years relentless destruction, we let Stalin slice off a large chunk of Polish territory and squash the remaining fragment for forty years – what brilliant policy!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

.

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

We were very fortunate that plucky little Finland had to “chuck in the sponge”otherwise we would have been at war with both N*zi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Now that would have upset the Foreign Office.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

.

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

We were very fortunate that plucky little Finland had to “chuck in the sponge”otherwise we would have been at war with both N*zi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Now that would have upset the Foreign Office.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Tony Price

The Poles made a some very poor value judgements in the period 1938-39, which perhaps explains why they were so easily ‘hoovered off’ the map of Europe between 1772-1795.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago
Reply to  Tony Price

Where to begin with this thoroughly inadequate reply? Your focus on language rather than substance? Your preposterous ignorance with regard to the relative iniquity of communists and nationalists in China? Your failure to note that Stalin and Hitler were facilitated in their butchery of the Poles by the very war which our “guarantee” helped to precipitate? And we did let them get on with it, didn’t we? Our “murmurs” were in North Africa, the Atlantic, the skies over Britain and western Europe – itself trashed and bombed and scarred by the war partially precipitated by our foolish “guarantee”. Even after the six years relentless destruction, we let Stalin slice off a large chunk of Polish territory and squash the remaining fragment for forty years – what brilliant policy!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Indeed, in fact the issuing of the “blank cheque” to Poland is almost incomprehensible, and in particular the ‘secret’ codicil that it would NOT apply to an attack by the Soviet Union. The Foreign Office has a lot to answer for.

I gather things weren’t much better in the US when it came to the so called “Day of Infamy”.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

Quite so. Evelyn Waugh was the only voice with the courage to point all this out, more or less at the same time that Taylor began the historiographical queries – but both were more or less dismissed by our ghastly establishment – e.g Fitzroy Maclean, Tito’s little bagman – as “eccentric”.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

Quite so. Evelyn Waugh was the only voice with the courage to point all this out, more or less at the same time that Taylor began the historiographical queries – but both were more or less dismissed by our ghastly establishment – e.g Fitzroy Maclean, Tito’s little bagman – as “eccentric”.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

I think at the insistence of Beck – it would have hampered his ability to sell it domestically – the guarantee does not mention the Soviets. I’d have to check. But doubtless Stalin didn’t need the implications spelt out in words.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

I very much doubt if the blessed FO bothered to tell the good Colonel Beck about the ‘secret’ codicil concerning the Soviet Union.

They just handed him the ‘revolver’ and just waited for the bang.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

I very much doubt if the blessed FO bothered to tell the good Colonel Beck about the ‘secret’ codicil concerning the Soviet Union.

They just handed him the ‘revolver’ and just waited for the bang.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

The idea that Hitler would have stopped after getting Danzig and passage through the corridor is absurd. This is what the Brits and French realized after the March 15 takeover of rump Czechoslovakia.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

So resist him then – NOT at the cost of a Poland you pretend to guarantee then – because you don’t have the military arrangements – leave to be butchered. The policy I am suggesting would at least have spared the Poles the full onslaught; yours just tosses them idly and unthinkingly into the abyss.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Eh, Hitler was surprisingly timid. Surely you know that the heer went further than the FĂŒhrer desired.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

So resist him then – NOT at the cost of a Poland you pretend to guarantee then – because you don’t have the military arrangements – leave to be butchered. The policy I am suggesting would at least have spared the Poles the full onslaught; yours just tosses them idly and unthinkingly into the abyss.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Eh, Hitler was surprisingly timid. Surely you know that the heer went further than the FĂŒhrer desired.

Tony Price
Tony Price
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

“Berlin’s admittedly unpleasant demands” – you sound like Prince Andrew talking about Eptein’s behaviour as ‘unbecoming’. Between them Hitler and Stalin murdered millions of Poles – maybe we should have just let them get on with it without a murmur? And Chiang-Kai-Shek was just as ‘appalling’ as Mao.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Indeed, in fact the issuing of the “blank cheque” to Poland is almost incomprehensible, and in particular the ‘secret’ codicil that it would NOT apply to an attack by the Soviet Union. The Foreign Office has a lot to answer for.

I gather things weren’t much better in the US when it came to the so called “Day of Infamy”.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

I think at the insistence of Beck – it would have hampered his ability to sell it domestically – the guarantee does not mention the Soviets. I’d have to check. But doubtless Stalin didn’t need the implications spelt out in words.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

The idea that Hitler would have stopped after getting Danzig and passage through the corridor is absurd. This is what the Brits and French realized after the March 15 takeover of rump Czechoslovakia.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

Looked at in context, it was not idiotic.

The British choice was being sidelined now or sidelined eventually. They opted for the latter.
The scale wasn’t unaffordable if the British could wangle it so Germany had to fight on two fronts. Poland had almost zero military capacity, but being big and by nature of its position, it had the capacity to absorb huge numbers of German tanks.

Albeit the British choice was dangerous, with unforeseen consequences, it presumably still seemed better than being pushed to the margins by Germany in 1938.

And the eventual result meant that the coming power was one the UK at least shared a language and good relations with.
And up until 1990 it had a role assisting that power to push back its Soviet rival.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

I disagree. We simply couldn’t afford it and were in fact bankrupt by December 1940, leaving WSC no other choice but to grovel ‘on all fours’ for US ‘assistance’.

Thus we have remained an American Helot ever since. Arguably better than being a German Helot, but a Helot none the same.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

Yeah but you’re counting in pounds, they were counting in the currency of power. Which is pretty addictive.

And had they waited a year, Germany would have had something like twenty (?) more divisions in the field.

Even further down on the deal , in ÂŁ as well as power.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

‘Power’ has to be paid for, and as far back as the 1922 Washington Treaty we had clearly demonstrated we no longer wished to pay such an exorbitant price.

If we had ‘waited’ a year, N*zi Germany and the Soviet Union would have digested Poland, and almost certainly been stuck into the most monumental war, that can only have been to our enormous advantage.

In fact if we plaid our cards correctly we could supplied BOTH sides with war materials at enormous commercial benefit to our good selves.
In fact rather like we did on a smaller scale during the Iran-War of the 1980’s

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Pounds equal power. Without pounds you have no strength at all. We didn’t have much strength once the stock of pounds had been exhausted. And our influence thereafter was nugatory – did we rescue Poland from Stalin? Did we save Hungary? Or Czechoslovakia? Or even our own empire or empires, if you consider western Europe as a whole? Yes, we “saved” Greece, but at the cost of plunging the world into the conflict which almost robbed her of liberty in the first place. No, good sir; as the long, pitiless perspective of time increases and shadows are cast in their true direction, we shall perceive that the western powers of 39 were duped into a war they could not win by a combination of idiot chauvinism (horribly indulged by Churchill) and red connivances. This war snatched away from the western powers the last foundations of future power and influence, gave the criminals in Berlin and Moscow their chance to reshape the whole world by means of unparalleled bloodshed and brought the sympathisers of one such tyrant to de facto influence if not open power in the west. It was a disaster for Europe and her culture – and “woke” is just the long, clanging echo of the lies on which the post-45 world has been built.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Pounds don’t equate to power, without the will to take risks.

For the rest of it, including the ‘duping’ Simon Newman’s book is here:

https://archive.org/details/march1939thebritishguaranteetopolandsimonnewman/page/n85/mode/1up?view=theater

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

You seem besotted with this Simon Newman!
Is he perchance the same Simon Newman who teaches at Glasgow, and whose ‘specialty’ appears to be slavery in the United States?

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

No, the book was his PhD thesis. Different guy.

I meant to reply to another post leading off with the pounds = power nonsense, sorry. Not yours.

Phones don’t work well down by the River Lea. Wackney Hick must have its own ley-lines.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

No, the book was his PhD thesis. Different guy.

I meant to reply to another post leading off with the pounds = power nonsense, sorry. Not yours.

Phones don’t work well down by the River Lea. Wackney Hick must have its own ley-lines.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Do you have the title page? This seems to start with the Preface.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

The cover ! All I can find. It’s bloody expensive to buy – Peter Hitchens alludes to it a lot. It hasn’t had a reprint and I don’t know why.

Maybe it is too brutal, doesn’t fit the preferred narrative the Brits want to believe about WW2.

I am not a Brit and British incompetence in the Far East was what I grew up with. (Some of it, maybe unjust. Since that would align with the Australians’ preferred myth.)

I don’t know the level of buy-in and how defensive folk can get about their WW2 myths, but my guess is some get kinda ferocious.

comment image

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Thank you!
By the way ever heard of Australian Major General Gordon Bennett* and Singapore?

(* Not where the expletive comes from rather oddly!)

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

I seem to remember something , and just read the Wiki. Controversial guy. His troops didn’t seem to object to him escaping but the hierarchy certainly did.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

He ‘deserted his post in the face of the enemy’ for which he should have been SHOT!
What his ‘men’ thought is irrelevant.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

He ‘deserted his post in the face of the enemy’ for which he should have been SHOT!
What his ‘men’ thought is irrelevant.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

I seem to remember something , and just read the Wiki. Controversial guy. His troops didn’t seem to object to him escaping but the hierarchy certainly did.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Thank you!
By the way ever heard of Australian Major General Gordon Bennett* and Singapore?

(* Not where the expletive comes from rather oddly!)

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

The cover ! All I can find. It’s bloody expensive to buy – Peter Hitchens alludes to it a lot. It hasn’t had a reprint and I don’t know why.

Maybe it is too brutal, doesn’t fit the preferred narrative the Brits want to believe about WW2.

I am not a Brit and British incompetence in the Far East was what I grew up with. (Some of it, maybe unjust. Since that would align with the Australians’ preferred myth.)

I don’t know the level of buy-in and how defensive folk can get about their WW2 myths, but my guess is some get kinda ferocious.

comment image

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

You seem besotted with this Simon Newman!
Is he perchance the same Simon Newman who teaches at Glasgow, and whose ‘specialty’ appears to be slavery in the United States?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Do you have the title page? This seems to start with the Preface.

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

what a bunch of ridiculous and unfounded assertions. Woulda coulda shoulda. Nothing more.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Do some research Storm, otherwise you sound like an idiot.

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  harry storm

Do some research Storm, otherwise you sound like an idiot.

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Pounds don’t equate to power, without the will to take risks.

For the rest of it, including the ‘duping’ Simon Newman’s book is here:

https://archive.org/details/march1939thebritishguaranteetopolandsimonnewman/page/n85/mode/1up?view=theater

harry storm
harry storm
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

what a bunch of ridiculous and unfounded assertions. Woulda coulda shoulda. Nothing more.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

‘Power’ has to be paid for, and as far back as the 1922 Washington Treaty we had clearly demonstrated we no longer wished to pay such an exorbitant price.

If we had ‘waited’ a year, N*zi Germany and the Soviet Union would have digested Poland, and almost certainly been stuck into the most monumental war, that can only have been to our enormous advantage.

In fact if we plaid our cards correctly we could supplied BOTH sides with war materials at enormous commercial benefit to our good selves.
In fact rather like we did on a smaller scale during the Iran-War of the 1980’s

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Pounds equal power. Without pounds you have no strength at all. We didn’t have much strength once the stock of pounds had been exhausted. And our influence thereafter was nugatory – did we rescue Poland from Stalin? Did we save Hungary? Or Czechoslovakia? Or even our own empire or empires, if you consider western Europe as a whole? Yes, we “saved” Greece, but at the cost of plunging the world into the conflict which almost robbed her of liberty in the first place. No, good sir; as the long, pitiless perspective of time increases and shadows are cast in their true direction, we shall perceive that the western powers of 39 were duped into a war they could not win by a combination of idiot chauvinism (horribly indulged by Churchill) and red connivances. This war snatched away from the western powers the last foundations of future power and influence, gave the criminals in Berlin and Moscow their chance to reshape the whole world by means of unparalleled bloodshed and brought the sympathisers of one such tyrant to de facto influence if not open power in the west. It was a disaster for Europe and her culture – and “woke” is just the long, clanging echo of the lies on which the post-45 world has been built.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

Precisely. It’s all spelled out in Corelli Barnet’s Audit of War. And the “assistance” Roosevelt gave us was akin to that of the pawnbroker, offering a pittance for the last valuables of a starving man.
At the same time, he and his cronies connived against what remained of British and French power – a process which reached its climax at Suez. Then America spent the postwar decades whining that it had to police the world alone.
Clearly the rational policy in March 39 would have been: continue to rearm defensively, in tandem with France and maintain the balance of power – very much the opinion of Rab Butler, then Halifax’s deputy at the FO – and even more the preferred option of Bonnet, in Paris – always reviled as an “arch-appeaser”.
Hence the Liberal Imperial west would have survived, the fascist centre would have avoided the appalling double-radicalisation which led to genocide, the cordon sanitaire of conservative states from Finland in the north to Bulgaria in the south would have kept the Russians and the Germans apart and sustained peace would have brought moderation in its wake.
Just the results the reds didn’t want.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

Yeah but you’re counting in pounds, they were counting in the currency of power. Which is pretty addictive.

And had they waited a year, Germany would have had something like twenty (?) more divisions in the field.

Even further down on the deal , in ÂŁ as well as power.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

Precisely. It’s all spelled out in Corelli Barnet’s Audit of War. And the “assistance” Roosevelt gave us was akin to that of the pawnbroker, offering a pittance for the last valuables of a starving man.
At the same time, he and his cronies connived against what remained of British and French power – a process which reached its climax at Suez. Then America spent the postwar decades whining that it had to police the world alone.
Clearly the rational policy in March 39 would have been: continue to rearm defensively, in tandem with France and maintain the balance of power – very much the opinion of Rab Butler, then Halifax’s deputy at the FO – and even more the preferred option of Bonnet, in Paris – always reviled as an “arch-appeaser”.
Hence the Liberal Imperial west would have survived, the fascist centre would have avoided the appalling double-radicalisation which led to genocide, the cordon sanitaire of conservative states from Finland in the north to Bulgaria in the south would have kept the Russians and the Germans apart and sustained peace would have brought moderation in its wake.
Just the results the reds didn’t want.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

I disagree. We simply couldn’t afford it and were in fact bankrupt by December 1940, leaving WSC no other choice but to grovel ‘on all fours’ for US ‘assistance’.

Thus we have remained an American Helot ever since. Arguably better than being a German Helot, but a Helot none the same.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
9 months ago

Quite so. Evidence has mounted up in recent decades that in fact Chamberlain’s approach to the great slump was far more effective than Roosevelt’s and that by the end of the thirties, Britain was in business again. Moreover, he – and incidentally Daladier – were quite right to avoid total war in 38 and the mystery is: why did they put the chestnuts they had taken out of the fire at Munich, straight back into that same fire over Poland? Further evidence has emerged that Poland was beginning to realise it had no realistic choice other than to give into Berlin’s admittedly unpleasant demands. Then came the western “guarantee”. Some are beginning to hint or suggest that the west was already the victim of well placed communist infiltrators; that the Polish guarantee, for instance, was an initiative of an already red or reddened Foreign Office. And this, of course, was more or less in obedience to Stalin’s aim of embroiling Europe in a war which could only, ultimately, benefit Bolshevism – so, as things turned out – it did. And when one considers the raft of pro-communist blunders thereafter, from “Unconditional Surrender” to the sponsoring of Tito over the Chetniks and the appalling Mao over Chiang-Kai-Shek, the pattern emerges unmistakably. The left used to be very fond of telling “Secret History” – well, the real secrecy is theirs, as usual.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

Looked at in context, it was not idiotic.

The British choice was being sidelined now or sidelined eventually. They opted for the latter.
The scale wasn’t unaffordable if the British could wangle it so Germany had to fight on two fronts. Poland had almost zero military capacity, but being big and by nature of its position, it had the capacity to absorb huge numbers of German tanks.

Albeit the British choice was dangerous, with unforeseen consequences, it presumably still seemed better than being pushed to the margins by Germany in 1938.

And the eventual result meant that the coming power was one the UK at least shared a language and good relations with.
And up until 1990 it had a role assisting that power to push back its Soviet rival.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago

Roosevelt was elected 4 times.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago

Roosevelt’s New Deal was ultimately saved by the British Empire idiotically deciding to go to war on an unaffordable scale, for the second time in 25 years.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
9 months ago

Oh. So Trump failed to deliver for the Deplorables. You mean like Roosevelt failed to deliver a return to prosperity to the workers in eight years of the failed New Deal?

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
9 months ago

Yes, Trump is a self-serving narcissist who never had any ideological principles he wasn’t willing to abandon for the right price. This is the criticism that isn’t made nearly enough. It’s the one DeSantis, Youngkin, Ramaswamy, or whoever else should be making to win the Republican nomination, but probably won’t because they fear the backlash would cost them the general election even if they win the nomination. They’re wrong. The Trump movement isn’t about Trump, or conservatism in general, but not enough people realize that yet. The conventional wisdom of the media, both conservative and liberal, is wildly off the mark. Trump could easily be replaced by anybody else who had the money and wherewithal to run a populist campaign without pandering to the donor class. Nobody has so far, but that doesn’t stop people from looking. Witness the meteoric popularity enjoyed briefly by DeSantis, then lost as he failed to seize the reins of the movement and failed to directly confront Trump or take the next step down the populist path. Instead he showed weakness by dithering for months (or at least appearing to do so) about whether to run, and failing to challenge the established alpha, Trump. Honestly, I expect whoever strikes the most aggressively populist tone and whoever directly criticizes Trump in the upcoming debate to surge in popularity and for the media to be completely baffled as to why.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve Jolly
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

The idea that Trump can be replaced in this role is untrue, as De Santis discovered.

DJT is a clown who hears exactly the right thing from his audience and knows what to pick out and play with.

That is a rare skill, one he probably honed by hanging around the World Wrestling Federation.

As a teenager I wondered what would happen if wrestling’s particular posture and patois became the way people engaged with each other in the mainstream.

At that time, I couldn’t understand why Roland Barthes singled it out as being so significant.

Well, we got to find that out.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

I agree on Trump. I have thought of the wrestling angle myself. In fact, the McMahons, who own the WWE, were among his most high profile supporters in 2016. Still, I think you, like most others, are missing the bigger picture when assessing Trump’s support. You, like most people, are making what I call an iceberg error. The part of Trump support you see is the tip of the iceberg, but with icebergs, what you see is a small percentage of the total. Most of the iceberg is under water, and it may or may not look anything like the visible part. You see the lunatics at his rallies and assume this is representative of his supporters in general, but of course the people at the rallies necessarily represent a tiny fraction of the millions of people who voted for the man in 2016 and 2020. Maybe they are all like the people at the rallies, but there’s no reason they should be, and every reason to think that the rally goers, a self-selected group, represent a biased sample of the whole. I’ll grant that many of those rally-goers are blindly loyal to Trump alone, but probably not all, and why should we conclude that about other voters. Further, there is the popularity of insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders to consider well, which made many of the same populist criticisms early on. Had the Democratic party establishment not proved to be far more competent and effective than the Republican, we might have had an election between two insurgent populists. My point is that there is a large and dangerous chunk of disaffected, disillusioned, voters angry at the status quo lurking beneath the surface, and they can be tapped by any candidate willing to challenge the establishment. Trump succeeded. He is what he is, and his rallies and most zealous supporters reflect him. As long as we’re using pro-wrestling as an analogy, Trump played a very common and identifiable angle, that of the defender of the everyman against the insidious ‘corporation’. However, as any wrestling aficionado would tell you, nearly every angle that exists has been recycled and used multiple times by multiple different wrestlers successfully with a slightly different flare. Who’s to say the next guy who plays the populist angle will be a bumbling fool like Donald Trump. Like a captain steering a ship through a field of icebergs, you cannot rely on your eyes alone. You dismiss the unseen portion at your peril.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

I agree on Trump. I have thought of the wrestling angle myself. In fact, the McMahons, who own the WWE, were among his most high profile supporters in 2016. Still, I think you, like most others, are missing the bigger picture when assessing Trump’s support. You, like most people, are making what I call an iceberg error. The part of Trump support you see is the tip of the iceberg, but with icebergs, what you see is a small percentage of the total. Most of the iceberg is under water, and it may or may not look anything like the visible part. You see the lunatics at his rallies and assume this is representative of his supporters in general, but of course the people at the rallies necessarily represent a tiny fraction of the millions of people who voted for the man in 2016 and 2020. Maybe they are all like the people at the rallies, but there’s no reason they should be, and every reason to think that the rally goers, a self-selected group, represent a biased sample of the whole. I’ll grant that many of those rally-goers are blindly loyal to Trump alone, but probably not all, and why should we conclude that about other voters. Further, there is the popularity of insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders to consider well, which made many of the same populist criticisms early on. Had the Democratic party establishment not proved to be far more competent and effective than the Republican, we might have had an election between two insurgent populists. My point is that there is a large and dangerous chunk of disaffected, disillusioned, voters angry at the status quo lurking beneath the surface, and they can be tapped by any candidate willing to challenge the establishment. Trump succeeded. He is what he is, and his rallies and most zealous supporters reflect him. As long as we’re using pro-wrestling as an analogy, Trump played a very common and identifiable angle, that of the defender of the everyman against the insidious ‘corporation’. However, as any wrestling aficionado would tell you, nearly every angle that exists has been recycled and used multiple times by multiple different wrestlers successfully with a slightly different flare. Who’s to say the next guy who plays the populist angle will be a bumbling fool like Donald Trump. Like a captain steering a ship through a field of icebergs, you cannot rely on your eyes alone. You dismiss the unseen portion at your peril.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve Jolly
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

The idea that Trump can be replaced in this role is untrue, as De Santis discovered.

DJT is a clown who hears exactly the right thing from his audience and knows what to pick out and play with.

That is a rare skill, one he probably honed by hanging around the World Wrestling Federation.

As a teenager I wondered what would happen if wrestling’s particular posture and patois became the way people engaged with each other in the mainstream.

At that time, I couldn’t understand why Roland Barthes singled it out as being so significant.

Well, we got to find that out.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
9 months ago

Yes, Trump is a self-serving narcissist who never had any ideological principles he wasn’t willing to abandon for the right price. This is the criticism that isn’t made nearly enough. It’s the one DeSantis, Youngkin, Ramaswamy, or whoever else should be making to win the Republican nomination, but probably won’t because they fear the backlash would cost them the general election even if they win the nomination. They’re wrong. The Trump movement isn’t about Trump, or conservatism in general, but not enough people realize that yet. The conventional wisdom of the media, both conservative and liberal, is wildly off the mark. Trump could easily be replaced by anybody else who had the money and wherewithal to run a populist campaign without pandering to the donor class. Nobody has so far, but that doesn’t stop people from looking. Witness the meteoric popularity enjoyed briefly by DeSantis, then lost as he failed to seize the reins of the movement and failed to directly confront Trump or take the next step down the populist path. Instead he showed weakness by dithering for months (or at least appearing to do so) about whether to run, and failing to challenge the established alpha, Trump. Honestly, I expect whoever strikes the most aggressively populist tone and whoever directly criticizes Trump in the upcoming debate to surge in popularity and for the media to be completely baffled as to why.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve Jolly
Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
9 months ago

So Trump colluded with the swamp? That must explain why they attempted to undermine him at every step, and continued to do so after Biden’s election. They (whoever they are) also seem to be fully engaged in ensuring he is not a candidate next time around.

Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
9 months ago

So Trump colluded with the swamp? That must explain why they attempted to undermine him at every step, and continued to do so after Biden’s election. They (whoever they are) also seem to be fully engaged in ensuring he is not a candidate next time around.

David Lynn
David Lynn
9 months ago

Like any human Trump has only 24 hours a day. He was under distracting attacks from day 1. Dealing with all of that and sleeping occasionally, it’s a wonder he accomplished as much as he did.

David Lynn
David Lynn
9 months ago

Like any human Trump has only 24 hours a day. He was under distracting attacks from day 1. Dealing with all of that and sleeping occasionally, it’s a wonder he accomplished as much as he did.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago

The author misunderstands why people will continue to vote Trump despite all the accusations and indictments agains him. It has nothing to do with his policies or lack of them. He was the first politician to correctly identify the fears many Americans have (both rational and irrational) of a psychopathic deep-state which seems to be emerging from Democrat-aligned institutions. Not a day goes by that some media publication or other is harping on about trans-nonsense or accusing the citizenry of racism and bigotry for resisting government attempts to radically beat them down into submissive compliancy. For all his faults, Trump stood up to a system which is currently hell-bent on using every means at its disposal to punish him. Whatever the outcome to this, we are witnessing the throes of a corrupt political system that will do all that it can to stay alive. 2024 will be a very interesting year.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
9 months ago

The author misunderstands why people will continue to vote Trump despite all the accusations and indictments agains him. It has nothing to do with his policies or lack of them. He was the first politician to correctly identify the fears many Americans have (both rational and irrational) of a psychopathic deep-state which seems to be emerging from Democrat-aligned institutions. Not a day goes by that some media publication or other is harping on about trans-nonsense or accusing the citizenry of racism and bigotry for resisting government attempts to radically beat them down into submissive compliancy. For all his faults, Trump stood up to a system which is currently hell-bent on using every means at its disposal to punish him. Whatever the outcome to this, we are witnessing the throes of a corrupt political system that will do all that it can to stay alive. 2024 will be a very interesting year.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

To expect coherent policy proposals by Trump is more than a bit of wishful thinking. I’m mystified why anyone likes this guy. TDS is equally mystifying. He’s just another crappy politician, with a bigger and more fragile ego than most. I’m crossing my fingers hoping that somehow Vivek Ramaswamy wins the nomination. He might actually get something done.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

People want real leadership, strong leadership to fight the aristocracy, the multinationals, and restore democratic rule. Trump isn’t that sort of politician, but he’s closer than most simply by virtue of his willingness to say anything that will rile up a crowd of angry middle Americans. At the very least, he annoys all the right people. I considered voting for him in 2016 for that reason. I knew what he was, but I considered voting for him anyway just because it would piss off all the right people and complete disorganized chaos is likelier to result in change than the living embodiment of establishment politics for the past three decades. We sort of got some minor changes. Not nearly enough but not nothing. The China tariffs have stuck, and even been expanded. Also, further free trade agreements like TPP are now politically too toxic to touch, so that’s something I guess.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve Jolly
T Bone
T Bone
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Vivek is a good guy but DeSantis is a superior candidate. Don’t let the Media’s narrative convince you otherwise. There have been more negative expenditures (attack ads) on DeSantis than Trump and Biden combined. Think about why that might be.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
9 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

DeSantis is the establishment’s ‘Trump’ – a pale (or rather, tanned) imitation of Orangeus Rex. Democrats wrote of ‘Ron’ positively during the blessĂšd Trumpian period and it’s always a good idea to pander to your enemy’s desires!

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
9 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

DeSantis is the establishment’s ‘Trump’ – a pale (or rather, tanned) imitation of Orangeus Rex. Democrats wrote of ‘Ron’ positively during the blessĂšd Trumpian period and it’s always a good idea to pander to your enemy’s desires!

Dominic A
Dominic A
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I think TSDS is a more accurate term – Trump Supporter Derangement Syndrome. It is not Trump himself that drives people nuts, but that so many have fallen for him. As the great man himself put it: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s, like, incredible.”

Two things I think explain his support – the perfection of mass manipulation techniques done by the shadier areas of ‘religion’ – wealth & power driven evangelical churches (‘I had a dream…God want me to have a 747, send in the cash), and sociopathic business (Enron, Purdue, Big Tobacco etc); and the endless pursuit of confidence, as an end in itself, not a side effect, and the vanquishing of shame, irregardless of whether it is earned or not, in US culture.

T Bone
T Bone
9 months ago
Reply to  Dominic A

This is a dense, lame and regurgitated analysis that reinforces why people would rather vote for Trump than any canned, inauthentic politician beholden to lobbyists.

Are you completely oblivious to what the Democratic Party has become? It’s a Party that decided to align with every major institution with the aid of the State Media apparatus to exert absolute control over the population from cradle to grave. For all his faults, Trump is not beholden to lobbyists and he can say what he thinks. People find this refreshing even if he’s doing it for his own personal ambitions. He’s saying what they’re thinking.

I do not particularly care for Trump but the oblivious, insulting analysis of his voters is ridiculous. The never-changing trope about “stupid Christians” just reinforces the notion of Progressives as smug, pretentious and lacking all self-awareness.

Dominic A
Dominic A
9 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

Sorry ‘T-Bone’ – I forgot that analysis of Trump support is wrong and terrible; as opposed to analysis of the Dems, aka Libtards.

T Bone
T Bone
9 months ago
Reply to  Dominic A

How about you be a serious person and compare the two sides instead of ignoring the group of people that hold 90% of institutional control.

Dominic A
Dominic A
9 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

I’ll pass on your kind offer.

Dominic A
Dominic A
9 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

I’ll pass on your kind offer.

T Bone
T Bone
9 months ago
Reply to  Dominic A

How about you be a serious person and compare the two sides instead of ignoring the group of people that hold 90% of institutional control.

Dominic A
Dominic A
9 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

Sorry ‘T-Bone’ – I forgot that analysis of Trump support is wrong and terrible; as opposed to analysis of the Dems, aka Libtards.

T Bone
T Bone
9 months ago
Reply to  Dominic A

This is a dense, lame and regurgitated analysis that reinforces why people would rather vote for Trump than any canned, inauthentic politician beholden to lobbyists.

Are you completely oblivious to what the Democratic Party has become? It’s a Party that decided to align with every major institution with the aid of the State Media apparatus to exert absolute control over the population from cradle to grave. For all his faults, Trump is not beholden to lobbyists and he can say what he thinks. People find this refreshing even if he’s doing it for his own personal ambitions. He’s saying what they’re thinking.

I do not particularly care for Trump but the oblivious, insulting analysis of his voters is ridiculous. The never-changing trope about “stupid Christians” just reinforces the notion of Progressives as smug, pretentious and lacking all self-awareness.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

People want real leadership, strong leadership to fight the aristocracy, the multinationals, and restore democratic rule. Trump isn’t that sort of politician, but he’s closer than most simply by virtue of his willingness to say anything that will rile up a crowd of angry middle Americans. At the very least, he annoys all the right people. I considered voting for him in 2016 for that reason. I knew what he was, but I considered voting for him anyway just because it would piss off all the right people and complete disorganized chaos is likelier to result in change than the living embodiment of establishment politics for the past three decades. We sort of got some minor changes. Not nearly enough but not nothing. The China tariffs have stuck, and even been expanded. Also, further free trade agreements like TPP are now politically too toxic to touch, so that’s something I guess.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve Jolly
T Bone
T Bone
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Vivek is a good guy but DeSantis is a superior candidate. Don’t let the Media’s narrative convince you otherwise. There have been more negative expenditures (attack ads) on DeSantis than Trump and Biden combined. Think about why that might be.

Dominic A
Dominic A
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I think TSDS is a more accurate term – Trump Supporter Derangement Syndrome. It is not Trump himself that drives people nuts, but that so many have fallen for him. As the great man himself put it: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s, like, incredible.”

Two things I think explain his support – the perfection of mass manipulation techniques done by the shadier areas of ‘religion’ – wealth & power driven evangelical churches (‘I had a dream…God want me to have a 747, send in the cash), and sociopathic business (Enron, Purdue, Big Tobacco etc); and the endless pursuit of confidence, as an end in itself, not a side effect, and the vanquishing of shame, irregardless of whether it is earned or not, in US culture.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

To expect coherent policy proposals by Trump is more than a bit of wishful thinking. I’m mystified why anyone likes this guy. TDS is equally mystifying. He’s just another crappy politician, with a bigger and more fragile ego than most. I’m crossing my fingers hoping that somehow Vivek Ramaswamy wins the nomination. He might actually get something done.

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
9 months ago

Although he did arm the Ukraine with Stingers, there was much else to admire in his foreign policy. The establishment Republicans stopped him doing anything else domestically, apart from the tax cuts which did stimulate the economy to the benefit of small businesses and working people.

Hywel Morgan
Hywel Morgan
9 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

Is this the Tyler Durden of (net?)Zero Hedge

Last edited 9 months ago by Hywel Morgan
Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
9 months ago
Reply to  Hywel Morgan

Doubtlessly they took the moniker from Fight Club too

Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
9 months ago
Reply to  Hywel Morgan

Doubtlessly they took the moniker from Fight Club too

Hywel Morgan
Hywel Morgan
9 months ago
Reply to  Tyler Durden

Is this the Tyler Durden of (net?)Zero Hedge

Last edited 9 months ago by Hywel Morgan
Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden
9 months ago

Although he did arm the Ukraine with Stingers, there was much else to admire in his foreign policy. The establishment Republicans stopped him doing anything else domestically, apart from the tax cuts which did stimulate the economy to the benefit of small businesses and working people.

Karen Fleming
Karen Fleming
9 months ago

Can anyone explain what the author meant when he said that the open borders benefited the red and blue state elites and Trump’s own family business?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Karen Fleming

I just assumed he was referring to driving down labour costs. To be fair, I don’t think anyone in the GOP wants open borders. Heck, I don’t think most Dems want open borders either.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

There are no open borders. Right wing racist fantasy.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
9 months ago

Young West African men pouring across the southern border. You’re welcome.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

Your posts are an endless source of material for bullsh1t bingo.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago

“Right wing racist fantasy”. O come off it can’t you think of anything more original than that? You sound like that old poseur Hilary Benn Esq.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
9 months ago

Young West African men pouring across the southern border. You’re welcome.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

Your posts are an endless source of material for bullsh1t bingo.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago

“Right wing racist fantasy”. O come off it can’t you think of anything more original than that? You sound like that old poseur Hilary Benn Esq.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

There are no open borders. Right wing racist fantasy.

j watson
j watson
9 months ago
Reply to  Karen Fleming

Do you really think Trump wants to support organised labour get a better deal in the US? Do you have any examples in his business history where he’s prioritised that?
The point is he’ll use the Wall/Immigration issue for political dividend but secretly welcome the under-cutting of labour via a stream of immigration. An old playbook.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Karen Fleming

I just assumed he was referring to driving down labour costs. To be fair, I don’t think anyone in the GOP wants open borders. Heck, I don’t think most Dems want open borders either.

j watson
j watson
9 months ago
Reply to  Karen Fleming

Do you really think Trump wants to support organised labour get a better deal in the US? Do you have any examples in his business history where he’s prioritised that?
The point is he’ll use the Wall/Immigration issue for political dividend but secretly welcome the under-cutting of labour via a stream of immigration. An old playbook.

Karen Fleming
Karen Fleming
9 months ago

Can anyone explain what the author meant when he said that the open borders benefited the red and blue state elites and Trump’s own family business?

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

Wait, you’re telling me that Donald Trump doesn’t tell the truth?

Knocked me down, feather, etc

Personally tho, I hope he does get the nomination.

He’s the candidate likely to disband the insane AUKUS – which has convinced the UK that it has a status in the world (time we realised we don’t) and if implemented will result in Australia wasting a lot of money on submarines entirely useless to its defence.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

What about all those Sharks we keep hearing about?

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

Assuming the sharks will be too busy eating the Chinese soldiers from the sunken troop transports sent to invade Australia (a live and ongoing threat according to the media there.)

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

I thought they were already there?
How many Chinese currently inhabit Australia, does anyone know?

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

I asked Terry Eagleton and he tells me there are 429 million Chinese in Australia

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Is that all? Or has Terry* gone Doolally?

(*Bloody predicted text!)

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
9 months ago

Eagleton is determined to prove every Irish joke correct. One of my race’s many execrable sons.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
9 months ago

Eagleton is determined to prove every Irish joke correct. One of my race’s many execrable sons.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

Is that all? Or has Terry* gone Doolally?

(*Bloody predicted text!)

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

I asked Terry Eagleton and he tells me there are 429 million Chinese in Australia

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

I thought they were already there?
How many Chinese currently inhabit Australia, does anyone know?

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

Assuming the sharks will be too busy eating the Chinese soldiers from the sunken troop transports sent to invade Australia (a live and ongoing threat according to the media there.)

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

What about all those Sharks we keep hearing about?

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago

Wait, you’re telling me that Donald Trump doesn’t tell the truth?

Knocked me down, feather, etc

Personally tho, I hope he does get the nomination.

He’s the candidate likely to disband the insane AUKUS – which has convinced the UK that it has a status in the world (time we realised we don’t) and if implemented will result in Australia wasting a lot of money on submarines entirely useless to its defence.

Fafa Fafa
Fafa Fafa
9 months ago

I knew that the swamp would not be drained when Trump appointed one goldman-sachs executive after another right for the outset of his administration (after bashing Wall Street as part of this pre-election shtick).
He ether did not take his Wall-Street-bashing during his campaign seriously (i.e. lied like anyone else who runs for president) or he ran into the wall of the hard reality of the real powers in the US (like, for instance, Obama with his “close Gitmo” promise).

Fafa Fafa
Fafa Fafa
9 months ago

I knew that the swamp would not be drained when Trump appointed one goldman-sachs executive after another right for the outset of his administration (after bashing Wall Street as part of this pre-election shtick).
He ether did not take his Wall-Street-bashing during his campaign seriously (i.e. lied like anyone else who runs for president) or he ran into the wall of the hard reality of the real powers in the US (like, for instance, Obama with his “close Gitmo” promise).

j watson
j watson
9 months ago

Trump will win the nomination because many folks prioritise someone saying what they want to hear said, even if no underlying policy substance or intention to make subsequent change. Total Yah-Boo politics. He’s absolutely no intention of solving any of the problems and it’s always just been about himself. The ‘grifting’ ability is remarkable, as is yet again the human psychology of confirmatory bias.
Elements of it remind me of Student Uni voting for the Dog as Student President. It’s the same reflex, until later you realise the joke was on yourself.

Last edited 9 months ago by j watson
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Is the joke on them tho?

Seeing as the other party wasn’t going to do anything for those people either (tho they pretended they were) it probably made sense to slap them in the face for their lie, by voting for the guy who’d keep them out of office.

Which also gives your guy a platform where he can entertain you at the same time.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
j watson
j watson
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

It will if Biden wins again, which is certainly an increased likelihood if Trump the nominee. In fact probably Democrats only chance. Whereas probably 3-4 of the other GOP candidates would be an odds on favourite.
You see as Student Uni’s found the ‘dog’ wasn’t much good at standing up to the Uni administrators although if gave everyone a temporary laugh.

j watson
j watson
9 months ago
Reply to  Dumetrius

It will if Biden wins again, which is certainly an increased likelihood if Trump the nominee. In fact probably Democrats only chance. Whereas probably 3-4 of the other GOP candidates would be an odds on favourite.
You see as Student Uni’s found the ‘dog’ wasn’t much good at standing up to the Uni administrators although if gave everyone a temporary laugh.

Dumetrius
Dumetrius
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Is the joke on them tho?

Seeing as the other party wasn’t going to do anything for those people either (tho they pretended they were) it probably made sense to slap them in the face for their lie, by voting for the guy who’d keep them out of office.

Which also gives your guy a platform where he can entertain you at the same time.

Last edited 9 months ago by Dumetrius
j watson
j watson
9 months ago

Trump will win the nomination because many folks prioritise someone saying what they want to hear said, even if no underlying policy substance or intention to make subsequent change. Total Yah-Boo politics. He’s absolutely no intention of solving any of the problems and it’s always just been about himself. The ‘grifting’ ability is remarkable, as is yet again the human psychology of confirmatory bias.
Elements of it remind me of Student Uni voting for the Dog as Student President. It’s the same reflex, until later you realise the joke was on yourself.

Last edited 9 months ago by j watson
chris sullivan
chris sullivan
9 months ago

excellent and succinct analysis thankyou

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
9 months ago

excellent and succinct analysis thankyou

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago

Brilliant article, thanks. A concise treatment of the big-picture view.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
9 months ago

Brilliant article, thanks. A concise treatment of the big-picture view.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
9 months ago

Looking forward to another Trump narrow loss and a better-organised coup from the great man next time. Makes for great TV. Amazing how all those antifa guys are so good at pretending to be Trumpies

Last edited 9 months ago by Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
9 months ago

Looking forward to another Trump narrow loss and a better-organised coup from the great man next time. Makes for great TV. Amazing how all those antifa guys are so good at pretending to be Trumpies

Last edited 9 months ago by Frank McCusker
John Taylor
John Taylor
9 months ago

Very nuanced and provocative argument. Living in the U. S., I can say this piece mostly runs true.

John Taylor
John Taylor
9 months ago

Very nuanced and provocative argument. Living in the U. S., I can say this piece mostly runs true.