After nearly a decade of being forced to take Trump seriously, Democrats increasingly call BS on the whole charade.

After nearly a decade of being forced to take Trump seriously, Democrats increasingly call BS on the whole charade

Sure, Donald Trump is a threat to democracy — a would-be dictator on day one who has called for terminating the U.S. Constitution so he can hold onto power even after losing a free and fair election. But while draped in the rhetoric of populism, Trump and his MAGA movement are not actually popular; the man himself has never won more votes than the person he ran against, a majority of Americans twice rejecting him and his off-putting cult of personality. That he was ever president is more or less because a few thousand swing voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania thought it would be fun.

President Joe Biden won in 2020 largely by promising to a return to normalcy and baseline competency. In 2024, Democrats are making a similar argument but more forcibly: They’re pointing, laughing and dismissing Trump and his circus as a total freak show to which we can’t return.

  • Vittelius
    21·
    4 months ago

    To add to that I’d like to quote Ian Danskin (aka Inuendo Studios) from his guest lecture about Gamergate at UC Merced:

    Bob Altemeyer has this survey he uses to study authoritarianism. He divides respondents into people with low, average, and high authoritarian sentiments, and then tells them what the survey has measured and asks, “what score do you think is best to have: low, average, or high?”

    People with low authoritarian sentiments say it’s best to be low. People with average authoritarian sentiments also say it’s best to be low. But people with high authoritarian sentiments? They say it’s best to be average. Altemeyer finds, across all his research, that reactionaries want to aggress, but only if it is socially acceptable. They want to know they are the in-group and be told who the out-group is. They don’t particularly care who the out-group is, Altemeyer finds they’ll aggress against any group an authority figure points to, even, if they don’t notice it, a group that contains them. They just have to believe the in-group is the norm.

    https://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/660337457916706817/i-was-invited-to-give-a-talk-on-gamergate-over

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      12·
      4 months ago

      Great quote. It explains why they’re especially sensitive to the idea that their position is not normal.

      • Vittelius
        14·
        4 months ago

        exactly. In the next paragraph Ian even has some examples of how that works in modern day American conservative political culture:

        Reactionary politics is rebellion against things they dislike getting normalized, because they know, if they are normalized, they will have to accept them. Because the thing they care about most is being normal.

        This is why the echo chamber, this is why Fox News, this is why the Far Right insists they are the “silent majority.” This is why they artificially inflate their numbers. This is why they insist facts are “biased.” They have to maintain the image that what are, in material terms, fringe beliefs are, in fact, held by the majority. This is why getting mocked by Stephen Colbert was such a blow to GamerGate. It makes it harder to believe the world at large agrees with them.

        This is why, if you’re trying to change the world for the better, it’s pointless to ask their permission. Because, if you change the world around them, they will adapt even faster than you will.

        Honestly the whole talk is worth a listen. It’s depressing because, well, it’s about gamergate but it explains so much (and it’s probably one of the parts of his alt right playbook series of video essays getting shared the least on social media

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, that’s really interesting. I think on the left there’s more acceptance for being weird. In fact, I think that’s one of the things the left fights for: the freedom to not be normal. If you’re not hurting anybody, then nobody should care what you do.

          This is probably what has led to the MAGA people being so deeply weird. The right is used to their neighbours policing them and keeping them from drifting too far from normal. The left generally doesn’t care too much about normal. So, when the MAGA movement made the Republican base so weird, their neighbours were caught up in it, so they weren’t criticizing the drift away from normal. The democrats didn’t really care so much about the lack of “normality”, but were instead focused on all the actual bad shit, like refusing to confirm Supreme Court justices, banning muslims from entering the US, etc. So, now pointing out how far from normal they’ve drifted is really having an effect.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          2·
          4 months ago

          You have to love the irony of the far right considering themselves the “silent” anything.