After the break, you'll see a few diagrams. I thought them up last night. They're not very profound, but I think they help explain why Donald Trump is so resilient politically.
No matter how many disqualifying items pile up in his record, Trump supporters continue to stand by him, defiantly and enthusiastically. There is a certain symbiosis between the two entities - Trump and his base - which is surprisingly resilient. Apparently, he gives his supporters what they crave. And they give him what he wants and needs: adulation, a torrent of funding, and reliable votes.
Conceptually, it doesn't seem a difficult problem to solve: break the link between Trump and his voters, and you'll have broken Trump the candidate. Among Trump's myriad of political enemies, the implicit working assumption for the last nine years has been: if only we could show his voters how bad a public official and a person he is, they would turn off the love, the money and the votes. And that would spell the end of Donald Trump's political career.
But two impeachments, an attempted coup and four indictments later, there is no evidence at all that anyone has found a way to disrupt the symbiosis between Trump and his supporters. Why is Trump's support so resilient?
I think the reason is because there is a third element in the ecosystem: right wing media. Right wing media (including social media) keeps the fire lit in the hearts and bellies of Trump supporters. It also influences Trump himself; we know he spent hours every day in the West Wing, watching Fox News and other right wing television outlets.
This structure has proven to be stable and resilient to the point of imperviousness. Any effort to take down Trump politically must reckon with all three elements and their interrelationships, and figure out how to neutralize them all. So far, Ron DeSantis and the other Republican competitors haven't figured out how to unplug all the boxes and arrows at once. Thus my conviction, which I've shared here already, that there is no stopping Donald Trump from being the Republican presidential candidate in 2024.
What about taking down Trump legally? I am second to no one in my desire to see him in an orange jumpsuit. But will the conviction and imprisonment of Donald Trump diminish the backing (financial and voting) of his backers, and the rhetorical support of the right wing media? I doubt it.
Good charts, Jim. For some reason they made me think of charts in biology, Krebs Cycle and that sort of thing. Except it's a whole lot easier to disrupt biological processes than Trump's ecosystem. Right now I think fear is a big part of his word salad ranting, the reason why he is trying so hard. He really is afraid that he could go to jail. And he thinks that the presidency is his get out of jail card. Sometimes I wonder if an exorcism would help. And I'm only half joking.
ReplyDeleteAll of us crave something that is bad for us. I know people who pooh-poohed the dangers of smoking in spite of all the medical data. Trump is their addiction. They are getting from him something they crave, something that makes them feel good. What is the methadone for Trump? DeSantis ain't it.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as an ex-smoker: I knew it was bad for me. But I was addicted, and the nicotine truly was pleasurable.
DeleteTo change up the metaphor: if you buy the Freudian model of id/ego/super-ego, Trump is an id candidate. He's all about disorganized, chaotic pleasure and aggression. He channels the latter into the culture wars and the resentment of immigrants.
I really think it would be profoundly satisfying to see him brought to justice, not least because retributive justice is the rational restoration of right order.
Yes it would be profoundly satisfying to see him brought to justice. I don't think "justice" is going to be prison, though, simply because of the complicated logistics. A bunch of secret service guys would have to be there too. I'd settle for house arrest and an ankle bracelet at Mar a Lago. And "community service".
DeleteCommunity service wouldn't be ranting on social media. It would be something like picking up trash by the side of the road on Saturday morning.
"Able was I ere I saw Elba." Too bad Mar a Lago isn't an island.
DeleteKatherine I'd settle for house arrest and an ankle bracelet at Mar a Lago. And "community service".
DeleteCommunity service wouldn't be ranting on social media. It would be something like picking up trash by the side of the road on Saturday morninG
Perfect
I am in California and have lost track of the discussion threads.So this comment, for Stanley, is out of place I’m afraid.
ReplyDeleteStanley, most people take out loans to buy cars, especially new cars. Lots of people, including my husband and I, buy used cars -which are far more affordable than brand new cars.
Stanley, the evolution of many countries moving from extreme poverty to middle income or better status due to capitalism and the globalization of the world economy is simple fact. It is a good thing.
Currently “poverty is measured as the number of people living below $1.90 per person per day (headcount poverty). [in the late 1970s when I was working at the World Bank - whose mission is helping the poor countries achieve a higher level of economic development - the standard for the poorest of the poor was less than $1.00/day/person. The $1.90 reflects inflation since then].
In 1990, 1.9 billion people, or 36% of the worldlived below the $1.90 per day extreme poverty line. Poverty was concentrated in low-income countries (World Bank definition) …Over 50% lived in East Asia, and another 28% in South Asia. China and India dominated the global poverty picture, with 760 million (65% of the population) and 406 million (46% of the population) respectively living below $1.90 per day. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Vietnam also made the top 10 list by poverty headcount.
The last 30 years have seen dramatic reductions in global poverty, spurred by strong catch-up growth in developing countries, especially in Asia. By 2015, some 729 million people, 10% of the population, lived under the $1.90 a day poverty line, greatly exceeding the Millennium Development Goal target of halving poverty …From 2012 to 2013 …the global poverty headcount fell by 130 million poor people…..
Four Asian countries achieved exceptional economic growth’ moving from being among the worlds poorest countries to bring among the worlds richest countries. They took advantage of globalization to dramatically increase exports and to use the money to increase domestic industrialization. The “Asian Tigers” are South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Other Asian countries such as Viêt Nam have also moved out of poverty to at least middle income levels. There are about ten of them and are called the Tiger Cubs. India and china also achieved incredible economic growth and massive reductions in poverty from joining the global economy while freeing their domestic economies to permit capitalism/private enterprise.
Latin American economies also grew rapidly, but have slowed now, even reversing a bit.I haven’t researched this, but I would guess that Venezuela, and the corrupt, drug trade Central American countries that are driving the immigration to the US border are among the countries dragging down growth in Latin America. But almost all of the poorest people in the world now live in Africa. I haven’t studied that problem either. Ireland went from 200 years as one of Europes poorest countries to one of the richest by joining the EU, and then adopting policies to attract foreign companies to invest in Ireland or even move their HQs there, earning them the name Celtic Tiger.
I remain skeptical in the long run, Anne. Capitalism seems to require someone being exploited somewhere. It also results in disparities of wealth as we see in this country. And monopolization. Because of your humanity, you seem to want capitalism with bandaids for the losers which was what the New Deal was. But eventually that becomes disparaged and destroyed in the Reagan revolution.
DeleteMy opinion is that if there is a balance to be achieved, it will require socialists versus capitalists, not extreme capitalists versus milquetoast not-so-capitalists.
Probably it wouldn't surprise anyone to know that I fundamentally agree with Anne: capitalism is an unrivaled engine for ending poverty.
DeletePope Francis has been sharply critical of the excesses of capitalism, especially its potential to exploit poor workers, and its deleterious effect on the environment.
Politically, it seems the best we Americans have been able to do regarding those excesses is to enact laws and regulations to try to curb the excesses.
At a philosophical level, I am not certain that the Catholic church ever can wholeheartedly embrace capitalism, because the kernel of capitalism requires persons and firms acting in their self-interest: I start a business or sell goods and services for a living or change jobs because I want more money. What Jesus taught is the opposite of that: he taught acting in others' interest (at a macro level, the Common Good), and having a preferential option for the poor. Capitalism is geared toward participants "maximizing their utility" (which for most of us means, "accumulating as much wealth as possible") in this life, whereas Christianity teaches us to embrace poverty in this life so as to store up treasure in heaven for the life to come.
Personally, I think one area we see in this ill-fit between capitalism and church teaching is in the matter of organized labor. Support for labor, including the rights of laborers to band together and organize, is one of the seven core principles of Catholic Social Teaching. But organized labor is viewed by capitalist economic theorists as a method of restricting and distorting economic activity (which is true enough - especially from the point of view of the investor). The idea of a preferential option for the poor, including poor workers, doesn't really fit very well in most capitalist theories.
Jim, I have often pondered these ideas. It doesn’t help the poor if everyone is poor. But where do we draw the line?
DeleteCapitalism enabled almost 1.2 Billion - BILLION- people to move from the worst poverty in the world to at least a lower middle class level n a very short period of time once trade was liberalized, and helped some of the poorest countries to join the rich countries. This is a very good thing. Starvation isn’t a nice way to die. However capitalism needs to be tightly regulated in order to maximize its potential for good and to avoid the evils associated with capitalist greed - including monopolies, oligopolies, and extreme income inequality . The European countries have done a reasonably good job at ensuring a decent standard of living for their citizens while maximizing the benefits of capitalism - far better than we have in the US.
Stanley’s model of Mandragon is very interesting. I went back to read more about it. It’s not a corporation, but is classified as a co- op of several dozen different businesses. It too opérâtes as a capitalist, profit seeking enterprise. But with employee ownership and management it is able to leverage the benefits of capitalism without as many of the worst problems. The dividends from profit are paid into a fund that strengthens and supplements the social safety nets for workers already in place by the government of Spain. In most for profit enterprises the profits are given out as dividends to outside stockholders and often to excessively high compensation for upper management. However, Mandragon also needs to borrow money ( since it doesn’t issue stock) at times to invest in the businesses in the co- op so some earnings have to go to debt repayment, just as is the case with more conventional enterprises. Mandragon also limits executive pay. It’s an interesting enterprise model which is capitalist, not socialist, but which provides extra social benefits to its worker- owners.
Here is one generally favorable article about the Mandragon model.
https://medium.com/fifty-by-fifty/mondragon-through-a-critical-lens-b29de8c6049
"It doesn’t help the poor if everyone is poor."
DeleteRight. Even the aspirational sharing described in Acts ("All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need") seemingly was shown to be economically unsustainable during Paul's lifetime.
In my view, the church's theologians and leaders need to continue to be in dialogue with economists and financial people. Each can learn from the other.
The church seemingly was wrong* for centuries in its view of charging interest. Anne, I know you know that fractional reserve banking is part of the inner clockwork that makes free market economies tick.
Delete* I think a more nuanced view is: the church was right all along to call out the dangers of being in debt; debt is one of the ways the rich always have exploited the poor. But lending can be structured in a win/win way. We might see bankruptcy laws as profoundly Christian: a way for a debtor to be forgiven of debt and start over.
Trumps resilience in Ohio
ReplyDeletehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/frank-larose-gop-senate-candidate-in-ohio-fires-a-top-staffer-for-tweets-critical-of-donald-trump/ar-AA1fmyrI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=626025b42b47490a9b04687247d935fe&ei=15
Frank LaRose, GOP Senate candidate in Ohio, fires a top staffer for tweets critical of Donald Trump.
Trump, of course, helped Vance to become first the Republican candidate and then victor in the Ohio Senate race.
LaRose will be going against an incumbent. He was a prime mover in the failed Ohio Issue #1.
So he sacrificed a top aide to the Trumpists. Rose also once criticized Trump so he might have a difficult time getting Trumps endorsement.
It sounds very much what one would expect from a cult of personality. And/or how Putin operates.
DeleteYeah what is it with Vance? I read "Hillbilly Elegy" that he wrote and didn't think he was that wacky. But he sure embraced "Maga world" once he entered politics. Part of his story is coming from poverty and getting a Yale law degree. But as far as I know he has never practiced law. Instead he became a hedge fund manager. We needed more of that like we needed a hole in the head. And he says things that he flat out knows aren't true. A lot of that going around.
DeleteAnd what's up with a possible Gavin Newsom/ Ron DeSantis debate?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-gavin-newsom-and-ron-desantis-are-both-itching-to-debate-each-other/ar-AA1fdRuO
Of course De Santis would prefer to just phone it in with a pre-recorded piece, but Newsom isn't having any of that. And DeSantis so far hasn't refused the debate.
I think Newsom has his eye on 2028, not sure what DeSantis is thinking.
Anne said she is in California. I hope she and her family prepare for Hurricane Hillary which is bringing strong wind and rain. Another anomalous event for which the infrastructure is probably unprepared.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the conservative media side of Jim's model:
ReplyDeleteFox’s Rupert Murdoch pushing a new candidate to beat Trump.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-s-rupert-murdoch-pushing-a-new-candidate-to-beat-trump/ar-AA1fsH6e?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e390f85e134d4eafb09486c13509515e&ei=6
In his determination to choose a 2024 GOP nominee other than ex-President Donald Trump, right-wing media magnate Rupert Murdoch is interested in selecting Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, The Washington Post reports.
In November 2022, Murdock warned Trump that he would not back another run for the White. Murdock then encouraged DeSantis but not things his campaign is failing.
Youngkin has said that he will not make any decision until the November elections but that may be too late to enter some key primaries.
The decision not to back Trump ever again (on the part of everybody) should have come on Jan. 7, 2020; if not sooner.
DeleteThanks, Stanley. Fortunately we are in northern calif and the storm is supposed to be well south of LA. I am enjoying watching my five year old granddaughter’s soccer game on a gorgeous day. Anybody who thinks the World Cup is exciting has never had the chance to watch kindergarten soccer. ;)
DeleteJack - I believe I heard a news item that Trump will not participate in this week's Republican candidate debate, but around the same time his campaign will release on social media (X / Twitter?) an interview that Tucker Carlson did with Trump. Carlson used to be on Fox, where he probably was the single most influential of the populist conservative commentators. But since Fox fired Carlson, he's no longer bound to Rupert Murdoch. And even during Trump's presidency, he was starting to favor non-Fox conservative outlets like One America News Network (OANN).
Delete