Skip to main content

March, 30th

Trump is a terrible politician. Not only is he incompetent, but he seems to have major ideological shifts from one day to the next. He is, however, a skilled culture warrior. He’s one of the best in modern history, as he’s spent his entire public life crafting this persona of the polarizing yet independent businessman, someone perfectly suited to comment on topics of the day from outside the “swamp” of professional politics in Washington DC. Someone only beholden to the whims of the market, and only limited by the personal effort put forth. Of course it is all total bullshit. Trump is a failure as a businessman, getting by from selling our equivalent of snake oil, but he does understands the (current) liberal ethos far better than the rest of the right. He understands that there is this underlying desire for liberals, the ones with enough power and influence that is, to define the moral boundaries in so many cultural spaces that he can just pick one after the other. If something doesn’t stick, surely the next thing will. 

It works well for both. (We don’t talk enough about the “regular” people who are doing well right now. Small business owners, professionals and managers. They are greatly influential politically on both sides.) Liberals get to project moral superiority, wear it as a sort of cultural badge they can flash whenever prompted, and Trumpites get to live out their jerk off fantasies of being “persecuted” by the Pontius Pilate of the day; the “liberal media,” some marginal and wacky professor (Kevin Sorbo did his best george ciccariello-maher in the stunning film “god is not dead”) or whatever. This is the only environment that works for Trump. This is where he can survive. 

Meanwhile, economic insecurity is internalized and normalized. It, of course, lays the foundation for the cultural battles. Sometimes it’s talked about, even seriously and in context, but then one side or the other will pull us back to where they feel safe, whether that be the virtue signaling of the right or the right.

So, I heard that new Roseanne is both funny and evil and people will be not watching but also watching!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I’m somewhat familiar with the story, but haven’t seen the tv series “the plot against America.” Is it any good? I’ll admit I have doubts that will be difficult to overcome. My guess is it’s a well stylized but historically simplified attempt to frame international liberalism, particularly the US dominated post war order, as something deeper than what it has become- a value championed almost exclusively by the cosmopolitan elite and global corporations. I also predict that the entire post WW1 context (three months involvement and almost 120,000 Americans dead, split evenly between fighting and the flu pandemic) is lost to Lindbergh and his anti-Semitism. Is this accurate? “The man in the high castle,” another alternative history book made into a tv series that I actually did watch, missed an opportunity to dig into American militarism by not really explaining why so many high level American military members joined the Nazis. (We were supposed to believe it’s just because the Germans wo
4 comments
Read more
  I voted for Joe Biden and hope he wins. I’m also alarmed at the increasingly transparent alliance between the Democratic Party and influential sectors of corporate America, namely media conglomerates and the technology industry. (Their relationship reminds me of the Republican Party and the energy industry.) It’s true there are conservative media outlets that are not friendly to Democrats, but it’s far less certain how objective the “paper of record” and other “serious” media would be to a post-Trump and post-COVID Biden administration that is politically and ascetically their peer. (I would say we are at a point of competing Pravdas, but that would be a slander against the Soviet newspaper’s pre-Stalinist period when it was a battleground of ideas.) Perhaps even more damning is the Democratic Party’s relationship to the technology industry, particularly when companies like Twitter and Facebook have shown they are prepared to unilaterally decide what’s true and what’s false. Not many
2 comments
Read more
State power (that is the ability of the state to use brute force) has increased beyond any somewhat comparable moment in history, yet the state’s ability to everyday govern has decreased to historically poor levels. People (across the political spectrum) typically make sense of this through various conspiracy theories, some more attached to reality than others. (Many are nakedly conspiratorial, others have elements of structural analyses, usually done by trained post-structuralists of course.) America is ground zero, but this is not exclusively an American phenomenon. (China is a possible counter-example, though their competence is both exaggerated and relies heavily on the brute force part of the state.)  This creates a stalemate of sorts. The state lacks legitimacy, but also can’t be replaced. You can add Ross Douthat’s Laschian critique of societal “decadence” (drift may be a better word) to this context. His analysis is largely correct in my view and he’s also right that it’s relat
Post a Comment
Read more