The positive case for Trump 2.0 (from a liberal who hates him)

Politics & Elections
101

Thanks again for the discussion, and for the information on will to believe. Some replies:

Actually, rabies has to get to the brain in order to be fatal. That’s why a vaccine that can penetrate the brain blood barrier can outrun the disease, which progresses slowly through the body.

To continue the analogy, their openness about their intentions greatly aids in formulating a vaccine, i.e., countermeasures.

I mean, they’re not really trying anymore, are they? Project 2025 isn’t some leaked secret document, it’s an out in the open plan for rolling back decades of social progress. They are now increasingly saying the quiet parts out loud, and find that it helps rather than hinders them.

I don’t know that it helps them. Trump had to disavow Project 2025 again and again. Now, I don’t believe the disavowal, but he’ll have to have some sort of plan to explain things when one of his minions tries to start implementing it. Every little bit of friction like that helps us.

Part of it is simply psychological. Remember being in school and the teacher giving the class a pop quiz? You fail and feel stupid. But then you look around see that most of the other kids have too. “It’s not just me, whew!”

Comfort also comes from understanding the cause better. What’s something that could cause this disaffection and dysfunction across the developed world? I think it’s clearly the malaise and economic dysfunction coming from late stage capitalism.

I’m comforted, personally, to know that the cause is economic and not just Americans being dicks to be dicks. Had Harris barely lost, we could point to racism and misogyny as the main causes and self-flagellate accordingly. I think those were minor causes, but the primary and global cause is economic.

Interconnectedness will also allow us pro-democracy people to organize globally.

The thing is that in order to ‘solve the problem’, it’s all too easy to claim to need more and more power concentrated on the executive—“I would kick out the immigrants/build the wall/uproot the deep state, but they are still too powerful”. And once enough power has been consolidated in this way, there’s no real need for any sham problem that only existed to facilitate this consolidation in the first place anymore.

Your basic point is correct. That’s why Bolshevism was such a powerful bogeyman for Hitler. Overcoming it would require the cooperation of the entire country. I’m not sure immigrants will work that way for Trump. I certainly think he lacks the discipline to work such a narrative.

How many effects of his numerous heinous, incompetent, and downright illegal acts has Trump suffered, though?

Losing election in 2020 would be a big one. He’s a lame (and sick) duck now, but Vance wants to win for himself.

It might be that inflation would be the straw to break the camel’s back, but so far, it’s been an incredibly fucking sturdy ungulate.

The big tariff he’s describing would immediately cause most US citizens distinct pain from both inflation and losing access to favored products. If he tries that, the GOP is toast in 2026.

I noted your cites on Ukraine and Israel, thanks. Re Ukraine, he’s promised to solve the situation, so I don’t think that simply cutting off aid would count as that. Trump’s ego with respect to foreign relations requires him to be active, not passive. I mean, he wants to be at the negotiating table with Putin and Zelensky, and he wants to get something done and be praised for it. That’s how he rolls.

Re Israel, what you describe sounds like a continuation of Biden’s policy, i.e., basically hands off the thing. Would Trump be satisfied to go with that? I’m not so sure. Here again, I think he wants to be the star of the show, which would require him to do something. I agree that his tendency is to take Israel’s side without much thought on the matter.

He’s also ragged on “corporate oligarchs.” My read is that Vance doesn’t like the system much, just as we do not, and he really is a populist. That seems to be the line that runs through his various incarnations.

I don’t think Vance really likes Trump all that much. I think he wants to lead the GOP and take it in his own direction.

102

“You fucked up. You trusted us.”

They’ll have the power to do as they please; it won’t matter how anyone else feels about it or complains. They can just point and laugh.

103

They can, but there would be consequences for that.

As I’ve said a bunch of times, the Nazi Gleichschaltung took time. I doubt Trump can do much fundamental work before Vance takes over, and then it will have to be what Vance wants (i.e., Vance is not motivated to be handed a ball of shit).

104

The Republicans are white nationalists; they want Hitler 2.0 with a dash of Christian fanaticism. And nukes, and a bigger army.

105

Yeah, the number of deluded people from various ethnicities is pretty staggering.

Did Trump really try to hurt Americans directly during his first term, though? He had the “Muslim ban” and the family separation policy, but those were not directed at US citizens. It’s unclear whether he has the will and discipline to try to enact his own Nuremberg Laws or any such thing.

I think the horrors of Trump 2.0 are greatly overestimated for the reasons I stated in the OP: Trump is too old and unhealthy, and blowback will come quickly for anything too crazy. I will add here that we know how he thinks and acts this time, so we will be much more ready to counter anything. Look at what Newsom and Pritzker are saying.

As for LGBTQ+, I think it will be like abortion is now: blue states will protect people. They will most likely defy any national legislation or policies (and yes, this could trigger a lot of big shit).

106

Yep, but getting it won’t be easy.

Here’s the thing. People who think that Trump can take over like Hitler and get everything done that he or his minions want very quickly with full compliance from everyone else are incorrect. Even Hitler himself had to take time in implementing his agenda. And there will be a lot more opposition in the US.

107

I wish I could make myself believe that. I expect barely any.

108

You saw what Newsom and Pritzker said, right? That ain’t nothing!

109

He does not NEED full compliance form EVERYONE. Nor did I ever say he would get it. Trump has full control of the Republican party. He has enough justices that are loyal to him and only him to control the Supreme Court. He is commander in chief. The Supreme Court will hold anything he or the Republican party do is Constitutional. I do not thinlk that every one serving in the military will back Trump, but enough will. Trump does not need compliance. He can enforce his will.

Re- Needig Time To Implement His Agenda

That is what he has been doing since at least 2016. He reshaped the Republican party into an organizaton that exists only to serve he backed governors and such who were also loyal. As I just said, he packed the Supreme Court with justices who would be unswervingly loyal to him. Serving a second term is not remotely the first step in his plan.

110

I don’t think that’s true . . . I also don’t really want to find out where they’ll draw that line.

111

They certainly have so far. Trump commited many crimes during his first term? We grant him broad immunity!

I don’t see this trend stopping.

112

Vance is angling for the big chair but absolutely zero chance of this happening unless Trump literally has a stroke that leaves him comatose. It’s too soon, he doesn’t have an argument to do it, and it would end his career because he’d have no chance at all of getting support for it and would be sidelined or forced to resign. It will take a few years, and Trump must visibly decline way more.

Trump is supported by Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, etc. They don’t want Vance, they want Trump. They won’t allow a quick replacement.

113

Trump is a very weak Commander In Chief. He wants nothing to do with the Armed Forces and doesn’t want to learn.

So master plans, how do they take place? Trump has zero ability to master plan himself. He’s not going to build the relationships. He will throw minions under the bus at the first opportunity. His idea of implementing a plan is shouting at someone to implement a plan, like shouting at a minion for a Diet Coke. That’s all he’s got.

114

I agree. I didn’t write clearly. I was thinking of something like the scenario above. The thing is, Trump’s poor health makes this possible (but not likely).

I agree.

115

Information has already come in that I think supports the OP. Trump is going to pick Susie Wiles, one of his campaign managers, as his Chief of Staff. This is a non-crazy choice. Actually, probably very smart. And she’s been in Republican politics since the Reagan era and doesn’t seem like a nutjob.

Next, word on the street is that Trump will pick Marco Rubio as Secretary of State. Again, not a terrible choice at all, and while Rubio is a suckup sycophant to Trump, he is also not a nutjob.

So far, so… normal?!

116

As much as I would like to take comfort from the thought of Trump’s death, I can’t because he is just the head of a very big, vicious snake. Vance would be even worse and, if he proves too weak to be successful in 2028, then the Right will just come up with someone else. The problem is not the particular instrument, it is the song that they are playing

117

Trump’s typical response when caught in a lie is to attack the person asking the question.
Reporter: Hey Trump, you said you had nothing to do with Project 2025 but it looks like you’re doing it anyway. What’s up with that?
Trump: I’ve never been asked such a nasty question in my whole life! The fake news is always out to get me! I never said that! Why do you lie so much? Fake news! Fake news! (continues attacking reporters until they lose interest, never returns to the question)
For some reason, this works and grants Trump 100% immunity from consequences for dishonesty.

118

Hell, remember when his master plan for combatting ISIS was “tell my generals to come up with a plan”?

119

This time around, he’ll have the Project 2025 people to yell that at, and they will be only too happy to implement it.

Remember, he wants “Hitler’s Generals”, who will do what they’re told. I’d bet good money P2025 has a list of people exactly like that. He yells, “Get me BETTER GENERALS!”, and they pull out their list.

120

It’s a complete sidetrack and not something I really want to argue, but my understanding was always that once somebody develops noticeable rabies symptoms, they’re basically done for. Is that not correct?

I’m really not sure if that isn’t too beholden to traditional assumptions of accountability and the like. Trump’s ‘explanations’ take the form of drawing onto hurricane maps with a sharpie, and it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference.

In that case, there might be comfort in the fact that either the teaching was inadequate, or the quiz way off base—i.e. the failure was ultimately with the superior authority. But there’s no such authority in this case: we’re a pack of lemmings headed for the cliff, and I’m not sure there’s much comfort in knowing that all the other lemmings are coming with us.

I mean, no argument there. But exactly this dysfunction is just going to be exacerbated by a Trump rule. (Not that I had high hopes for Harris doing some meaningful steps to challenge the status quo, but at least she wouldn’t have trampled all over what little efforts have been made.)

I used to have high hopes for that, too. But all too often, these systems just seem to settle to the lowest common factor, which favors easy fake-solutions over addressing complex real-world issues.

That’s the sort of thing I find somewhat dangerous: yes, Trump absolutely plans to dismantle a large part of the democratic system of checks and balances, but we might hope that he’s to incompetent to actually do it. You’re not playing a good game when you’re banking on your opponent’s mistakes. It’s a bit like the principle of charity: defend against the best version of the arguments levied against your position, and you’re defending against any version; likewise, expect your opponent

The trouble is that if that’s the direction he’s indicated so far, I’m not seeing this being any less dangerous than Trump.

Anyway, I think we’re more or less on the same track regarding Trump’s/the GOP’s intentions: if they get to do what they want, it’ll be a disaster. One might hope that Trump’s failing health and general incompetence, combined with a lack of ready replacement, keeps them from doing so. I can certainly share that hope—and in the end, I’m no doomsayer: I don’t really think it’s highly likely we’ll see American democracy crumbling.

Where I think I differ is that I do think the fact that the possibility seems to be on the table should be intrinsically worrying, because it already indicates a failure of the democratic control systems in place to prevent that very thing, no matter the ultimate outcome. I also think it’s not wise to bank on the opposition’s weaknesses. But most of all, I think that the sort of damage that may be done even by a half-assed Trump government—to climate change mitigation efforts, social safety nets and key democratic institutions of checks and balances—is already considerable. Trump is the elephant in the porcelain store: it doesn’t take great effort or skill to break stuff, he just needs to be his usual blundering self.