What Comes After Trump?

My point is that, first of all, it does affect them eventually. FOX is in court, Trump is in court. In a Democracy, you can only maintain MAGA-level disinformation for a while.

But secondly it will tear itself apart. Already the cracks are showing between the different camps, and that’s while there’s a single clear leader in terms of popular support. Post-Trump, the various camps will coalesce, and spend much of their time calling each other RINOs and attacking each other.

Finally, I don’t mean all this to sound too nonchalant. Jan 6th was just one of the more visual demonstrations of the harm that Trump and his followers have done to the country. And maybe that harm never ends…maybe the new reality is that a significant chunk the population will just choose to believe in their own reality, and handwave anything they don’t like as “fake news”.
I’m just saying that I don’t think Trumpism itself can possibly last much longer, with or without the man himself.

We could have said the same thing about Hitler and Naziism. But look where we still are. We saw decades of Hitler-lovers keeping the faith, and eventually they managed to spread to the mainstream again. And that was after a world war that Hitler unequivocally lost. Trump just not becoming President again is no where near the repudiation of his leadership that losing WWII was for Hitler.

In the dictionary:

trumpery noun

trum·​pery [ˈtrəm-p(ə-)rē ]

a. worthless nonsense

b. trivial or useless articles
a wagon loaded with household trumpery—Washington Irving

  1. archaic-tawdry finery

George Orwell, In Front Of Your Nose:

The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.

I guess I’ll put myself somewhere in the middle camp between @Mijin and @Horatius . You can put these movements - like Trumpism - down for a while, and you need to because that’s the challenge of the era. But eventually the false beliefs will come back, slightly morphed and with the serial numbers filed off; at that point it will be the people then who will have the challenge to face them down. Unless and until we are as a species somewhat more… Vulcan, for lack of a better word… in temperament, the struggle will continue.

The Republicans have a large bench, and their leaders are younger than the Democrats. They have plenty of options. Aside from DeSantis, there is Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Chris Sununu, Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and a bunch of others.

Whether or not Trump wins the nominatioin or even the Presidency, he is done after this election. He will be too old to run again, or if he wins he’ll be term-limited out. So immediately after this election season his influence on the party will wane. I wish it would have waned already.

The abortion issue is not so cut-and-dried. If you just ask people if they support abortion or not, it looks like the result favors Democrats. But if you ask detailed questions about when abortion should be legal, it looks a lot different.

For example, have a look at this Gallup poll from 2022:

In particular, the stats for when an abortion should be legal:

First Trimester: 67% polled say it should be legal:
Second Trimester: only 36% of those polled said it should be legal
Third Trimester: only 20% said it should be legal

So if the issue is framed as “Should abortion be legal or not?” Democrats win. But if the issue comes down to third trimester abortion or partial-birth aborion (or among the most radical, abortion up to 24 hours after birth), the Republicans could easily win the issue.

The real gravity of public opinion is probably right where most of Europe has it, along with Florida and some other states: Unlimited abortion up to the third trimester, and after that illegal except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus is so compromised it can’t survive long.

If the Republicans just came out with a policy that said they support abortions up to the third trimester, with abortions after that requiring an extra issue like the heath of the mother, they’d be smack dab in the middle of the public. This would force Democrats to take the extreme stand of abortions for all, at any time, for any reason, which is very unpopular with the general public. So it’s really going to depend on how the issue is framed.

My guess is that there will always be Republicans stupid enough to say that all abortion should be illegal, and those people will be elevated to the status of spokespeople for all Republicans by the media, and the more moderate Republicans will be afraid to go after them for fear of splitting their base.

That is not the law in Florida.

Last year it passed a 15 week ban. This year, it’s 6 weeks.

Florida’s 15-week abortion ban is signed into law : NPR

DeSantis signs 6-week abortion ban legislation in Florida into law | CNN Politics

Sam may mean the general opinion of Floridians as opposed to DeSantis’s idiotic law.

Exactly.

But under what conditions would that ever happen? The reality is, the Republicans have been consistently supporting more and more restrictions on abortions, and are very very close to the extreme limiting case of no abortions, ever, period, while the Democrats have been happy to preserve any level of access to abortion. The Democrats are no where near the limiting case of “legal abortions up to the very last second”.

Were the Republicans to change so fundamentally, it would require them to almost literally be a different party, like all new candidates, all new office holders, all new policy wonks. If something happens to make them change so radically, nothing we’ve ever talked about in terms of Rep vs Dem will have any meaning. We’ll be in uncharted waters, and all predictions will be speculative at best.

ETA: You also say, “This would force Democrats to take the extreme stand of abortions for all”. That’s also incorrect. What this would do is largely take the issue of abortion off the table for the vast majority of candidates. I know (current) Republicans like to push the strawman that every Democrat wants to kill as many babies as possible, but of course, that’s utter nonsense. Were the hypothetical Republican plan of “Legalize most of the abortions the people actually want” plan was to be offered, most Democrats would react by saying, “It’s about fucking time you guys got your heads out of your asses”, and then campaign on “We made the Republicans actually compromise! We’re The Bestest!”

Aren’t they? I thought abortion without restriction up to partial-birth abortion was the policy of Democrats. If I’m wrong, can you tell me what the limits on abortion are in the Democratic policy framework?

Here’s a Pew survey breaking down opinions on abortion. There is stuff in there that supports both sides. For example:

So, illlegal at 24 weeks, the Republicans are at 60%, the public at 43%, and Democrats at 29%. That’s 17 point gap for Republicans and a 14% gap for Democrats.

If you look at most of the issues in the survey, the American public is smack in the middle, and the Democrats and Republicans are to the left and right of the people by nearly equal amounts. This is probably political evolution in action in the ,odern era as the parties stake out the extreme ends of where the public is. That’s probably why the largest political faction is now ‘independent’, and the Republicans and Democrats combined barely make up half the electorate.

I do give the Democrats the advantage on the issue though, because Republicans will take the blame for forcing everyone in the various states to deal with the abortion issue again after it had been settled for a long time.

Getting back to the Republican’s future, it seems significant that Republican party affiliation has been growing since Covid.

Since Bill Clinton was elected, Democrats have enjoyed a slight lead in party preference, as much as a 12 point gap over Republicans (in 2008), and a 3-6 point gap consistently for 20 years leading up to 2020, when they still had a five point gap.

In 2022, Republicans had more supporters than did the Democrats. In fact, the Democrats hit their lowest point since 1990 last year, while Republicans matched the highest affiliation they’ve had since 2011, and before that 2003.

If Trump weren’t in the mix screwing up Republicans, Democrats would have been in big trouble in the last election, and would likely have lost the special elections in Georgia and would not have control of the Senate. This does not bode well for Democrats as they continue to push to the left, while Republicans recover from Trump and move back to normal politics.

In a poll I recently saw for who Democrats want to run for President only 21% picked Joe Biden, and 8% picked Kamala Harris. The rest were divided among Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Gavin Newsome. None of those people are electable, IMO, and none got over 7% support. That does not bode well for Democrats after Biden. And only 21% of his own party wanting the incumbent president to run again is a seriously bad number for voter engagement.

But of course things can change quickly. No one outside his state knew who Bill Clinton was a year before he ran for president.

I was going off the table here:

It obviously predates the 6-week law (which I would strongly object to). It claimed Florida was 15 weeks, with 24 weeks in the case of rape, incest, or human trafficking. That would be smack in the middle of public opinion. The 6-week ban is not. Probably not even in Florida. DeSantis screwed up on that one.

Looking at the state tables, most states appear to limit abortion either at ‘viability’ or 20-24 weeks. It looks like 12 states ban all abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother at risk.

The problem for Democrats is that those states are mostly conservative, so the issue my not play there, and the removal of Roe makes abortion a local issue rather than a national one. Looking at where most states are and where public opinion is, it looks to me like most people are likely satisfied with their states’ abortion laws. The Democrats need it to be a national issue, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is not, making any new federal abortion legislation problematic.

Can you send me your dealer’s phone number? Because that’s some good shit you’re smoking.

I am in Canada. The dealer here is the corner weed store. In BC, there may soon be a local cocaine store, for the more productive drug users.

But yeah, ‘normal’ politics doesn’t mean going back to the old policies, both for Republicans and Democrats. If both parties got rid of 20% of their fringiest members, they’d both become more ‘moderate’, but ‘moderate’ will be a new equilibrium, not a repeat of the old one. It may skew left, or right.

I think about society in terms of complex systems, control and information theory. Left-Right dichotomies exist in almost every culture, probably because that’s an emergent control system - some common evolutionary difference that is useful but splits people down some line that emerges as a left-right outlook in politics. Locke Vs Rousseau. Some people go left, which triggers an opposing response on the right, and at some point in a civil society an equilibrium is reached. Stability is achieved because when one side goes one direction, the other goes the other way.

But when things get extreme and norms start to break, and your institutions get co-opted by one side and turned against the other, carefully evolved equilibria fail and you get increasingly large swings from left to right, increasing polarization, and there’s very little to tamp it back down and social media to amplify it.

So unless things get better, expect a right-wing backlash. We’re seeing it now on trans issues because the left pushed too hard and involved people’s children. This may ultimately set trans rights back by many years. This will be followed by an even bigger left-wing backlash, etc until something breaks and you get a Bolshevik revolution or an ascendant Nazi Party, or worst case a Hutu/Tutsi genocide or a khmer Rouge. Don’t think it can’t happen in a ‘civilized’ society. Look at recent history in Europe.

That’s what complex social and political systems look like when controls and norms break down. You get spiralling crises, each one worst than the last, increasing extremism, and cycles of power that become increasingly authoritarian until one side manages to solidify power. Such systems are very robust and sometimes recover, which leads people to think they can be pushed on even harder. Until one time, unpredictably, things go incredibly bad. We are easily at the point where chaos lurks as you poke and prod at the system.

So I’m hoping that the Republicans find a new ‘normal’ that is acceptable to the majority of Americans, and the Democrats do the same, and they can get back to debating real policy and having an actually effective government again, rather than the poo-flinging hordes we see in politics in Congress and around the world.

Because if we keep pushing on this system, it will break. And unlike the imbeciles who think a ‘Great Reset’ would be a good thing, it would in fact be the greatest destruction of civilizational equity in history, and impoverish the world. And probably kill billions.

There’s a lot of ruin in a country, but you can eventually ruin it. Let’s not push at the boundaries too hard, especially when so much other shit is hitting the fan around the world. And by far the worst actor in this whole mess is Donald J. Fucking Trump. He may have even triggered it all. But now that the hate is flowing, even with him gone I’m worried that both parties will continue their march to the extremes.

And that will not end well for anyone.

The path back to “normal” politics is when Republicans in office return to an attempt at being a governing party, rather than a nihilistic, grievance-based party. There’s nothing Democrats can do to make that happen - it’s entirely in the hands of Republicans in office and Republican voters.

EDIT: Never mind, it’s off topic for the thread.

Jesus, this is ignorant. Parents supported their own children, and “the left” wants to let families make their own decisions. The only pushing is from the right trying to take all that away in favor of big government control.

/hijack

Directly, yes.

But if the Democrats started beating the Republicans by significant margins, I do believe it would help break the extremist fever.

As to how to do this, well, there is a cost — embracing popular policies, some of which, the Democratic base won’t like.

Here’s an example where the Democratic administration is already going in that direction:

Biden Administration to Allow Schools to Ban Transgender Athletes in Some Cases

Here is another:

Asylum-seekers who cross the border illegally to be deported under new Biden administration rule

I think the Supreme Court will overturn affirmative action this year, and the ruling will be popular. If Biden supports the decision, the GOP will have lost a good issue for them.

In all these cases, the Biden administration, by taking the popular centrist position, hurts certain groups of real-life people (while, except perhaps in the immigration case, helping others). Some of the people being hurt I have great sympathy for. So I’m not arguing the Democrats must do all this, just that it will help them win, and that big wins would start convincing Republicans that Trumpism is hopeless.

No it wouldn’t. It would lead to the same thing that happened when the Federalist Party and the Whig Party ceased to be relevant – a brief period of dominance by the remaining major party, leading to increased demands by its various factions, leading to a fission into two new parties (a progressive Democratic party and a “Third Way” Clintonesque Democratic party, in this case, with any remaining sane Republicans joining the latter).

That sounds like a gradual shift to a new political home rather than a void.

There are lots of dichotomies, and I don’t think that left and right is as useful a one as it once was. Where do we even put MAGA? They are not small government or fiscally conservative. But in other ways they are far-right authoritarian.

And worldwide, we see a similar thing. Not MAGA (thankfully) but party platforms that are a mixture of ideas that are hard to shoehorn into “left” or “right”. We could call them all “centrist”, but then a lot of political races are “centrist vs centrist” and it’s unclear what that particular way of analyzing politics is really giving us.

As @squeegee explained this isn’t true. The justification for reactionary politics seems to have fallen flat right from the start.