PS. I take issue with not blaming Trump voters for the inevitable mess America (or at least the world) will find itself in. I believe it is a citizen's solemn duty to get themselves adequately informed, be temperate in judgment, and be mindful of the impacts on others when they vote. On all points, Trump voters failed mightily; for that, I would call it a moral lapse that deserves condemnation. Perhaps you can muster up forgiveness because they were lied to. I cannot, as most of them relish the hate they nurture and the hurt they cause to others. Moreover, I also think it is condescending to Trump voters to explain away their choices.
Angus, respectfully, I think many of us project our affluent, educated, liberal-minded, leisure-class sensitivities onto the entire body of voters. Is that condescending or is my desire to present only ethical vetted candidates to the people in a general election condescending? Human beings are vulnerable to demagogues. It has always been so—and will always be so. Check out my next essay, and let me know what you think after that. I wonder too if you got any Trenchard and Gordon in your boarding school experience in the UK? Man, they are fantastic! To be continued . . . .
I guess my take is that income or educational level do not determine whether you are a good citizen or make a reasoned voter. There are plenty of middle/upper-class well educated Trump voters - I guess you can make the argument that they are voting for their interests (evidence to the contrary, at least economically speaking). Just as the poorest in society with the lowest educational levels (at least those who are not white) voted overwhelmingly for Harris. We don't have to look twenty years into the future to see the consequences of a Trump vote - ignoring climate change and drilling for more fossil fuels isn't going to stop the next LA conflagration, closing down the CDC isn't going to stop avian flu from increasing the price of eggs, running a protection racket through NATO/Japan/South Korea isn't going to stop Putin from invading the Baltics or Xi from invading Taiwan. Etc. Etc. Trump voters need to own their vote, and the next generation should judge them on it - they are the party of personal responsibility TM after all. /S
You decry the nominating system, and yes it's so weird how for generations now, candidates with fresh or radical (progressive) ideals have been sidelined, from Eugene to Bernie, without ever really even getting their arguments out on the table, but you also have to dig into how those ideals have been tarnished so badly. I mean for God's sake, John Kerry lost the election because he speaks French fluently (I exaggerate, but not much). Clinton triangulated with Gingrich as a gesture of goodwill, and all it got him was more intransigent resistance and non-cooperation from the opposition. What Clinton never got in return was a good faith discussion, the conservatives were only interested in leverage. I just wonder when Dems could have raised a defense of democracy and democratic process and what they could have said that would have withstood the mockery of neocon vandals from Reagan, through Gingrich and Norquist, Bush, Limbaugh, and now the cacophony of triumphant douchebags. Every one of those guys and their followers made arguments that were both stupid and compelling or appealing, as long as you ignored the stupid. What's the fix for that stupid and who's to blame?
I am a little lost in reading your comment. Not sure what your question is. I decry the nominating system because it has no checks and balances against demagogues and authoritarians––two direct democracy elections is all it takes to become president. Your word "stupid" comes to mind . . .
Republicans have been modeling "stupid" for decades (I define stupid as a behavior - not a condition or a label - whereby given adequate and indicative if not conclusive information, actions are taken that contradict the information and cause harm to the behaver or to others.) and so stupid becomes an accepted, and then popular, even identifying behavior. Republicans are now performatively stupid, like nominating a Hegseth or a Kennedy is outwardly, obviously, intentionally stupid, and the way Republicans defend these guys or craven Supreme Court decisions, or the way they derail sensible rational policy arguments with pure lies and nonsense and proudly say things that are so outrageously off topic, off kilter, non-serious (John Kerry speaks French!) leaving rational people baffled. Why do they say these things? I think their objective is to demean and disrupt constructive democratic processes. Why is disrupting democratic processes so popular? These guys are like teenage vandals throwing rocks at windows. It's fun! It's not that there's zero chance anything Trump &Co. are doing will have positive consequences, it's that there's a 95% chance that in sum the results of this administration will be damaging to our nation, to our political system and government and to most of our citizens, not to mention to the rest of the world. The very fact that they'd tear it all down for the sake of (I'm sorry) a stupid ideology that hates democracy and governing in the most successful and economically powerful democracy and government is just stupid.
I have several issues that I could address but the first and most egregious is that the first responsibility of a political party is to weed out "bad eggs" even given the subsequent definition as demagogues and authoritarians . While there are absolute definitions of those terms in any dictionary they are fact defined by the "masses", voters with each election. Certainly this is the case with bad eggs. The primary responsibility of a political party is its own persistence and power, often by any means. Republicans thought Goldwater was a good egg despite his racist leanings and certainly many white southerners thought the world of George Wallace. The current version of republicanism thinks, despite his moral and ethical failings, that Trump would aid in the persistence of their party and the growth of power; hence his sad presence in our lives. I do blame the average American voter. I also agree that an educational system decomposing from within and without plays an enormous role. Only slightly more than 50% of high school seniors can find France on a map and a state senator in Texas argued against the teaching of simple logic because it might make students question their religion. Parents at school board meetings conflate being taught how to think with being taught what to think. My wife is a retired professor of music theory and would, as occurs, at times deal with freshmen. Often, when questioned about their career choices some would mention teaching. Why? "Because you get the summer off". Social Studies has long been off the menu of school subjects. With the enormous number of sources of information, however, there stands no reason why the average person couldn't clearly define DJT as rotten to the core. I do belittle the average American voter who seems to feel that flying a flag alone makes you a good citizen and yet cannot answer even a few of the questions on the citizenship test e.g. what is the name of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Democracy truly is "a mechanism whereby the people get the government they deserve".
Thank you, great analysis. Here are some thoughts:
"The primary responsibility of a political party is its own persistence and power, often by any means. Republicans thought Goldwater was a good egg despite his racist leanings and certainly many white southerners thought the world of George Wallace."
The primary responsibility of a party when it comes to the presidential is first and foremost to elevate candidates who will abide by the Constitution and the oath of office––for sure, PRIMARY responsibility. Goldwater was racist but still a constitutionalist, so, yes, bad eggs of some kinds do get through.
"Democracy truly is "a mechanism whereby the people get the government they deserve"."
I hear you but have a different take. The structure of a democracy is very important. The presidential nominating system failed. So did impeach and conviction. Structure of checks and balances against demagogues and authoritarians, however a party or Congress defines them, is of equal importance in sustaining a democracy as the will of the people.
Even a little persuasive? Thanks again for writing.
Eli, I am intrigued with your argument, but not convinced. I’m sticking with my scapegoat: Christians. Way back when Reagan was busy courting the religious vote, he settled on a theme of government as a debased moral pretender competing with the absolute and infallible moral authority of their God. This message resonated not only with the zealots and traditionalists but even non-practicing barely attached Christians who feel guilty about not following the creed of their parents but still worry about God’s judgement. Almost anyone can be convinced to hate government, but Christians felt particularly aggrieved and threatened by government policies. In particular, education - remember Creationism - but ultimately Christians settled on the bludgeon of abortion rights as the tool for wrecking government. The ridiculous argument at the center of the abortion “debate” is that government by men does not have the moral authority to free citizens from God’s rule, which, while mixing up and ignoring the divergent precepts of democracy and religion, ultimately has the destructive effect of portraying faith in government as treason against faith in God. A government cannot survive without it’s citizens’ faith in its institutions, and what we are seeing now is the apotheosis of Christian intolerance for a government that tries to cultivate moral behavior in its citizens, rather than bow to the absolute authority of their God.
I like it. I like it. I like it. I think we have a both/and situation, and the real nightmare would in fact be rudderlees, lawless demagogue >> authoritarian white Christian nationalism. Religious bigotry and repression is what the founders feared most. Both/and. Thanks.
Eli, your point is well taken and I especially appreciate the way you engage with your readers—you are modeling civil discourse. Thank you! The issue I have with this piece is your dualistic, binary argument that there is zero blame for Trump voters or for that matter anything or anyone other than the two political parties. Some of your comments contradict this thesis—for example, like me, you see disinformation and lies from the media and politicians as a significant factor. I guess it’s semantics and your own rhetorical style but right now, in this historical moment, I cringe at all forms of binary thinking (as much as in myself as in others). Of course the Trump voters have some blame in all of this, as do you and I and everyone in this country. I think that embracing non-dual, nuanced thinking is so important right now. Cheers, my friend!
John! Happy to hear from you. There's not a thing in what you wrote that I disagree with. Our friend Harrison pointed out that it's a "dialectic" between the system and the voters. I think your making attribution of responsibility to all of us is the most intellectually sound approach. Probably, I am engaging in a bit of solution-oriented dualistic thinking. What can we actually easily change? Political parties are entirely autonomous. With a stroke of a pen, so to speak, they could easily change presidential nominating system. As always, great to hear your perspective.
I would add, John, from my comment to some who mightily blames the voters: I would divert your blame 1) not only to our defective presidential nominating system but also to 2) our defective educational system and 3) our deranged demagogic, polarizing news media systems. Too many people are caught in polarizing, wrongheaded information bubbles. Some didn't have the benefit of learning critical thinking. Others are too busy and too stressed with survival matters like paying the rent and getting healthcare for their children to dig deep, analyze, and expose fraud and deception.
I most heartily blame the voters. They are either willfully ignorant, stupid, morally deficient, or a combination of all three. We all have the responsibility to be informed citizens and use critical thinking in out decisions which includes accessing vetted information and a respect for scholarship and journalistic integrity. Failing that, no informed decision can take place. More importantly, even if one agrees with Trump, I fail to see how a convicted felon and an adjudicated sex offender could possibly be acceptable to any decent human being as a candidate for the presidency of the USA.
Thank you for writing. I appreciate it. What you say applies beautifully to a well-informed citizenry! Respectfully, I would divert your blame 1) not only to our defective presidential nominating system but also to 2) our defective educational system and 3) our deranged demagogic, polarizing news media systems. Too many people are caught in polarizing, wrongheaded information bubbles. Some didn't have the benefit of learning critical thinking. Others are too busy and too stressed with survival matters like paying the rent and getting healthcare for their children to dig deep, analyze, and expose fraud and deception. Thank you again for writing. Much appreciated.
I know and agree with your caveats. The issues are complicated and have a significant background and depth. I do not mean to be simple minded or callous. However, they voted for a felon and a sex offender. I cannot attribute that to anything other than a severe moral failing on their part. One should know the difference between right and wrong regardless of the confounding times we live in. I am 73 years old. I grew up poor and working class. I did not get the benefit of a college education until I was in my 30's. Even then I could not complete my Master's thesis due to competing obligations including caring for my ailing and dying parents. My wife and I struggled during that period, raising a family and juggling 3 to 6 jobs between us while attending school and we are still paying student loans. We have both been activists all our lives and continually, before , during and after college, and to the present day remain informed and compassionate people. A moral sensibility is not the exclusive benefit of the affluent and educated. It is a civic duty and one that America has failed to realize as evidenced by the last election. PS I read and benefitted from your book, Disunion Among Ourselves and recommend it while at work in dealing with the public at the museums I work at.
Perhaps we should leave it at the US has a massaged version of democracy - the Electoral College, the Senate with small state bias, the Congress with its gerrymanders at the state Level, the Supreme Court selected by a President elected by the Electoral College - need I go on? I would say the US political system was the first of its kind, but even then barely warranted the label "Democracy" at the onset, and certainly does not anymore. No wonder more or less every subsequent state looked at the US and chose to go with a Parliamentary system. I don't think even smoke-filled rooms at party conventions would have saved us from Trump, as he stands at the nexus of the oligarchy/Media/Corporate complex that the US has become.
What kind of person votes for Trump? Me! No shame in it. Yeah, I think 1/6 was treason I remember quoting Dwight Eisenhower advising Douglas MacArthur the day he chose to confront the Bonus Army: “I told that dumb sonofabitch not to go down there.” I quoted that the morning of 1/6 when I read Trump was gonna go give a speech.
Well, Trump went and I do not think describing the result as treason is too strong. Unfortunately, the people’s institutions did not agree with me and he was a legitimate candidate in 2024. Given the lies of Democrats about Biden’s health and the past administrations’ own disregard for norms and constitutional structure, I chose what I consider the lesser of two evils.
Thanks for writing, Jason. I am so glad to hear from you. Everyone seems to have major conflicts about Trump, and then we pull the lever in the ballot one way or the other! All the best,
PS. I take issue with not blaming Trump voters for the inevitable mess America (or at least the world) will find itself in. I believe it is a citizen's solemn duty to get themselves adequately informed, be temperate in judgment, and be mindful of the impacts on others when they vote. On all points, Trump voters failed mightily; for that, I would call it a moral lapse that deserves condemnation. Perhaps you can muster up forgiveness because they were lied to. I cannot, as most of them relish the hate they nurture and the hurt they cause to others. Moreover, I also think it is condescending to Trump voters to explain away their choices.
Angus, respectfully, I think many of us project our affluent, educated, liberal-minded, leisure-class sensitivities onto the entire body of voters. Is that condescending or is my desire to present only ethical vetted candidates to the people in a general election condescending? Human beings are vulnerable to demagogues. It has always been so—and will always be so. Check out my next essay, and let me know what you think after that. I wonder too if you got any Trenchard and Gordon in your boarding school experience in the UK? Man, they are fantastic! To be continued . . . .
I guess my take is that income or educational level do not determine whether you are a good citizen or make a reasoned voter. There are plenty of middle/upper-class well educated Trump voters - I guess you can make the argument that they are voting for their interests (evidence to the contrary, at least economically speaking). Just as the poorest in society with the lowest educational levels (at least those who are not white) voted overwhelmingly for Harris. We don't have to look twenty years into the future to see the consequences of a Trump vote - ignoring climate change and drilling for more fossil fuels isn't going to stop the next LA conflagration, closing down the CDC isn't going to stop avian flu from increasing the price of eggs, running a protection racket through NATO/Japan/South Korea isn't going to stop Putin from invading the Baltics or Xi from invading Taiwan. Etc. Etc. Trump voters need to own their vote, and the next generation should judge them on it - they are the party of personal responsibility TM after all. /S
You decry the nominating system, and yes it's so weird how for generations now, candidates with fresh or radical (progressive) ideals have been sidelined, from Eugene to Bernie, without ever really even getting their arguments out on the table, but you also have to dig into how those ideals have been tarnished so badly. I mean for God's sake, John Kerry lost the election because he speaks French fluently (I exaggerate, but not much). Clinton triangulated with Gingrich as a gesture of goodwill, and all it got him was more intransigent resistance and non-cooperation from the opposition. What Clinton never got in return was a good faith discussion, the conservatives were only interested in leverage. I just wonder when Dems could have raised a defense of democracy and democratic process and what they could have said that would have withstood the mockery of neocon vandals from Reagan, through Gingrich and Norquist, Bush, Limbaugh, and now the cacophony of triumphant douchebags. Every one of those guys and their followers made arguments that were both stupid and compelling or appealing, as long as you ignored the stupid. What's the fix for that stupid and who's to blame?
I am a little lost in reading your comment. Not sure what your question is. I decry the nominating system because it has no checks and balances against demagogues and authoritarians––two direct democracy elections is all it takes to become president. Your word "stupid" comes to mind . . .
Republicans have been modeling "stupid" for decades (I define stupid as a behavior - not a condition or a label - whereby given adequate and indicative if not conclusive information, actions are taken that contradict the information and cause harm to the behaver or to others.) and so stupid becomes an accepted, and then popular, even identifying behavior. Republicans are now performatively stupid, like nominating a Hegseth or a Kennedy is outwardly, obviously, intentionally stupid, and the way Republicans defend these guys or craven Supreme Court decisions, or the way they derail sensible rational policy arguments with pure lies and nonsense and proudly say things that are so outrageously off topic, off kilter, non-serious (John Kerry speaks French!) leaving rational people baffled. Why do they say these things? I think their objective is to demean and disrupt constructive democratic processes. Why is disrupting democratic processes so popular? These guys are like teenage vandals throwing rocks at windows. It's fun! It's not that there's zero chance anything Trump &Co. are doing will have positive consequences, it's that there's a 95% chance that in sum the results of this administration will be damaging to our nation, to our political system and government and to most of our citizens, not to mention to the rest of the world. The very fact that they'd tear it all down for the sake of (I'm sorry) a stupid ideology that hates democracy and governing in the most successful and economically powerful democracy and government is just stupid.
I have several issues that I could address but the first and most egregious is that the first responsibility of a political party is to weed out "bad eggs" even given the subsequent definition as demagogues and authoritarians . While there are absolute definitions of those terms in any dictionary they are fact defined by the "masses", voters with each election. Certainly this is the case with bad eggs. The primary responsibility of a political party is its own persistence and power, often by any means. Republicans thought Goldwater was a good egg despite his racist leanings and certainly many white southerners thought the world of George Wallace. The current version of republicanism thinks, despite his moral and ethical failings, that Trump would aid in the persistence of their party and the growth of power; hence his sad presence in our lives. I do blame the average American voter. I also agree that an educational system decomposing from within and without plays an enormous role. Only slightly more than 50% of high school seniors can find France on a map and a state senator in Texas argued against the teaching of simple logic because it might make students question their religion. Parents at school board meetings conflate being taught how to think with being taught what to think. My wife is a retired professor of music theory and would, as occurs, at times deal with freshmen. Often, when questioned about their career choices some would mention teaching. Why? "Because you get the summer off". Social Studies has long been off the menu of school subjects. With the enormous number of sources of information, however, there stands no reason why the average person couldn't clearly define DJT as rotten to the core. I do belittle the average American voter who seems to feel that flying a flag alone makes you a good citizen and yet cannot answer even a few of the questions on the citizenship test e.g. what is the name of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Democracy truly is "a mechanism whereby the people get the government they deserve".
Thank you, great analysis. Here are some thoughts:
"The primary responsibility of a political party is its own persistence and power, often by any means. Republicans thought Goldwater was a good egg despite his racist leanings and certainly many white southerners thought the world of George Wallace."
The primary responsibility of a party when it comes to the presidential is first and foremost to elevate candidates who will abide by the Constitution and the oath of office––for sure, PRIMARY responsibility. Goldwater was racist but still a constitutionalist, so, yes, bad eggs of some kinds do get through.
"Democracy truly is "a mechanism whereby the people get the government they deserve"."
I hear you but have a different take. The structure of a democracy is very important. The presidential nominating system failed. So did impeach and conviction. Structure of checks and balances against demagogues and authoritarians, however a party or Congress defines them, is of equal importance in sustaining a democracy as the will of the people.
Even a little persuasive? Thanks again for writing.
Eli, I am intrigued with your argument, but not convinced. I’m sticking with my scapegoat: Christians. Way back when Reagan was busy courting the religious vote, he settled on a theme of government as a debased moral pretender competing with the absolute and infallible moral authority of their God. This message resonated not only with the zealots and traditionalists but even non-practicing barely attached Christians who feel guilty about not following the creed of their parents but still worry about God’s judgement. Almost anyone can be convinced to hate government, but Christians felt particularly aggrieved and threatened by government policies. In particular, education - remember Creationism - but ultimately Christians settled on the bludgeon of abortion rights as the tool for wrecking government. The ridiculous argument at the center of the abortion “debate” is that government by men does not have the moral authority to free citizens from God’s rule, which, while mixing up and ignoring the divergent precepts of democracy and religion, ultimately has the destructive effect of portraying faith in government as treason against faith in God. A government cannot survive without it’s citizens’ faith in its institutions, and what we are seeing now is the apotheosis of Christian intolerance for a government that tries to cultivate moral behavior in its citizens, rather than bow to the absolute authority of their God.
I like it. I like it. I like it. I think we have a both/and situation, and the real nightmare would in fact be rudderlees, lawless demagogue >> authoritarian white Christian nationalism. Religious bigotry and repression is what the founders feared most. Both/and. Thanks.
Eli, your point is well taken and I especially appreciate the way you engage with your readers—you are modeling civil discourse. Thank you! The issue I have with this piece is your dualistic, binary argument that there is zero blame for Trump voters or for that matter anything or anyone other than the two political parties. Some of your comments contradict this thesis—for example, like me, you see disinformation and lies from the media and politicians as a significant factor. I guess it’s semantics and your own rhetorical style but right now, in this historical moment, I cringe at all forms of binary thinking (as much as in myself as in others). Of course the Trump voters have some blame in all of this, as do you and I and everyone in this country. I think that embracing non-dual, nuanced thinking is so important right now. Cheers, my friend!
John! Happy to hear from you. There's not a thing in what you wrote that I disagree with. Our friend Harrison pointed out that it's a "dialectic" between the system and the voters. I think your making attribution of responsibility to all of us is the most intellectually sound approach. Probably, I am engaging in a bit of solution-oriented dualistic thinking. What can we actually easily change? Political parties are entirely autonomous. With a stroke of a pen, so to speak, they could easily change presidential nominating system. As always, great to hear your perspective.
I would add, John, from my comment to some who mightily blames the voters: I would divert your blame 1) not only to our defective presidential nominating system but also to 2) our defective educational system and 3) our deranged demagogic, polarizing news media systems. Too many people are caught in polarizing, wrongheaded information bubbles. Some didn't have the benefit of learning critical thinking. Others are too busy and too stressed with survival matters like paying the rent and getting healthcare for their children to dig deep, analyze, and expose fraud and deception.
Not dualistic!
I most heartily blame the voters. They are either willfully ignorant, stupid, morally deficient, or a combination of all three. We all have the responsibility to be informed citizens and use critical thinking in out decisions which includes accessing vetted information and a respect for scholarship and journalistic integrity. Failing that, no informed decision can take place. More importantly, even if one agrees with Trump, I fail to see how a convicted felon and an adjudicated sex offender could possibly be acceptable to any decent human being as a candidate for the presidency of the USA.
Thank you for writing. I appreciate it. What you say applies beautifully to a well-informed citizenry! Respectfully, I would divert your blame 1) not only to our defective presidential nominating system but also to 2) our defective educational system and 3) our deranged demagogic, polarizing news media systems. Too many people are caught in polarizing, wrongheaded information bubbles. Some didn't have the benefit of learning critical thinking. Others are too busy and too stressed with survival matters like paying the rent and getting healthcare for their children to dig deep, analyze, and expose fraud and deception. Thank you again for writing. Much appreciated.
I know and agree with your caveats. The issues are complicated and have a significant background and depth. I do not mean to be simple minded or callous. However, they voted for a felon and a sex offender. I cannot attribute that to anything other than a severe moral failing on their part. One should know the difference between right and wrong regardless of the confounding times we live in. I am 73 years old. I grew up poor and working class. I did not get the benefit of a college education until I was in my 30's. Even then I could not complete my Master's thesis due to competing obligations including caring for my ailing and dying parents. My wife and I struggled during that period, raising a family and juggling 3 to 6 jobs between us while attending school and we are still paying student loans. We have both been activists all our lives and continually, before , during and after college, and to the present day remain informed and compassionate people. A moral sensibility is not the exclusive benefit of the affluent and educated. It is a civic duty and one that America has failed to realize as evidenced by the last election. PS I read and benefitted from your book, Disunion Among Ourselves and recommend it while at work in dealing with the public at the museums I work at.
Perhaps we should leave it at the US has a massaged version of democracy - the Electoral College, the Senate with small state bias, the Congress with its gerrymanders at the state Level, the Supreme Court selected by a President elected by the Electoral College - need I go on? I would say the US political system was the first of its kind, but even then barely warranted the label "Democracy" at the onset, and certainly does not anymore. No wonder more or less every subsequent state looked at the US and chose to go with a Parliamentary system. I don't think even smoke-filled rooms at party conventions would have saved us from Trump, as he stands at the nexus of the oligarchy/Media/Corporate complex that the US has become.
Would that we had a parliamentary republic, Angus! I think we would be so much better off. Let's keep talking. Best,
Sadly, this will not happen - although plenty of federated states do well with parliamentary republics.
What kind of person votes for Trump? Me! No shame in it. Yeah, I think 1/6 was treason I remember quoting Dwight Eisenhower advising Douglas MacArthur the day he chose to confront the Bonus Army: “I told that dumb sonofabitch not to go down there.” I quoted that the morning of 1/6 when I read Trump was gonna go give a speech.
Well, Trump went and I do not think describing the result as treason is too strong. Unfortunately, the people’s institutions did not agree with me and he was a legitimate candidate in 2024. Given the lies of Democrats about Biden’s health and the past administrations’ own disregard for norms and constitutional structure, I chose what I consider the lesser of two evils.
Thanks for writing, Jason. I am so glad to hear from you. Everyone seems to have major conflicts about Trump, and then we pull the lever in the ballot one way or the other! All the best,
Much respect to your work and convictions, sir.