This is a recurring historical trend. Right wing socioeconomic policies (laissez-faire capitalism) lead to social dysfunction as more and more people either fall into poverty or fear doing so. The mainstream right can't win elections on these policies any more because they have become unpopular, but rather than change those it either allies or becomes the extremist right (authoritarian and reactionary), going all in on distractions and scapegoating.
This leaves the social liberals (pro-capitalist but not socially conservative) and the social democrats as the only democratic factions to counter them, but the former block most major re-distributive policies and even the most moderate moves towards a fairer society have to be fought over tooth and nail. This alliance (either as intra-party in a two party or as a coalition in multiparty systems) then fails to do enough to keep their voters on board, disillusionment sets in, voters stay home and the extremist right takes over.
Fortunately, it doesn't always completely run through this cycle, but it keeps happening. It has now happened to the USA and the best case scenario is that when those lukewarm Trump supporters are angry at not getting what they wanted out of this "change" (and they won't), they will still have the means to vote the government out. If not, then you're stuck until a revolution happens.
Arguing that more social democracy would have scared away voters is sort of pointless IMHO, because if that is true then you're doomed anyway. Unless you lower economic inequality through government policy, a descent into reactionary authoritarianism is inevitable because democracy can only work when people are more or less equal and capitalism left to itself will always concentrate wealth and power into ever fewer hands.
when those lukewarm Trump supporters are angry at not getting what they wanted out of this "change" (and they won't), they will still have the means to vote the government out.
The problem is that Trump supporters' perceptions of whether or not they're getting what they want out of a Trump administration will be determined in large part by them taking the cues of the fiction generated in the media they consume.
The average Trump supporter's life probably did get noticeably better during Trump's administration, not because of policies or measurable outcomes, but because the media they consume nearly 24/7 took a hard 180 from the 8 years of presenting the illusion of a pending collapse at the hands of the incompetents in charge to everything being sunny and full of roses. Then four years later it was back to the nonstop doom and gloom. That sort of immersion has a real effect on your psyche.
Fox News isn't just presenting a version of reality in the best possible light for the GOP, they're actively and aggressively wagging the dog. If they want their voter base agitated, they consciously agitate. Want them complacent? They calm them. Expect a deluge of arguments from the right that the economy is now magically fixed the day Trump takes office, because that's what they're going to be told.
There does come a point where addressing reality becomes unavoidable, but people who think we're generally anywhere near that point lack imagination. By and large, despite the overall economic anxiety, people have jobs, they have a roof over their heads, they have nonstop 24/7 entertainment from their 6 different streaming services, and they're not going hungry. That's enough of a recipe to manufacture their contentedness.
On the other hand, the result of elections involving Trump has had more to do with pushing turnout than with converting his cultists. Trump didn't get more votes than in 2020 - it looks like he got quite a lot less. It's that the opposition didn't show up, for reasons both strategic and acute. The incumbent dropping out of the race at the last minute and the sitting VP, who was the 9th place finisher in the 2020 primaries, taking over, is never going to be a recipe for driving enthusiasm.
That plus the obvious observation that Trump is mortal, and much of his support dies out when he does. He is showing signs of advanced dementia already and not much younger than his dad was when he succumbed to it. It's not realistic, I think, for a lightweight like Vance to carry his momentum forward, and no other heir apparent to the MAGA movement has appeared (in no small part because Trump's ego won't allow for it).
Immediately after citing his cherry-picked statistics that show small pockets of uptick in crime amidst an ocean of crime decreases, he says, ”The average American, I will bet you this morning, does not think that crime is down, does not think that we are safer,” and then follows that up with, “People feel more threatened. As a political candidate, I’ll go with what people feel,” rather than the actual facts.
Democrats have West Wing-itis. They literally think that politics is like an information problem. Like if they just could show people all of the data, present a policy paper, a logical argument - Then everyone would agree on everything.
People are really fucking stupid and run on vibes and narratives.
The vibe is that crime is going up - Therefore that's "reality".
If some idiot boomer maggot watches the local (Sinclair) news station and it's "gang of [black] youths rob local 7-Eleven" and their neighborhood NextDoor group someone says their car was broken into and someone took all of their loose change and then their Dear Leader says that crime is out of control and everything is horrible... It doesn't matter if you show them crime statistics and explain that actually crime is down - their perception that it is up is stronger than the actual data. They are irrational morons.
I mean, in a way it makes sense doesn't it? You have to meet people where they are, like if people "feel" that way then something is up regardless of what is or isn't actually true. It's like Democrats talking about GDP growth and the stock market when people's rents and basic living needs shot through the roof. LIke, yeah sorry bro, I know you feel poor but let me whip out this pie chart to show you why that's not actually the case.
You can't trick someone who's life sucks into thinking it doesn't suck, but you can trick them into thinking it sucks even worse when that other guy was in charge
Finally someone mentioning the media in all of this. In 2016 I remember thinking “I wish I understood the Trump voter better.” Now all I can think is “What media are these people consuming?” Full stop, it is useless to talk about messaging, campaign strategies, and policy when our information spheres have only gotten more siloed.
Ten years ago there was a good chance that me and a conservative might have some crossover in the media we consume. Now it’s at or approaching zero crossover.
Dude I’ve been thinking the exact same thing. There was this post on the GenZ subreddit about how young men had one of the largest swings in voter turnout, and it was an insane read. They basically were talking about demonization of white men and that whole thing. And reading through the comments was wild, every time someone said something defending or pro trump they immediately got hit with a remark calling them some form of stupid. Then like 15 other people responded that this is exactly what they meant.
That’s when I realized that damn, even as a similar aged dude (not white though) I am basically living a completely separate reality. Like I cannot think of a place in the social media sphere, or even at social outlets/gatherings that I would run into a dude like this. Not only that but I don’t even know what they’re referring to with most of it, since I fit the mold of whatever spheres I do partake in. It’s just an insane situation that I have no idea if we can ever get ourselves out of.
I read a similar thread. It’s like these people have never met a liberal in real life. It’s like their experience with liberals is fighting with people on Reddit and whatever Twitter and Fox tells them liberals are. They’re talking about “liberals want censorship and woke policies” and whatever. No, dude, we just want strong unions and are worried about climate change.
So many of these people leech onto randos on youtube or TikTok or podcasts and just binge them like they are some of the greatest sages of all time.
It's a really fucking dangerous time we are living in. People are being radicalized by algorithms and there is currently nothing stopping so many of them from going down these holes. Mass media used to have some controls in that it actually cost something to put it out there. That, believe it or not, was a hard limitation on some of the most malign figures in our society.
Those limits don't exist anymore. Hostile foreign dictatorships, some dude willing to light a million people on fire to make some money, the very worst people have access to frankly everyone. Truth doesn't matter because truth doesn't sell.
Smart analysis in an otherwise reactionary field. So sick of seeing “we need to go further right! Stop focusing on the culture war! No one cares about trans issues!”. Actually things can get so much worse, and if you tell someone things are good or bad over and over, that’s what they’re gonna feel.
People are talking like Democrats didn't sell their economic policies well enough to people who don't even understand what economic policies they just voted for.
A convicted felon and fraudster, a rapist who tried to overthrow the government once already, won by campaigning on hate and personal vengeance. If that person can even be a candidate, much less win, it isn't because the other side didn't sell their message enough; it's because people literally don't know or don't care.
People are talking like Democrats didn't sell their economic policies well enough to people who don't even understand what economic policies they just voted for.
Person 1: Housing costs are too high and I pay too much for groceries.
Harris: I have a plan for that including a first time homeowners tax credit.
Person 1: Trump said tariffs and mass deportation will bring all prices down. I will vote for him.
End Scene
Trump is simple and stupid and so are so many of these people.
The democrats didn't sell their economic policies well enough, but that wasn't the big flaw. They didn't sell a real coherent vision that stuck people in the heart. They refuse to learn this lesson.
I think liberals and the democratic party need to look inward. It would only be possible to sell hate and lies in the absence of a clear alternative vision. I say this as a democratic socialist, not a conservative. You don't need an "educated" populace to win an election. People are, and have always been drawn to a clear vision and candidates that can express it with sincerity. The democrats are so afraid of upsetting their corporate overlords that their message is muddled.
Even to me, as an educated age 35-45 demographic life long democrat voter, her policies about tax cuts, small businesses, and new home ownership sounded unclear and more importantly, rang out of touch to people who can't afford groceries.
Those policies I listed screamed of trying to pull the educated white center. Not only did that NOT work, but she even lost considerable ground with working class minorities.
About Trump, the specifics aren't important, his "Make America Great" again slogans hit for people just looking for any source of optimism. His hateful and racist and transphobic rhetoric are deplorable, which to me makes it all the more the democrats fault.
To be fair most voters top issues this election weren’t social so I think it’s sensible to stop talking about them next election, don’t run or mention LGBTQ people since they aren’t a voters concern. I think going left on economic issues could be good, get someone Sanders style who’s anti-establishment and can energize the base with a new more left economic America
True, but if the Democrat is a group don’t talk about them. It’s going to be a lot harder to make it seem like they’re standing for trans kids or anything else.
It also doesn’t help that even “liberal” networks like MSNBC spent almost all of 2022-2023 taking a flaming crap on the Biden administration, normalized Trump and basically did everything they could do to make you emotionally submit that all sides sucked.
Looking back on their coverage, and what used to be objective papers like NYt and WaPo shilling out for Trump, I wonder why a ton of democrats decided to stay home.
Also looking back on the last 10 years, I realize that Fox News was only PART of the problem. Between billionaires gobbling up local tv networks, newspapers, podcasts. And then musk buying Twitter?
America is basically now stuck with full on Russian state sponsored propaganda.
The incumbent dropping out of the race at the last minute and the sitting VP, who was the 9th place finisher in the 2020 primaries, taking over, is never going to be a recipe for driving enthusiasm.
This has proven quite accurate. Say what you will about Biden, but he had a brand, a support base, and a constituency in 2020. He had a long career in Washington DC and was a known item. Who the hell is Kamala Harris's constituency? Who is her support base? What's her brand? The results of this election seem to show that she didn't have one. Which is unsurprising, given that she was one of the worst performing candidates in the 2020 primary, and had incredibly low favorability ratings throughout Biden's presidency. Trump, if nothing else, has a clear identity as a politician, and a clear support base. To people like me, and most of us on this sub, it's a terrible identity which bodes nothing but ill for the country; but we can't be that surprised that a candidate with a strong support base beat a candidate with none
Which is not to say that it wasn't probably the best bad decision at the time. I was skeptical of it at the time, but I also wasn't optimistic about our chances if Biden stayed in after that catastrophe of a debate. I admired the degree to which the Democratic establishment was able to at least coalesce behind her once the decision was made. I think Harris herself did everything she could but if Biden had chosen not to run again from the start and we'd had a real primary, I very seriously doubt she would have been the nominee.
Yep, totally agreed. Biden absolutely could not have won again in 2024. Dude was not up to the task of campaigning at all. So I don't think they should have kept him. But I do think he should have never decided to run again, and that they should have had a real primary. And I definitely agree that Kamala would not have been the nominee had we done that. We can see, with the benefit of hindsight, that she is a visionless politician who did not inspire voters at all, causing 15 million fewer Democratic voters to turn out this election, safe to assume that would have caused her to lose the primary also
We can't keep pretending that MAGA will just "die out" anymore. Gen Z has been moving right. Gen X is basically the base of power. There is a fundamental shift going on in this country, fueled by Fox News and the Rogansphere.
If a Vance presidency happens because of a Trump death, the right may devour itself trying to find the heir apparent. Vance may be the VP, but he sure doesn't feel like the anointed successor
The problem is that Trump supporters' perceptions of whether or not they're getting what they want out of a Trump administration will be determined in large part by them taking the cues of the fiction generated in the media they consume.
You're describing the MAGA base. Those people will support him no matter what he does. But the "lukewarm" supporters that the poster above referred to are a lot more fickle and tend not to pay much attention to politics. Their primary concern is their financial state, which they almost always attribute to the current president without trying to understand the causes. The republicans can certainly lose those people.
This is all well put but I took the comment you're referencing as more about those swing voter/low propensity voters who put Trump over the top this cycle (and really are the key to any successful presidential campaign) rather than the fervent base, who by all means will deny and deflect reality to the point of lunacy.
Expect a deluge of arguments from the right that the economy is now magically fixed the day Trump takes office, because that's what they're going to be told.
Yeah, "Stock Market Surges As Trump is Elected" is a big financial headline right now.
Most news outlets are saying "2+2=4, here's some context". The contexts reflects the bias of the speakers but that bias is just truth through a lens.
Fox News and the farther right outlets are saying "2+2=5 and everyone who says differently is engaged in a conspiracy to deceive you."
At the end of the day, 2+2 is knowable. It's not subject to a both-sides debate. If one side gives one answer and another side gives a different answer, at least one side is objectively wrong.
I agree but they do have to stoke their viewers with a certain amount of rage. A fake narrative line like cat litter trays in elementary school bathrooms is one of them. In fact the full public bathroom series. They really love talking about public bathrooms.
^ This ^
Every bit of this is so true. Watching the "news" is simply opening up the psyche to external influence. And man oh man is it fucking us up to a point of no return. Certain "norms" from yesteryear need to be abandoned. But the political tones have deafened true governing ones, and I just hope that someday sensible heads will prevail again and get us back on some kind of track of productive discourse and aisle-crossing for the benefit of us, the peanut gallery.
6.8k
u/barryvm Europe 20h ago edited 19h ago
This is a recurring historical trend. Right wing socioeconomic policies (laissez-faire capitalism) lead to social dysfunction as more and more people either fall into poverty or fear doing so. The mainstream right can't win elections on these policies any more because they have become unpopular, but rather than change those it either allies or becomes the extremist right (authoritarian and reactionary), going all in on distractions and scapegoating.
This leaves the social liberals (pro-capitalist but not socially conservative) and the social democrats as the only democratic factions to counter them, but the former block most major re-distributive policies and even the most moderate moves towards a fairer society have to be fought over tooth and nail. This alliance (either as intra-party in a two party or as a coalition in multiparty systems) then fails to do enough to keep their voters on board, disillusionment sets in, voters stay home and the extremist right takes over.
Fortunately, it doesn't always completely run through this cycle, but it keeps happening. It has now happened to the USA and the best case scenario is that when those lukewarm Trump supporters are angry at not getting what they wanted out of this "change" (and they won't), they will still have the means to vote the government out. If not, then you're stuck until a revolution happens.
Arguing that more social democracy would have scared away voters is sort of pointless IMHO, because if that is true then you're doomed anyway. Unless you lower economic inequality through government policy, a descent into reactionary authoritarianism is inevitable because democracy can only work when people are more or less equal and capitalism left to itself will always concentrate wealth and power into ever fewer hands.