I really enjoy the experience of coming across a new idea that changes my perception or understanding in a significant way. I’ve been thinking about four pieces of writing that did that for–all of them crucial, I would say, to Americans. I list those articles, with a brief description, in the first comment. (Note: The title is more of an attention-getter than something I literally believe.)
Putin’s Real Long Game by Molly McKew in Politico
This article introduced me to the concept of hyper-warfare and active measures. I think both are important for Americans to understand, especially to protect our liberal democratic society.
The Information Crisis by Dave Roberts and Chris Hayes in Why Is This Happening?
The basic idea here is that one’s understanding is largely based on trust–specifically trusted sources of information–rather than individual effort to critically examine information. In this way, knowledge and understanding are far more social than I thought.
How to Culture Jam a Populist in Four Easy Steps by Andres Miguel Rondon in the Caracas Chronicles. (A similar article appears in WaPo, but I prefer the CC version.)
This is written by a Venezuelan who opposed Hugo Chavez. I think he provides one of the most important guides to defeating Trump. If we heed his advice and succeed in implementing what he prescribes, we can defeat Trump.
The Rise of American Authoritarianism by Amanda Taub at Vox. There’s a Vox explainer video which would take less time to consume:
I think this is a good companion to the Rondon piece. Rendon’s thesis is that a populist like Trump wins primarily by high polarization. If I remember correctly, Taub’s piece suggests that certain people have an authoritarian streak, and this involves the desire for a strong man, especially in times of great social and cultural changes. Put these two ideas together: Trump exacerbating white grievance and anxiety over social and cultural changes in order to stay in power. If we can find a way help people with this grievance, or at the very least not exacerbate it, we can deflate support for Trump.
Mitchell,
If it means anything, I would say the main value in reading and understanding these pieces is to not only better understand the times, but understand the path out of it.
That is a depressing thought–that Trump could define the times his presidency. I feel like the problem is bigger than Trump, although one could argue he is an avatar for that problem and identifying the times with his name would make sense.
I doubt I’ll read any of these until the “era” is over. By the way, will it still be his era in the years immediately following his term in office? Has he defined our times for the near foreseeable future?
Oh, I guess (God willing) we’ll soon be referring to it as the post- era, like now we’re in the post-Obama era. Or something like that.
I’ve been re-reading the Rondon piece above, and I saw something that happened at a Trump rally in Georgia that made me think of it. Here’s the clip:
And here’s what Rondon said about the narratives that populists like Hugo Chavez and Trump use to create a movement:
and
If we want to defeat Trumpism and prevent something like this from happening again, I highly recommend reading the Rondon’s piece.
This also seems relevant:
Tweets like the one below–essentially calling Trump supporters stupid–is the wrong approach, if Rondon is correct. (More after the tweet.)
His second recommendation to Americans trying to defeat Trump is to show no contempt for his followers. Trump has crafted a narrative that has cast Trump opponents, particularly those from the elite class, as the enemy. This group, according to Trump’s narrative, poses a threat and feels contemptuous of them. Trump is fighting against these enemies on behalf of his supporters.
I believe Chotiner is correct in a sense that Trump isn’t fighting to improve the lives of his followers–Trump doesn’t care about them. But I think he’s wrong in that Trump is fighting against these perceived enemies. One example of this “fighting” are the words and actions that anger progressives.
But even if Chotiner was totally correct insulting Trump and his supporters is counter-productive. It provides evidence that Trump’s populist narrative is accurate, reinforcing it. The goal should be to undermine Trump’s narrative.
Here’s what Rondon says about this:
Many of the journalists, pundits, former government officials, and academics that I follow are doing the same thing. If Rondon is correct, this is a big mistake.
Edit
Chotiner tweeted something soon after:
Here’s a possible explanation:
First, the claim that Trump equates America, it’s interests, with himself, his interests, is unreasonable. Normally, one would say this idea is insane. Given the evidence over four years, I don’t the claim is insane. However, this is one reason Trump supporters may reject it.
Second, Trump supporters are using a populist narrative as their primary lens to perceive and understand politics, including Trump’s actions. Trump is fighting the enemies–enemies of America. Once one accepts this, one would logically conclude that Trump cares about America and his supporters. The lynch-pin, holding the narrative, is anger and grievance. The narrative directs both at enemies and threats to Trump supporters.
If this is true, then we have find ways to decrease the anger. We have to find ways to undercut this narrative–particularly the part that Trump opponents, as well as immigrants, non-Christians, people of color, are the enemy. If we succeed, the narrative and its power would fall a part.
That’s my hypothesis, anyway.
Edit
I agree Trump never fought for anyone besides himself. But in the narrative he’s using, he is fighting against enemies of his supporters–the elite establishment, the media, Democrats (who are really Socialists), etc.–and by doing this he’s fighting for his supporters. Whether this explanation fits the situation, it does seem very plausible to me.
Edit
Alternative theory: Criticism on twitter has a greater chance of increasing polarization. The more polarized the country, the more power Trump has.
12/19/2020
The problem with arguing is that it has the potential for increasing polarization. Quiet shunning is similar fraught, so should be done with great care.
I actually don’t think calm and reasonable explanations will be effective.
The ultimate goal should be to decrease the negative feelings (e.g., anger, resentment, fear, etc.) that Trump supporters direct at Trump opponents, the media, the establishment, etc. Until then, these emotions impedes any rational discussion of facts and science. That’s my sense, anyway.
12/22/2020
This (Nichols’s quote) is better than his previous position–and if the choice is between insulting or ignoring Trump supporters, ignoring is far more preferable. But I tend to think someone has to address the reasons many Trump supporters are angry, if we’re going to defuse that anger. And if we don’t the threat of someone like Trump will still exist. That’s my current opinion, anyway.
I really hope this doesn’t reflect what Biden believes deep down inside him.
…especially if he thinks the Trump and the animus he whipped up will simply fade on its own. I could be wrong (and I hope I am), but I don’t think that’s going to happen. Biden and Trump opponents have to avoid increasing polarization and they have to do things that decrease it. Again, I hope I’m wrong–I hope the whirlwind dissipates on it’s own and quickly.