5 ms·

> But there's also evidence he won't follow through on some of it. I hope you're right, but I really don't understand this view. You look at the terrible leade

> But there's also evidence he won't follow through on some of it. I hope you're right, but I really don't understand this view. You look at the terrible leaders throughout history, and you'll find they more often than not advertised what they were going to do and who they were going to be. I'd much rather be prepared than just assume Trump is a troll. I'd rather see an implacable opposition ready to go on day 1. If Trump ends up being a simply bad president, in the conventional way presidents are bad and not a Russian puppet or kleptocrat or autocrat, then people like me might look a little silly. But that's a small price for being prepared if things turn out very differently.

wahern 10y ago
It's not a question about being silly. It's a question about retaining the legitimacy to persuade people in the middle, people that are currently nominal Trump supporters. What should scare you the most isn't Trump; it should be the credulity of the electorate, its tolerance of his rhetoric, and its faith in his vague promises. Trump's rhetoric has only _softened_ over the course of the past year. Not too long ago he was literally criticizing John McCain for being captured. People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They never were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow citizens. It's no coincidence that Trump's rhetoric is typically vague and non-specific. The whole Muslim registry thing, for example, was vague enough that many people could rationalize it away; that's even easier now that Trump has come out against it. People are just going to waste their bullets by shooting at poorly defined, moving targets. And when you finally get something lined up in your sites and have a good shot, nobody is going to notice. Trump clearly enjoys tweaking the opposition this way, he understands that his audience enjoys it. Trump understands how and when to hold and distract their attention--it's second nature to him because he thrives on that attention. All the Republican nomination competitors made the same mistake... and lost. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake... and lost. Pointing out the obvious flaws in his policies, the impossibility of his promises, and his rejection of core American ideals DID NOT WORK! The moment those tactics find any purchase, he changes his tune accordingly. Too many people _want_ to believe; too many people are reveling in a sense of rebellion, insensitive to consequences. The only way to get through to them is to give them a front-row seat to each and every policy failure, along with an accompanying narrative that squarely lays the blame at his feet. In the interstitial time between consequential events, people (especially journalists) should just focus on maintaining transparency, so that the record cannot be easily denied. Doing that requires not providing fodder that allows the administration to sow uncertainty and doubt about opposition criticisms. If people keep reacting to every aspect of Trump's rhetoric, there won't be anybody in the audience left. They'll have all gone home, either secure in their faith in Trump's promises or given over to apathy. Just like people are in Venezuela, Russia, and elsewhere. It's not about standing up to Trump. This is a democracy. The only way to win is by persuading his supporters, especially when it's this early in the game and Trump and his growing band of sycophants haven't secured much institutional power.
- silpol 10y ago
  (quote) "People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They never were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow citizens." -- you are clearly out of sync with reality about Russia. Since 2011 protests, Russian regime jails people even at "single person protest" which are always legal by their law, leave alone cases like Bolotnaya. NGOs are pushed into fed-by-govt-or-illegal mode. Political opponents either went into govt-is-right mode or expelled. Mind you, it is not dictatorial, it is only authoritarian. But it is toxic enough. And we haven't even started yet about DT going to hug with Putin asap once he is in chair. Did I mention that almost whole Republican party is in love Putin's image and strong arm behavior? Thank you but your ideas are out of sync with reality.
  - wahern 10y ago
    And yet by every measure Putin remains incredibly popular, even when measured by foreign, non-biased organizations. Just as was Hugo Chavez. So how are my ideas out of sync with reality? The only thing out-of-sync with reality is doubling-down on the same strategies that lost over the past two years of intense political campaigning. Policies do not make the candidate. Ultimately, voters elect a person, not a set of abstract policies. Policies _should_ make the candidate, and we _should_ endeavor to nurture a culture where policies matter. But, alas, in the current environment somebody like Trump is thriving. Like Putin, he thrives _despite_ the fact that clear (though distinct) majorities reject almost every one of his concrete policies. (The exception being national defense, where more is always better and voters don't care much about the details.) And he'll likely follow Putin's pattern--openly promise one thing, do something else when nobody is looking, then deflect criticism using traditional propaganda techniques--promises were "just rhetoric", implemented policies are "misconstrued" and "ill-informed", and... look, squirrel! Given the cult of personality (Trump the star, Trump the vehicle for rejecting the established order), the way to win is diminish support for the personality. You do that not by attacking policies directly, but by attacking policies in such a way that they expose the personality as a fraud. Those are truly two different things. The latter isn't focused on the rightness or wrongness of policy (always a debatable point), but rather in showing that Trump doesn't actually have voters' interests at heart; you show that Trump is a poor vehicle for reform.

wahern 10y ago

It's not a question about being silly. It's a question about retaining the legitimacy to persuade people in the middle, people that are currently nominal Trump supporters. What should scare you the most isn't Trump; it should be the credulity of the electorate, its tolerance of his rhetoric, and its faith in his vague promises. Trump's rhetoric has only _softened_ over the course of the past year. Not too long ago he was literally criticizing John McCain for being captured. People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They never were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow citizens. It's no coincidence that Trump's rhetoric is typically vague and non-specific. The whole Muslim registry thing, for example, was vague enough that many people could rationalize it away; that's even easier now that Trump has come out against it. People are just going to waste their bullets by shooting at poorly defined, moving targets. And when you finally get something lined up in your sites and have a good shot, nobody is going to notice. Trump clearly enjoys tweaking the opposition this way, he understands that his audience enjoys it. Trump understands how and when to hold and distract their attention--it's second nature to him because he thrives on that attention. All the Republican nomination competitors made the same mistake... and lost. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake... and lost. Pointing out the obvious flaws in his policies, the impossibility of his promises, and his rejection of core American ideals DID NOT WORK! The moment those tactics find any purchase, he changes his tune accordingly. Too many people _want_ to believe; too many people are reveling in a sense of rebellion, insensitive to consequences. The only way to get through to them is to give them a front-row seat to each and every policy failure, along with an accompanying narrative that squarely lays the blame at his feet. In the interstitial time between consequential events, people (especially journalists) should just focus on maintaining transparency, so that the record cannot be easily denied. Doing that requires not providing fodder that allows the administration to sow uncertainty and doubt about opposition criticisms. If people keep reacting to every aspect of Trump's rhetoric, there won't be anybody in the audience left. They'll have all gone home, either secure in their faith in Trump's promises or given over to apathy. Just like people are in Venezuela, Russia, and elsewhere. It's not about standing up to Trump. This is a democracy. The only way to win is by persuading his supporters, especially when it's this early in the game and Trump and his growing band of sycophants haven't secured much institutional power.

silpol 10y ago
(quote) "People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They never were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow citizens." -- you are clearly out of sync with reality about Russia. Since 2011 protests, Russian regime jails people even at "single person protest" which are always legal by their law, leave alone cases like Bolotnaya. NGOs are pushed into fed-by-govt-or-illegal mode. Political opponents either went into govt-is-right mode or expelled. Mind you, it is not dictatorial, it is only authoritarian. But it is toxic enough. And we haven't even started yet about DT going to hug with Putin asap once he is in chair. Did I mention that almost whole Republican party is in love Putin's image and strong arm behavior? Thank you but your ideas are out of sync with reality.
- wahern 10y ago
  And yet by every measure Putin remains incredibly popular, even when measured by foreign, non-biased organizations. Just as was Hugo Chavez. So how are my ideas out of sync with reality? The only thing out-of-sync with reality is doubling-down on the same strategies that lost over the past two years of intense political campaigning. Policies do not make the candidate. Ultimately, voters elect a person, not a set of abstract policies. Policies _should_ make the candidate, and we _should_ endeavor to nurture a culture where policies matter. But, alas, in the current environment somebody like Trump is thriving. Like Putin, he thrives _despite_ the fact that clear (though distinct) majorities reject almost every one of his concrete policies. (The exception being national defense, where more is always better and voters don't care much about the details.) And he'll likely follow Putin's pattern--openly promise one thing, do something else when nobody is looking, then deflect criticism using traditional propaganda techniques--promises were "just rhetoric", implemented policies are "misconstrued" and "ill-informed", and... look, squirrel! Given the cult of personality (Trump the star, Trump the vehicle for rejecting the established order), the way to win is diminish support for the personality. You do that not by attacking policies directly, but by attacking policies in such a way that they expose the personality as a fraud. Those are truly two different things. The latter isn't focused on the rightness or wrongness of policy (always a debatable point), but rather in showing that Trump doesn't actually have voters' interests at heart; you show that Trump is a poor vehicle for reform.