![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jsburbidge) wrote2020-11-15 06:33 pm
The Disaffected
There is an article at the Guardian noting that Trump's vote seems to have gone up between 2016 and 2020 with minorities and women and to have gone down with white men, in contrast to the usual narrative about Republican and Democratic support.
The implication is not new, however. I have argued before that the underlying dynamic behind the rise of Trump and Johnson et al. is an increasing number of those who want to bring down the current system (or at least throw sand (or culottes) in the gears) because it does not work for them. One of the effects of Trump's ineptitude and rhetoric is that after four years of being at the helm of an emphatically establishment party he is still seen as an outsider. So those who suffer under the current regime - ethnic minorities as well as rural or proletarian whites - may be inclined to vote for Trump as the best available "champion" against the establishment, the "elites", the knowledge workers. An increasing shift in the workplace towards elimination of jobs which can be automated just adds to the ranks. Basically,vthecraw materials of Trump's base are the disaffected, and although many may not be attracted by Trumpism, many are.
There's nothing intrinsic in the current pressures which would give rise to right-wing populism rather than left-wing populism; but you'll note that in the USAn context Sanders did not take off and Trump did (or even the Tea Party prior to Trump); the progressive eat-the-rich alternative was effectively defanged by the New Deal and hadn't been a significant factor in American politics since.
Trump has been a John the Baptist, showing to the next competent right wing authoritarian populist how easily the system can be pushed over - that the supposed checks and balances generally fail badly in the context of a polarized two-party factional system.
The thing to worry about is not that Trump will run again in 2024 - at his current rate of decline[1] and factoring in his likely conflicts with various authorities that would be a long shot - nor that his children will (no charisma, no skill for demogoguery), but that somebody not yet noticeable on the scene will emerge from the shadows with a better grasp of the game and a longer game plan, and more charisma than the current bunch of Republican alternatives have to offer. For further analyses of these risks see here.
[1]There's a fair amount of (anecdotal, not verified data) l evidence that Trump's capacities have been declining markedly in the last few years, and his observed capacities at present are not high.
no subject
The active propaganda arm for mammonism matters; Overton's window is jammed. (Or at least has a lot of force continuously applied.)
The closest historical analogy I can think of is the 30 Years War; competing social systems having figured out that they can't co-exist.
Only that's much lower stakes than we've presently got; field agriculture has at most another 30 years (per the IPCC temperature trends, which are nigh-certainly conservative); after that, we either have already successfully transitioned to some other food supply or it's all over. The public perception of this is currently obscured, but it can't be obscured indefinitely.
So I'm not worried about the authoritarian drift in politics so much as I'm worried about the mammonites managing to kill everybody in preference to being less wealthy.
no subject
Even an optimistic view of the future is fairly dependent on "soon a government is going to have to take the bit between its teeth and act on climate issues even if it upsets a lot of people", which looks a good deal like authoritarianism even if it has no dominant single leader.
no subject
Welll....
There's a whole bunch of things going on.
One is that white supremacy is definitionally about having higher relative status, and being unable to convince yourself that you've got higher relative status than someone who isn't white makes you angry. White supremacy is incompatible with species survival, and can die in a pit.
Mammonite ascendancy has reduced the relative value of labour; lots of people have significant expectations of starving in their age. Lots more people have no consistent ability to produce even the semblance of present material security.
Things come down to what the functional proportions are; I suspect that the US definition of free speech, which was designed to allow someone to lawfully advocate for enslaving specific persons, is going to make it impossible to shut off the pressure for the former and against recognition of the later. (Even is there's starting to be a glimmer among prominent mammonites that money is inherently collective.)