King Trump?
I mean, who would even think such a thing?
I saw a number of comments on various social media platforms calling No Kings participants “clowns” and worse, and making fun of the very notion that Trump is acting like a king.
The response of the Vice President of the United States:
And from the President, showing us what he thinks about anyone who would peacefully protest against him.
I suppose we can dismiss it all as them “just joking” or that this is “owning the libs,” but it strikes me as far more serious than that. They are openly contemptuous of the opposition. Worse, they do not see themselves as representing the American people as a whole, despite that literally being part of their jobs.
Going beyond memes and AI videos, at least this doesn’t sound like something someone with kingly aspirations would do.
Or, you know, this.
As the folks on the Internets like to say, “Can you imagine if Obama did this?”
And, the thing is, I really can’t.
I already regret wasting some of my weekend trying to figure out what JD Vance is thinking, but What. The. Hell?
Open contempt for the opposition (BTW an opposition representing a slim majority of all voters even at the regime’s high water mark on Election Day) has been the clear messaging since before inauguration. Does this video response to large protests advance the ball in that regard at all?
It’s not funny even in the loose use of “joking” adopted by the Trumpists. Does it “own the libs” to apply their framing? There seems to be a bit of “OK, you got us. What are you going to do about it?” but how’s that gonna play out to GOP benefit? Especially, when the Republicans are trying to argue that they need the Democrats to reopen the government.
I’ve been convinced of the limited power (either positive or negative) of messaging, but OMG how lame. Sure, the cultists will enjoy this, but for anyone outside the Fox bubble, the counter-messaging to No Kings needed to be “No, the GOP is on the side of good and we’ve got the numbers” not “I know you are, but what am I?”
@James Joyner:
I can’t imagine any president doing this.
The “shitting on America” meme is rather accurate in an unintended way.
It may play well with Trump’s core supporters, who by some neurological defect, are immune to the cognitive dissonance issuing forth in steady stream from this administration that had sworn to provide good stewardship for America’s core values
But this Trumpian response to the No Kings protest, along with all of the other Trumpian responses, is graphically illustrative of the regressive emotional and intellectual composition of these people who ill advisedly hold power to our nation’s wellbeing. They are so completely childlike (while devoid of the innocence).
Could it be that our increasingly content-hungry, exploitive consumer culture of the past 5 decades has raised a cohort of emotionally immature minds masquerading as adults with the right to vote?
Protest actions going forth from this point should always open with an airing of Trump’s own “shitting on America” meme —–
—- HEY AMERICA, this is what Trump thinks of your right to freely express your civic concerns and exercise your right to assembly.
J.D. Vance:
Trollerry lollery to gratify the online lumpenbougeoise, while undermining the whole premises of constitutional republican governance.
Funny now, at least to Vance; perhaps less amusing when the bill comes due.
That’s not even monarchy; it’s merely squalid clientalism after the pattern of third world autocracies.
Also, note the identification of “the US” with “me”.
“L’etat, c’est moi”
With its unfortunate corollary:
“Après moi, le déluge”
@JohnSF: Agreed. The whole “No Kings” thing is really “No Authoritarians” but that is an unwieldy slogan.
Well, all I can say is that it’s getting to them.
Does the above stuff make them look good? To whom?
Reflecting on history, I just try to imagine the reaction of Republicans to F.D. Roosevelt saying:
“You know, I think the US should own 10 percent of your company.’ And they gave me 10 percent!”
They would have been outraged.
And rightly so, imho.
The Republican Party seems to be willfully, even gleefully, abandoning all the principles it ever had out of opportunism and fear.
Remember when these same people flipped their sh*t when Obama (oh so disrespectfully) wore a Tan Suit? Here they are now troll-sh*tting on America.
Seriously, I have never seen such hubris in the wake of a political victory as with these people.
@al Ameda:
Or such anger. Why are Republicans still so mad?
@JohnSF:
Repectfully disagree. They’re revealing they never had any principles. Romney? McCain? McConnell? Vance? McCarthy? Ryan? W. Bush? Principles? Beyond we don’t wanna pay taxes, we don’t like brown people, and we wanna win?
@gVOR10: I think that anti-taxes is a long-term, very real principle linked to pretending like whatever the dominant class has, they earned it via hard work and their own merit, and therefore any attempt to say otherwise (via any kind of redistribution, affirmative action, DEI, or whatever) is theft. The true core of conservatism is that the distribution of power and wealth is natural and therefore deserved, and any attempt to adjust that distribution via public policy is theft.
Also: abortion and maintaining a certain set of sexual mores.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Oh—you mean Social Darwinism!
@gVOR10:
Those aspects were and are important drivers.
But there was also an inclination, both ideological and pragmatic, to limited and rules-bound government a the best defence for such interests and preferences.
That so long as the demos are prevented from enacting their will, the “just and natural order” will continue.
Such limitation being based on the principle that the popular view biased toward redistribution, an unrealistic programme based upon destructive misperceptions, is socially unrealistic, economically damaging, politically arbitrary, and contrary to “natural justice”.
But then, they would, wouldn’t they? 😉
In replacing limited authority with elected absolutism, they are sweeping aside the very structures and systems that have often served to protect their interests.
It’s really rather silly.
Unless, of course, based on an expectation of somehow achieving permanent political dominance.