A Question For Our Anti-Anti-Trump Commenters
What prevents you from affirmatively supporting Trump?
Forenote: The following does not necessarily apply to all of our right-leaning posters. Some have expressed their past direct support for Trump and others don’t engage in the anti-anti-Trump behavior described below.
As often happens when polls appear to share good news for the Trump Campaign, a number of our more Trump-aligned commenters suddenly become more active. Over the last few days, reviewing comments from folks like TheRyGuy, Jack, joe (sorry Joe), MBunge (welcome back!) and Fortune, a question keeps rattling around in my head: why don’t they ever say if they support Trump?
Admittedly, they typically respond to a post that is critical of the former President’s language, behavior, or policies. The responses fall into a typical sort of anti-anti-Trump pattern; in other words, the writer is making a ridiculously hyperbolic argument by taking Donald Trump’s words or actions at face value. In other cases, any critique is dismissed with accusations of bothsiderism.
I classify these responses as anti-anti-Trump because they are often framed with statements like “I’m not an apologist for Trump, but…,” “Trump isn’t perfect, but…,” or “There are many fair criticisms of Trump, but…”. This is a linguistic move that at once seems to separate the writer from the Former President and his movement while at the same time attacking critics of Donald Trump and MAGA.
In the case of “There are many fair criticisms of Trump, but…,” our anti-anti-Trump commenters never seem to actually what they think those “fair criticisms” are. Likewise, while comments that contain “I’m not an apologist for Trump, but…” never actually excuse what Trump did or said, they try to negate the criticism in a way that eliminates the need to apologize.
There is one thing that stands out about these posts: I have never seen a case where our anti-anti-Trump commenters shared their personal thoughts on the former President’s campaign. They have said things like his previous term was a success. Or they say that if he becomes President, he won’t be as bad as his critics say. The double negative twist in that previous sentence–“won’t be as bad”–really sums up a pattern of getting very close to offering direct support but not directly expressing it (if it exists).
After browsing the comment archives, I cannot find a single example of regular commenters say “I support former President Trump.” Nor a “while I wish he weren’t the nominee, I plan to vote for President Trump.”
And my question is, “Why?”
First, let me be clear, “I am voting against Harris,” “I cannot vote for Harris,” or “I oppose Harris” don’t count. The reason for this is all of those could be fulfilled by not voting, or voting for a third party or write in. All of those are more examples of the same behavior I called out in the double negative point above.
So I return to the question: why don’t our anti-anti-Trump commenters actively come out in support of President Trump?
I have a variety of theories, many of which tie back to embarrassment over nonsensical and indefensible many of his key policies (i.e. that Tariffs bring down inflation) or deeply held beliefs (i.e. that not only was the 2020 election stolen, but he actually won California). Or perhaps it’s that they realize that compared to the Donald Trump of 2016 or even 2020, the person running for President today is significantly more erratic and showing signs of marked mental decline.
Another quite legitimate reason could be partisanship (“I only vote Republican”) or negative partisanship (“I can never vote for a Democrat, and in our two-party system, that means the only effective vote is Republican.”). That’s a position most people are uncomfortable saying out loud because it might harm our self-image as being above partisanship in either form. At the same time, it’s also legitimate due to things like judicial appointments.
But again, those are theories that I am sure will be scoffed at by our anti-anti-Trump contingent (if they engage with this post at all).
This may seem like I’m trolling those folks. While that is a partial impetus for this post (we all contain multitudes), there is also a greater point to be made:
What does it mean for the former President’s base of support if anonymous and motivated commenters on a lesser-trafficked political blog are, for whatever reason, unwilling to affirmatively express their direct support for President Trump?
I mean, this isn’t a particularly high-stakes situation. Heck, most of the anti-anti-Trump posters have made it clear that they don’t think much of OTB, it’s authors, and most of it’s commenters). So the notion of “keeping face” doesn’t make a lot of sense. And yet, no direct endorsement of support.
I expect that some people will chalk this up to a case of “hopium” on my part. Perhaps it is. But perhaps, just perhaps, this is pointing to the type of enthusiasm/confidence gap that can manifest itself in unexpected ways when votes are cast.
An ask to our regular posters: I’m not going to bother asking you not to speculate on other’s motivations. Trying to stop the tides would be easier. That said, if any of our anti-anti-Trump posters decide to engage with the prompt honestly, I will be watching the comments EVERYONE makes on this thread to try to keep an actual discussion going rather than just back-and-forth attacks.
Ok, I’ll take the bait and speculate that the anti-anti’s are afraid to affirmatively embrace trump is because they fear being credibly accused of being racist, a misogynist, fascist and/or a nativist. At one time trump’s supporters/apologists could plausibly claim that they supported him for judges, taxes, etc. But with the escalation of his rhetoric, those claims are no longer defensible.
Also, just so I am eating my own dog food (and in case people have missed my past comments expressing this):
Defeating Donald Trump and what he stands for are strong motivators for me. And I also affirmatively support Kamala Harris’ campaign and most of her policy positions. In fact I affirmatively support her more than Joe Biden (who I also had affirmatively supported)–so much so that I have made two donations to her reelection campaign.
@Sleeping Dog:
I had categorized that under the “embarrassed” category. And it’s a potentially powerful reason avoid affirmatively support Trump.
I hope that someone who is reluctant to openly support Trump because of his use of explicit racism and embrace of racists will also be reluctant to vote for him when the time comes.
When your motivation is self-pity, resentment and a crushing sense of inferiority, you can’t really be for anything.
Honestly Steven …
(1) I believe that some Anti-Anti-Trump Commenters refrain from openly supporting Trump because they know that the Trump MAGA Style and Brand is awful. And, it’s easier to go on offense and attack Harris than it is to affirmatively defend Trump’s appalling and degraded style.
(2) In general, it is rare that we have a ‘sea change’ election, one where people change their political affiliation, one that they may have held their entire adult lives. The last one that comes to mind is 1980 with Reagan; which caused or cemented into place trends that had evolved in the preceding two decades – Southern Democrats and working Whites moved to the GOP where they are today. Evidently Trump is not reprehensible enough to cause more than a handful of ‘official’ Republicans (Liz Cheney, et al) to leave.
(3) I think many MAGA rank and file smell victory, and a real opportunity to smash our institutions and remake them in a very radical Republican manner. They’re just not going to bail out now.
_______
Somewhat off topic: Turnout turnout turnout. Not many minds are changed.
I don’t represent any voting bloc. I wouldn’t make predictions based on anyone’s comments here. It’s funny though how upset the commenters get over a handful of dissenters. I’ve been here two weeks anI already have an article about me?
I don’t understand your side, why people comment on a site of near complete agreement. The best comments I’ve seen here come from your opposition. I’d rather talk to them. It’s alright if we don’t agree on everything but they’re interesting at least.
@Fortune: I don’t represent any voting bloc.
Does this mean you won’t be voting?
Here are five suggested topics for Jack/Drew and JKB and MBunge and whoever that other guy is:
1) Explain how a 20% tariff on all imports will bring down inflation.
2) Explain how high schools are performing same day sex change operations.
3) They’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs.
4) Tell us why Russians are openly cheering for Trump and referring to him as, ‘our guy.’
5) Discuss the economic impact of sending the military to round up illegal immigrants.
@ptfe: not Trump or Harris
@Fortune:
There’s actually been quite a lot of disagreement here. Just off the top of my head: on Gaza, on replacing Biden, on trans athletes, on religion, on guns, on progressivism more generally.
Also, we learn things from each other. I’ve learned a great deal about aviation, for example, from @Kathy. Just to pick one. And others have taught me about music, about social activism, about food, about various locations and lifestyles. And obviously Steven’s lectures on the structures of American politics, and James’ on foreign policy and military matters. We have lawyers talkin’ law and doctors talkin’ doctoring, educators educating, and even a couple writers (ahem) talkin’ writing.
@Michael Reynolds: it’s even worse than that. Trump is threatening 200% level tariffs for any country which stops using the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency.
What this idiot fails to realize is that China can live with a 200% tariff much more easily than the U.S. can, considering how much we import from them.
@Fortune: Do you not vote at all? Are you voting for someone else? Do you consider yourself “Anti-anti-Trump”? Do you consider yourself equally “Anti-anti-Harris”? Are you more Anti-{one of these}, or do you find them both equally noxious or fine? Do you have any thoughts on policies proposed by either one? Or do you consider “functioning government” the only indicator of an acceptable candidate?
@Grumpy realist:
Considering all the OECD uses multiple reserve-grade currencies (dollar, euro, sterling, yen) depending on the trades, Trump has definitely lost the plot on this one.
(Even more than usual, that is.)
I think this is germane to the discussion:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thebulwark/p/the-twilight-of-americas-excuses
@Fortune:
First, I appreciate that you’ve responded. Your fence-straddling baffles me, to be honest, but that’s your choice.
I have to disagree with your statement that there is complete agreement on this site, or that everyone here wants complete agreement. I sure don’t. Some of the best threads I’ve read here have been very lively debates — on Israel and the Palestinians, on the strengths and weaknesses of our political system, on the role of religion in public life, on whether to use the “F” word to describe the MAGA political movement — where OTB regulars clearly had principled disagreements. They used facts. They listened to what other people said. They stuck their necks out, rhetorically. I very much appreciate people who have often taken a minority view, such as Andy, for what they’ve contributed to this forum.
Where I get frustrated is when a drive-by comment, devoid of relevance or factual content derails the discussion. That has happened on some of my posts, when I would have dearly loved to hear people challenge what I had to say, but instead commenters felt more obliged to challenge a relatively vapid post that smacked of trolling. It’s not merely that the comment is vapid. It also sucks the oxygen out of the room.
If you see that people are agreeing largely about the state of political affairs in America, I can tell you that there was less agreement months or years ago on OTB. For example, more people have been willing to accept the “F” or “A” word applied to Trump. There’s a simple reason for that, and I don’t credit my personal charm and persuasiveness: Trump has overtly grown more fascistic in his rhetoric, and nakedly authoritarian when he describes when he’ll do in a second term.
Similarly, the very passionate arguments about the pros and cons of Biden stepping down not only ended because, well, he stepped down, but also the Democrats’ presidential chances of winning have clearly improved. Again, history has brought many of us to relatively overlapping positions. Though even then, we don’t necessarily totally agree. See, for example, the different reasons why people are upset with Israel (and some still defend Israel, citing the lack of good choices after 10/7).
If someone says something with no factual back-up, or flits to a unrelated topic when challenged, or throws ad hominem barbs (So-And-So is stupid or unhinged), or just states sentiments, they should not be surprised by pushback. Nor should they be surprised if the pushback continues if the behavior continues. At some point, it becomes clear that the poster is not arguing in good faith.
But all of this is Logical Thinking 101, or Democracy 101.
@Fortune:
Thanks for sharing that. It’s a helpful insight to get to know you better.
To your earlier points:
I don’t think you’ve written anything that upset me. I’m more disappointed by the general quality of the dissenting arguments–to the degree, there are any. More on that in a moment.
You have been participating a lot recently, and I mistakenly thought you’d been with us for longer. Did you find us via the Drudge Report link?
That said, welcome aboard.
Three thoughts on this:
1. While there is a lot of general agreement about many topics here, I think there is more disagreement in the details than you might be picking up on (especially depending on the posts you are reading). Also you missed the long discussion on Biden staying in the race.
2. Your phrasing above is worth unpacking: Do you mean you cannot imagine why someone would do that? Or is it more that you don’t “agree” with that decision, or it doesn’t “appeal” to you?
3. I think a broader discussion of why everyone comments is a great topic for a far more inclusive post in the future.
Can you share a couple examples? As I said earlier, I rarely see contrarian comments that I think are “the best” (with the exception of people like @Andy, who this post was definitely NOT thinking of in this post… and frankly I don’t think of his posts as particularly contrarian).
What I typically see from most of the contrarians listed above is a lot of talking point regurgitation, goal post moving, and a “debate” style that tends to focus on the bark rather than the tree.
Maybe I missed something. I’m always open to revisiting my priors. So make some suggestions about what I should look at.
As far as full disclosure goes, I will be voting for Kamala Harris as well. I think she’s smart, dedicated, and pragmatic. In the 2020 cycle, I did not think much of her public speech skills, she has got better, though she still not magical. But I’m ok with that.
I think she will look after the interests of all Americans, not just Democrats, and not just blue states. Though this was a thing that I thought of most Republican candidates for the presidency, until Trump came along.
Her ethnic background isn’t a factor as such. However, she has a spirit that seems unquenchable, which is what we need in a president, and how that spirit was made to be so has something to do with the adversity she faced as a minority woman, and how instead of letting break her, used it to get better. She’s not the only person with that story, of course, but it’s a good one.
Strength of spirit knows no race or gender. In our dojo, the student with the strongest spirit was a 12-year-old girl. Wow, she was something! I think if most of you think through your lives, you will take note of other people who had powerful spirits.
Elizabeth I said this in a speech at Tilbury, in preparation for facing the Spanish Armada:
[That’s some choice speechwriting there!]
@Grumpy realist: @JohnSF:
Indeed. His response, if it showed anything, showed he has no idea what a reserve currency is.
You lot should collectively try to be a bit less precious… with arch replies about you personally not X.
Frankly while the JKB et al are fairly useless and often massively tedious and boring, but what ptfe evokes is a fairly clear pattern of a rather broad hostile reaction to any commentary that’s outside of a certain fairly tightly drawn circle of US Lefty correctness.
Really the pretence is extremely precious and silly – at least spare the faux questions.
@Lounsbury:
In this case, an explanation of what evocation of ptfe’s represents the asserted “broad hostile reaction” and why would be interesting and maybe even helpful and enlightening.
Then I remember that by your own confession, you comment here mostly for your own entertainment, and I shrug and walk away.
We are realists.
There have been no saints in the presidency. Period. Perhaps the two most morally pure in my lifetime were Carter and Reagan.
Kennedy – a whore, silver spoon, office purchased
LBJ – my god
Nixon – realpolitik
Ford – well, ok
Bush 1 – seemed like a good guy….but head of the CIA. Hmmm
Clinton – LOL
Bush 2 – Iraq. Enough said
Obama – half smart, a Chicago thug. A racist
Biden – policy = $.
So where are these people that rim jobbers tell me are so wonderful?
Objectively, the Trump years were good. That’s it. Biden years suck. And everyone knows it, spin aside.
You can be tribal, or you can be utilitarian. This blog is full of tribalists. Spinning so hard it makes you dizzy. Harris is a simply a horrible candidate on policy and substance. The ultimate empty pantsuit.
I think it was Mayor Daley of Chicago who said “but someone is going to win”.
So stop preening like a high schooler about virtue in politics. Will the country be better or not in 4 years. In my judgment the country is on the wrong path. Polls suggest most agree. But tribalism makes things close. Harris would be a huge mistake. Trump, despite absolutely hysterical assertions, an option for recovery. Or at least stop digging the hole.
But it’s about policy. Period. The world isn’t nice. I don’t need faux “joy.”
@Lounsbury: That’s an interesting reading of a series of questions. Fortune can answer or not answer whatever from the list – it’s a blog comment board – but I’m not going to patiently sit here and ask each question individually like they’re a teenager playing a video game and I’m trying to find out about their school day.
I asked the literal question I was interested in, and got back only the answer, with no expansion. Fortune breezed into the comments and tried to play the role of Almighty Truth-Sayer, the One True Observer who understands that all the people talking about the possible dangers of Trump’s ambitions and his rhetoric are just “conspiracy minded”, and that Trump 2.0 wouldn’t be that bad because Trump 1.0 was fine.
But ask a few questions and you get the classic comment board shuffle: act indignant about minor sleights, tell everyone how brilliant you are, don’t address any substantive evidence that doesn’t support your thesis, say other people are boring/uneducated/blindered idiots, and leave if the only path is actual engagement.
I’m genuinely interested in discussions with people where they’re at, but terse responses are not really supportive of a conversation. I’d rather a person not try to play Clever Hans. Put some stakes in the ground and stop doing the “I don’t support Trump but I’ll apologize for him” dance.
@Jack:
Right. So you refuse to engage on actual issues. Got it.
Imagine my surprise.
@Lounsbury: I wasn’t interested in the list of questions because this isn’t a job interview. I agree with your point about the narrow range of what’s acceptable though. I’m sure they argued about Palestine and Biden dropping out because those are within the comfort zone. Do they disagree on more than two issues out of twenty every year?
@Jack:
Assuming that you’re arguing in good faith and not just trolling here, I’m baffled by this statement. The only way I can see to make a plausible claim that this is true is to pretend that Trump’s term ended in 2019 and the catastrophe that came with Covid in 2020 doesn’t belong to him. But his term didn’t end in 2019, so we can’t just pretend that 2020 never happened or that it somehow was Biden’s fault.
Maybe I’m just too slow or “tribal” to understand what you’re saying so please, explain it to me. What are the objective metrics that show things were good under Trump and suck now?
The likely answer is they know Trump is an awful human being.
This should prompt the Ds to consider something: Even a truly awful human being with an R behind his name can be competitive as hell against you? Best look into that. Unlikely the Ds will have to face such a deeply flawed candidate next time. IMO, don’t allow yourselves to be primarily about minority issues. Pay attention to the plight of the majority in the Rust Belts. Trump promises them BS, promise them something real. The support for Trump, a man they know to be awful, should be viewed as an act of desperation.
@Jack: Huh. Moral “purity” is your standard?
Also, you describe Nixon as “realpolitik”. Let’s look at this. What did that realpolitik of Nixon’s actually accomplish over the long term. Did it turn things around in Vietnam? Did we win? Did we get a stable peace settlement?
No? What did all that lying and cheating that Richard Nixon did actually do for the country?
And FWIW, the Reagan administration did a whole buttload of lying of the “realpolitik” sort. It could be argued that they were more successful than Nixon, though.
@Roger:
Umm. Covid was Trumps fault? My issue with Trump and Covid is that he did what Fauci (the real villain here) and the hysterical wanted.
He caved. But Biden et al poured gasoline on the fire.
I’m constantly amazed how many people can say things while their brains are switched off.
Of course, they may not even have brains.
At the risk of being tedious:
@Jack:
No. But the response to it was his responsibility, just as responding to the inflation that naturally occurred as the world came out of the shadow of Covid was Biden’s responsibility. I give Biden high marks for policies that kept the inflation rate in the U.S. lower than the rate in much of the rest of the world while keeping unemployment low, the stock market high, and avoiding the recession that many were predicting, but I’m admittedly an ignoramus when it comes economic analysis so I’m open to being educated on that point by those more knowledgable that I.
If you’re going to blame Biden for inflation (and I’m pretty sure you do), you can’t ignore the economic world that Trump left him. So I ask again: What are the objective metrics that show things were good under Trump and suck now?
@Jay L Gischer:
You completely missed my point. Moral purity is NOT my standard. They are all compromised. It’s political nature. Joe Biden and his bagman son sold policy for money. (20 LLCs. My god) (Clinton was just, altruistically, leading a young intern into adulthood). So skip the kindergarten level criticisms on morality. It’s a hard world, run by hard people and hard rules.
It’s all about policy. And by the way, Clinton on policy was relatively ok.
I’m just not a slobbering tribalist, like 95% of people here. On policy, Trump will be better than Harris by a country mile. I would remind people that until JB was assassinated Harris was viewed as simply affirmative action. Now, according to tribalists, she is a policy guru. Bull.
@Michael Reynolds:
Vapid
@Jay L Gischer:
Well, there was the whole China thing. And he also concluded a nuclear arms limitation treaty with the USSR.
Vietnam, IMO, was a mess wrapped in a quagmire enveloped by stupid decisions stretching back to the 1940s. If Nixon did throw a monkey wrench into the last efforts of LBJ to end the war, he did worse by making it his war, when he really needed to end it ASAP.
My reading of the period suggests there were no good options, and no one wanted to be the first US president to lose a war (like 1812 was such a resounding victory or something). It was a practical demonstration of Buridan’s Ass.
@Jack:
Gutless. You’re a coward.
@Roger:
Well, you got one thing right. You have no economic acumen. The spending orgy was inflationary. Biden bills, of which he is so proud, were inflationary.
And energy policy, and energy permeates the entire economy, has been inflationary.
If you have a tidal wave of debt monetized, you need to stimulate production. Else you get inflation. Biden has done no such thing.
@Jack: What policy? Seriously. What policy has Trump announced that you think will save America?
@Jack:
Is there a reason you won’t answer the question “What are the objective metrics that show things were good under Trump and suck now?”
And since we agree that I have no economic acumen, can you explain in simple words that someone like me can understand why Biden’s spending orgy ended with the US having lower inflation than the rest of the G7?
@Jay L Gischer: You read “We are realists. There have been no saints in the presidency. Period….So stop preening like a high schooler about virtue in politics.” and you thought Jack’s standard is moral purity? How?
@Jack: Obama – half smart, a Chicago thug. A racist
Seriously, that is the best you can do? You can describe Barack Obama many ways, but thug is simply not one of those ways unless you are intellectually dishonest. When you make that statement there is no way anyone can take you seriously.
@dazedandconfused: Well, I am hungry for that conversation. Instead of using third person, perhaps you could tell us what *you* are yearning, if not desperate, for.
I’m quite interested. I recently spent most of the day talking with old school classmates. I’m sure a fair few of them are Republicans/MAGA, but politics never came up. I just like listening to their life stories.
It’s late in the day, though. Perhaps on a later open thread?
@Fortune, I’m really happy you popped back in. I’m just catching up and read what Jack wrote above and immediately thought of your comment:
I’m curious about your take on Jack’s comment.
I’ll share mine:
First, it strikes me that he chose not to address the underlying point/question of the post. Admittedly it’s his right to do so. But I at least wish he wrote something interesting.
Secondly, I read as dripping with his usual boring, toxic mix of condescension and “I’m right and the rest of you are stupid/naive/foolish.” Granted, he’s far from the only one who does this (see also Lounsberry above). I’m sure I come off that way to some folks who read me.
Third, I see a boring and predictable degree of low-energy trolling (see, for example, his description of Obama).
Fourth, there’s the usual level of projection. Take, for example, “This blog is full of tribalists. Spinning so hard it makes you dizzy.” Again he’s entitled to his opinion, but when one looks across his contributions its hard not to see a tribalist who is constantly spinning for Trump in a way that would make me dizzy if it wasn’t so predictable. Again, I’m sure I’m not beyond projection, but I try my best to name it when I do it.
Fifth, I’ll note in keeping with the theme of the post, his listing of past President’s flaws stops before we get to Trump. By the way, this goes back to my central my point that anti-anti-Trump people always seem to say he has flaws but never name them.
Finally, there’s the overall nihilistic aspect of the post that isn’t particularly interesting… it’s just, well, sad.
For me at least, the only way I find a post like that “interesting or noteworthy” is in how it provides a lot of fodder for a linguistic and semiotic analysis. Beyond that, it’s pretty boring and utterly predictable. While writing it might do something for Jack’s ego, I don’t see how it’s advancing the conversation or particularly “good.”
That said, this might be a case of familiarity breeding contempt, so I’d love to get your take on it.
@Jack:
Two questions. First:
I’m curious about your objective take on the Obama years. I understand if you said the first four years “sucked.” I’m curious about your objective take on the second term.
Which gets to:
Then what are the specific Trump policies you support?
For example, do you support him setting tariffs as broadly as he promises to do?
What about the promises for mass and indiscriminate deportation?
Ending the war in Ukraine by appeasing Russia?
But which of his policies and why? For example his past policies like the tax cuts exploded the deficit. And the Trump/Biden tariffs have done a lot of harm to the economy and he wants to turn them to 11.
You don’t have to defend the man, but if it’s all about policy, you at least should be able to defend his policies affirmatively.
A couple random responses:
@al Ameda:
Actually it was Matt writing this one. And every time one of my pieces of writing get mistaken for Steven I take it as the biggest of compliments as I have a great respect for him, his thinking, and his desire to try and engage.
@Kingdaddy:
100% to what you wrote. In particular this especially resonates:
This is exactly how I feel about Jack’s post above. It’s helpful to try and understand where he (or at least his online persona is coming from). Ultimately, however, nothing in it really challenged the post (in fact, as I wrote, I think it proves my point).
I personally write to sort through my ideas and in the hopes of getting challenges that will help me refine my thinking.
@Joe:
Its not tedious at all. I though about that and chose to make a 50/50 guess when I should have looked it up. I’m fixing the post.
@Lounsbury:
I’m sure you guessed that this post wasn’t calling you out (for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that–unless things have changed–you cannot vote in US elections). Plus, while I find your affected rhetorical style and finger-wagging boring, I appreciate both your commitment to the bit and that you are happy to share your political and policy positions (not just what you are against).
@Kathy:
FTFY.
@Matt Bernius: I don’t agree with all of Jack’s comment but it had a point. Jay L Gischer thought it said the opposite. That was worse. Are you going to write an article about him?
@Jay L Gischer: Neither desperate nor living in a declining rust-belt area myself, so I can’t do that.
@Fortune:
That’s a start, what do you agree with from it and why? I’m truly curious.
Also I agree it had a point. Most of Jack’s posts do. That’s never been the issue.
My issue with Jack is that the point he makes is boring and tells us very little about what he positively believes. Further, I also notice that in cases where he claims to positively believe something (i.e. it’s all about policy), he never tries to then connect it to the actual policies that apparently his preferred candidate is espousing.
If Jack supports the Trump tariff plan, that’s great. Just say it out loud. Ditto mass deportations.
Oh heck, not taxing tips, social security, and overtime.
But he also should be prepared to explain how both of those things would improve the economy.
In my experience Jack has never actually attempted to engage with the details and to Kingfishers point, that’s boring and unproductive. To Jack’s own point it’s also pretty tribal.
If I wrote a post every time I saw someone misinterpret something in the comments (including myself) it would get really boring.
In full transparency, I wrote this piece because I saw a longstanding pattern and I was really curious about that pattern and the thinking underneath it. Part of my neurodiversity is these sorts of questions stick in my mind and for whatever reason James has given me a set of keys to the blog.
Additionally, one thing about OTB is, in my experience, it’s one of a handful of blogs (others including Balloon Juice and The League of Gentlemen) where the post authors still actively participate in comment threads. So, to some degree, this type of post (or the one that Steven recently posted) is part of the site’s culture. I had never thought about it before, but for someone new that can be off-putting. We’re definitely a throwback to a different era of internet engagement.
@just nutha: My own confession?
Unless you are delusional, I do dearly hope when you comment on the internet you are doing so for your own entertainment and not for some deluded sense of Making A Difference or other pretentious grandiosities.
I haven’t myself any illusions that commentary on an internet site has any grand meanings nor results. and thus yes, my comments are my own personal entertainment, not being delusional.
In any case, the idea that there is any utility in “convincing” you lot of your own circle-jerk tendencies is realy extremely precious.
@Matt Bernius: No I did not think myself directly concerned, not at all I am quite aware you are aware that I am not pro-Trump by any stretch of the imagination. But while it was not aimed at me, however I find the precious intello pretences and extremely precious replies, to be clear fundamentally more than Post, especially archly asking someone like pfte to demonstrate/justify an observation to reek of dorm-room intellectual preening – rather too common here along with a paper-thin openness to comment or views not within a set of US Lefty of University Educated Professional Class Correctness scope.
The observation that the commentary here tends to cliquish party tribalism is not wrong for all that the oppositional comments typically hardly impress as improvements quite either, but then given that non-conforming yet still Trump hostile comments also garner rather similar response, it rather does strike me as quite sterile pretence to interrogate them. (my rhetorical style is me, that you all don’t like it… eh, I find modern American Lefty Uni pretence and rhetorical styles obnoxious myself so, well, there we are, such is life, that’s… ah what do you all love so muc – Diversity, yes, Diversity.)
In any case I rather like arguing with Reynolds, he’s a good sport and interesting.
@Lounsbury:
Chef’s kiss, sir. That’s how you do it folks.
Agreed as well.
Ultimately, the comments section can be cliquish. I’ve said so before and will indeed say so again. And to some degree, despite my protestations I also play a part in that. I think folks like Andy–who are giving folks what they claim to want, a balanced and grounded contrarian viewpoint (not offered out of nihilism or contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism)–catch way too much heat.
I also think part of that is the very human reaction of interacting with someone who is clearly smart and thoughtful who also seems incapable of being persuaded to your point of view.
Also getting back to the point of this post in the first place, I know that if Andy was supporting Trump (which, based on his many, many comments, I would be shocked if he was), I know he would have no problems saying that he was (and catching any heat that came with it). That’s one of the many reasons I respect him.
@Fortune: The OP was NOT just about you. It was an open invitation to you, Jack, and the others to please delve further into explaining to us HOW and WHY you support Trump. I mean, which of his projected policies do you think is gonna work without causing another recession? How, exactly, is that mass deportation gonna work out without crashing the economy? Are you ok with Trump sending the military to arrest his enemies and execute them for treason?
We are honestly curious, around here. Most of us found this blog during the late 2000’s, when we were curious to understand the conservative mindset, but felt the Republican party LEFT US after Obama was elected. A good portion of us USED TO BE Republicans, myself included. Or Libertarians. Over the years, we’ve kind of developed a Cheers mindset, we’ve been coming here so long that we’re friends, even though most of us have never met. We mourn our dead, we celebrate when somebody accomplishes something.
So when someone like you, or the others, come around and starts flinging shit around, with no explanation as to why YOU, YOURSELF support Trump and his policies, with no explanation as to how his “policies” are good, and then insulting the commentariat….we get curious. And defensive.
I, myself, thought that you were a long, lost commenter when you first started posting, pretty sure we had a fortune at one point in time….I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but all you had was recycled Fox News/Gateway Pundit talking points.
@Joe: Giggling….I totally understand if you want to go with Good Joe, given the circumstances. 😉
Matt, good on you for trying to fight the good fight but I fear your starting point is flawed. There is no mystery here that can be solved by discussing policy or facts. When people are frightened or overwhelmed they look to a strongman. It’s deep in our animal nature. And while I wish our civilizing aspects were strong enough to put that behind us, I know enough of history (and lived through enough myself) to see that when times get tough a significant part of the population are quick to throw out everything that got us to this level and scurry behind someone, anyone who will “do what it takes” and not be constrained by civilized rules.
So there is no mystery on why these people rally behind what they see as a strongman. The mystery is how they can see this buffoon, this blowhard, this sneaky, conniving, whiner as a strongman. Even now, when it is day by day more obvious that he is senile. It’s as mysterious as when a duckling imprints on a puppet.
@Jax:
“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce,” Karl Marx*.
Members of the movement were required to say “I know nothing” whenever they were asked about its specifics by outsiders,
Marx lived to see the Franco-Prussian War. I wonder if he reconsidered that farce could also be quite trafic.
*Of course, this confirms to the subjects of Matt’s question we’re all a bunch of communists.