Writes David Brooks, in "How Trump Will Fail" (NYT).
I can see why this image of a wild, raw, aspiring America appeals to Trump....
Do you see why a tame, cooked, demoralized America appeals to his antagonists?
Not for delectations sweet/Not the cushion and the slipper, not the peaceful and the studious/Not the riches safe and palling, not for us the tame enjoyment....
Posts
113 comments:
…apparently it’s Melville that’s the last refuge of a scoundrel…
Trump may fail. The life-motto of people like David Brooks is "Don't bother trying."
The Soviet left will do all they can to force any form of failure.... even at the expense of the American People.
That's how they roll.
The Soviet left will do all they can to force any form of failure... Even at the expense of the American People.
...That's how they roll.
My comments are vanishing again. Hi Google(D)
The Old Grease and Crease…
Just because I'm charmed by the energy and purpose of the 19th century doesn't mean I find slavery and Reconstruction appealing or desirable. Brooks tosses in the kitchen sink, as if one historical comparison means we're saddled with all of them.
There *he blows!
*David Brooks
Article is behind a paywall and, it being by Brooks, not worth the few keystrokes to get around the paywall. Given his success at political prognostication, “How Trump Will Fail” seems like a guarantee of Trump’s success.
The successful - and the bold, even should they fail - offer a stern rebuke to the mediocre. The mediocre would prefer that all be mediocre.
More wishcasting from the New York pligarchy's pets. Actually, punting out the Vichy cons in the media is almost as important as getting them out of trh Senate. With fire, if necessary. They think that "Secret Democrats" are enough to hold back President Trump, but it's just making more than 70% of the Republican base support burning down Capitol Hill.
Moby Dick was about a world without women
Our opinion of the fake NYT conservative - still stands.
1. David Brooks writes:
“It helps if, like Trump, you whitewash a few minor details about 19th-century America from your portrait — like, you know, slavery and Reconstruction.”
How about the minor detail of the Republican led end to slavery? Reconstruction was in the hands of the Democrats after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by, yes, another Democrat.
2. David Brooks ends with:
“He’s [Trump] accurately identified problems on issues like inflation, the border and the fallout from cultural condescension that members of the educated class have been too insular to anticipate. But when it comes to building structures to address those problems — well, the man is just hapless and incompetent.”
A builder doesn’t know how to build? He built the wall which now will be completed. That’s a structure that addresses the problem quite nicely
Do you see why a tame, cooked, demoralized America appeals to his antagonists?
Yes and I can also see how it's really Brooks and his ilk that will ultimately fail.
Rooting against America being great is a bad look.
Phew! What a relief. I'm calmed down now but for a minute there David Brooks had me convinced Donald Trump just rescinded 21 U.S.C by executive order.
David Brooks, if 'flaccid' were a person.
meh, brooks the bane of the university of chicago, in the mid 19th century, Melville was one of the greats, hes much wordier than Hawthorne,
I found that out when I tried to tackle Moby Dick,
I had a relative, who was a lifelong Democrat. Her favorite President was FDR. She saw him give a speech, and felt he saved America from the Great Depression which she lived through. She never voted for a Republican in her life as far as I was aware. But back in 2016 she was absolutely excited about Trump. I think she was excited about him because he was excited about America. Not since Kennedy has there been a Democratic president who loved and aspired for American Greatness.
The "wisdom" of David Brooks is a null set.
If this were a movie [Wait, it ISN'T??], then Brooks would be the skeptical sidekick character who thinks the hero's plans are crazy, stays with him anyway, and, at the end, grins and shakes his head in wonder when the hero ultimately triumphs.
So it sounds like the new Democratic strategy is Hope Trump will fail and then the people will beg us to come back and save them from themselves.
David Brooks discussing 'how trump will fail' sounds like another auspicious sign for Trump.
Democrats have proven they only care about vanity issues, bullsh*t and lies .
Men in women's spaces, child sex trafficking, illegal entrants by the millions - without our permission, forcing us to pay for it, again without our permission, lies from a corrupt press that "the border is secure" - when it isn't. ..
Endless wars, Biden personal international pay to play grifting - while the media dutifully look the other way, Implementation of authoritarian control over the supposed-free press, censorship, Gain of Function Fauci, forced jabs, lockdowns while the left party... leftists obsessed with fake Trump quotes and non- exsistent Nazi symbolism... The planted Russia lie and Vindman easedrop of a phone call from paid Hillary Clinton Law firm, corruption at the top of the FBI and CIA... and on and on.
“How Trump Will Fail”
======
fail can be both trans and intrans
what is Brooks sense / tense
Or, perhaps ,david, we normal folks have just grown tired of the "experts", the "professionals" shitting on us belittling us for having the chutzpah to expect that we should benefit and prosper from our efforts. That we should be able to give our children better than we had so that they could do the same. That we could be comfortable in retirement. That our government would not denigrate and attack us for having those expectations. That our government wouldn't deliberately and actively attack us by filling the country with 3rd world vermin, criminals and terrorists for their benefit and with no regard ,indeed, not the slightest concern about any consequences. In the past those governments would have been overthrown, violently. For all of the turd creatures who promoted, defended, and took nauseating enjoyment from those actions and policies I hope you suffer immensely and forever for what you have done. I hope that retribution visits you. And,david being one of those, I wish you the same.
21st century America has been talking about being the world leader and playing at being the world leader while it's been falling apart or tearing itself apart internally. We've been speaking loudly and not carrying a big enough stick to back up our pretentions. We've been all hat and no cattle.
What Brooks doesn't get is that America's dominant role in the world in the second half of the 20th century was built on that earlier "adolescent" world beating, breast-beating confidence and pride. I don't know about being the world leader. We'd be leading the world where and to what? But the country is going to tear itself apart or sink into senescence if it doesn't get back some confidence in itself. Something similar is true of "Western man" and "Western civilization."
One suspects Brooks desires a sharp crease in his condoms.
Actually more than hope alone. Sabatoge is on the menu too. But I think I see some resignation setting in.
That was Leslie Fiedler's view about Moby, Melville, and American literature as a whole. The Freudianism of the 50s that inspired Fiedler is dead, but his idea lives on in academia. Was it 19th century American literature that was inspired by homosexuality, or literary critics of the last 70 years who have been?
To accommodate his narrow urethra, no doubt.
Herman Melville Captured!
There’s a Venn diagram for erudition and a determined anal retention of one’s own head. It’s known as the Brooks diagram.
Do not discount a good contra indicator…
Brooks is either using reverse psychology as a motivational prop or he is transAmerican with a forward-looking hope to take a knee.
"Between 1825 and 1901 we had 20 presidencies. We had a bunch of one-term presidents"
Brooks weirdly characterizes this as the voters constantly voting in Presidents and then in a populist rage voting them out. We 20 presidencies because (1) Taylor, Harrison, Lincoln, McKinley and Garfield all died in office and (with the exception of TR) their VPs had been put on the ticket as "balance" and were unpopoular (2) the country split over slavery (3) Hayes and Polk only wanted one term and (4) Harrison and Van Buren lost because of depressions.
New front page epigraph for the NYT:All the News That's Tame, Cooked, and Demoralizing
The USA political scene before and after the Civil war were like night and day. Why Brooks decided to treat 1825-1901 as a single homogeneous bloc is beyond me. There was "populist outrage" in the Mid-west. First over slavery and Dred Scott then in 90s over the collapse of agriculture.
WJ Bryan was the classic populist leader. He probably would've gotten elected in 1912, if he hadn't been such a political idiot. He not only decided not to run, but he threw his support to Wilson instead of Champ Clark because...moron.
BTW, White Jacket is my favorite Melville novel. Great look at life aboard a US warship in the 1840s.
Brooks is entitled to opinion, and now he has shared it. Others disagree. Brooks can now join Krugman in the sorehead losers' corner, together with Larry Tribe, Jen Rubin, and Wee Willie Kristol.
the second half of the 19th century was the rise of Trusts and the Indian Wars,
one might say they consolidated Polks acquisitions, after the Civiil War
"a system in which all power is personalized and held in his hands" After a week in which he said states should do more on their own.
"administrative impotence" After a week of pretty thorough cleansing of the fed bureaucracy.
"difference between people who operate in the spirit of disruption and those who operate in the spirit of reform" Isn't real reform bound to be disruptive?
Anyway, much of this so-called populism is just moving back to the liberal center--e.g., nondiscrimination rather than DEI. That's why Trump may not fail, at least not wholesale: some of his reforms make too much sense, have public support, and will be hard for mainstream Dems to disparage. But the left is biding its time, and the pendulum will swing again.
Honest question, has Brooks yet ruled on the success or failure of the Biden administration? Or does Brooks just issue "preemptive failures" for those presidents he dislikes, and retroactive pardons for those he doesn't?
Did you notice that Whitman poem was narrated by Grandpa Walton, Will Greer? He didn't sound like the old grandpa.
Brooks isn't referring to the Pequod, but to the Titanic. Under Biden, America could see the problems ahead, and the need to change course. Brooks made a couscous choice to find a nice deck chair and have a drink, while listening to the band.
Most of us decided to sail on, around the berg. Common sense is back in style, and Brooks hasn't gotten the memo yet.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Democrats didn't go to war to preserve slavery.
Brooks the multi-millionaire prig writes again. And once again shows his ignorance of American history and contempt for American citizens.
"Between 1825 and 1901 we had 20 presidencies."
The voters voted those parties out of power, just like their form of government allowed them to do. He left out a couple wars and massive immigration, but hey, he's a NYC elitist.
I think we should bring back the word "milksop" because it so perfectly describes David Brooks.
And this from a conservative? He also sees that the new emperor has no clothes.
America is a nation of immigrants, to be sure; but it is also a nation of settlers, pioneers, frontiersmen, revolutionaries, and those who fought and died to end slavery and establish the union during the Civil War.
But with this difference: immigrants, the overwhelming majority since 1880, came to a country that was already fully settled, rich beyond measure, and with already established liberal institutions.
Today the country is almost equally divided between these two groups and their descendants demographically. Yet we rarely hear much about the latter in contemporary political discourse. Why is that?
One of the common themes in all the myths from time immemorial (I'm familiar with the Biblical texts and I've watched the Netflix Ancient Apocalypse) seems to be that only AFTER terrible calamitous disaster does mankind show the willingness necessary to, not only accept, but enthusiastically participate as instructed. Threats (nuclear holocaust and runaway global warming) are not enough to reshape mankind into some other image, not anymore. Trump stands in the way by saying things like "...if individuals want to clear out their property, they can." My God 🫨
Brooksie wants us to know that he went beyond the assigned reading.
Quite expected. Brooks is the very fine example of the bureaucrat mindset. And he wrote the book of his beloved Bobos in Paradise. He rage, rages against dying Bobo light
HIGH-BROWS turn up their noses at Horatio Alger’s philosophy. Yet Alger succeeded better than anybody else in stressing the most characteristic point of capitalist society. Capitalism is a system under which everybody has the chance of acquiring wealth; it gives everybody unlimited opportunity. Not everybody, of course, is favored by good luck. Very few become millionaires. But everybody knows that strenuous effort and nothing less than strenuous effort pays. All roads are open to the smart youngster. He is optimistic in the awareness of his own strength. He has self-confidence and is full of hope. And as he grows older and realizes that many of his plans have been frustrated, he has no cause for despair. His children will start the race again and he does not see any reason why they should not succeed where he himself failed. Life is worth living because it is full of promise.
All this was literally true of America. In old Europe there still survived many checks inherited from the ancien régime. Even in the prime of liberalism, aristocracy and officialdom were struggling for the maintenance of their privileges. But in America there were no such remnants of the Dark Ages. It was in this sense a young country, and it was a free country. Here were neither industrial codes nor guilds. Thomas Alva Edison and Henry Ford did not have to overcome any obstacles erected by shortsighted governments and a narrow-minded public opinion.
Under such conditions the rising generation are driven by the spirit of the pioneer. They are born into a progressing society, and they realize that it is their task to contribute something to the improvement of human affairs. They will change the world, shape it according to their own ideas. They have no time to waste, tomorrow is theirs and they must prepare for the great things that are waiting for them. They do not talk about their being young and about the rights of youth; they act as young people must act. They do not boast about their own “dynamism”; they are dynamic and there is no need for them to emphasize this quality. They do not challenge the older generation with arrogant talk. They want to beat it by their deeds.
But it is quite a different thing under the rising tide of bureaucratization. Government jobs offer no opportunity for the display of personal talents and gifts. Regimentation spells the doom of initiative. The young man has no illusions about his future. He knows what is in store for him. He will get a job with one of the innumerable bureaus, he will be but a cog in a huge machine the working of which is more or less mechanical. The routine of a bureaucratic technique will cripple his mind and tie his hands. He will enjoy security. But this security will be rather of the kind that the convict enjoys within the prison walls. He will never be free to make decisions and to shape his own fate. He will forever be a man taken care of by other people. He will never be a real man relying on his own strength. He shudders at the sight of the huge office buildings in which he will bury himself.
In the decade preceding the First World War Germany, the country most advanced on the path toward bureaucratic regimentation, witnessed the appearance of a phenomenon hitherto unheard of: the youth movement
--von Mises, Ludwig (1945). Bureaucracy
America is a nation of immigrants, to be sure; but it is also a nation of settlers, pioneers, frontiersmen, revolutionaries, and those who fought and died to end slavery and establish the union during the Civil War.
But with this difference: immigrants, the overwhelming majority since 1880, came to a country that was already fully settled, rich beyond measure, and with already established liberal institutions.
Today the country is almost equally divided between these two groups and their descendants demographically. Yet we rarely hear much about the former: the men and women who came first actually created this wonderful democracy, in contemporary political discourse. Why is that?
I got through and read it. Don't bother, it's libtard cant. The very first sentence is: "After a four year hiatus, it's necessary again to delve into Trump's mind..."
These libtard journOlisters readily and unthinkingly admit that they have been on vacation rubbing Creepy Joe's feet for four years, but now it's time to pick up the hatchets and get back to work hacking away at The Party's enemies. He even has the fucking gall to claim that Progressives are in high moral ground.
America isn't so much a country as it is a state of mind. And it results in the aggregation of people from everywhere who yearn to be free, to explore, invent, excel, and not just exist but thrive. Nothing pisses off "Americans" (wherever they may be) more than mediocrity and forced compliance with falsehoods, defeatism, and purposely imposed scarcity.
Thus the demise of the Democrat Party. They're flat-out un-American..
How about the genocide of Native Americans? Do you find that "appealing or desirable"?
No, and Sure, Jan.
For one thing, we're now an urban country and those of immigrant stock predominate in America's cities. And how do you decide who's who? Germans, Irish, African-Americans, Canadians (both kinds) -- immigrants or settlers and pioneers? Scandinavians -- immigrants who brought over a different culture, but also settlers and pioneers? Native Americans -- certainly not part of either that settler or that Immigrant group? The country was quite good at assimilating immigrants in the past. Does it matter much if your ancestors came over in 1800 or 1850 or 1900?
Lamentations of the Losers. Brooks gets so much wrong he should be a sports prognosticator
But are we though? Look at the military and at NASA. They went from landing on Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima or putting a man on the moon to making DEI their reason for being. and there wasn't any serious pushback against that until right now.
It's also basic math. From a long view perspective, Trump is a one hit wonder. Whereas the establishment that hates Trump is for ever and ever. Amen. 😉
Brooks has descended to the spot vacated by Jen Rubin.
Meanwhile Krugman has his column cut to once a week.
not news = opinion as news about future
Brooks--and people like him--stayed on the East Coast. My family wandered west for several generations--literally out along the Oregon Trail, in California with Fremont for the Bear Flag result, and later driving cattle up the Chisum Trail==and that was all done by 150 years ago. We stayed in the West.
Being a pompous know-it-all is why David Brooks has failed. Which to clarify is that nobody can stand that s*** Brooks writes except for far-Left NYT readers.
dictionary gives me choice between
Middle English, literally, bread soaked in milk
modern : a weak or cowardly man
david is 2nd wanting 1st
In a perfect world the Turds of Bulwark, the NYT, David Brooks, Jen Rubin and their ilk would all slink away into a dank hole and never be heard from again. They are so tired and cliche.
Brutal, but accurate.
This second Trump run does have a Whitmanesque feel to it. I like it.
Brooks and his cocktail party friends can harrumph all they like about what's going on and tell themselves to "...just you wait, he'll fall on his face. It'll all fail." That may or may not happen. What's important to millions in this country is that we try. We know we have the ability to make better things happen. And we now have someone at the top with a vision and an attitude that says, "Who says we cannot do it?"
To me that's what makes Americans different. That's what makes us outstanding. It's deep in the DNA of so many of us. Still. Much to the shock of those at cocktail parties on the Upper East Side of New York, or the finer neighborhoods surrounding Washington DC.
Brooks is a milksop… so he runs with his fellow travelers, teh Sovietcrats.
As usual, Brooks' history is wrong, his sneering is pathetic, and his prognostications display the arrogance that got Trump elected twice. A classic column that hits all the tone-deaf notes of the managerial class.
One can be sure Melville was critical of such "adolescent nationalist fervor."
"Trump may fail. The life-motto of people like David Brooks is 'Don't bother trying.'"
When the person attempting such endeavors (and with such temperament) as Trump, failure is what all prudent and wise contemporaries must dearly hope for.
Put another way: "Don't bother trying" stupid and ruinous endeavors.
We used to build great highways, great and grand tunnels and bridges, great dams, infrastructure. Now we build light-rail to nowhere - left unfinished.. and mass windmills that litter our views and stop working after a few short years- after the money was distributed.
Now we have vanity-project Newsum types ripping out dams... while the Swiss are still building them.
The original implication was a grown man who was still only eating baby food, and I think that describes Brooks pretty well.
The United States had to build a stronger central government and a leadership class if it was going to take responsibility — responsibility for the people who were marginalized and oppressed in our own country and, as the century wore on, responsibility to establish a peaceful and secure world order. No, David (to quote my son’s favorite book when he was five). We voted in a strong leadership class, and (please god) a less intrusive central government. You may not like it. Tough darts.
The Wikipedia entry for "gung ho" is extremely fun and interesting.
You're actually making my point. Temporary suppression may happen. But there is no stopping the the correction.
I was struck by the notion that both Jews and Americans are called "chosen people." Each is known for being blessed, hardworking and successful. Neither is perfect, nor claims to be. Each group is hated by some and admired by others. Perhaps this hatred is for what each represents, despite their flaws -- the power of goodness. Goodness is an aspiration rather than an achievement. Some people resent that because they don't aspire to goodness but choose something else.
Those 19th Century photographs of the Pioneers showed a lot of them bitterly clinging to their guns. And it is safe to say that Hillary and Brooks would've found them all deplorable.
How about the genocide of Native Americans? Do you find that "appealing or desirable"?
What came later was better for all involved than what went before. The various Indian tribes engaged in vigorous genocide of each other for at least fifteen thousand years, not to mention slavery, rape, torture, human sacrifice, and cannibalism.
The Black Hills of South Dakota changed hands by force of arms at least five times, just within historical times when the French-Canadian priests and trappers came to the Upper Midwest 300-odd years ago, and who knows how many times before that. Each time, there was horrific suffering as each tribe was ousted by the tribe that came after it.
I don't apologize for what my ancestors did to the Indians. They would have done likewise to us, or worse, if they'd had the ability.
American is a race according to Herman Melville. Lawyer is a race according to Jonathon Swift. What is a race? What is race? It seems to be very important whatever it is.
I don't see how you can say that this diverse country with all its groups from so many national origins is just one thing, i.e., "adolescent." But if I were to select one group in this country that is adolescent, I would pick the far left. That's the group that thinks it knows best for everyone although its members have no real competence in any field - not even electioneering. I think their plan A was a nihilistic, destructive October-7-type ambush furthered by their control of the government and Plan B is destroy by incompetence. They don't control the government and they are losing their DEI posts from which they planned to foster incompetence.
But Trump is not adolescent just because he thinks things can get done. He's just smarter than most and not messed up with drugs or a socialist ideology. And he has something else, an unknown quality that makes him the Comeback Kid. And he has luck, if you want to call it that. Assassins, of whatever kind, miss.
David Brooks' point whizzes past the mindlessness of the Populist readers herein.
"Trump, the anti-institutionalist, is creating an electoral monarchy, a system in which all power is personalized and held in his hands. That’s a recipe for distorted information flows, corruption, instability and administrative impotence. As we’ve seen over and over again down the centuries, there’s a big difference between people who operate in the spirit of disruption and those who operate in the spirit of reform.
If I were running the Democratic Party (God help them), I would tell the American people that Donald Trump is right about a lot of things. . . . But when it comes to building structures to address those problems — well, the man is just hapless and incompetent."
Dishonesty, ego and a dangerously ageing mind stand in his way - so the oligarchs and power-seekers are taking over.
Here’s how America recovered: Populist indignation finally got professionalized.
It's hard to overstate the preening pointy-headed elitism behind a statement like that.
- Krumhorn
henge2243- perfect
What a great grift it is to be the tame house-conservative-in-name-only on a liberal media outlet.
He's kept this act up for over twenty years now.
"A builder doesn’t know how to build?"
Do you know how many failed businesses and bankruptcies Trump has endured during his business career? Trump is a terrible businessman.
David Brooks is a man impressed by a pants crease.
"I don't apologize for what my ancestors did to the Indians. They would have done likewise to us, or worse, if they'd had the ability."
Steve Martin, as Roger Cobb in "All of Me":
"Just because my grandfather didn't rape the environment and exploit the workers doesn't make me a peasant. And it's not that he didn't want to rape the environment and exploit the workers, I'm sure he did. It's just that as a barber, he didn't have that much opportunity."
Says Cookie, commenting from his Learjet.
Grandpa Walton was played by Will Geer (no 'r' after the 'G'). I saw the credit and wondered--I didn't recognize the voice and maybe there was a Will Greer too.
Awesome. Now do George Will!
I refuse to read a word written by David Brooks, George Will, Jen Rubin, Bill Kristol, and David French. There may be other asshole neocons I have missed. My life is better without the thoughts of these perennial losers.
Agree 100%. These assholes are constant losers but console themselves by thinking that they are always right.
If anyone is going to make a couscous choice, Brooks is the guy!
I found it in a book on literary romance written by a woman in the 70s or 80s, that I can't locate now in spite of knowing where it must be.
I object to the use of the term "demoralize." I think it is more appropriate in the context of warfare than it is in politics. Do we really believe that the Democrats are trying to erode morale among the Republicans? Do they think of use as enemy combatants? I hope not!
Conservatives like Brooks, and Kristol know one thing for certain, they adore Obama.
Brooks is simply engaging in Conan's desire to hear "the lamentations of their women."
You, and the rest of the machine Uniparty, are terrified. That's how I read it: After 8 years of preaching and shrieking pompously to the world of the monstrous danger of Trump, you've finally gotten frightened enough to admit he's right. If only you turds had had the integrity to allow dissenting voices and a strong dose of reason to influence your policies, you might have had a chance. But you got hooked on the novelty of 'crazy' and made yourself into a Death Cult. Now you're just bargaining, trying to be the last to be eaten. Your party deserves nothing but its fate.
Democracy is a nationalist structure. In the extreme, with added Diversity, performance of human rites, clinical abuses, and liberal redistributive change schemes, denocracy progresses with Democrazis/Nazis in a far-left authoritarian, secular, religious regime.
Yes, clearly the solution is to build more "structures." My God, constantly failing midwit management culture is everywhere. How are these same stupid buzzwords and moronic ideas spread so universal? Is there a hymnal that bureaucratic twits manage?
No, no, no, no, no. We don't need more "structures," we don't need to discuss "structures," we don't need to endlessly reorganize to new "structures." We have more than enough, thank you, except that management twits parachute in somewhere with their midwit, TED-talk, SXSW trivial "understanding" of everything and never bother to learn how things work and what "structures" are already there.
I understand WHY these people are obsessed with "structures": they want there to be no individual accountability while at the same time siphoning up money and influence.
Massive accumulations of bureaucratic cruft and rules on top of defunct rules and the most blessed and worshipful PROCESS are not the solution to ANY of our problems. What we need is PERSONAL accountability: that for every decision there is a person who is responsible and who has to answer for the consequences.
It is exactly Trump's PERSONALIZING everything that works because it is in such contrast to the unaccountable bureaucratization that is wrecking our society. My hope is that he also pushes that personalization onto the people he has appointed, and they spread it downstream.
If it was genocide, Freder, why are they still with us?
It's OK. I don't expect an answer.
Brooks and Cook and Gadfly have never dared anything in their lives so they are the first to condemn someone who has. Poor souls who have never risked and won.
Trump won't fail. In fact he has already won.
Trump might only get 80% of what he wants to do, or 50% or just 10%. Any accomplishment will be more than the last administration, which pretty much spent its time deciding who got government largesse for supporting the Democrats progressive ideology, and weaponizing government against the citizenry in ways that would have had the militia out in Lexington in the late 1700s. So sure, hope he fails. He won't.
Groupthink got us into disastrous wars and created the Biden mess. "Disrupted information flows" gave us Vietnam, Iraq, the two current wars, inflation, and the illegal immigration mess. "Disrupted information flows" are how Biden got elected and how the governing elite maintain their power and enable their corruption.
In the 70s there was some talk about "adhocracy" -- people coming together to achieve specific goals and then getting on with their lives. That didn't happen. Once established, movements and advocacy groups find ever newer causes to fight for and perpetuate their existence. Part of the attractiveness of Trump's approach was that he wasn't trying to create a new Establishment or elite, but trying to loosen the hold of the one we already have.
Post a Comment