Much of Twitter believes it’s an obvious truth that Trump’s mental instability makes him unfit to govern.
Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters like his personality over his policies. The article is here:
beta.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/…
This isn’t changing . . .
Some believe a Trump dynasty will last generations.
Others wonder if the Trumps will be hauled to prison.
💠Charisma: Authority derives from force of personality; the leader evokes emotions and loyalty. Also known as a personality cult.
💠Rational/Legal: rule of law plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/…
If you prefer Charismatic Leader, Trump appears brave and bold, unafraid to act on his instinct, willing to sweep away any and all impediments.
Most of the GOP prefers Charismatic Leader because someone like Trump is better able to achieve their reactionary goals.
Underlying reactionism is “anger, fear, nostalgic hope, betrayal, and perceived injustice.”
Reactionaries look back longingly to the largely mythic "good old days."
In fact as well as myth, bygone America offered much liberty—for white men.
Before 1863, they could grab people and enslave them.
Before modern rape and sexual harassment laws, they could grab women. (See this the history of rape and sexual assault laws:
)
They could manipulate markets, fix prices, and launder money.
🎶Those were the days🎶
How do you think the Trump’s got rich?
They understand these regulations even the playing field and allow all people to to participate.
Reactionaries call it "socialism."
For more on reactionary politics, see:
Conservatives say they want “limited government.”
Trump wants no government—except Trump.
It’s a fine distinction.
You must dismantle.
You can dismantle slowly, or you can bring in a wrecking ball.
Wrecking balls (like Trump) are more efficient.
How do you "abolish" the CIA? Like this⤵️
nymag.com/intelligencer/…
A "charismatic leader" like Trump is a more efficient vehicle for reactionist politics than Rule of Law.
That's why the GOP doesn't mind the lawbreaking.
Deep state=intelligence and regulatory agencies (the things that interfere with their “personal liberty”).
“Being around Mr. Trump was intoxicating. When you were in his presence, you felt like you were involved in something greater than yourself — that you were somehow changing the world.”
politico.com/f/?id=00000169…
Mark Sanford chief objection is that Trump is driving up the debt.
nytimes.com/2019/09/09/opi…
If it's about Trump's policies, the Democrats will lose—meaning that the Democrats are on the wrong side of the issues. Get rid of Trump and the GOP is fine.
In fact, Trump comes from decades of GOP reactionist politics.
Trump took decades of subtext and made it text.
He's out-Foxing Fox.
It’s fun to see a former Trump supporter saying he’s narcissistic and unfit.
I wonder if Conway and pals—who supported Trump in 2016—would have changed their stripes if Trump wasn’t heading for electoral defeat.
I'll add a few comments
There's a tendency to overestimate Trump (“He has destroyed our democracy! All hope is gone!”) and underestimate him (“It should be clear to everyone that he's unfit.”)
#NC09 tells the truth. . .
The GOP's reactionary base is shrinking, but they remain a powerful force.
The Democratic Party owns the future (young, diverse).
Slavery, Jim Crow, and women as chattel happened under the law.
The question is enter people like Conway embrace rule of law because of principle or expediency.
To evaluate a person’s moral compass we have to know what laws they prefer, not just what form of authority.
I fixed a few errors, worked the comments into the text, and gave it a catchier title.