On the one hand, it is astounding that Trump can be so openly corrupt and incompetent - his life an open wallow of narcissism, cruelty, unearned privilege. And yet, in a time of death and crisis, his numbers are barely underwater. 1/
On the other hand, he seems sui generis. Other bad men have tried to catch Trump lightning in a bottle, by proxy, having seen him get away with it. But they have not had notable success. Tempting to say Führerprinzip dictates there can be but one. But I don't think that's it. 2/
I think Trump's saving grace, with his base, is he remains an anti-politician. Washington hasn't changed him. He refuses to do his job. He hasn't pivoted from reality tv to reality. That's authenticity - in a crazy way. 3/
I would like to believe this is true, insofar as it means no R politician can be the 'next Trump'. To be Trump - and retain his appeal - you have to be indifferent to politics, to the hard work of governing. 4/
There isn't anything do-able and radical his base is quite sure they want him to bring about, permanently. So they don't really mind mostly just messing about, making chaos. 5/
Trump's base wants someone who will dip his toe in the sewer - kind of swish it around. But not, like, dive in. Liking Trump is like enjoying watching porn of something you maybe wouldn't do. Even if you could. Not really. But you do like to watch. 6/
There's a thing I've been trying to write for some time about J.S. Mill, Irish famine/land politics and the origins of the word 'dystopia'. Mill coined 'dys-topia' to characterize Tory policy towards Ireland. He joked bitterly that he was always accused of being a Utopian. 7/
A Utopian is someone whose plans are too good to work. By contrast, a Dystopian would be someone whose plans are too bad to work. But Mill doesn't mean, by that, our sense of 'dystopia' - that is, the good-gone-bad. 8/
His point is more like: your plan might 'work' if you were truly bad enough people to see it through. But you aren't prepared to go utterly over to the dark side, like that, so you'll end up compromising with the good, in some half-assed way. 9/
I'm not going to get into the land politics. My impression is Mill was right. The Tories, beholden to absentee landowners, could not shake cloudy visions that needed millions of Irish - even on top of the millions already dead or emigrated - conveniently to evaporate. 10/
The Tories tried to paper over that with virtue talk of 'teaching important lessons about providence.' But, at the end of the day, your plan pushes the masses off the land, for profit, or it doesn't. If it does - then what's the plan? 11/
If you aren't prepared openly to commit genocide, a plan like that is doomed from the start. Mill took it for granted a modern state wasn't down for seeing it through. Sure, Russians can commit pogroms. But we're British. (Oh, innocence of 19th Century liberals!) 12/
US R's are in a similar bind, demographically. Not willing to cede power, nor to compromise. Being a white, ethno-nationalist party is, in the long run, a demographic loser. Unless the US transitions from its current political order to something semi-apartheid-like. 13/
R's are committed to this - but only around procedural margins. Pack the courts, gerrymander, vote suppression. But at some point something's got to give. Either the R's change, or the R's lose, or the system shifts to roll back democracy. 14/
Trump's appeal corresponds to the psychic holding pattern his base is in, sensing the dystopian trilemma, unsure which way it wants to go. Trump performs - yet does not enact - taboo, authoritarian possibilities the base is, as yet, only tempted by. Not ready to commit to. 15/
Covid-19 is a case in point. Any authoritarian worth his salt would see an opportunity. Trump sees it as an opportunity to engage in some of the usual grift. But, beyond that, even now there isn't much he wants to do. He mostly wants to pretend to do more than he wants to do. 16/
And a shockingly high proportion of the country seems fine with that. 17/
