November 27, 2024: Our X/Twitter account (@threadreaderapp) got hacked and unrolls aren't working right now. We appreciate your patience until this is resolved.
I have known a handful of people in my life that I would characterize as truly strong & confident. The signal characteristic of such people is that they are at peace with themselves & thus direct their attention outward, at the world.
People who are insecure, self-loathing, or neurotic - who feel less like a coherent person than a jumble of person parts that don't fit together - spend a lot of time looking inward, preoccupied w/ what others think of them in part bc they're trying to figure themselves out.
I knew/dated this woman Cherise, back when I lived in Missoula, 1997ish. She had been kicked out of her house when she was 13, had a kid when she was 16 in juvie, got a job bagging groceries, scrabbled up from nothing w/ nobody's help.
If anyone had earned a right to have a chip on her shoulder, it was her. But she was just a force of nature, always drawing people out, *seeing* people, doing things for people, utterly engaged in the world. She attracted friends & moments & coincidences, everywhere she went.
Things would just happen, to her, for her, around her. She was the strongest & most confident person I ever knew & because of it she was able to fully live in the world. I was entranced & mystified & eventually felt totally inadequate, since I lived in my head 95% of the time.
Anyway, I feel like there used to be a version of masculinity in US culture built around this kind of strength. A man who is confident in himself & thus able to be a steady & reliable support for others, able to engage others with a generous spirit. A gentleman, I guess?
But the masculinity that seems to dominate today -- hamburgers, pickup trucks, guns, belligerence & dominance, constant desperate signaling -- is the opposite. These are people so desperate for affirmation that they can barely see the world at all.
It's weird that it needs saying, but strong people don't spend all their live-long days telling people how strong they are. They don't force themselves onto people, demanding acknowledgement of their strength. They don't measure their strength by who they can "own."
Here we come to Trump, of course, who is the opposite of Cherise. He lives 100% in his own head, in a tiny cave, seeing only a mirror, knowing the world only through how it makes him feel about himself, whether it feeds his bottomless need for affirmation & ego reinforcement.
Trump ceaselessly tries to tell everyone how strong he is. He demands tributes to his strength. He wards of his gnawing insecurity with acts of cruelty & dominance, which he mistakes for strength. Without continuous external reinforcement, his ego, his sense of self, crumbles.
He is, in every way, weak. The people all over US culture these days rolling coal & carrying assault rifles into grocery stores & cheering as protesters are beat & telling you that emojis are girly are signaling, in the clearest way possible, their fear & weakness.
The point of this thread, to summarize I guess, is that strong, confident, self-possessed people tend to be kind & care about other people. Assholes are assholes because they're weak & frightened. 😘 </fin>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is just one way that the entire system is set up to ensure 50/50 results. It's homeostatic -- if one side starts to do well, systems (journalism, polling, PAC money) move into action to balance it.
If you get a poll leaning in one direction, it prompts polls leaning in the other direction. If one side's rich people create a substantial spending advantage, the other side's rich people ratchet up their spending.
And above all: if there's a Puerto-Rico-joke PR disaster on one side, it prompts effusive "Biden gaffe" coverage on the other side.
This homeostasis is not the result of any grand conspiracy, it's just an outcome of politics infused with money & treated like a reality show.
I'm glad I don't have to write an endorsement piece, because I really wouldn't know how to go about it. Ever since 2015, when Trump descended the escalator, I have had the same feeling, which I've never quite seen articulated, so I will briefly try:
It's basically this: Trump is so obviously, manifestly repugnant -- his words, his gestures, his behavior, his history -- that it strikes me like a tsunami. It's a kind of total, perfect, seamless repugnance that I've never witnessed before in my life. Which means ...
... pointing out some particular piece of the repugnance & arguing against it feels ... surreal, I guess. "He has regularly sexually assaulted women, almost certainly raped a few, and ... I think that's bad."
Yeah. I mean, I think rape is bad. But here's the thing ...
Christ, reading anything about the rise of Hitler is so unsettling these days. The key thing is that there was nothing inevitable about it -- he rose to power thanks to a few thoughtless decisions by the small, feckless men around him. Sound familiar?
Goebbels, 1928: "The big joke on democracy is that it gives its mortal enemies the tools to its own destruction."
It's also chilling to read how many times the Nazis failed before they succeeded -- they were broke & unpopular in the early 1930s -- and how many times they were written off. Hitler dismissed all these press reports as a "witch hunt." Sound familiar?
Bezos is just doing what the entire US elite has done for years, what many many center-left pundits still do constantly: contemplate the results of a coordinated 60-year assault on media (& other mainstream institutions) from the right & conclude a) this is our fault, and ...
... b) if we cringe more, indulge in even more self-hatred, blunt accuracy even more in the name of "balance," bend over farther backward, we can reclaim the trust of people who have said, clearly, for decades now, that they want us dead & gone, not improved.
You see the heads of institution after institution -- social media, academia, etc. -- submit to this same shit. It's difficult to tell which of them are actually dumb enough to fall for it & which of them secretly agree with the RW, but either way the result is the same.
Thank you @Mike_Podhorzer for writing this so that I feel slightly less insane. The US is on the verge of real, bona fide, violent fascism of the sort we gawk at in history books and, to a first approximation, our civic leaders don't seem that worried. weekendreading.net/p/sleepwalking…
We are, in other words, sleepwalking our way into fascism *exactly the same way previous countries have sleepwalked their way into fascism*. Exactly. All the same beats, the same dynamics, the same rhetoric. We have learned NOTHING from history. It's just fucking amazing.
Nothing makes me want to simultaneously laugh & puke these days quite like the phrase "never again." Everyone says that in the wake of every fascist atrocity, with great solemnity, and yet we do it again. And again. We're doing it again right fucking now.
This quote from Trump captures the beating heart of reactionary authoritarianism better than anything I've ever seen: "I think it is a threat. I think everything is a threat. There is nothing that is not a threat."
That is not a conclusion drawn from evidence, it is ...
... reflective of deep psychological, even neurological, structures. For whatever reason -- genetics, early childhood development, whatever -- Trump has been left with hyperactive "sensitivity to threat," as they call it. Everything else issues from that.
High sensitivity to threat yields the classic authoritarian personality: averse to ambiguity or uncertainty; attracted to simplicity & clear lines between in groups & out groups; selfishness & an assumption that *everyone* is selfish & only threat of punishment maintains order.