1) Use cultural issues to rile up voters to hate Dems 2) Use that hate to fight Dems tooth and nail on economic issues, fight wars 3) Roll over and die on cultural issues
Talk radio and Fox News hosts have same incentives as politicians. If they go too hard on cultural issues, they'll be cancelled. They compensate by being "really tough" on Obamacare or Hunter's emails, profiting off of hate but not getting at what motivates the movement.
Trumpism was seen as a rebellion against the GOP, in reality it was the perfection of the con. He's getting his followers riled up about debate moderators and Leslie Stahl, none of them are even noticing Republicans are refusing to pass a stimulus bill or govern much at all.
Basically, they just cut out the middle man and made the talk show host president.
This all could be defensible if it was used to implement a free market agenda, which I'm broadly sympathetic to. And it does to a (very) limited extent, but the con is mostly driven by a need to sell more mattresses and pillows.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few thoughts on Borat. The main target of the movie is clearly Trump supporters, but I feel bad that Kazakhstan gets caught in the crosshairs. Based on his stereotype, you can see Cohen wants to critique Russians, Germans, and Arabs for historical reasons. 1/n
He picks on Kazakhstan as some kind of amalgamation of all three, despite it being a pretty successful country over the last two decades. This is likely because of its lack of influence, and because most Americans know nothing about it, letting him create any image he wants. 2/n
In the beginning, he tells us Kazakhstan celebrates the Holocaust. This is a completely invented slander. I know it's a movie, and these are jokes, but it's a joke with no historical basis at all and just takes advantage of the ignorance of the viewer. 3/n
I’ve been wondering why Trump doesn’t push for stimulus. Another question: given Trump ran on cutting immigration, why does he never mention he’s done it?
Seems personal resentments, over the media, Hillary, etc now occupy so much brain space there’s no room for anything else
It’s not on Hannity or something Leslie Stahl asked him about, so he probably doesn’t even know.
Personal resentments were always part of the package, but he’s gone down a rabbit hole to the extent that now they completely consume him. Why did this happen? I think two reasons
I've seen people compare the American gerontocracy to the Soviet Union in its last decades. What an insult to Brezhnev & co., they never humiliated their country to this extent. theguardian.com/film/2020/oct/…
The girl is given to Giuliani as a replacement present for a monkey.
In 20 years, from being promoted as "America's mayor" to defended as "un-fooled and placid."
I have a new paper in @SurvivalEditors on the US intervention in Syria, and why it made the human rights situation worse. This thread explains how American involvement exacerbated and prolonged human suffering. 1/n tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
There's a story interventionists tell. They say the US got involved in Iraq and Libya, and the situation turned out bad. But the US "did nothing" in Syria, therefore inaction can have costs too. 2/n
This is a rewriting of history to cover up a terrible record. The US sanctioned the Syrian regime, tried to destroy its economy, and put $1.5 billion into arming and training rebels. In no way is this "doing nothing," even if it's less than what regime change advocates wanted 3/n
This thing is still banned. And although I should be angry at the censorship, I can't stop laughing at the thought of the Gabbard-Crenshaw "No war and also forever war" ticket as the way to unite the country and scare the elites, with which one we get determined by coin flip.
"Heads, 3 more wars. Tails, 2 fewer. The people have finally taken their democracy back."
I'm starting to think that basing your entire politics on who agrees to go on Joe Rogan doesn't really lead to a coherent program.