Trump achieved escape velocity from the gravity of American political norms. He did it by 'not being a politician'. "Bullworth" meets "Bob Roberts" meets "Dave" meets "Being There". Even after 4 years he knows almost nothing about doing his job, and he cares even less. 1/
If 10% - or 99% - more normal meant becoming a 'normal politician', that would just cause his orbit to decay. He would suffer reentry to liability for thousands (!!) of things he's done, which no other politician could get away with. So, no, that wouldn't work. 2/
Trump is, to sensible folks, a symbol of noxious privilege, corruption and betrayal of American ideals. To his base, however, he is 'the fool triumphant' (to use a screenwriting story term. Screencap from "Save The Cat".) So: less foolishness would uncut base appeal. 3/
In narrative terms Trump in fact embodies a twist on the familiar Fool Triumphant (FT) tale. (It isn't totally new. It's in Melville's "The Confidence Man". But that won't fit on Twitter.) The twist is: what if you had a Bullworth-Dave-Being-There guy? 4/
AND he fools upstairs all the way to the White House (so far, so classic FT.) BUT it turns out he's a con man, not an authentic Simple Soul. (At this point Trump's base loses the thread of the film totally. But we'll keep watching.) 5/
But the twist-on-the-twist is: at this point the Wicked Grand Vizier (McConnell) thinks he can work with this. For his purposes, a guy who can pull off the long con of pretending to be the FT is perfect. That guy works the rubes up front, while the Vizier machinates backstage. 6/
But the problem is that Trump is that most complicatedly simple and American thing of all: an authentic Bad Fool Triumphant (BFT) hidden inside a fake Good Fool Triumphant (GFT). (Again, see Herman Melville's "The Confidence Man", passim, for exemplary prior art.) 7/
The plot of the regular vanilla GFT tale is that it's the Simple Soul's unalloyed quality of Goodness that somehow allows him to prevail. His weakness is his strength insofar as omnicluelessness conveys de facto immunity against corrupting complexity all around. 8/
Normal people get, by proxy contact with the GFT, some saving grace sense of what it would be to embrace Simple Goodness, thereby slipping Puzzle Palace complexity of their quotidian, morally-fraught roles. Hence evergreen narrative appeal of GFT-goes-to-the-White-House. 9/
Those who are touched by the GFT are mostly good already - but too complexified in that for their own good. The GFT naively displays how to straighten the lines. That's the fantasy. (Cf. William Empson on mock-pastoral. The GFT is in fact a sub-genre of literary pastoral.)
Trump is no political GFT, nor however is he the shrewd operator you would expect, ceteris paribus, if you peel a fake, political GFT - i.e. someone who deliberately masks as a GFT, in hopes of hereby 'stumbling' into exclusive access to all the levers of real political power. 9/
Trump, having conned his way into the White House, under cover of appearing to be a GFT, does not simply unmask, backstage, as garden variety shrewd political operator. Because his con is itself another false front - a mask-behind-the-mask. He IS a Simple Soul, but a Bad one. 10/
He's just a child in the sense that he's narcissistic and appetitive, ego and impulse-driven. Rather than being innately attuned to a simpler, purer Good than politics usually admits, he is innately attuned to a simpler, purer Bad than politics usually admits. 11/
Having fallen up into the White House, by dint of being an idiot, Trump proceeds to fall up through the GOP, which has long been a force for Bad - but complexly so. Just as the GFT in the White House traditionally teaches good people that there are simpler ways to be good. 12/
So the BFT in the GOP, Trump, teaches traditionally bad people that there are simpler ways to be bad. This complicates Mitch McConnell's life, because he wants to be bad in a more complicated way. He craves working those levers of power expertly, not like an idiot. 13/
It's not as simple as I make it seem! Trump isn't just the Fool Triumphant, to his base. He's also, by turns, "Dude With A Problem" (Flight 93 essay) and "Institutionalized" (the Deep State). Most politicians, because they are 'normal', can't maintain pure narrative appeal. 14/
Trump, by never caring about actual politics, has never ceased to appeal to his base at the level of Simple Story. But I've said enough. 15/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yep. That's the argument. And the counterargument from @billscher. Let's game it out. R's want to maintain the fiction that their 6-3 partisan lock is just for extra safe 'balls and strikes' purposes. This allows them to do a lot without getting R fingerprints on it. 1/
Suppose D's expand the court to 12. I think 12 is a really good number because it doesn't seek partisan dominance. It seeks partisan parity. It suggests a reasonable settlement. 'Split it in half' is good solution to many intractable problems. Why not this one? 2/
It also implies an attractive norm, going forward. No partisan issue is going to get settled without some bipartisanship on the court. If you have 7-5 decisions in favor of some partisan thing, you can be sure it's not just 'activism' - i.e. not another Bush v. Gore or Shelby. 3/
Worth distinguishing a couple of lines. 1) D's are screwed if we don't expand the SC and add a couple states, like, now. 2) D's shouldn't try to expand the SC/add states if they win. 3) R's haven't been trying to undermine democracy, it's just politics, which ain't beanbag. 2/
Drum argues against 1, but also for 3, and I'm not sure where he stands on 2. I am agnostic about 1) but the fact that I'm far from sure 1) is false means I believe 2); and 3) is obviously false. (That things have been worse in the past is true, but doesn't change matters.) 3/
I'm on the fence about this. Part of me thinks Tabarrok is exactly right. If the US had a 'normal' center-right party, it would dominate. But Matt's counterpoint is compelling as well. The ingredients needed for a winning right-wing coalition are volatile. 1/
There is an irony in this. Politically, 'conservatism' is hard to stabilize. I'm only sure of this much: it won't be easy for Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton to step into Trump's shoes and build up a 'proper' authoritarian, minoritarian ethno-statist party, American-style. 2/
You need charisma plus will-to-power plus organizational skill and dedication to the cause. Trump has the rarest bit of that, not all of it. Cotton & Hawley lack the Trump lightning-in-a-bottle charisma. But it IS possible to imagine a right-wing demagogue pulling it together. 3/
This is good. There ought to be a word for this genre. It's non-argumentative but non-hortatory; confessional merely by way of efficient summation. It's a form excluded by academic conventions, yet highly complementary to it, by design. 1/
I've thought about writing something of the sort myself, tricky though it is just to say what one thinks (not eve why). Were every philosopher to write something of the sort, on every major topic, it would be of considerable, navigational assistance, in staging our arguments. 2/
On the subject of Great Books programs, I went to the University of Chicago back in the Allan Bloom days, and the funny thing was: there are too many anthropologists around that place. I was supposed to be set to reading Thucydides, Smith, the Federalist Papers and Plato. 3/
It's too bad Buster Keaton never made a film about time travel. It would have been good.
Maybe we could make a movie about someone traveling back in time, trying to get Buster Keaton to make an early time travel movie.
I thought about this because "The General" is sort of like a time-travel movie, insofar as people are stuck on this track, chasing along. Obviously that's sort of thin. But, more generally, there is a laterally (left-right) fixed quality to a lot of Buster's physical comedy.
I would like a better theory of the psychic appeal of Qanon and, in general, right-wing nuttery. I suspect - but this is admittedly off-the-cuff analysis - it is guilt and resentment rooted in the following manner. 1/
American pop culture seems 'liberal'. That is, the media is liberal. That is, with the exception of "Sweet Home Alabama", the left has the good, political songs. And TV and movies are 'liberal', too. We'll see about "Hillbilly Elegy" but it ain't no "Birth of a Nation". 2/
That is, we don't get major, right-tilted media products that express - forthrightly - the view that American is going to hell in a hand-basket because sexually loose black people are taking over, due to communists like Martin Luther King, Jr. 3/