I have had this convo with Trump supporters a hundred times over the past 4 years, and it always ends with confused cognitive dissonance, or just anger.
Makes them even more confused when I say I'm a conservative, but I just them to be *consistent* in what they say they want. /1
They'll say: "You used to agree with me," or "But you want what I want!" And I say: Sometimes. But I've changed my mind on the ACA: people depend on it and it's here to stay - just like Medicaid. It helps people like *you* and your family, right?
/2
Eventually, they'll concede that they are mostly getting what they want, and they mostly just want other people not to have what they have, and then they say: "Yeah, you make some good points, but... things have to change. You just don't get it."
And I say: Okay, explain it. /3
It's the same challenge I regularly issue to liberals: Tell me what exactly you want *done*, and what you're willing to sacrifice to get it. And the answers are remarkably the same: I want the things I want, and I don't want to think about costs or tradeoffs. /4
My point - insofar as I have one - is that rationality doesn't work, because at some level, the public isn't nearly as stupid as they pretend they are. WAY less informed than they should be, but more savvy than they let on. They know the *wrong* answers and how to avoid them. /5
The people who say "things should change" mean "I want entitlements for me but not for people who aren't me." They know why that's wrong. So they evade the conclusion and say "Well, agree to disagree" because the facts are already in the can and they know it. /6
It's important to keep making the argument against Trump, as I will soon in a piece. But I think it has to be a moral argument, not a policy argument. Talking about taxes or Medicaid gets you nowhere, because *they already know*.
We return to our regular programming now.
/7x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, this is a small story about #RhodeIsland politics, and my position about voting out the GOP down to the grass roots - and how local actions have consequences for national parties. /1
A few years back, some folks on here thought I was pretty hard-assed for voting against a local GOP candidate for RI House. She should have been my ideal pick: A PhD in poli sci (I knew her work back in the day. It was good stuff.) Pro-choice, pro-business. /2
But she was a Trump delegate to the GOP convention - even though she said she wrote in Carly Fiorina. (Whatever.) I told her directly that I believed in starving the GOP for support until it cleaned house on Trumpism. A year later, she runs for GOP state chair. /3
I think for anyone open to reason, @Timodc offers a fine list of reasons to come to their senses. But I am more pessimistic than he is: I don't believe the people who are now still leaning to Trump are accessible to reason.
There is only one appeal to make, imo. /1
It is the appeal to your own innate moral sense. To ask yourself if you really believe that everyone else - Biden?! - is so evil that you must support Donald Trump. To examine your own heart and to ask yourself if you really are the kind of person who believes such a thing. /2
Of course, if you are the kind of person capable of even this much introspection, you've probably already decided and you long ago realized that your own moral sense gave you the answer about why you cannot support Trump, even if you're reluctant to actively fight him. /3
Believe it or not, I don't disagree that strongly with @JayCaruso or @DavidAFrench about the right to vote for whomever you choose, or not vote at all. I just reject any notion that such an act can be divorced from its obvious consequences as some sort of higher principle. /1
If you are a person who says, and genuinely believes, that Joe Biden and Donald Trump are completely interchangeable or equivalently evil, well, okay. Don't pick either of them. I think these are morally obtuse positions, but okay, it's your right. /2
But to say "I do so because my vote must completely represent me and my values" is childish in a system *designed* to force you to aggregate your interests with others in a "close enough" solution. It's not just parties that do this; that's by constitutional design as well. /3
I haven't written up why I think so, but I am a dissenter on this.
Main reason: Cults of personality don't transfer well.
Also: The antics driven by Trump's emotional illnesses were crucial to his appeal to a base that demographically gets smaller every year.
/1
The GOP will get smaller and harder-edged and will move further right. They might still cobble together Electoral College wins (even now!) But "Trumpism" didn't mean anything but "Trump's TV show." You can't always just replace Darren with a new Darren. /2
And one more thing: Trump being a "kingmaker" means Trump accepting that he is not a king. His personality is not the type to step aside and start supporting someone younger and more accomplished. It's not how he's built. In fact...
/3
I get this question a lot, and will answer it as part of an additional comment about why I reproduce my craziest emails at all. The short answer is that - despite the current uproar - I do not want people harassing each other, I just want people to see the content. /1
The reason I want people to see the content is that I want Americans to see, up close, that this past four years has turned some of their fellow citizens nearly into lunatics, unable to grasp reality and filled with rage 24/7. This is the synergy of Fox, talk radio, and Trump. /2
I want people to see the kind of stuff that Trump's opponents get, and to ask themselves if this is really the America they love. This is McCarthyism - if McCarthy had been communicating at the level of a psychotic third grader or a rampaging talking ape. /3
Teaching national security affairs is part of a 10-month professional MA program for US officers of all military services, federal employees, and officers from about 70 countries. /2