Thread by @RichardBSpencer

Alright, this will be one of my least controversial, most "normie-friendly," "no-brainer" tweet storms of all time.

People love "government" when "government" means a simple, non-means-tested entitlement. Everyone loves social security and medicare. UBI is now popular, etc. On the other hand, many people hate complicated, unfair welfare programs, and most everyone is suspicious of foreign aid.

If government just created a $500 billion bill to send $2,000 to everyone over the age of 18, the whole country would be united at Christmas. It's that simple. (Rich people who don't need the cash could be guilt-tripped into donating it to charity or whatever.)

People love this kind of "government" but hate "Washington"—that is, politicians and lobbyists who use the pandemic as cover to send billions to Israel and Ukraine and promote feminism in Pakistan, and whatever else is going in that 5,000-page bill.

The politician or party who recognizes this reality is the one with a chance to transcend polarization. Trump has *always* understood this at a gut level. But he lacks the imagination or political will or ruthlessness to break through polarization, as opposed to leaning into it.

Trump's fundamental failure in 2017—which resulted in a kind of "fools mate"—was his embrace of the GOP and Paul's Ryan's speakership. They enacted some of the most unpopular policies imaginable: incoherent healthcare reform, tax cuts, etc.

The means of transcending polarization was to dump the GOP, which only recently accepted him and never really loved him. Trump should've focused on major infrastructure initiatives (including "The Wall") and national healthcare. The obvious partners were the Democrats.

Yes, this might seem off-the-wall, but it was Trump's means of transcending polarization by combining his base with Democrats, who are actually interested in national policy. Instead, he embraced "conservatism," so-called "populism," and other platforms that have minority appeal.