Re your question "what exactly are they fighting about?", I would point to two factors:
1. Information polarization. I have been phone banking for Harris for awhile now, and earlier on we were calling voters whose allegiances we didn't know yet, and got a bunch of Trump supporters. One of those said to me, in all seriousness, that Trump was "an honest man and a Christian man". She clearly had some information environment that caused her to believe that, and it's mysterious to most of us in the reality-based community how a functional adult could be in such an environment. This may be an outlier example, but when it comes to basic empirical questions like "what happened on January 6th, 2021" there are clearly deep disagreements over facts, not just values.
2. Character polarization. Trump is such an obviously and extraordinarily hideous person that to the blueish half of the country, it is clear that no decent, civilized voter could possibly support him. Yet here's the reddish half of the country supporting him anyway! It is enough to make you lose trust in the moral character, mental capacity, and, well, general trustworthiness of your fellow citizens, in a way that no policy dispute would be. Living in a country where half of the people have shown themselves to be capable of supporting such a person is scary, and that fear drives the anger at places like Rossmoor-- as, no doubt, does the resentment of the reddish folks at being considered morally and/or mentally defective for their choice of presidential candidate.
And the sad thing is that there is no result of this election which will make that mutual resentment and fear go away. We are like spouses who have battered each other physically and psychologically, can see no path to reconciliation given what we have suffered and what we've learned about each other, and can't get a divorce. Have a nice day, as Arnold Kling would say.
Nicolas, Good comment. Here's one way to think about it. Much of the country lives in a fact-free world (a good number in each party). They live in a world of free floating opinions. Then a politician comes along that:
1. Lies about factual issues almost every day.
2. Says what some regard as "uncomfortable truths" that "they" don't want you to hear.
Half the country will think this is the most dishonest politician ever (my view), and the other half will think he's the most honest politician.
I must say that I am amused by Trump supporters. When you point out his flaws, they say "all politicians are like that". When you ask why they like him so much, they say "He's totally unlike other politicians."
Well said if you read it agnosticly, i.e. you could flip the names and it still be true from the red side looking at the blues. The thing though that I think blues miss here is blues are voting against Trump whereas the red vote is a big tent of people voting for Trump or against blues as an entire concept. Nobody could care less on either side about Harris or the GOP. Reds understand the GOP has abandoned them since '04 hence it's all about Trump while blues understand all the elites regardless of party are blue (or crypto-blue) hence it's all about Trump.
That said one specific thing I want to comment on is "true belief that Trump was 'an honest man and a Christian man,'". I think what you missing is relativity (i.e. compared to Harris) and signaling. Sure that person lives in an information bubble, most do on both sides, but Trump signals the right thing. John Oliver recently had an episode about the guy who sang "I'm proud to be an American" where not only does he (Oliver,) mock America, but goes on this rant about Trump and the Bible. And sure that goes over well with his target audience and sure much of his critique is valid but the thing is for that critique to happen you have to have the real material of Trump WITH a Bible, Trump TALKING about the Bible, etc. Your aforementioned person in their information bubble will see bits of that Oliver segment filtered through their media sources where it will confirm both Trump's Christianity (him with a Bible) and the blues hate of Trump and Christianity.
Likewise Trump's willingness to speak provincialy (yes not the right word) perceived truth to power makes him come off as honest and the blues rabid lawfare against him plays into the US underdog narrative which likewise makes him look honest. His actually honestly is irrelevant.
Whereas Harris wouldn't have been caught dead before her recent campaign wearing American flag yoga pants to a non-black church picnic while telling people they need to find Jesus even though none of that is a red/blue matter. It doesn't really matter if Trump is a good Christian or actually honest, what matters here is Trump signals those things and has long before the recent campaign. You don't see Harris on WWE nor for that matter, anything as her whole life up until recently was working on her back for powerful married men at night while spending everyday trying to put every other man in prison out of spite all while avoiding things reds like like the plague such as having children, having a family, being pleasant as a person, overt displays of patriotism and religion, or eating fast food.
So this is a very long post with a lot of things to respond to, but I think the bit at the end where you impugn Harris's character best illustrates the divide I am talking about here.
Harris made a choice not to have biological kids of her own, and is by all accounts a loving stepmother and wife. Forty years ago she dated Willie Brown for what may or may not have been partly transactional reasons. That is, as far as I can tell, a neutral account of the facts.
Donald Trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star, then paid her $150k in hush money to cover it up, then illegally falsified the record of the hush money. Also, he sexually assaulted at least one woman, was found liable for doing so by a jury, and has boasted on tape of groping many others. Again, I think that is a neutral recitation of facts.
The fact that reddish folks like you judge Harris for her pattern of relational conduct more harshly than they judge Trump for his is exactly why blueish folks like me are angry and scared. Because to us, it is pretty obvious that anyone who thinks Harris is worse than Trump on the "family values" dimension has a deeply messed up moral compass and is a product of a brutally misogynist and backward culture. And to know that so many of our fellow citizens still think like that in 2024 is depressing and scary.
If the Dems returned to being the party of JFK, they would win by huge margins. But they have become the party of Mao/Stalin/Hitler/Putin/Hussien/Pot. They want complete control over everything you think, say, and do and are willing to do anything to silence political opposition.
Anyone currently in the federal government, elected or not, dislikes Trump because he is a threat to their power and money. It is as simple as that.
It seems logical that if either party ran a centrist candidate on a centrist platform, they would crush their opposition. So why don't they? Primaries are partly to blame, but candidates used to pivot toward the center after the convention and that is no longer happening. I suspect that conventional wisdom is wrong here and that the professional have concluded that it is more important to whip the base into a frenzy than it is to reach out to moderates. That seems crazy, but to imagine otherwise is to imagine that the campaigns are run by foolish ideologues rather than smart professionals, and I find that very unlikely.
According to Pew Research, using a neutral measure of left-right bias, has shown that the conservatives in Congress have grown more conservative at about three times the rate that the liberals in Congress have grown more liberal. On average.
A centrist is now therefore about 7% conservative, whereas a centrist in Reagan's era would have been about 2% liberal.
Extreme candidates win primaries mostly because each side’s base far prefers those candidates over moderates. And surely because candidates care most about winning the primary and so have continued to run towards their parties extremes rather than their center in order to secure the nomination, given the realities of their primary voters.
After all, it is beyond indisputable that the parties are massively more different from each other on policy now than they were in the 1990s.
In the general election, partly but not entirely because the candidates are more extreme and less centrist than they used to be, each party has found that base turnout is now more important than winning over undecideds in the middle.
Neither point is crazy, even if some of us might wish things were different.
Meanwhile people like Freddie deBoer are insisting that the Democrats are center-right. The reality is, people on the far-left and far-right have an incentive to miscategorize the Democratic party and do so in opposite ways as it suits their own wacky worldview. And yours sounds pretty wacky, judging by the unhinged hyperbole.
Meanwhile people like Freddie deBoer are insisting that the Democrats are center-right."
I find this argument to be tiresome. The Dems are center right by European standards, center right by deBoer's standards, and center left by American standards. There's really nothing to argue about, except arguing for the sake of arguing.
Their policies on several issues, especially immigration and abortion, are quite extreme by European standards. They are only center-right on taxes/spending, which is obviously not what people care about or are voting based on.
Given SS’ heavy reliance on Trump’s rhetoric as justification for his stance, I find the claim that the Dems are today center-left by American standards highly amusing.
You can *somewhat* reasonably claim that their policies as implemented by the reailities of a divided government are center-left, but surely their rhetoric is by American standards no longer close to center-left but instead has gone full left.
The Dem Party of Bill Clinton is no longer anywhere to be seen.
If it were, then SS’ case would be rock-solid.
But if it were, Trump would be losing by 15 points. And never would have won in 2016 or been nominated this time around.
I agree very much with your general tone. The last president I actually voted FOR was Reagan. Since then I have been deciding who to vote against. I largely split my votes at the lower levels as both parties have major flaws so maybe a stalemate is better. I have met and talked with our Congressional candidates, some of our Senators and several state level officeholders. I have used those interactions to actively vote for or against specific candidates.
However, I would strongly disagree with you about Trump supporters turning against him if he does something they dislike. It has truly become a cult of personality so the rules are different. Conservatives/Republicans used to talk about family values support (sort of) free trade, oppose authoritarian leaders around the world instead of idolizing them, used to support active duty and former military. It was actually believable that men like Romney or Bush were men of faith. Trump flipped all of that and more. The party no longer has much in the way of principles other than following Trump. Trump cant fail, he can only be failed.
As a Christian and a veteran all of this bothers me maybe more than it should, but I think character matters in leadership.
"oppose authoritarian leaders around the world instead of idolizing them"
Only communist ones, they supported anti-Communist authoritarian leaders against democratically elected leaders who were willing to talk with Russia. Here's a video I'm almost done watching. She starts out talking about this in general terms about 2 minutes previously, but I link to the time stamp where she gives a specific example in detail: https://youtu.be/jvuDuhB5gxU?t=1261
After three years of Trump's first term as president the results were pretty good. The Pandemic Lockdowns became the one crisis Trump could not overcome. That the other crisis were primarily manufactured by Trump's political enemies informs me that Trump is far less radical and more centrist than he is portrayed. That Trump gets zero credit from his enemies for imposing the policies his enemies supported does not get enough notice. That those polices did not work as advertised also does not get noticed.
Harris has been Vice President of the Biden administration for almost four years and the results are mixed. If you are in the upper half of the wealth spectrum, the Biden administration has been good or very good for you. Asset price inflation has lifted all boats. However, inflation has been a storm that has made income dependent Americans poorer. On matters of foreign policy the Biden administration gets a failing grade.
Reason to not vote for Trump is he is unprincipled and consumed by his ego, to the detriment of others. Reason to not vote for Harris is she is a know-nothing, incurious, rubber stamp for her party's ideology. This ideology includes radical elements of which Harris seems to fully support.
Personally, I want a country where the government follows the law and the law makes sense. As neither Trump or Harris seem interested in supporting the rule of law what remains is the question of which election result best leads to that outcome. I am unsure either result does. Neither political party seems interested in the rule of law and common sense. Neither seems interested in promoting liberty and the pursuit of happiness and constraining the cost and control of government.
Recall that in 2010 the voters responded to Obama's election with the "Tea Party" GOP landslide. And while the Republican leadership was then successful in limiting growth in spending, the "Tea Party" did not last. And by the time Trump was elected, fiscal conservatism was once again dead and by the time Trump left office, American government was in full spendthrift mode - which created the inflation which may prove to be the thing that proves decisive in putting Trump over Harris when the votes are tallied.
"After three years of Trump's first term as president the results were pretty good."
There are two plausible views:
1. The president is responsible for the state of the country.
2. The president is not responsible for the state of the countries.
I've honestly never understood the claim that Trump is responsible for the Obama expansion lasting another three years, but not responsible for soaring unemployment and soaring crime in 2020. (BTW, I don't think he is responsible for those things.)
I also don't understand supporters citing his first term, when Trump himself has rejected his first term approach and promised to govern in a radically different way during his second term. Are you assuming he's lying?
I also don't accept that he did well in his first term. His policy choices were very bad, and will hurt the country in the long run.
Why is there not a 3rd possibility, that is in fact most likely of all: the president is somewhat responsible for the state of the country?
Policy matters at least *somewhat* - as we know you agree. The mere cessation of some of the worst Obama policies surely helped, did it not?
Re: citing his first term while protesting that his words now reject his first term:
a) it’s an election; politicians say things to improve their chances of being elected.
b) when did you abandon the position that actions speak louder than words?
c) in the 2016 election cycle, did not Trump also talk populist but then govern mostly conservatively?
d) by extension, do you believe Kamala and the Democrats are now staunchly against illegal immigration and pro-fracking merely because she’s mouthed these words?
e) are you not familiar with the now famous articulation: “People who like Trump taking him seriously but not literally. People who hate Trump take him literally but not seriously”?
I’m not saying any of my arguments here are definitive, but surely you can acknowledge that your position ridiculing people for pointing to his record rather than his rhetoric is not rock solid.
The problem is not that people point to his record, it's that they do so in a very inconsistent and unconvincing way. Things didn't go well during the Trump administration. I agree that this was not his fault, but then why claim things went well, when they didn't?
If you cite policies, not outcomes, then how is Trump not to blame for the high inflation of 2021-22, given that he supported all of the policies that produced that inflation, including appointing Powell to the Fed? My complaint is that his supporters want to have it both ways. Talk about policies, or talk about outcomes, but be consistent.
Trump had bad policies (including the most reckless fiscal policy in US history) and bad outcomes, including the slowest growth since Hoover. Cherry-picking a few minor deregulatory moves doesn't change those facts.
“ If you cite policies, not outcomes, then how is Trump not to blame for the high inflation of 2021-22, given that he supported all of the policies that produced that inflation, including appointing Powell to the Fed? ”
If your point is that Trump is *partly* responsible for the high inflation under Biden, I would accept that. But since ALL we are doing is comparisons here, it surely is the case that the Biden-Harris Administration - including of course Yellen - is MORE responsible for said inflation than Trump, no?
“Trump had bad policies (including the most reckless fiscal policy in US history) and bad outcomes, including the slowest growth since Hoover.”
I agree that Trump’s fiscal policy re: spending was reckless. IMO it was equally as reckless as Obama’s 2nd term, but perhaps reasonable people can disagree on that point.
However, are you really claiming that the Harris-Biden fiscal policy was LESS reckless than Trump’s? I find that incredibly hard to swallow, doubly so when economic growth policies clearly factor directly into fiscal policy.
And re: the slowest growth since Hoover, who is the one doing cherry-picking now? You only get there by including the COVID numbers. Most reasonable folks - and here that also includes the American people, FWIW - understand that they don’t hold 2020 nor 2021 economic results against the sitting president. Leaving out the 2020 GDP numbers is hardly “cherry-picking”.
I also find it fascinating and incomprehensible that you are effectively claiming that the Trump *business* tax cuts didn’t matter (or were somehow bad policy).
Sumner, do you think Japan is only 62% as rich as the US (with Russia at 55%)? That's what the World Bank says.
I reluctantly will likely vote for Trump/Rogers; I expect Vance to be better at policymaking than Pence (remember, Trump in 2016 supposedly offered Kasich control of both foreign and domestic policy).
I support an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, including China putting pressure on Russia to halt advances.
In terms of reducing political polarization, I think Germany has a much better system than the US.
Great post--thanks Scott. You reach the same conclusion as Andrew Sullivan (and me): think more about 2028 than right now if you want to have any chance of being able to vote in the future for someone who remotely represents your views, and suppress your gag reflex while voting for Harris.
I'm commenting against my better judgment, mainly as a way of not having to think of something intelligent to say about your Melville/Dylan post, which in all respects was much more interesting than anything in current American politics.
-I think a DeSantis or Haley would be doing worse against Harris. Many Trumpers are genuinely excited by Trump and wouldn't bother to care about that stumpy toad from Florida or a shrill harpy from South Carolina. Same goes for Vance in 2028 or 2032. Trump's charisma is a one-off phenomenon, and his ability to lie so effectively makes him immune from having to take any consistent policy positions. His cultists gulp down any batch of Kool-Aid his whips up.
-There's part of me that wants Trump to win on Tuesday so that we can have a chance to purge his rot from our system. He seems to derive more cultural power from losing from winning---whether it's in business or politics. If he loses he'll immediately start his 2028 campaign. If he's president we'll have two disastrous years and then a hopefully a thumping by Democrats in the midterms.
-The most lasting political victory in the U.S. is the power given to former slave states. That it elevated someone like Trump and Vance is ironic, but inevitable.
Maybe, but why do polls consistently show other Republican doing far better in match-ups? And why is this race close, while almost all other incumbent Covid-era parties in developed countries are doing horribly? You forget that Trump motivates in both directions.
So on the one hand I do of course agree with your take on Haley or DeSantis would be doing much better. For purposes of winning in 2024, I was a strong DeSantis backer. And had Trump not run this cycle inthe first place, I have zero doubt whatsoever that we are correct.
But the one bit of evidence that argues somewhat strongly against is that the GOP Senate candidates in swing states AZ, WI, MI, PA plus OH are all running behind Trump in the polls.
In AZ, you could make the case that voters dislike the Trump-tied Lake, but I don’t think you can credibly make that argument for the other 4 races.
The weakness is in the national Democratic party. That party is still quite competitive at the local level. And it's still true that Trumpian congressional candidates do worse than mainstream GOP candidates.
I don’t follow how this addresses the idea that betting markets currently showing that the Dem Senate candidates in each of those 5 states having a *much* better predicted odds of winning than Kamala does of winning their respective states against Trump is evidence opposite the claim that another GOP presidential candidate would be doing better.
Is your point that Kamala is relatively *that* much more spectacularly worse than another Dem presidential candidate than Trump is compared to another GOP presidential candidate? That’s plausible, of course, but not an argument I heard you make.
If Trump is a Clinton Democrat, where is Clinton's budget Surplus? :)
Personally, I'm for a strong government perusing Progressive ends, but have a very different conception from other progressives of what "progressive." is. I think it means
Strong rapid growth
Lots of merit-based immigration
Less restrictions of imports (except strategic stuff from China), free trade with everybody else.
Smaller deficits, deficits = Σ(expenditures with NPV>0)
Consumption VAT to fully finance social insurance instead of the wage tax
Progressive consumption tax (business income imputed to owners)
Taxation of net emissions of CO2 instead of other subsidies to that end.
Cleaning up of mis regulation (not guided by cost-benefit analysis):
Jones Act
Sugar quota,
Farm subsidies including ethanol,
EPA, NRC, CDC, FDA TSA, FAA
Western water pricing
Urban land use and building codes
Congestion/use pricing of roads and streets
Subsidized hazard insurance
FAIT (or possibly FNGDPLT) management of monetary policy
With more social insurance
Child allowance
More generous unemployment benefit
Wage subsidy EITC instead of minimum wages
Universal (~ACA+) health insurance instead of employment, age, and income related coverage
Continued increase in the "retirement" (outmoded concept) age.
I’m, frankly, not surprised to hear the Rossmoorians are brawling on the pickleball courts. A friend, whose mother lives in Rossmoor, and I tried playing there a couple of times but gave up due to the aggressive shushing we’d get for simply chatting on changeovers. By the end, I was starting to think about whacking a few of them with my racquet.
My precious vote—in the swing state of Wisconsin, as it happens—has already been cast for Chase Oliver; I want to give the left-libertarians a bit of encouragement (much needed). Even if Trump wins Wisconsin by *one* vote, and this provides him the margin of victory overall, I won’t feel very bad: who knows how bad that would be in the long run, compared to the Harris alternative? Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation; I hope he was right.
I think it's very bad to legitimize politicians sending armed supporters after their opponents. Far worse than mere lone assassins trying to take out politicians.
I hereby grant Dr. Sumner a second PhD in Political Science for a well written column that pretty much encapsulates my thinking as well (I only have an undergrad minor in the subject). The mainstream Republican Senators made a crucial mistake in 2021 by not voting for Impeachment following January 6. Senator McConnell thought that the courts would take care of things (WRONG because of an inept Atlanta DA and a feckless head of the DOJ) and Trumpism would disappear. Trump's decision not to enter the Republican Presidential debates (wow, does that ever seem a long time ago) was masterful as his senility would have likely been exposed and voters would have moved on to DeSantis or Haley.
Nate Silver and Maria Konnikova had good insights on their podcast this past week, discussing what the worst decisions by each party were. Of course they mentioned the above failure of the Senate as I noted above. They also highlighted Old Joe's decision to run for a second term when everyone other than his own inner circle knew he was too old. While Harris has run an exemplary campaign given the short time period (and it's a shame there was not a second debate but that was Biden's fault as well as he only agreed to two of them), I would have preferred a broader choice that would have been available with Biden's announcement in 2023 that he would not run again.
I often go back an re-read Thomas Frank's nice book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" that highlights the weird part of American politics, namely why do people vote against their own self-interest? Buyer's remorse has always been a part of our political life and the large number of non-college educated men who vote for a doddering orange head who won't do anything to make their lives better is truly baffling. If this election swings Harris's way based on a huge turn out or women voters it will be quite amazing (the Julia Roberts voice over commercial for Harris is well worth watching in this
regard). If it swings Trump's way, we are likely going to see the great Aristophanes play, 'Lysistrata,' come to life in a modern update (Spike Lee's version, 'Chi-Raq' was quite good but too narrow). Good luck to all these young Trump men on getting a date much less a wife as "did you vote for Trump" will be the new requirement (though I do confess to really liking Barry Levinson's Baltimore Colts quiz for the aspiring fiancée in "Diner").
I'll only conclude by noting I don't believe Trump lasts out the full term. Whether it is senility or boredom, he will be gone within 18-24 months, and we will then have the Opus Dei Prez which should delight all the Catholics on the Supreme Court. Maybe they can find a way to undercut the First Amendment.
I concur that Sumner has insightful, relevant political insights. I disagree with your support for impeachment. That impeachment and the J6 committee as a whole was a political show trial. It was a demonstration of how partisanship corrupts government and makes government unable to serve the needs and interests of the citizens.
The events of J6 and what preceded it should have been investigated and publicly disclosed. Not selectively. Not slanted and distorted and filtered to prove Trump evil. Not started with the conclusion already written.
The 2021 impeachment and J6 committee did not intend to produce a true rendering of the 2020 election and riot. No, it was a political stunt. And here we are, 4 years later, having another election where already both parties are preparing to go to battle to dispute election results! Americans deserve better than the presidential election circus coming to town every 4 years.
True, the GOP establishment accepts the narrative the Democrats tell them to believe, so no election disputes from them! Meanwhile, the Democrats dispute elections all the time. Yet when Trump disputes elections he is seditious.
"Yet when Trump disputes elections he is seditious."
How many court cases did they win back in 2020? How many votes did President Trump ask Brad Raffensberger to find in GA? How many Trump associated lawyers have been disbarred (and one has lost all his earthly possessions)? How many successful lawsuits were settled in favor of voting machine manufacturers for large amounts of money?
I could go on and on but you certainly are getting the drift.
You seem to think the courts are legitimate or that we have the rule of law. There are other legitimate ways to dispute an election outside the courts.
If he wins, the Democrats share the blame for not using the legal system against him.
When I say use the legal system against him, I mean to NOT go after him for his crimes even though he deserved to be prosecuted. Instead of letting him fade into the past and moving past the bad hangover of his chaotic presidency, they doubled down and made him a martyr and a "victim" of the "elites". They kept him relevant and in the news, now he's back and they have handed him his last laugh he craves.
I’ve never understood the Yglesias idea that the so-called Tech Right pretends to supports Trump for lower taxes. Where were they in 2016, or 2012 for that matter? Do Musk’s actions post-Twitter evince someone maximizing net worth?
It always seemed obvious to me that Tech-Trump support is ideological, a combination of anti-Wokism and backlash against liberal hostility to Tech, which entered the zeitgeist with the establishment’s blaming social media for Clinton losing, and was manifested in policy by the open antagonism of the Biden/Khan administration.
There might be an analogy to the meme that Trump decided to run after getting roasted during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, in the moment that Biden snubbed Musk and Tesla during his EV summit as a way to signal favor to his union friends.
Do you mean 'limited government?' Do you understand the difference between 'weak' and 'limited'. Are you really this stupid?
1) Needless to say, this article is extremely difficult to read. Not because it's profound, or even because it's longer than anyone has time for, but because the author is scattered brain. In short, it's illogical.
2) You make a number of claims that are inaccurate, such as the constitution allows the government to take your property if it's for the 'common good.' WRONG. You just failed your law class. And because you're making false claims, there is no need to read any further, if only because one can come to the conclusion that the author doesn't know what they're talking about.
3) Most of your premises are wrong, so of course your conclusion is wildly inaccurate.
"such as the constitution allows the government to take your property if it's for the 'common good.'"
You misinterpreted this statement. The phrasing states that the government can only take property *when* such a taking is for the common good. It doesn't say that the government can *always* take property for the common good. Ergo: When the government takes property, the purpose for which it is taking the property must be for the common good, at minimum. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/takings-clause-overview
As an aside: I think most neoliberal libertarians would really hate a government that had limited powers, if those limited powers included the ability to permanently enslave, say, 1% of the population to the limited purposes of the government. Thus why you find a lot of opponents to conscription among neoliberal libertarians. I'm pretty sure Scott Sumner did indeed mean "weak".
If Trump loses he could still go to prison for the rest of his life for felony murder. Of course he has family who could carry on his control of the Republican party.
"but that doesn’t fully explain why people care so little about Congress."
People care about what they can control. How many districts are even competitive? From what I see at Cook Political Report it's effectively only about 10% of districts, and only 5% that are truly toss-ups. Meanwhile we've got about 1/7th of the states that together control 17% of the electoral college votes that are considered swing states (toss-ups). I favor multi-member districts where the representatives have congressional voting power proportionate to the number of votes they received, and where everyone getting at least, say, 5% of votes, are elected as representatives. But this is just a crackpot idea, as it would take a revolution to get it. And any revolution would be driven by people who don't want democracy.
On the way to grocery shopping yesterday I saw signs hanging from an overpass that said "Trump will make us all healthy again!". This sort of support isn't right-wing or left-wing, it isn't even big government. It's flat out magical thinking insane.
"But that would also mean that Trump would have presided over the post-Covid economy, including the very high inflation. Trumpist economics (including high tariffs) would have become discredited in the eyes of most voters. By 2024, Trumpism would have been out of favor."
I think you underestimate Trump's ability to sell to his true believers. Like anyone, they are willing to suffer in the short term if they think it will lead to a better outcome in the long term (as long as it's not masking and distancing, that is). And also underestimating Trump's ability to cast blame on other people.
Everyone: In the past, I would have responded to some of the more poorly reasoned pro-Trump comments. But, well . . . life's too short.
I'm far too anguished about this given I don't live in a swing state, but I think you convinced me.
I'm happy to hear that, but I'd be even happier if you lived in a swing state. :)
Seriously, thanks for the comment.
Re your question "what exactly are they fighting about?", I would point to two factors:
1. Information polarization. I have been phone banking for Harris for awhile now, and earlier on we were calling voters whose allegiances we didn't know yet, and got a bunch of Trump supporters. One of those said to me, in all seriousness, that Trump was "an honest man and a Christian man". She clearly had some information environment that caused her to believe that, and it's mysterious to most of us in the reality-based community how a functional adult could be in such an environment. This may be an outlier example, but when it comes to basic empirical questions like "what happened on January 6th, 2021" there are clearly deep disagreements over facts, not just values.
2. Character polarization. Trump is such an obviously and extraordinarily hideous person that to the blueish half of the country, it is clear that no decent, civilized voter could possibly support him. Yet here's the reddish half of the country supporting him anyway! It is enough to make you lose trust in the moral character, mental capacity, and, well, general trustworthiness of your fellow citizens, in a way that no policy dispute would be. Living in a country where half of the people have shown themselves to be capable of supporting such a person is scary, and that fear drives the anger at places like Rossmoor-- as, no doubt, does the resentment of the reddish folks at being considered morally and/or mentally defective for their choice of presidential candidate.
And the sad thing is that there is no result of this election which will make that mutual resentment and fear go away. We are like spouses who have battered each other physically and psychologically, can see no path to reconciliation given what we have suffered and what we've learned about each other, and can't get a divorce. Have a nice day, as Arnold Kling would say.
Nicolas, Good comment. Here's one way to think about it. Much of the country lives in a fact-free world (a good number in each party). They live in a world of free floating opinions. Then a politician comes along that:
1. Lies about factual issues almost every day.
2. Says what some regard as "uncomfortable truths" that "they" don't want you to hear.
Half the country will think this is the most dishonest politician ever (my view), and the other half will think he's the most honest politician.
I must say that I am amused by Trump supporters. When you point out his flaws, they say "all politicians are like that". When you ask why they like him so much, they say "He's totally unlike other politicians."
Sorry, I meant Nicholas.
Well said if you read it agnosticly, i.e. you could flip the names and it still be true from the red side looking at the blues. The thing though that I think blues miss here is blues are voting against Trump whereas the red vote is a big tent of people voting for Trump or against blues as an entire concept. Nobody could care less on either side about Harris or the GOP. Reds understand the GOP has abandoned them since '04 hence it's all about Trump while blues understand all the elites regardless of party are blue (or crypto-blue) hence it's all about Trump.
That said one specific thing I want to comment on is "true belief that Trump was 'an honest man and a Christian man,'". I think what you missing is relativity (i.e. compared to Harris) and signaling. Sure that person lives in an information bubble, most do on both sides, but Trump signals the right thing. John Oliver recently had an episode about the guy who sang "I'm proud to be an American" where not only does he (Oliver,) mock America, but goes on this rant about Trump and the Bible. And sure that goes over well with his target audience and sure much of his critique is valid but the thing is for that critique to happen you have to have the real material of Trump WITH a Bible, Trump TALKING about the Bible, etc. Your aforementioned person in their information bubble will see bits of that Oliver segment filtered through their media sources where it will confirm both Trump's Christianity (him with a Bible) and the blues hate of Trump and Christianity.
Likewise Trump's willingness to speak provincialy (yes not the right word) perceived truth to power makes him come off as honest and the blues rabid lawfare against him plays into the US underdog narrative which likewise makes him look honest. His actually honestly is irrelevant.
Whereas Harris wouldn't have been caught dead before her recent campaign wearing American flag yoga pants to a non-black church picnic while telling people they need to find Jesus even though none of that is a red/blue matter. It doesn't really matter if Trump is a good Christian or actually honest, what matters here is Trump signals those things and has long before the recent campaign. You don't see Harris on WWE nor for that matter, anything as her whole life up until recently was working on her back for powerful married men at night while spending everyday trying to put every other man in prison out of spite all while avoiding things reds like like the plague such as having children, having a family, being pleasant as a person, overt displays of patriotism and religion, or eating fast food.
So this is a very long post with a lot of things to respond to, but I think the bit at the end where you impugn Harris's character best illustrates the divide I am talking about here.
Harris made a choice not to have biological kids of her own, and is by all accounts a loving stepmother and wife. Forty years ago she dated Willie Brown for what may or may not have been partly transactional reasons. That is, as far as I can tell, a neutral account of the facts.
Donald Trump cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star, then paid her $150k in hush money to cover it up, then illegally falsified the record of the hush money. Also, he sexually assaulted at least one woman, was found liable for doing so by a jury, and has boasted on tape of groping many others. Again, I think that is a neutral recitation of facts.
The fact that reddish folks like you judge Harris for her pattern of relational conduct more harshly than they judge Trump for his is exactly why blueish folks like me are angry and scared. Because to us, it is pretty obvious that anyone who thinks Harris is worse than Trump on the "family values" dimension has a deeply messed up moral compass and is a product of a brutally misogynist and backward culture. And to know that so many of our fellow citizens still think like that in 2024 is depressing and scary.
If the Dems returned to being the party of JFK, they would win by huge margins. But they have become the party of Mao/Stalin/Hitler/Putin/Hussien/Pot. They want complete control over everything you think, say, and do and are willing to do anything to silence political opposition.
Anyone currently in the federal government, elected or not, dislikes Trump because he is a threat to their power and money. It is as simple as that.
Putin supports the other party :)
But this is not true. Putin is much happier to have Dems in power than GOP, including if not especially Trump.
If you were being sarcastic, my apologies.
It seems logical that if either party ran a centrist candidate on a centrist platform, they would crush their opposition. So why don't they? Primaries are partly to blame, but candidates used to pivot toward the center after the convention and that is no longer happening. I suspect that conventional wisdom is wrong here and that the professional have concluded that it is more important to whip the base into a frenzy than it is to reach out to moderates. That seems crazy, but to imagine otherwise is to imagine that the campaigns are run by foolish ideologues rather than smart professionals, and I find that very unlikely.
According to Pew Research, using a neutral measure of left-right bias, has shown that the conservatives in Congress have grown more conservative at about three times the rate that the liberals in Congress have grown more liberal. On average.
A centrist is now therefore about 7% conservative, whereas a centrist in Reagan's era would have been about 2% liberal.
Edit in the link: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/
You are arguing two completely different points.
Extreme candidates win primaries mostly because each side’s base far prefers those candidates over moderates. And surely because candidates care most about winning the primary and so have continued to run towards their parties extremes rather than their center in order to secure the nomination, given the realities of their primary voters.
After all, it is beyond indisputable that the parties are massively more different from each other on policy now than they were in the 1990s.
In the general election, partly but not entirely because the candidates are more extreme and less centrist than they used to be, each party has found that base turnout is now more important than winning over undecideds in the middle.
Neither point is crazy, even if some of us might wish things were different.
Meanwhile people like Freddie deBoer are insisting that the Democrats are center-right. The reality is, people on the far-left and far-right have an incentive to miscategorize the Democratic party and do so in opposite ways as it suits their own wacky worldview. And yours sounds pretty wacky, judging by the unhinged hyperbole.
Meanwhile people like Freddie deBoer are insisting that the Democrats are center-right."
I find this argument to be tiresome. The Dems are center right by European standards, center right by deBoer's standards, and center left by American standards. There's really nothing to argue about, except arguing for the sake of arguing.
Their policies on several issues, especially immigration and abortion, are quite extreme by European standards. They are only center-right on taxes/spending, which is obviously not what people care about or are voting based on.
Well put!
Given SS’ heavy reliance on Trump’s rhetoric as justification for his stance, I find the claim that the Dems are today center-left by American standards highly amusing.
You can *somewhat* reasonably claim that their policies as implemented by the reailities of a divided government are center-left, but surely their rhetoric is by American standards no longer close to center-left but instead has gone full left.
The Dem Party of Bill Clinton is no longer anywhere to be seen.
If it were, then SS’ case would be rock-solid.
But if it were, Trump would be losing by 15 points. And never would have won in 2016 or been nominated this time around.
I agree very much with your general tone. The last president I actually voted FOR was Reagan. Since then I have been deciding who to vote against. I largely split my votes at the lower levels as both parties have major flaws so maybe a stalemate is better. I have met and talked with our Congressional candidates, some of our Senators and several state level officeholders. I have used those interactions to actively vote for or against specific candidates.
However, I would strongly disagree with you about Trump supporters turning against him if he does something they dislike. It has truly become a cult of personality so the rules are different. Conservatives/Republicans used to talk about family values support (sort of) free trade, oppose authoritarian leaders around the world instead of idolizing them, used to support active duty and former military. It was actually believable that men like Romney or Bush were men of faith. Trump flipped all of that and more. The party no longer has much in the way of principles other than following Trump. Trump cant fail, he can only be failed.
As a Christian and a veteran all of this bothers me maybe more than it should, but I think character matters in leadership.
Steve
"oppose authoritarian leaders around the world instead of idolizing them"
Only communist ones, they supported anti-Communist authoritarian leaders against democratically elected leaders who were willing to talk with Russia. Here's a video I'm almost done watching. She starts out talking about this in general terms about 2 minutes previously, but I link to the time stamp where she gives a specific example in detail: https://youtu.be/jvuDuhB5gxU?t=1261
After three years of Trump's first term as president the results were pretty good. The Pandemic Lockdowns became the one crisis Trump could not overcome. That the other crisis were primarily manufactured by Trump's political enemies informs me that Trump is far less radical and more centrist than he is portrayed. That Trump gets zero credit from his enemies for imposing the policies his enemies supported does not get enough notice. That those polices did not work as advertised also does not get noticed.
Harris has been Vice President of the Biden administration for almost four years and the results are mixed. If you are in the upper half of the wealth spectrum, the Biden administration has been good or very good for you. Asset price inflation has lifted all boats. However, inflation has been a storm that has made income dependent Americans poorer. On matters of foreign policy the Biden administration gets a failing grade.
Reason to not vote for Trump is he is unprincipled and consumed by his ego, to the detriment of others. Reason to not vote for Harris is she is a know-nothing, incurious, rubber stamp for her party's ideology. This ideology includes radical elements of which Harris seems to fully support.
Personally, I want a country where the government follows the law and the law makes sense. As neither Trump or Harris seem interested in supporting the rule of law what remains is the question of which election result best leads to that outcome. I am unsure either result does. Neither political party seems interested in the rule of law and common sense. Neither seems interested in promoting liberty and the pursuit of happiness and constraining the cost and control of government.
Recall that in 2010 the voters responded to Obama's election with the "Tea Party" GOP landslide. And while the Republican leadership was then successful in limiting growth in spending, the "Tea Party" did not last. And by the time Trump was elected, fiscal conservatism was once again dead and by the time Trump left office, American government was in full spendthrift mode - which created the inflation which may prove to be the thing that proves decisive in putting Trump over Harris when the votes are tallied.
"After three years of Trump's first term as president the results were pretty good."
There are two plausible views:
1. The president is responsible for the state of the country.
2. The president is not responsible for the state of the countries.
I've honestly never understood the claim that Trump is responsible for the Obama expansion lasting another three years, but not responsible for soaring unemployment and soaring crime in 2020. (BTW, I don't think he is responsible for those things.)
I also don't understand supporters citing his first term, when Trump himself has rejected his first term approach and promised to govern in a radically different way during his second term. Are you assuming he's lying?
I also don't accept that he did well in his first term. His policy choices were very bad, and will hurt the country in the long run.
Why is there not a 3rd possibility, that is in fact most likely of all: the president is somewhat responsible for the state of the country?
Policy matters at least *somewhat* - as we know you agree. The mere cessation of some of the worst Obama policies surely helped, did it not?
Re: citing his first term while protesting that his words now reject his first term:
a) it’s an election; politicians say things to improve their chances of being elected.
b) when did you abandon the position that actions speak louder than words?
c) in the 2016 election cycle, did not Trump also talk populist but then govern mostly conservatively?
d) by extension, do you believe Kamala and the Democrats are now staunchly against illegal immigration and pro-fracking merely because she’s mouthed these words?
e) are you not familiar with the now famous articulation: “People who like Trump taking him seriously but not literally. People who hate Trump take him literally but not seriously”?
I’m not saying any of my arguments here are definitive, but surely you can acknowledge that your position ridiculing people for pointing to his record rather than his rhetoric is not rock solid.
The problem is not that people point to his record, it's that they do so in a very inconsistent and unconvincing way. Things didn't go well during the Trump administration. I agree that this was not his fault, but then why claim things went well, when they didn't?
If you cite policies, not outcomes, then how is Trump not to blame for the high inflation of 2021-22, given that he supported all of the policies that produced that inflation, including appointing Powell to the Fed? My complaint is that his supporters want to have it both ways. Talk about policies, or talk about outcomes, but be consistent.
Trump had bad policies (including the most reckless fiscal policy in US history) and bad outcomes, including the slowest growth since Hoover. Cherry-picking a few minor deregulatory moves doesn't change those facts.
“ If you cite policies, not outcomes, then how is Trump not to blame for the high inflation of 2021-22, given that he supported all of the policies that produced that inflation, including appointing Powell to the Fed? ”
If your point is that Trump is *partly* responsible for the high inflation under Biden, I would accept that. But since ALL we are doing is comparisons here, it surely is the case that the Biden-Harris Administration - including of course Yellen - is MORE responsible for said inflation than Trump, no?
“Trump had bad policies (including the most reckless fiscal policy in US history) and bad outcomes, including the slowest growth since Hoover.”
I agree that Trump’s fiscal policy re: spending was reckless. IMO it was equally as reckless as Obama’s 2nd term, but perhaps reasonable people can disagree on that point.
However, are you really claiming that the Harris-Biden fiscal policy was LESS reckless than Trump’s? I find that incredibly hard to swallow, doubly so when economic growth policies clearly factor directly into fiscal policy.
And re: the slowest growth since Hoover, who is the one doing cherry-picking now? You only get there by including the COVID numbers. Most reasonable folks - and here that also includes the American people, FWIW - understand that they don’t hold 2020 nor 2021 economic results against the sitting president. Leaving out the 2020 GDP numbers is hardly “cherry-picking”.
I also find it fascinating and incomprehensible that you are effectively claiming that the Trump *business* tax cuts didn’t matter (or were somehow bad policy).
What do you mean by "rule of law"?
Sumner, do you think Japan is only 62% as rich as the US (with Russia at 55%)? That's what the World Bank says.
I reluctantly will likely vote for Trump/Rogers; I expect Vance to be better at policymaking than Pence (remember, Trump in 2016 supposedly offered Kasich control of both foreign and domestic policy).
I support an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, including China putting pressure on Russia to halt advances.
In terms of reducing political polarization, I think Germany has a much better system than the US.
Great post--thanks Scott. You reach the same conclusion as Andrew Sullivan (and me): think more about 2028 than right now if you want to have any chance of being able to vote in the future for someone who remotely represents your views, and suppress your gag reflex while voting for Harris.
I'm commenting against my better judgment, mainly as a way of not having to think of something intelligent to say about your Melville/Dylan post, which in all respects was much more interesting than anything in current American politics.
-I think a DeSantis or Haley would be doing worse against Harris. Many Trumpers are genuinely excited by Trump and wouldn't bother to care about that stumpy toad from Florida or a shrill harpy from South Carolina. Same goes for Vance in 2028 or 2032. Trump's charisma is a one-off phenomenon, and his ability to lie so effectively makes him immune from having to take any consistent policy positions. His cultists gulp down any batch of Kool-Aid his whips up.
-There's part of me that wants Trump to win on Tuesday so that we can have a chance to purge his rot from our system. He seems to derive more cultural power from losing from winning---whether it's in business or politics. If he loses he'll immediately start his 2028 campaign. If he's president we'll have two disastrous years and then a hopefully a thumping by Democrats in the midterms.
-The most lasting political victory in the U.S. is the power given to former slave states. That it elevated someone like Trump and Vance is ironic, but inevitable.
Maybe, but why do polls consistently show other Republican doing far better in match-ups? And why is this race close, while almost all other incumbent Covid-era parties in developed countries are doing horribly? You forget that Trump motivates in both directions.
So on the one hand I do of course agree with your take on Haley or DeSantis would be doing much better. For purposes of winning in 2024, I was a strong DeSantis backer. And had Trump not run this cycle inthe first place, I have zero doubt whatsoever that we are correct.
But the one bit of evidence that argues somewhat strongly against is that the GOP Senate candidates in swing states AZ, WI, MI, PA plus OH are all running behind Trump in the polls.
In AZ, you could make the case that voters dislike the Trump-tied Lake, but I don’t think you can credibly make that argument for the other 4 races.
The weakness is in the national Democratic party. That party is still quite competitive at the local level. And it's still true that Trumpian congressional candidates do worse than mainstream GOP candidates.
I don’t follow how this addresses the idea that betting markets currently showing that the Dem Senate candidates in each of those 5 states having a *much* better predicted odds of winning than Kamala does of winning their respective states against Trump is evidence opposite the claim that another GOP presidential candidate would be doing better.
Is your point that Kamala is relatively *that* much more spectacularly worse than another Dem presidential candidate than Trump is compared to another GOP presidential candidate? That’s plausible, of course, but not an argument I heard you make.
"If he's president we'll have two disastrous years and then a hopefully a thumping by Democrats in the midterms."
Perhaps, but not soon enough to prevent him from replacing Thomas, and possibly Roberts and Alito as well.
If Trump is a Clinton Democrat, where is Clinton's budget Surplus? :)
Personally, I'm for a strong government perusing Progressive ends, but have a very different conception from other progressives of what "progressive." is. I think it means
Strong rapid growth
Lots of merit-based immigration
Less restrictions of imports (except strategic stuff from China), free trade with everybody else.
Smaller deficits, deficits = Σ(expenditures with NPV>0)
Consumption VAT to fully finance social insurance instead of the wage tax
Progressive consumption tax (business income imputed to owners)
Taxation of net emissions of CO2 instead of other subsidies to that end.
Cleaning up of mis regulation (not guided by cost-benefit analysis):
Jones Act
Sugar quota,
Farm subsidies including ethanol,
EPA, NRC, CDC, FDA TSA, FAA
Western water pricing
Urban land use and building codes
Congestion/use pricing of roads and streets
Subsidized hazard insurance
FAIT (or possibly FNGDPLT) management of monetary policy
With more social insurance
Child allowance
More generous unemployment benefit
Wage subsidy EITC instead of minimum wages
Universal (~ACA+) health insurance instead of employment, age, and income related coverage
Continued increase in the "retirement" (outmoded concept) age.
I’m, frankly, not surprised to hear the Rossmoorians are brawling on the pickleball courts. A friend, whose mother lives in Rossmoor, and I tried playing there a couple of times but gave up due to the aggressive shushing we’d get for simply chatting on changeovers. By the end, I was starting to think about whacking a few of them with my racquet.
My precious vote—in the swing state of Wisconsin, as it happens—has already been cast for Chase Oliver; I want to give the left-libertarians a bit of encouragement (much needed). Even if Trump wins Wisconsin by *one* vote, and this provides him the margin of victory overall, I won’t feel very bad: who knows how bad that would be in the long run, compared to the Harris alternative? Adam Smith said there was a great deal of ruin in a nation; I hope he was right.
As I recall, I promised to write in the name of Scott Sumner, but he relieved me of that promise.
I think it's very bad to legitimize politicians sending armed supporters after their opponents. Far worse than mere lone assassins trying to take out politicians.
I hereby grant Dr. Sumner a second PhD in Political Science for a well written column that pretty much encapsulates my thinking as well (I only have an undergrad minor in the subject). The mainstream Republican Senators made a crucial mistake in 2021 by not voting for Impeachment following January 6. Senator McConnell thought that the courts would take care of things (WRONG because of an inept Atlanta DA and a feckless head of the DOJ) and Trumpism would disappear. Trump's decision not to enter the Republican Presidential debates (wow, does that ever seem a long time ago) was masterful as his senility would have likely been exposed and voters would have moved on to DeSantis or Haley.
Nate Silver and Maria Konnikova had good insights on their podcast this past week, discussing what the worst decisions by each party were. Of course they mentioned the above failure of the Senate as I noted above. They also highlighted Old Joe's decision to run for a second term when everyone other than his own inner circle knew he was too old. While Harris has run an exemplary campaign given the short time period (and it's a shame there was not a second debate but that was Biden's fault as well as he only agreed to two of them), I would have preferred a broader choice that would have been available with Biden's announcement in 2023 that he would not run again.
I often go back an re-read Thomas Frank's nice book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" that highlights the weird part of American politics, namely why do people vote against their own self-interest? Buyer's remorse has always been a part of our political life and the large number of non-college educated men who vote for a doddering orange head who won't do anything to make their lives better is truly baffling. If this election swings Harris's way based on a huge turn out or women voters it will be quite amazing (the Julia Roberts voice over commercial for Harris is well worth watching in this
regard). If it swings Trump's way, we are likely going to see the great Aristophanes play, 'Lysistrata,' come to life in a modern update (Spike Lee's version, 'Chi-Raq' was quite good but too narrow). Good luck to all these young Trump men on getting a date much less a wife as "did you vote for Trump" will be the new requirement (though I do confess to really liking Barry Levinson's Baltimore Colts quiz for the aspiring fiancée in "Diner").
I'll only conclude by noting I don't believe Trump lasts out the full term. Whether it is senility or boredom, he will be gone within 18-24 months, and we will then have the Opus Dei Prez which should delight all the Catholics on the Supreme Court. Maybe they can find a way to undercut the First Amendment.
I concur that Sumner has insightful, relevant political insights. I disagree with your support for impeachment. That impeachment and the J6 committee as a whole was a political show trial. It was a demonstration of how partisanship corrupts government and makes government unable to serve the needs and interests of the citizens.
The events of J6 and what preceded it should have been investigated and publicly disclosed. Not selectively. Not slanted and distorted and filtered to prove Trump evil. Not started with the conclusion already written.
The 2021 impeachment and J6 committee did not intend to produce a true rendering of the 2020 election and riot. No, it was a political stunt. And here we are, 4 years later, having another election where already both parties are preparing to go to battle to dispute election results! Americans deserve better than the presidential election circus coming to town every 4 years.
"both parties"
You're showing your cards, and it's not a good hand.
True, the GOP establishment accepts the narrative the Democrats tell them to believe, so no election disputes from them! Meanwhile, the Democrats dispute elections all the time. Yet when Trump disputes elections he is seditious.
"Yet when Trump disputes elections he is seditious."
How many court cases did they win back in 2020? How many votes did President Trump ask Brad Raffensberger to find in GA? How many Trump associated lawyers have been disbarred (and one has lost all his earthly possessions)? How many successful lawsuits were settled in favor of voting machine manufacturers for large amounts of money?
I could go on and on but you certainly are getting the drift.
You seem to think the courts are legitimate or that we have the rule of law. There are other legitimate ways to dispute an election outside the courts.
If he wins, the Democrats share the blame for not using the legal system against him.
When I say use the legal system against him, I mean to NOT go after him for his crimes even though he deserved to be prosecuted. Instead of letting him fade into the past and moving past the bad hangover of his chaotic presidency, they doubled down and made him a martyr and a "victim" of the "elites". They kept him relevant and in the news, now he's back and they have handed him his last laugh he craves.
I’ve never understood the Yglesias idea that the so-called Tech Right pretends to supports Trump for lower taxes. Where were they in 2016, or 2012 for that matter? Do Musk’s actions post-Twitter evince someone maximizing net worth?
It always seemed obvious to me that Tech-Trump support is ideological, a combination of anti-Wokism and backlash against liberal hostility to Tech, which entered the zeitgeist with the establishment’s blaming social media for Clinton losing, and was manifested in policy by the open antagonism of the Biden/Khan administration.
There might be an analogy to the meme that Trump decided to run after getting roasted during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, in the moment that Biden snubbed Musk and Tesla during his EV summit as a way to signal favor to his union friends.
"weak government???" lol.
Do you mean 'limited government?' Do you understand the difference between 'weak' and 'limited'. Are you really this stupid?
1) Needless to say, this article is extremely difficult to read. Not because it's profound, or even because it's longer than anyone has time for, but because the author is scattered brain. In short, it's illogical.
2) You make a number of claims that are inaccurate, such as the constitution allows the government to take your property if it's for the 'common good.' WRONG. You just failed your law class. And because you're making false claims, there is no need to read any further, if only because one can come to the conclusion that the author doesn't know what they're talking about.
3) Most of your premises are wrong, so of course your conclusion is wildly inaccurate.
"such as the constitution allows the government to take your property if it's for the 'common good.'"
You misinterpreted this statement. The phrasing states that the government can only take property *when* such a taking is for the common good. It doesn't say that the government can *always* take property for the common good. Ergo: When the government takes property, the purpose for which it is taking the property must be for the common good, at minimum. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/takings-clause-overview
As an aside: I think most neoliberal libertarians would really hate a government that had limited powers, if those limited powers included the ability to permanently enslave, say, 1% of the population to the limited purposes of the government. Thus why you find a lot of opponents to conscription among neoliberal libertarians. I'm pretty sure Scott Sumner did indeed mean "weak".
If Trump loses he could still go to prison for the rest of his life for felony murder. Of course he has family who could carry on his control of the Republican party.
"but that doesn’t fully explain why people care so little about Congress."
People care about what they can control. How many districts are even competitive? From what I see at Cook Political Report it's effectively only about 10% of districts, and only 5% that are truly toss-ups. Meanwhile we've got about 1/7th of the states that together control 17% of the electoral college votes that are considered swing states (toss-ups). I favor multi-member districts where the representatives have congressional voting power proportionate to the number of votes they received, and where everyone getting at least, say, 5% of votes, are elected as representatives. But this is just a crackpot idea, as it would take a revolution to get it. And any revolution would be driven by people who don't want democracy.
On the way to grocery shopping yesterday I saw signs hanging from an overpass that said "Trump will make us all healthy again!". This sort of support isn't right-wing or left-wing, it isn't even big government. It's flat out magical thinking insane.
"But that would also mean that Trump would have presided over the post-Covid economy, including the very high inflation. Trumpist economics (including high tariffs) would have become discredited in the eyes of most voters. By 2024, Trumpism would have been out of favor."
I think you underestimate Trump's ability to sell to his true believers. Like anyone, they are willing to suffer in the short term if they think it will lead to a better outcome in the long term (as long as it's not masking and distancing, that is). And also underestimating Trump's ability to cast blame on other people.