Thanks for a thoughtful piece that made me think. This is why I subscribe.
I don't like Trump. I didn't like Harris either, so either way we lost. So, I'm not sure criticizing NR for saying Trump is bad but not endorsing the truly awful Harris instead is fair. This wasn't an election the country could win.
More importantly, I think there is an important conceptual mistake here - Trump is not "conservative" in any sense of the word. He's a populist nationalist, which I suppose makes him a "right" populist (whereas Bernie Sanders is a "left" populist - 6 of one , half a dozen of another, in my view). Calling him a conservative means people think he wants to protect/conserve something. He doesn't - he wants to remake the federal government. One can believe (as SS does) that this is because he's a bitter vengeful man out to break stuff for the hell of it, or one can think he's got a purpose beyond vengeance (I go back and forth on that, but certainly many of those working for him have a broader purpose of rolling back the administrative state). The reason I go back and forth is there is a bunch of stuff that is clearly crazy (tariff wars!) and then there is stuff that might be crazy or might be strategic - one can argue, for example, that the cuts to the federal government might be "better" if done more deliberately, but then you can look at the long list of commissions etc that tried cutting stuff deliberately and utterly failed. So it might be that taking a chainsaw to the administrative state is the only method that might work, albeit at a high cost of collateral damage. In favor of a strategic element is that the order in which cuts are happening are teeing up some pretty shaky precedents (Humphrey's executor, which a DC Circuit Judge just savaged in a concurrence to an opinion staying a DCT injunction blocking the shut down of USAID). I doubt it was an accident that USAID was first up. And I'm old enough to remember when the idea that all federal spending might be on the internet so we could look stuff up and see where the money went was thought to be a dream, not a nightmare. We're certainly closer to that now. (Indeed, the Environmental Working Group on the left did some stellar work showing where USDA support payments went in the 2000s/2010s, as I recall). So, it could be that Trump is both a bitter, vengeful man AND has a plan that is accomplishing interesting and potentially good things in some areas.
A friend told me he saw a sign in 2020 in upstate NY that said "Vote Trump Because Fuck You". I think there's a lot of that sentiment. People had had enough of Bush/Obama/Biden - they voted for Trump over Harris and he's doing pretty much exactly what he said he would. If there's some vengeance going on, voters seem to have been buying something they were aware of.
"A friend told me he saw a sign in 2020 in upstate NY that said "Vote Trump Because Fuck You"."
Yes, but if you look at history that's really not a very smart thing for voters to do. They had plenty of semi-reasonable choices in the GOP primary. If voters think America is in such bad shape that they needed to take a chance with a madman, then they are spoiled babies with no understanding of history. We are by far the richest major country in world history, and we are at peace. We are far closer to our ceiling than we are to our floor. This is not a time for desperation, it's a time for careful thought.
And contrary to what you suggest, most of the people in his administration are incompetent clowns.
I don't think the general public ever had much ability to self reflect. What's changed is that there's no longer any adult supervision, or at least not enough to prevent things from going far off course.
In addition, both WWII and the Cold War are far in the past, so the public no longer takes foreign policy very seriously; they've forgotten how bad things can get.
"they voted for Trump over Harris and he's doing pretty much exactly what he said he would. If there's some vengeance going on, voters seem to have been buying something they were aware of."
I'm not so sure. The WaPo had a pieced several weeks ago about Trump voters in PA who don't think their Medicaid support payments will be cut. All the court cases have done is to delay the impact of what is going on. Maybe some of this will be stopped by the courts and Trump has to go to Congress to get some of these changes done. This Congress will likely bend over and take it.
I laugh at all the Republicans who talked a good game during the confirmation hearings. Senator Cassidy (LA) an MD said that RFK Jr. would not go after vaccines. Well, they now have a wacko who will not doubt show with fake data that the MMR vaccine cause autism. Yesterday the Peter Marks who regulated vaccines was forced to resign his position at FDA (he was going to be fired). I'm still waiting for Senator Cassidy to speak up and am not holding my breath.
On a slightly related point, I once thought it was a good thing that Congress gave the president the power to adjust some tariffs, as presidents tended to be more trade friendly than Congress.
They coud have given Presidents power only to reduce tariffs
I read The Road To Serfdom in the 90s and thought it was totally overstated. How could my technocratic government and bureaucrats be a slippery slope to dictatorship? Guess I was wrong.
"In the past, one could discuss the business world in its own terms. How is this or that company doing? How is this crypto project doing? At times, politics intruded (as when Biden snubbed Tesla), but it was usually in the background. Now, almost every discussion of business, every discussion of crypto, revolves around a single issue—its relationship to Trump. We’ve become like Hungary, with Trump instead of Orban. Trump is our caudillo."
As an Argentine, this part really resonated with me. That's how Argentine politics work as long as I've been old enough to pay attention.
Another thoughtful and timely post! I'm reading "Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress and How to Get it Back" by Mark Dunkleman. This came out before the Klein/Thompson book, "Abundance" that has received mixed reviews. I have not yet read that one. Dunkleman's book is interesting as he compares the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian approaches to governing and it's done with a historical sweep. I'm only up to Nixon right now but here is a great quote that relates to what you say:
"...the White House purposely baited progressives into taking positions out of step with the President's mainstream appeal..."
What goes around, comes around. I still think that Trump is lazy, but unlike in 2016, he has surrounded himself with people who are laser focused on eliminating government and elevating the white oligarchy. Voigt and Miller are the driving forces and all the rest supporting players.
I wish that George Orwell and Hunter Thompson were alive today to report on all this. That would truly be epic.
I disagree that Bush or Romney era Republicans were crypto-fascists or Krugman et al. were remotely right about this. Rather, people's views are highly unstable, and, more often than not, determined primarily by peer pressure than by deeply-held principles. I think they were as sincere back then about their old ideology as they are now about their new one.
Party I say this because I just strongly dislike the progressive idea that 'scratch a conservative (and they'd include most libertarians here too), find a fascist' but also because it suggests if you pry deeply enough, you can find out if your normie neighbor is actually a secret extremist. I don't think you can. Most people who are extreme during extreme times weren't hiding their true selves during earlier normal times. Most would earnestly disagree with their future selves.
I think this an argument in favor of having a functional elite for society to be stable. A minority of people who are more educated, deliberative, and self-aware in their views should generally guide public discourse. It's also an argument against high levels of public participation. Democracy works best when it's mostly left to fewer, disproportionately informed, 'wonkish' voters, and politics less subject to mass mood swings. The 90s, our latest golden age, were famously an era of low voter turnout.
Those are reasonable points, but I'm not willing to dismiss the leftist critique. I for one never imagined that American conservatives would vote for an authoritarian nationalist like Trump, at least during a time when the economy was booming and we were at peace. And not just vote for him, but be enthusiastic about some of his most offensive acts. I never imagined that "the big lie" would become such an important part of American politics. In school during the 1970s, we were taught how the big lie was used in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and now it's here.
You said:
"Most people who are extreme during extreme times weren't hiding their true selves during earlier normal times."
Yes, but 2024 was certainly not extreme times, it was about as normal as you can get.
1. Sincere libertarians have always been a trivial portion of the electorate, both right and left. 2. Liberals emphasis on strong government was based on perceived need to oppose strong private forces (esp. racism (from the civil war to the 101st airborne in Arkansas)) and corporate power). The assumption was that "the people" would stand up for justice. In reality, no democratically based government structure can long stand against a people tired / ignorant of democracy.
Bryan Caplan’s simplistic theory of left and right continues to be a useful starting point for analyzing politics: the left hates markets, and the right hates the left
Sumner, Trump is plainly delusional, and, given his insistence on it and the fact he lost the election by under two thirds of a point's margin, of course I believe he thinks the 2020 election was stolen.
I do think Trump admires Putin, but, so far, his administration hasn't done any major sanctions relief on Russia (although Trump and his administration clearly do not like Ukraine). Remember, almost every country richer than Russia has sanctioned it except a few Middle Eastern ones, while no country poorer than it has done so. The BICS are extremely important in keeping Russia's economy afloat, definitely more important than the US and comparable to the EU. Yet, I don't see you criticizing the BICS much for their inaction.
You interestingly fail to mention one of Trump's most egregious policies; the deportation of foreigners who criticize Israel. I am not sure whether this is good or bad for the conservative movement, but is clearly anti-liberal (small l) in a bad way.
Re: Canada, you probably understate how bad Trump's policy on this is.
I think it's well past time to discuss voting reform in America (approval or STAR).
"You interestingly fail to mention one of Trump's most egregious policies; the deportation of foreigners who criticize Israel."
Of course I oppose that policy, but I also oppose the hundreds of other outrages he's engaged in. Why single that one out? I "failed to mention" almost all of his misdeeds, instead I provided links to others.
I've done many posts on sanctions, pointing out that Russia gets lots of key industrial supplies from even developed countries like Germany--the sanctions are relatively ineffective as goods flow through third parties. I wish India and China would adhere to the sanctions, and I've done posts on that subject.
Yes, I may have understated the damage from the Canada policy. (As an aside, it might well cost the Conservatives the election next month.)
You'd think that potential retaliatory vengeance from the other side would make vengeance seeking suboptimal. If Trump succeeds in Lawfare, when Dems come into office they could close down Republican leaning law firms. But Trump probably doesn't care to think more than one step ahead.
Personally, I've been pleasantly surprised by how incompetent he's been so far.
Consumer confidence has plummeted and people really think tariffs will damage the economy. Have Americans ever been so pro free trade? Trump and Melania coin was a waste of political capital for some quick cash. RFK is a ticking time bomb politically. The government would fail in various ways even without DOGE, but DOGE raises the probability of failures and puts the blame squarely on him. It doesn't seem like Americans really want to bully Canada and Greenland. It's very clear Trump really believes what he says and no one can or wants to stop him in his admininstration.
I'm a bit surprised betting markets aren't more bullish on Dems taking the house in 2026.
I believe the most-likely outcomes have shifted against Trump, although tail-end risks are higher than I thought previously. To be fair, a democratic land-slide won't solve most of the political problems this country faces...
Good points. The election odds are about 75% Dem right now, which is pretty high given how far away the election is. But I agree with you, it looks like the Dems will retake the House, maybe by a wide margin.
The more trump disregards his popularity the more I fear that he will work to prevent free and fair elections. The effort to disenfranchise voters is already under way. If it will achieve enough to keep MAGA in power is still an open question.
The Americans validated Trump coup, so “if every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'”
Yeah, I can't see how we won't pay a price for this, I just don't know how. Threatening tiny Denmark is so far beyond anything I would have imagined that I'm almost speechless. Our government is truly evil.
"Beneath all that talk of 'liberty', there is tribal instinct to reward your allies and punish your opponents."
It is quite literally irrelevant exactly how true (clearly *way* more than zero) this statement is of those on the right.
The fact that Scott writes this without irony and makes no mention of the fact that under 8 years of Obama and 4 years of Biden SO SO SO much more of it was done by Dems is just astounding.
Lois Lerner? Student loan forgiveness? Fast and Furious? The "green" giveaways? The leftist NGO-funding money laundering scheme, some of which DOGE made public? There are *so* many...
Trump and the GOP surely do some of this, but not nearly as much as the Dems.
The only thing different is that Trump is generally unsubtle when he does it, where Dems sometimes lie about it, sometimes hide it, sometimes do it openly but claim it as "justice".
But I guess Scott's statement isn't actually astounding; it's merely one more example of TDS...
Conservatives are mostly crypto-fascists, but so are most leftists. The essence of fascism is the fantasy that the nation consists of a majority who think just like me and a minority who oppose everything I favor. If only that minority can be crushed (and “due process” would only hinder this vital effort), the nation will have a unity of purpose enabling it to achieve its goals (= my goals).
There are only a few classical liberals, who do not think this way.
You are reasonable enough in describing the activists on the left, and the MAGA activists on the right.
I don't think you are correct in describing the non-MAGA activists on the right, at least writ large.
You are of course correct that there are few of us classical liberals.
But where you are most wrong is that even though said majority in the middle has shrunk, a large part of the center-right, and a decent minority of the center-left, are basically centrists who believe in the moderately big government we had in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.
It's just that for multiple reasons the center no longer holds power.
There is *some* chance the center-right will regain power in the GOP when Trump is gone - especially if his administration ends badly.
There is no chance in the next 7 years that the center-left will regain power in the Dem party, and sadly an almost as small chance it will even beyond that.
Thank you. This post does what I’ve been looking for and struggling to find: explain just how much more damaging and authoritarian Trump has gotten in his second term. The thing that scared me is that democrats, the media, and people in general are actually LESS upset and concerned with Trump this term than the last term. There is Trump fatigue and also an underlying decline in leftism’s popularity and influence over the past few years. It feels like we need more clear eyed, respected people across the political spectrum waking people up to how different it is this time around.
I don't really understand why you write so much about Denmark and Hungary. I've been reading your blog for years, and you must have mentioned Denmark hundreds if not thousands of times. As you've pointed out yourself, Denmark is more comparable to Massachusetts.
Better models for the United States would probably be Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru or Mexico. Obviously, right-wing authoritarianism is nothing new in these countries. Brazil had a military dictatorship from the 60s until the 80s, for example.
The rule in these countries seems to be a kind of oscillation between extreme right-wing and extreme (by American standards) left-wing governments. Maybe inequality and low social mobility play a role.
I expect something similar will become normal in the United States. Trump will probably be replaced either by an even more right-wing government, which attempts to explicitly curtail Constitutional rights like freedom of speech, or by an explicitly democratic socialist government.
I'm not the only one who is obsessed with that country, trying googling the phrase "getting to Denmark". Yes, the US is different from Denmark, that's partly what I'm saying. Of more concern is that the US is steadily moving further away from Denmark.
In the past, even Denmark wasn't "Denmark" in the modern sense. It used to be a bunch of bloodthirsty Vikings who kidnapped Irish women and brought them to Iceland. Societies change over time.
I use Hungary as an example, as I think it's the closest model to what Trump is trying to do in the US.
To be clear, my point is that as far as the first point you discuss, whether "big government will eventually lead to authoritarianism," I think it would be better to simply forget Denmark, as it's not relevant. I would suggest looking at the development of state power in Latin America instead.
Thanks for a thoughtful piece that made me think. This is why I subscribe.
I don't like Trump. I didn't like Harris either, so either way we lost. So, I'm not sure criticizing NR for saying Trump is bad but not endorsing the truly awful Harris instead is fair. This wasn't an election the country could win.
More importantly, I think there is an important conceptual mistake here - Trump is not "conservative" in any sense of the word. He's a populist nationalist, which I suppose makes him a "right" populist (whereas Bernie Sanders is a "left" populist - 6 of one , half a dozen of another, in my view). Calling him a conservative means people think he wants to protect/conserve something. He doesn't - he wants to remake the federal government. One can believe (as SS does) that this is because he's a bitter vengeful man out to break stuff for the hell of it, or one can think he's got a purpose beyond vengeance (I go back and forth on that, but certainly many of those working for him have a broader purpose of rolling back the administrative state). The reason I go back and forth is there is a bunch of stuff that is clearly crazy (tariff wars!) and then there is stuff that might be crazy or might be strategic - one can argue, for example, that the cuts to the federal government might be "better" if done more deliberately, but then you can look at the long list of commissions etc that tried cutting stuff deliberately and utterly failed. So it might be that taking a chainsaw to the administrative state is the only method that might work, albeit at a high cost of collateral damage. In favor of a strategic element is that the order in which cuts are happening are teeing up some pretty shaky precedents (Humphrey's executor, which a DC Circuit Judge just savaged in a concurrence to an opinion staying a DCT injunction blocking the shut down of USAID). I doubt it was an accident that USAID was first up. And I'm old enough to remember when the idea that all federal spending might be on the internet so we could look stuff up and see where the money went was thought to be a dream, not a nightmare. We're certainly closer to that now. (Indeed, the Environmental Working Group on the left did some stellar work showing where USDA support payments went in the 2000s/2010s, as I recall). So, it could be that Trump is both a bitter, vengeful man AND has a plan that is accomplishing interesting and potentially good things in some areas.
A friend told me he saw a sign in 2020 in upstate NY that said "Vote Trump Because Fuck You". I think there's a lot of that sentiment. People had had enough of Bush/Obama/Biden - they voted for Trump over Harris and he's doing pretty much exactly what he said he would. If there's some vengeance going on, voters seem to have been buying something they were aware of.
"A friend told me he saw a sign in 2020 in upstate NY that said "Vote Trump Because Fuck You"."
Yes, but if you look at history that's really not a very smart thing for voters to do. They had plenty of semi-reasonable choices in the GOP primary. If voters think America is in such bad shape that they needed to take a chance with a madman, then they are spoiled babies with no understanding of history. We are by far the richest major country in world history, and we are at peace. We are far closer to our ceiling than we are to our floor. This is not a time for desperation, it's a time for careful thought.
And contrary to what you suggest, most of the people in his administration are incompetent clowns.
Sorry if my previous response sounded too negative. I think you are correct about the mood of the voters.
Why do you think conservatives lost the ability to self reflect and correct themselves as a coalition, had too much vigor on saying the left is bad?
I don't think the general public ever had much ability to self reflect. What's changed is that there's no longer any adult supervision, or at least not enough to prevent things from going far off course.
In addition, both WWII and the Cold War are far in the past, so the public no longer takes foreign policy very seriously; they've forgotten how bad things can get.
"they voted for Trump over Harris and he's doing pretty much exactly what he said he would. If there's some vengeance going on, voters seem to have been buying something they were aware of."
I'm not so sure. The WaPo had a pieced several weeks ago about Trump voters in PA who don't think their Medicaid support payments will be cut. All the court cases have done is to delay the impact of what is going on. Maybe some of this will be stopped by the courts and Trump has to go to Congress to get some of these changes done. This Congress will likely bend over and take it.
I laugh at all the Republicans who talked a good game during the confirmation hearings. Senator Cassidy (LA) an MD said that RFK Jr. would not go after vaccines. Well, they now have a wacko who will not doubt show with fake data that the MMR vaccine cause autism. Yesterday the Peter Marks who regulated vaccines was forced to resign his position at FDA (he was going to be fired). I'm still waiting for Senator Cassidy to speak up and am not holding my breath.
On a slightly related point, I once thought it was a good thing that Congress gave the president the power to adjust some tariffs, as presidents tended to be more trade friendly than Congress.
They coud have given Presidents power only to reduce tariffs
I read The Road To Serfdom in the 90s and thought it was totally overstated. How could my technocratic government and bureaucrats be a slippery slope to dictatorship? Guess I was wrong.
Join the club.
"In the past, one could discuss the business world in its own terms. How is this or that company doing? How is this crypto project doing? At times, politics intruded (as when Biden snubbed Tesla), but it was usually in the background. Now, almost every discussion of business, every discussion of crypto, revolves around a single issue—its relationship to Trump. We’ve become like Hungary, with Trump instead of Orban. Trump is our caudillo."
As an Argentine, this part really resonated with me. That's how Argentine politics work as long as I've been old enough to pay attention.
Thanks for another clear-eyed analysis.
Another thoughtful and timely post! I'm reading "Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress and How to Get it Back" by Mark Dunkleman. This came out before the Klein/Thompson book, "Abundance" that has received mixed reviews. I have not yet read that one. Dunkleman's book is interesting as he compares the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian approaches to governing and it's done with a historical sweep. I'm only up to Nixon right now but here is a great quote that relates to what you say:
"...the White House purposely baited progressives into taking positions out of step with the President's mainstream appeal..."
What goes around, comes around. I still think that Trump is lazy, but unlike in 2016, he has surrounded himself with people who are laser focused on eliminating government and elevating the white oligarchy. Voigt and Miller are the driving forces and all the rest supporting players.
I wish that George Orwell and Hunter Thompson were alive today to report on all this. That would truly be epic.
"laser focused on eliminating government"
There's some of that, but I don't entirely agree. I think they wish to use government to enrich themselves and punish their enemies.
I disagree that Bush or Romney era Republicans were crypto-fascists or Krugman et al. were remotely right about this. Rather, people's views are highly unstable, and, more often than not, determined primarily by peer pressure than by deeply-held principles. I think they were as sincere back then about their old ideology as they are now about their new one.
Party I say this because I just strongly dislike the progressive idea that 'scratch a conservative (and they'd include most libertarians here too), find a fascist' but also because it suggests if you pry deeply enough, you can find out if your normie neighbor is actually a secret extremist. I don't think you can. Most people who are extreme during extreme times weren't hiding their true selves during earlier normal times. Most would earnestly disagree with their future selves.
I think this an argument in favor of having a functional elite for society to be stable. A minority of people who are more educated, deliberative, and self-aware in their views should generally guide public discourse. It's also an argument against high levels of public participation. Democracy works best when it's mostly left to fewer, disproportionately informed, 'wonkish' voters, and politics less subject to mass mood swings. The 90s, our latest golden age, were famously an era of low voter turnout.
Those are reasonable points, but I'm not willing to dismiss the leftist critique. I for one never imagined that American conservatives would vote for an authoritarian nationalist like Trump, at least during a time when the economy was booming and we were at peace. And not just vote for him, but be enthusiastic about some of his most offensive acts. I never imagined that "the big lie" would become such an important part of American politics. In school during the 1970s, we were taught how the big lie was used in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and now it's here.
You said:
"Most people who are extreme during extreme times weren't hiding their true selves during earlier normal times."
Yes, but 2024 was certainly not extreme times, it was about as normal as you can get.
1. Sincere libertarians have always been a trivial portion of the electorate, both right and left. 2. Liberals emphasis on strong government was based on perceived need to oppose strong private forces (esp. racism (from the civil war to the 101st airborne in Arkansas)) and corporate power). The assumption was that "the people" would stand up for justice. In reality, no democratically based government structure can long stand against a people tired / ignorant of democracy.
I agree.
Bryan Caplan’s simplistic theory of left and right continues to be a useful starting point for analyzing politics: the left hates markets, and the right hates the left
Unfortunately, the right now hates both the left and the markets.
Sumner, Trump is plainly delusional, and, given his insistence on it and the fact he lost the election by under two thirds of a point's margin, of course I believe he thinks the 2020 election was stolen.
I do think Trump admires Putin, but, so far, his administration hasn't done any major sanctions relief on Russia (although Trump and his administration clearly do not like Ukraine). Remember, almost every country richer than Russia has sanctioned it except a few Middle Eastern ones, while no country poorer than it has done so. The BICS are extremely important in keeping Russia's economy afloat, definitely more important than the US and comparable to the EU. Yet, I don't see you criticizing the BICS much for their inaction.
You interestingly fail to mention one of Trump's most egregious policies; the deportation of foreigners who criticize Israel. I am not sure whether this is good or bad for the conservative movement, but is clearly anti-liberal (small l) in a bad way.
Re: Canada, you probably understate how bad Trump's policy on this is.
I think it's well past time to discuss voting reform in America (approval or STAR).
"You interestingly fail to mention one of Trump's most egregious policies; the deportation of foreigners who criticize Israel."
Of course I oppose that policy, but I also oppose the hundreds of other outrages he's engaged in. Why single that one out? I "failed to mention" almost all of his misdeeds, instead I provided links to others.
I've done many posts on sanctions, pointing out that Russia gets lots of key industrial supplies from even developed countries like Germany--the sanctions are relatively ineffective as goods flow through third parties. I wish India and China would adhere to the sanctions, and I've done posts on that subject.
Yes, I may have understated the damage from the Canada policy. (As an aside, it might well cost the Conservatives the election next month.)
You'd think that potential retaliatory vengeance from the other side would make vengeance seeking suboptimal. If Trump succeeds in Lawfare, when Dems come into office they could close down Republican leaning law firms. But Trump probably doesn't care to think more than one step ahead.
Personally, I've been pleasantly surprised by how incompetent he's been so far.
Consumer confidence has plummeted and people really think tariffs will damage the economy. Have Americans ever been so pro free trade? Trump and Melania coin was a waste of political capital for some quick cash. RFK is a ticking time bomb politically. The government would fail in various ways even without DOGE, but DOGE raises the probability of failures and puts the blame squarely on him. It doesn't seem like Americans really want to bully Canada and Greenland. It's very clear Trump really believes what he says and no one can or wants to stop him in his admininstration.
I'm a bit surprised betting markets aren't more bullish on Dems taking the house in 2026.
I believe the most-likely outcomes have shifted against Trump, although tail-end risks are higher than I thought previously. To be fair, a democratic land-slide won't solve most of the political problems this country faces...
Good points. The election odds are about 75% Dem right now, which is pretty high given how far away the election is. But I agree with you, it looks like the Dems will retake the House, maybe by a wide margin.
The more trump disregards his popularity the more I fear that he will work to prevent free and fair elections. The effort to disenfranchise voters is already under way. If it will achieve enough to keep MAGA in power is still an open question.
The Americans validated Trump coup, so “if every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'”
Yeah, I can't see how we won't pay a price for this, I just don't know how. Threatening tiny Denmark is so far beyond anything I would have imagined that I'm almost speechless. Our government is truly evil.
"Beneath all that talk of 'liberty', there is tribal instinct to reward your allies and punish your opponents."
It is quite literally irrelevant exactly how true (clearly *way* more than zero) this statement is of those on the right.
The fact that Scott writes this without irony and makes no mention of the fact that under 8 years of Obama and 4 years of Biden SO SO SO much more of it was done by Dems is just astounding.
Lois Lerner? Student loan forgiveness? Fast and Furious? The "green" giveaways? The leftist NGO-funding money laundering scheme, some of which DOGE made public? There are *so* many...
Trump and the GOP surely do some of this, but not nearly as much as the Dems.
The only thing different is that Trump is generally unsubtle when he does it, where Dems sometimes lie about it, sometimes hide it, sometimes do it openly but claim it as "justice".
But I guess Scott's statement isn't actually astounding; it's merely one more example of TDS...
Conservatives are mostly crypto-fascists, but so are most leftists. The essence of fascism is the fantasy that the nation consists of a majority who think just like me and a minority who oppose everything I favor. If only that minority can be crushed (and “due process” would only hinder this vital effort), the nation will have a unity of purpose enabling it to achieve its goals (= my goals).
There are only a few classical liberals, who do not think this way.
IMO you are maybe 60% right.
You are reasonable enough in describing the activists on the left, and the MAGA activists on the right.
I don't think you are correct in describing the non-MAGA activists on the right, at least writ large.
You are of course correct that there are few of us classical liberals.
But where you are most wrong is that even though said majority in the middle has shrunk, a large part of the center-right, and a decent minority of the center-left, are basically centrists who believe in the moderately big government we had in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.
It's just that for multiple reasons the center no longer holds power.
There is *some* chance the center-right will regain power in the GOP when Trump is gone - especially if his administration ends badly.
There is no chance in the next 7 years that the center-left will regain power in the Dem party, and sadly an almost as small chance it will even beyond that.
Here's hoping I'm wrong.
Thank you. This post does what I’ve been looking for and struggling to find: explain just how much more damaging and authoritarian Trump has gotten in his second term. The thing that scared me is that democrats, the media, and people in general are actually LESS upset and concerned with Trump this term than the last term. There is Trump fatigue and also an underlying decline in leftism’s popularity and influence over the past few years. It feels like we need more clear eyed, respected people across the political spectrum waking people up to how different it is this time around.
I don't really understand why you write so much about Denmark and Hungary. I've been reading your blog for years, and you must have mentioned Denmark hundreds if not thousands of times. As you've pointed out yourself, Denmark is more comparable to Massachusetts.
Better models for the United States would probably be Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru or Mexico. Obviously, right-wing authoritarianism is nothing new in these countries. Brazil had a military dictatorship from the 60s until the 80s, for example.
The rule in these countries seems to be a kind of oscillation between extreme right-wing and extreme (by American standards) left-wing governments. Maybe inequality and low social mobility play a role.
I expect something similar will become normal in the United States. Trump will probably be replaced either by an even more right-wing government, which attempts to explicitly curtail Constitutional rights like freedom of speech, or by an explicitly democratic socialist government.
I'm not the only one who is obsessed with that country, trying googling the phrase "getting to Denmark". Yes, the US is different from Denmark, that's partly what I'm saying. Of more concern is that the US is steadily moving further away from Denmark.
In the past, even Denmark wasn't "Denmark" in the modern sense. It used to be a bunch of bloodthirsty Vikings who kidnapped Irish women and brought them to Iceland. Societies change over time.
I use Hungary as an example, as I think it's the closest model to what Trump is trying to do in the US.
To be clear, my point is that as far as the first point you discuss, whether "big government will eventually lead to authoritarianism," I think it would be better to simply forget Denmark, as it's not relevant. I would suggest looking at the development of state power in Latin America instead.
OK, that's a fair point. I was thrown off by your complaint that I write too much about Denmark in general. That's what I was responding to.