Sir, I agree that Trump is crude and he is lewd but now he is renewed. So we have him for four more years.
I think that one needs to think of him in another way: he is a master bullshitter but everyone, particularly the electorate, knows that he is a bullshitter.
I expect fully that within these next four years we will see evidence of his age related decline, much as Sleepy Joe exhibited, and that is in addition to the pathologies to which he is already known to experience. The only saving grace is that he cannot run for re-election. J.D. Vance in 2028, anyone?
Now, how will Trump govern? As a Canadian - like you - I will be watching and considering. You note that you are 56; I am 73 so you are just a kid, but a much wiser kid than I. Nevertheless, as my late mother-in-law used to say, "This too shall pass." [Perhaps she was meaning me?]
Good article. I am a fan of stepping back and looking at the current moment in historical perspective, as a general principle of maintaining positive mental health. I recommended Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now to some family recently for the same reason.
A reincarnated America First movement, with actual power this time, is obviously not what the world needs right now, but it is what we've got. Its not condescending to point that out.
Great piece and so interesting and informative. Your thesis was beautifully developed and the longer arc of history is invaluable when trying to make sense of a confounding election result.
Your readers reaction had to be in response to other comments by someone else. There was absolutely nothing facile or condescending there. Assessing the reasons for the Trump win or the deficiencies of his opponent was not on topic.
You certainly ladled on the condescension with this post, Canadian. Not content with the usual attacks on Trump (with which I tend to agree), you cast your net a bit wider this time to dismiss Americans with a carefully disguised sneer. Rather than attempting to actually understand why they voted the way they did. Or why his opponent was so loathsome to so many. Are all people of your nationality so facile, so smug and patronizing in their critiques... so lazy? I suppose it must be nice, relaxing work if you can get it.
And tell me, what part is wrong? Show me the sentences and paragraphs that are wrong. Show me anything that is wrong.
You’re right that I didn’t parse why people voted as they did, what they made of the other candidate, etc. That wasn’t at all the point of the essay. I simply noted that they voted for a man who is very explicitly and proudly like a character in an Upton Sinclair novel — while Americans of an earlier generation, who hurt so much more, who were so much more desperate, never did. And, again, what part of that is wrong?
For someone who co-wrote a book about how bad people, and experts, are at prediction, you don't seem to have any qualms about making a bold prediction about how bad Trump's second term will actually turn out. Ironic. In fact, I'm not even sure if your prediction here is testable in the rigorous & testable way you (wisely) advocate in Superforecasting.
Trump didn't inspire a "violent insurrection". This is hyperbole. Violent insurrections, now in through history, involve many deaths and weapons, which of course did not happen on January 6th. Also, fascists don't abide by Supreme Court rulings they disagree with (Trump didn't overrule the SCOTUS when he didn't like their decisions.)
As for your assessment of topics like inflation and the economy, you'd do well - if you can at least put your Trump Derangement Syndrome temporarily on pause - to read Peter Turchin's recent book "End Times", which is really the best and most scientific explanation of the phenomenon of Trump populism, and which belies the superficial (and thus blind) analysis in this post.
There isn’t a single prediction of any kind in that entire essay. It solely consists of comparisons between past and present, nothing more.
The closest I come to making a prediction is noting that in the past a series of horrible decisions, that was devastating to humanity, did not derail material progress at the at — and, implicitly, it is therefore at least possible that if we make horrible decisions now or in the future we may similarly fail to derail progress. I don’t know what the coming Trump administration will bring. Just as I don’t know what any number of major events in the future will bring. But it’s worth remembering that, no matter how bad things may seem, we may lose less than we fear. It’s a point that is literally applicable to any event, any year, any era.
As for your other points… they are the tendentious codswallop of a partisan: when an enormous mob storms the legislature to overturn an election and stop the transfer of power, insisting it’s not a “violent insurrection” because large numbers of people weren’t killed is exactly as ridiculous as leftists insisting that a looting and burning isn’t violent because it’s only property damage. And that’s being generous. Arguably, it’s even sillier.
Sir, I agree that Trump is crude and he is lewd but now he is renewed. So we have him for four more years.
I think that one needs to think of him in another way: he is a master bullshitter but everyone, particularly the electorate, knows that he is a bullshitter.
I expect fully that within these next four years we will see evidence of his age related decline, much as Sleepy Joe exhibited, and that is in addition to the pathologies to which he is already known to experience. The only saving grace is that he cannot run for re-election. J.D. Vance in 2028, anyone?
Now, how will Trump govern? As a Canadian - like you - I will be watching and considering. You note that you are 56; I am 73 so you are just a kid, but a much wiser kid than I. Nevertheless, as my late mother-in-law used to say, "This too shall pass." [Perhaps she was meaning me?]
I love "this too shall pass." One of my mum's favourites. Take the long view. Excessive fear and pride melt away.
Good article. I am a fan of stepping back and looking at the current moment in historical perspective, as a general principle of maintaining positive mental health. I recommended Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now to some family recently for the same reason.
A reincarnated America First movement, with actual power this time, is obviously not what the world needs right now, but it is what we've got. Its not condescending to point that out.
Great piece and so interesting and informative. Your thesis was beautifully developed and the longer arc of history is invaluable when trying to make sense of a confounding election result.
Your readers reaction had to be in response to other comments by someone else. There was absolutely nothing facile or condescending there. Assessing the reasons for the Trump win or the deficiencies of his opponent was not on topic.
You certainly ladled on the condescension with this post, Canadian. Not content with the usual attacks on Trump (with which I tend to agree), you cast your net a bit wider this time to dismiss Americans with a carefully disguised sneer. Rather than attempting to actually understand why they voted the way they did. Or why his opponent was so loathsome to so many. Are all people of your nationality so facile, so smug and patronizing in their critiques... so lazy? I suppose it must be nice, relaxing work if you can get it.
There is no sneer in that essay, only sorrow.
And tell me, what part is wrong? Show me the sentences and paragraphs that are wrong. Show me anything that is wrong.
You’re right that I didn’t parse why people voted as they did, what they made of the other candidate, etc. That wasn’t at all the point of the essay. I simply noted that they voted for a man who is very explicitly and proudly like a character in an Upton Sinclair novel — while Americans of an earlier generation, who hurt so much more, who were so much more desperate, never did. And, again, what part of that is wrong?
Appreciate this one!
Thanks Dan.
Thanks for this Dan , just what was needed. Got to love history whaa.
For someone who co-wrote a book about how bad people, and experts, are at prediction, you don't seem to have any qualms about making a bold prediction about how bad Trump's second term will actually turn out. Ironic. In fact, I'm not even sure if your prediction here is testable in the rigorous & testable way you (wisely) advocate in Superforecasting.
Trump didn't inspire a "violent insurrection". This is hyperbole. Violent insurrections, now in through history, involve many deaths and weapons, which of course did not happen on January 6th. Also, fascists don't abide by Supreme Court rulings they disagree with (Trump didn't overrule the SCOTUS when he didn't like their decisions.)
As for your assessment of topics like inflation and the economy, you'd do well - if you can at least put your Trump Derangement Syndrome temporarily on pause - to read Peter Turchin's recent book "End Times", which is really the best and most scientific explanation of the phenomenon of Trump populism, and which belies the superficial (and thus blind) analysis in this post.
There isn’t a single prediction of any kind in that entire essay. It solely consists of comparisons between past and present, nothing more.
The closest I come to making a prediction is noting that in the past a series of horrible decisions, that was devastating to humanity, did not derail material progress at the at — and, implicitly, it is therefore at least possible that if we make horrible decisions now or in the future we may similarly fail to derail progress. I don’t know what the coming Trump administration will bring. Just as I don’t know what any number of major events in the future will bring. But it’s worth remembering that, no matter how bad things may seem, we may lose less than we fear. It’s a point that is literally applicable to any event, any year, any era.
As for your other points… they are the tendentious codswallop of a partisan: when an enormous mob storms the legislature to overturn an election and stop the transfer of power, insisting it’s not a “violent insurrection” because large numbers of people weren’t killed is exactly as ridiculous as leftists insisting that a looting and burning isn’t violent because it’s only property damage. And that’s being generous. Arguably, it’s even sillier.
Not bad.