Democrats' base their opinion on how the economy is actually doing, in response to actual economic events. Republican sentiment is entirely based on who is President, and nothing beyond that. In their mind the economy is good when it's their guy in office, and bad when it's not, and that's it.
The US economy does better under Democratic US Presidents, especially in terms of both job creation and unemployment. A large part of the reason for this might be that recessions are much more likely to start under Republican US Presidents, thus producing worse unemployment and job creation figures for them. It might also help that the GOP message of lifting yourself up by the bootsteps and no to big gubmint might resonate more when times are good than when times are bad.
Dems are partisan aswell (though alot less than reps).
The American economy has seen robust growth since the 70s. Everything is great. These polls show how harmful partisan politics can be to overall harmony and the national interest.
We need less democracy. People need to care more about sportsball, and less about presidential debates. Politics needs to be boring again. Policy wonks can have civil debates behind formal structures and NGOs.
Free speech + Mass speech = Retarded speech (which ought to be censored).
They both might be wrong. The Democrats are going to pay attention to the stock market so there responses will track that. Id love to see a true breakdown of people who responded by age, income, education, city/suburban/rural, net Worth. The Republicans have had an echo chamber for 20 years, but the people in them definitely screwed older in the past. Once more a demographic breakdown would be great. What people miss is that for millions of people in rural areas especially the stock market literally has no effect on their life and never will once come into how they view the economy. The economy is good if they can get an hourly job 25% better, gas is cheaper, beer and food stay stable. They will never invest so market has no bearing. Ironically I'm sure the market was great when all kinds of hell was going on with places closing by them. Everyone assumes that others answering are kinda similar to them. So many have no concept of how others life, want, need.
Also I realize the stock market is not directly relevant for everyone, but I think it's more applicable to most than you think. Well more than half of workers contribute to retirement plans, and that means they're invested in the stock market. Most pension funds are invested in stocks too. But beyond the stock market, unemployment levels have been very very good for about the past decade, other than a brief blip in 2020 right after the shut downs. It's hard to say the economy has actually been BAD since 2015, other than that blip and current fears. You want bad you need to look at the aughts.
I’m doubting this data on its face. If true (I’m confused about the site UI and don’t want to spend time trying to change it to find the data), it’ll be the only example of this phenomenon I’ve ever seen. I’ve always seen it as being tribalistic on both sides.
I’ve looked at many of them so far, and the only one that is even plausibly not a false equivalency is the first one.
An opinion changing between one president isn’t the same, and there are other sociopolitical phenomena that caused the changes (like BLM, the rise of wokeness, etc.).
An opinion changing between presidents as sharply as it does for republicans IS the same
I don't know if this is included since the album is quite old, but while Republican's belief that the election was legitimate went from ~20% to ~80% from 2020 to 2024, for Democrats it stayed above 80% both times, dropping only a few percentage points in 2024.
Another example, i e. The place I originally found this Imgur link from, was showing how Republicans support of Ukraine dropped drastically after the Oval Office meeting.
I agree that Republican beliefs about election legitimacy based on who wins are worse on average - while Russiagate from the left was excessive, Trump’s stolen election claims were worse. But there is, in general, a seeming near equality in how people view how the economy is going based on who is in power in most of the polls I’ve seen.
Again, the Ukraine meeting isn’t the same. GOPers watched or saw clips of the meeting, thought Zelenskyy looked bad (rationally or not) and changed their mind on whether they wanted to support Ukraine. Same with Middle East interventions. Democrats and Republicans really do have different approaches to the Middle East, so GOPers assumed, correctly or not, that Obama was doing a bad job in the Middle East. I think that’s excusable.
What’s inexcusable imo is thinking that e.g. the Dow Jones is in the hole or going down over time just because the other party is in power, which both parties do. I could be completely wrong, but my priors based on past experiences is that this irrationality is bipartisan.
Maybe, but the degree to which they are irrational matters. No one claims that there are 0 ideologically possesed Democrats. But this data shows that it is indeed by large the Republicans rather than the Democrats who have large violent swings in opinion instantly. Yes, some Democrats do the same, but overall they are not so.
Why are you ignoring the only slight decrease in sentiment when trump was elected the first time in 2016? Also the only slight increase when Biden came into office?
Economic sentiment rightly fell in 2025 AFTER his inauguration speech because he said some pretty unhinged stuff (assuming you are non MAGA and already skeptical of Trump).
It wasn’t sharp, but the sentiment was still going down significantly even if gradually even though the economy was getting better after the 2016 election.
The poll is about economic conditions *right now,* not what it’ll be like in the future. So the opinions shouldn’t have changed that sharply.
When I commented the other day that recent events had led me to conclude that Trump's takeover of the GOP was a huge mistake, and that I'd rather have Mitt Romney back, I didn't expect to have that viewpoint this vindicated, this quickly, as it has been with the tariff insanity of yesterday.
Like you write here, I assumed Trump 2 would be similar to Trump 1. Since it is demonstrably not the same, I've had to update my priors. Before the election, I and I believe most other right-wingers found your criticisms of us to be hysterical and obnoxious, with the constant talk of "low human capital" and such. In hindsight, there is no denying that you were on to something, and are now entitled to take a couple of victory laps.
Ironically, I did not vote for Donald Trump as I still assessed him to be insufficiently aligned with my personal values, and I felt that his victory would further drag the right in a direction that I would prefer it not to go. I didn't see it being anything like this, though. This is much worse than I expected and we're what, barely two months in? Fun times.
What's sad is that you are correct in observing that most rightoids will still blindly defend Trump, oblivious to reality. In this way they have become like the wokesters, insert here that quote about he who fights monsters or however it goes.
I respect you coming around but where have you been in the last ten years to be able to say you wouldn't expect this? When he asked Ukraine to produce dirt on Biden or it wouldn't get weapons? When he led a mob on Jan 6 to attack the Capitol? During birtherism?
As I said--I looked back at Trump 1 as the expectation for what Trump 2 would be like. I didn't have any big complaints about Trump 1. This isn't like Trump 1.
You didn't see both plots of his that lead to impeachments as bad? You didn't see him witholding aid on Zelenskyy for him to simply ANNOUNCE — not actually do, but ANNOUNCE — investigations into Hunter, as bad? You didn't see the whole plot and buildup behind January 6 as unconstitutional and bad? His tariffs and trade war with China, that he lost and had to bail out farmers for?
The problem here is that you ARE, sadly, the uninformed voter. You thought Trump 1 was OK because you, as Richard says, weren't plugged into the news. The only thing different with Trump 2 is that there isn't anyone holding him back and he's louder. But this was clearly going to be the case. How could you not see that Trump was appointing loyalists, promising RFK and Elon positions, GOP Congressmembers becoming more sycophantic, attacking the deep state at every turn? It was so obvious that he would not be the same president that was inhibited from his worst desires by the establishment.
I think that hysterics like the ones you engage in here have actually played a key role in leading us to this situation. Trump has been called Hitler for the past ten years regardless of anything he did or didn't do. This predictably led the rest of us who weren't caught up in TDS to simply tune people like you out, because your answer was always the same no matter what the reality on the ground was--"Orange Man Bad." If you'd been capable of calling balls and strikes from the start, maybe people wouldn't have written you off as The Boy Who Cried Fascism.
These aren't hysterics. Trump is simply so depraved that for anyone who actually paid attention, the correct reaction would be one so much more alarmist than any prior candidate. That meme where the left wing runs off to the left, making the guy in the center right wing is literally what happened in reverse. Trump became so crazy, and then right wingers kept asking "why don't you listen to both sides?" "Why are you not conceding the right wing is just as valid?"
The idea that you'd shut your mind off because some people called Trump Hitler is also baffling. It reminds me of people who say they supported X/Y/Z civil cause until the protesters got too annoying. Then they had to support the complete opposite of their views. You elected a retard because you didn't like pink haired protesters. You became just as much of a sheep, just of the other herd. When the shepherd said go right, you went invariably left.
You can call it hysterics all you want. The fact remains that Trump is a uniquely bad, uniquely horrible, uniquely corrupt politican, but because right-wingers had to rally around SOMEONE and Trump won the primary this is all post-hoc rationalisation. The reason I know I'm right is because plenty of right wing politicians called Trump for what he was, before he won the primaries. VANCE called him America's Hitler. Then they fell in line.
I mean, even now, calling him Hitler is still hysterical. He's not Hitler, he's just a moron high on his own supply (not that uncommon in politics, what's unique about Trump is the degree to which he's been enabled by a cult of personality). The more you stick with the Hitler comparisons the less anyone cares what you have to say. That's been true since 2015 and no amount of text walls that you write will change it.
The voting public agrees with me. You know how I know I'm right? Because the squishy voters in the middle who just wanted to vote for the least crazy option, broke for Trump. The left dove so far off the deep end that they handed him a bunch of 80-20 issues to run on the 80% side of. I'll say it as many times as this conversation happens: There was a chance for the Biden administration to stop doing this and they screwed it up.
Another thing I'll keep saying as many times as this conversation happens: I didn't even vote for Trump, never have. But because I don't have TDS either, you see me the same as his true believer cultists. You're their mirror image.
>The only thing different with Trump 2 is that there isn't anyone holding him back
That is a significant difference.
Now, unlike the OP I had many complaints about Trump 1.0 and I always thought it would have been foolish to trust a person like him with any position of power (like, seriously, why not literally any other person who isn't a huge scumbag).
But it's also true that the material reality on the ground during Trump 1.0 was... Fine. He made a lot of noise, broke a lot of decorum, but economy was good throughout. I know it ended with COVID but that obviously wasn't his fault, and some of the response was actually good (warp speed).
The economy was fine overall, but Trump did many things to puncture that, such as his 2018-19 trade war with China, India and the EU, which by all measures he markedly lost. He had to use taxpayer dollars to bail out US farmers. He lost jobs overall because of that war. The 2019 stock market was much worse off for this war.
Trump ran record deficits at a time where the economy was ostensibly doing well, and we were getting 10-20% YoY improvements. This is not the time that you need to run deficits. $8T in 4 years.
The economy on the ground seems fine to the average voter who is uninformed because the average voter sees an ostensibly good economy but not the horrendous things behind it that Trump did to create it.
The thing you missed is that during Trump 1 he was surrounded by people the old guard GOP picked for him. Between not knowing what he was doing and not expecting to win in 2016, he was unprepared to staff the White House and the government, so McConnell et al did it for him, and those competent, old-style GOP appointees mitigated, slow-walked and sometimes outright blocked Trump's worst impulses. In the process, they also realized he was an unhinged moron and left or got forced out, most of them on very bad terms. By the end of Trump 1 he was mostly (though still not entirely) free of their restrictions but by then he was campaigning full time, rather than trying to enact his agenda.
But in 2024 he had the whole Project 2025 team working for him. They spent a couple of years preparing to staff the WH and the government with people who were loyal to Trump first and foremost. So for Trump 2 he rolled into office with a cadre of "yes men" and nutcases. No one is holding him back now, and many of them are actively encouraging him.
Also, Trump himself has gotten dumber, and that was clear in 2024 for anyone who was looking (just as Biden was clearly declining, for anyone who was looking). But that's not as big a factor as the replacement of the traditional GOP staffers and cabinet members with the Trump-loyalist staffers and cabinet members.
How did you not have big complaints about Trump 1?
January 6 alone should have broken through even the most wilful ignorance.
His attempt to extort Zelenskyy, contrary to the interests of the USA and its allies, should have shown you how he would like to operate if he could get away with it.
His constant lying about having a healthcare plan should have made it clear that he had no regard whatsoever for ordinary citizens.
I hope you can reflect on how you missed these gigantic warnings, along with many many others.
All of that stuff I consider to be an average day for Democrats. Really, what he's doing right now is also sort of an average Tuesday for Joe Biden, i.e. doing some really retarded and destructive policy that totally flies in the face of obvious reality. That describes most of the major policies that Democrats have spent the last ten years promoting. Perhaps this is worse than any single policy Democrats have done recently, although I'd disagree with that if we count COVID policy failures as a single instance.
As I've said and will repeat as many times as it takes: It's easy to make the case that Trump is repulsive in a vacuum, but then you have to account for the existence of the alternative. Even now I'm hardly convinced that Harris was the correct choice. This just takes it from non-debatable that Trump was the correct choice into a realm where people who prefer Harris actually have a leg to stand on.
So, you think the response to COVID was totally fine, and people having a grudge against Democrats for it makes them "wilfully blind cultists?" Just checking.
No complaints about Trump 1? His mishandling of COVID led to hundreds of thousands of preventative deaths. His attack on science the same science that gave his administration the vaccine and then he became anti vaccine. His ridiculous press conferences and statements like telling people to ingest bleach or light therapy while denigrating an apolitical and world class scientist like Fauci. His politicalization of the pandemic and withholding PPE and assistance to Blue States. The constant grift for instance his daughter’s deals with China, son-in-laws billions from the Saudis and his own attempted shakedown of Zelensky which led to his first impeachment. The constant revolving door of cabinet members proved his autocratic and moronic management style and world views needed sycophants instead of leaders. Oh, and that little thing on Jan 6, you know the tourist visits to the Capital. 60+ lost legal challenges, lawyers who supported crazy theories on subjugating laws and the Constitution losing law licenses but still he he claims he election fraud and that he won in 2020z Just face it, Republicans, conservatives whatever you call yourselves care only about power and not governing. You also only care about “owning the libs.” Trump said he likes the uneducated and you went along with it. Just own it, you can intellectualize all you want, but time after time your side took power over reality and the betterment of our country and society.
Exactly right Richard. Rightists are quick to point out various flaws with our institutions. For example, they'll bring up a slanted story about black crime, doctors signing onto flawed ideas about sex and gender, and other excesses of our time.
But the issue at hand is that Trump and MAGA are noxious to smart and informed people. They're especially noxious to people who have a strong moral compass around corruption. Pointing out examples of hypocrisy where our institutions have gone wrong on those counts only underscores the fact that our institutions at least care to be *perceived* as morally upright and correct.
So the result is that you have one side of the political aisle which is a home to more informed people, and the other side which elevates the dumbest among us. This is a problematic turn of events.
The geopolitical implications of Trump's tariffs against China's neighbors are grim. Countries like Vietnam will be forced to deepen economic ties with Beijing, which means political subordination to the CCP. China's stranglehold deepens. America is irrelevant. Trump is more an agent of China than of Putin, from the looks of it.
Populism results from a decline in trust in institutions and gatekeepers. In recent years, the loss of public confidence in academic institutions, public health officials, and mainstream media was well-earned. Populist movements may not fare better, but they are a cry for change in the face of institutional intransigence.
I think the right-wing media landscape and culture in the U.S. is different from the rest of the anglosphere. If institutions had "earned" distrust, why are institutions still trusted in Australia, Canada and New Zealand?
Great article. One comment about Milei since you mentioned him at the end and I'm from Argentina. I think it's worked out very well also because his administration was staffed with serious people from the center-right party called PRO. I think the more his party deviates from serious people, the more we might see a populist clown show.
Who took advice from his dead dog through a psychic. I guess you could say Argentina is going well if you're a tourist and you can now go there for free.
Argentina is going very well. Poverty is down, inflation is WAY down, country risk is way down, debt is being paid, and currency exchange is relatively stable, so we've seen a huge appreciation of the peso in 2024. Real wages have also grown every single month since May.
Do you understand how exchange rates work? What are you even saying with your comment? If the peso to dollar rate was around 1200 when Milei took office and it's now around 1300, it's remained VERY stable. In REAL terms (with over 100% inflation in the middle) the peso has massively appreciated against the dollar.
There's no proof it every happened. It was published by an opposition "journalist" who wrote an unsanctioned biography during the election cycle. It was a hit piece that the global media ate up.
I think part of reason Milei has worked out pretty good so far is simply that he was a antidote of some pro-market populism to established and institutionalized anti-market populism (Peronism and its variants). It's easier to fix a crisis- just stop doing the stupid thing - than to steer the ship in "normal times". Basically Milei has been successful so far but it's still possible he'll end up wrecking his own success down the road
Yeah, that's not populist at all. The populist stuff seeps out in other ways. Plus, the guy is a clown. That's why the whole crypto scam debacle even happened.
Also Argentine. I think his populism helped to some extent in his chosen field: he was willing to go fast and break things. This allowed him to reduce the deficit by 5%+ (estimates vary) in a single year, leading to most of the other variables to improve. This was pure Milei, it was what he ran on before he brought on any of the ex-PRO economists.
Maybe more important he only has a small congressional minority. He can't do anything meaningful without approval by the big legacy parties. A fully unhinged Milei administration with congressional and judicial support might look very different.
It's also a bad comparison as it's just pitting 2 versions of populism against each other, and one had been the dominant force for 20 years.
Like you said at the end, a Milei administration with a lot more Deputies and Senators would probably look very different. I agree with you that to some extent, his craziness did help, but he's still a populist who if he surrounded himself with sycophants, would probably be a disaster.
Populism is ultimately an anti-ethos that can only define itself in opposition to what the "elite" believe, and since the "elite" are usually smarter and have better judgment, that results in the populists reflexively getting a lot of things wrong (and then doubling down out of pride when the elites make fun of their predictable failures).
Milei is perfectly consistent with this view, as he ascended in a society where the "elite" were actually so ignorant and cloistered as to have fallen well below the 50% threshold for getting things right versus wrong.
I wonder if you're prepared to recant your tentative support for Trump and the MAGAfied populist Right more generally. I know you've been reconsidering the merits of the political Right, and am curious as to whether there is a determinable limit to the madness you're willing to tolerate.
I read the article as a big yes to all these questions. Right-left is a false dichotomy, top (libertarian) and bottom (populism) need to be added for more accuracy and it will still miss many Americans.
People have been saying that right-left is a false dichotomy for decades, and yet it still stands. Maybe there's something to it.
Other than that, yeah I agree that a one-dimensional measure of political ideology is incomplete. I prefer to think of ideologies like distinct culinary cuisines: some dishes are complicated and involve lots of seasoning, while others are more simplistic and focused around providing adequate nutrition.
I know how RH voted. I know the extensive caveats he gave about his vote. I read this as an admission error, that as negative as some of his judgements about Trump were before he was in office, he thought Trump would be better for our financial outlook. I think the last day's news has disabused him.
Libertarianism and populism are by no means on opposite sides of the spectrum. Populism isn't so much an ideology on how things should be done but a thin centered logic or narrative framework. Libertarianism and populism can even co exist happily together take for example the current president of argentina Javier Miles, who is very clearly a populist constructing his narrative against the "caste of old politicians" and presenting himself as a savior of the nation and the true representative of the public will.
"For those asking: yes, voting for Trump was a mistake.
I thought we'd get a repeat of the first administration, but we didn't. The signs were there, I just did not take my own ideas about the awfulness of Trump and MAGA seriously enough."
I think the critical mistake here was that many underestimated not only the extent to which Trump had gone "powerful", but more importantly, the degree to which potential counters to this inanity had been selected against within the MAGA movement.
> Trump wants to impose 10% or higher tariffs on America’s allies, implement mass repatriations of undocumented immigrants, and subvert the independence of the Federal Reserve. Each of these proposals, taken separately, is at least as bad as a ban on price gouging. Tariffs are one of the most regressive taxes, raising consumer prices across the board just to protect notable strategic industries such as toaster production. Mass deportations will raise the costs of services, in addition to the human rights violations and restrictions on human liberty they will entail. Central bank independence is one of the foundation stones of modern developed economies, and is so central to international credibility that even a strongman like Putin has to date avoided interfering with it. *Furthermore, Trump’s bad ideas are far likelier to get these implemented, given the greater role of Presidential prerogative in these sectors and the collapse of any internal Republican culture of critique.*
I think you might be underestimating the vast amount of younger males who felt that the system was definitely not working for them in all areas of life. For some of them they absolutely don't buy into the ridiculousness of the right but being atomized, no attachments, not many prospects, only time realized that the small chance of having something meaningful only could occur with enough chaos and destruction that the elite on both sides above them would be upended. They are so atomized that why should they care about how it effects anyone else after how those people treated them. I don't buy it myself, but I'm around enough of them in my job that I understand it. To them the high downside risk is unknowable from their prospective. They also have the most to gain. Hasn't it been proven before a link between youth unemployment and political chaos and violence? They may not have crazy unemployment but god every other area of their life is shit and they hate work. Chaos to them is a chance.
Yup, they fucked around, and now they are going to find out. Unemployment won't stay low for long and the system they decided to tear down isn't going to be around to help them.
That is exactly the possible huge issue that not many have contemplated. At the start it's there problem, if it continues and grows in size it's everyone's problem. Having a large number of young males with hopeless futures and a sense of being wronged by their society is a powder keg and usually results extremely negative consequences for all. I'm almost twice the age of many of them and the direction things are headed, combined with their headspace, and society current response makes me feel sick.
I agree with you, but I'm at a loss as to how to fix the problem. AI is only going to make things worse. Our country is capable of creating massive amounts of wealth, but most of the population has no meaningful role to play in the process.
I know Richard wrote an amazing piece on Scott this past year. I've been reading him since like 2011. These aren't his exact views, a believe he said he would come out with essay Monday regarding them, but he helped but into narrative the story that this high market rating super forcaster & and AI alignment reasecher who in 2021 wrote predictions for AI for the next 3 years that blew Scott away because it reads like an exact summary of what did occur. The guy also is famous for when he left open AI in 2024 they told him he had to sign a non disparage agreement to get his stick options which he refused on principal causing them to back down and get rid of requirements.
If this reallyis how close we are AGI, basically by year end then Trump's Greenland push makes more sense. Microsoft is currently tryin to push quicker their $60 billion data center. Overall $400 billion dollars in data centers are in process of being built. I wonder if Greenland confer some of the benefits the Iceland does for their data centers?
You say you work with these young guys - what sort of things do they complain about? What are their experiences? Do they like Trump or support him out of desperation?
I've found the older one is the more bitter, standoffish, dickhead they are. The youngest ones I see are "roleplaying" people they see on YouTube. At least until they meet supporters in their mid 20s to early 30s. It's that group that I've witnessed a fascinating cultural development that has given me pause. I work at a casual, but nice cocktail bar. We have no TVs. I saw over the last year this group of mid 20s to early 30s men, mostly, but not totally trump supporters all slowly start carrying flip phones instead of smart phones, thus becoming an oddity for not starting at their phones. It sounds stupid, but I saw this group start attracting more and more people through genuine social interactions. They only really rib people for being buried in their phone. There is a definite correlation between trump supporters acting in a machismo asshole fashion and their smart phone usage, haha. I've seen that group triple in size and pull in younger ones that a year prior were tate wannabes. So I feel like their is a huge generational rift in trump supporters. The older ones seem obsessed with news/social media and their support is one of bitterness and desperation. The younger ones I see much more a rejection of culture. It shocked me to see a group of them actually try building something different, even if it was a rejection of smartphone/social media. The ones within the group certainly appear much happier over the last year as well as turning into customers I enjoy having for the atmosphere they foster. The few but growing number of young women who've become part of the group, trading in there iPhones for flip phones I've seen the most drastic changes for the positive in. This all leads me to believe their is a strong current of cultural rejection in the younger ones. At the extreme end is all that trad crap that gets all the press, but I feel it would be a deadly error for those against trump to wholeheartedly throw out everything trump supporters are doing just because it's tainted with trump. I've seen many more people gravitate to this group than away. I hardly hear them talk politics, they will talk to anyone, they always seem to be laughing. Their politics are subtle and people who join in more and more are more likely to become trump supporters due a cultural osmosis and their friend group changing than hard political analysis. I'm more center left, in I admit weird ways that don't align with the center left stereotype today. However, it hasn't been until recently that my much more progressive friends have taken notice and gave merit to my criticisms of them. They all turned into these doom scrolling robots who catastrophize everything, only speak in morbid snark, gatekeep all social interactions until limtus tests are passed, and generally seem miserable and vindictive. The thought learning from the past and imagining a new inclusive future that can motivate their base and bring back some of the younger current trump supporters not yet ruined by bitter grievances seems to fill many of their cohort with rage. Rage of the same intensity I see of older trump supporters. I feel we sit at a precipice controlled by how deeply our societys group narcissism has rotted our souls. There is a way forward.
I had been saying to myself…”this is what the people voted for”.
Now I find myself saying ….”if people are stupid enough to vote for this….should they get a vote at all”?
Of course they should….universal suffrage blah blah….no taxation without representation yada yada…but while I always say there is no cure for stupid, it does burn something fierce when their stupid starts to affect me.
Lately I’ve found myself thinking the Founding Fathers were correct in having some barrier to entry for voting. Yes, I know, problematic for a myriad of reasons but allowing just about anyone to vote has eroded the electoral process. People are not voting for a generational vision of the country as a whole but on the basis of vibes, podcasts and niche grievance politics. Clearly a disaster. I am not sure what the answer is to this. However, it seems reasonable that one must have a significant stake in society besides existing in it be an eligible voter. At the very least people could pass the citizenship test before getting their voter registration card; that collapses civic engagement, literacy and something of an aptitude test into one.
When the right wanted make voting harder as a means to ensure voters who turned out were informed and not just voting for free stuff paid for by someone else, we heard cries of racism and white supremacy.
Democrats responded with trying to allow illegals to vote because residency, however short, is all that matters.
I’m not sure what you mean by tables turning. I’ve never been against voter ID…and I’m sure this is the first time I’ve even commented on this Substack so not sure what your frame of reference is here.
Also I’m not sure “free stuff” is a huge motivating factor for voting seeing as poor people are less likely to show up. The people most likely to vote for the “free stuff” party are significantly correlated with so called “costal elites”, who make 100k+ salaries and don’t use welfare.
I struggle with these tensions too. I am torn because the singular destruction of America’s manufacturing capacity by elite economic paradigm was a critical error. It was an error deserving of Trump 1.0. Throw in 2008, Iraq, the FAA hiring scandal, the Hamas reaction in 2023 and the acute housing shortage and the case for a serious correction is strong. I just don’t know where you balance this.
This may be too facile. I think Americans are really ill-served by the two-party system that often forces them to choose (what they perceive as) the lesser of two evils. A true multi-party system could prevent an unhinged executive from indulging their id.
And here we go. An ostensibly smart person still flogging the completely useless idea of third parties, which will never work in a system with a powerful executive. You should know this. You should also know that populist figures have risen in parliamentary systems, like Le Pen in France.
This is why I despair for our country. Even the smart people don't understand the basics. If you read the comments on NYT articles, the top one is invariably some screed about how Bernie Sanders would have saved us. No acknowledgement that he never even planned to get majority of votes in the 2020 primary. He got exactly the percentage he expected, 30%. No acknowledgement that Biden basically ran a Bernie Sanders presidency, with Manchin constraining its ambitions. No acknowledgment that Biden passed the largest climate bill in history and essentially ended drone warfare. This isn't even a complete list.
You read too much into my brief comment. First, I'm not American. I'm Indian, though I lived for many years in the US a while ago, so understand the system well.
I'm well aware of the potential for populist leaders to win and hold power in parliamentary systems. Modi in India has done just that for 3 election cycles (yes, he is a populist in most ways; he carried out a daft act of demonetization years ago, somewhat like Trump's silly tariffs.)
If there were more than 2 strong parties in the US, Congress could become competitive and put a check on the (powerful) executive. Congress can do that now too, but its members are individually too scared of Trump's wrath to break ranks.
My main point, that people are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils in the American system, still stands. Richard Hanania is a prime example of that. Voters would have more positive reasons to vote for someone. This holds even if you consider the emergence of a third (or more) party to be impossible in the US.
But you literally just negated your own comment. Congress is supposed to control tariffs. They just stopped doing it, because it's impossible to get anything done. Your complaint is that Congress, which the Founders envisioned as the most powerful branch of the government, has ceded most of its control to the courts and the executive. That has nothing to do with third parties.
Furthermore, complaining about Harris versus Trump is like complaining that your only two breakfast choices are cereal and dog shit. Hanania should have known better. Multi-party systems are what produced Turkey, Germany, and France's repeated near misses.
I am begging people to stop flogging an idea that is (1) impossible in the American system and (2) wouldn't even accomplish what they want it to.
Also, on Congress, if a feasible third party option was available, there would be more defections from the two major parties whenever they threatened to go insane, thereby (potentially) improving policy. Right now, there's no incentive to defect if you other side is insane too, just in a different way.
*There will never be a third party in a presidential system.* Look up Duverger's Law.
Furthermore, there is nothing to stop lawmakers from defecting *now*. Some Republican senators break with Trump. That lawmakers in the Hiuse don't do it reflects his iron grip on the party. Huge parts of Biden's agenda got held up by one senator.
Finally, you guys's obsession with a handful of confused teens is honestly unhealthy. There are 350 million people in the country. Of those, maybe 0.0001% are trying out lifestyles you strongly disapprove of. You're going to need to get over it.
Please relax. All I was trying to say was that the public would be better served if their only two options (other than to crawl into a cave and never leave) were not "you must accept lunatic social policy, like the unquestioned transing of your kids" and "you must accept lunatic economic policy, like worldwide tariffs that could crash the global economy". Even one more option would have helpful.
Thanks for showing that you don't have to be a professional Democrat to think that Trumpniks are morons. And thanks for admitting that you made a mistake in voting for him. But if Milei works because you have to "thoroughly destroy your country with socialism" for his policies to go over, Trump is making a great case for leftism to come back stronger than ever by thoroughly destroying our country with its opposite.
Dunno. The idea that everyone should just trust and defer to their better educated betters who just happen to have better jobs, better financing, better housing which they no doubt deserve because of their better education and connections.....Well, f*** that. The trick is to create some over-arching societal mythos that makes large parts of the population OK with second-class status. Religion used to help with that, but that darned populist bias often creeps in.
Why should better educated people not get better jobs overall, controlling of course for the nature and field of education? Isn't getting a better job one of the drivers for seeking more education in the first place? Why would anyone have a problem with that?
What do you think about the heart-warming stories of men and women who are the first to get "higher" education in their families so they can get BS jobs that neither produce anything tangible nor really help anybody. And lose all the skills their families developed over lifetimes?
Not interested in arguing like a politician. If that's your thing, you probably should go be an activist and avoid commenting on message forums like this.
Those better educated betters tend to be the ones that want to help the "second class citizens" the most with things like welfare programs. Those second class citizens love to cry that it's communism though.
Check out this chart on how people rate the economy over the past ten years, and click to show just Democrat responses versus just Republican responses. https://civiqs.com/results/economy_us_now?uncertainty=true&annotations=true&zoomIn=true&net=true
Democrats' base their opinion on how the economy is actually doing, in response to actual economic events. Republican sentiment is entirely based on who is President, and nothing beyond that. In their mind the economy is good when it's their guy in office, and bad when it's not, and that's it.
That is amazing. I thought it was more symmetrical.
The US economy does better under Democratic US Presidents, especially in terms of both job creation and unemployment. A large part of the reason for this might be that recessions are much more likely to start under Republican US Presidents, thus producing worse unemployment and job creation figures for them. It might also help that the GOP message of lifting yourself up by the bootsteps and no to big gubmint might resonate more when times are good than when times are bad.
Dems are partisan aswell (though alot less than reps).
The American economy has seen robust growth since the 70s. Everything is great. These polls show how harmful partisan politics can be to overall harmony and the national interest.
We need less democracy. People need to care more about sportsball, and less about presidential debates. Politics needs to be boring again. Policy wonks can have civil debates behind formal structures and NGOs.
Free speech + Mass speech = Retarded speech (which ought to be censored).
Get with the program! The experts have declared the word "retarded" off-limits.
They both might be wrong. The Democrats are going to pay attention to the stock market so there responses will track that. Id love to see a true breakdown of people who responded by age, income, education, city/suburban/rural, net Worth. The Republicans have had an echo chamber for 20 years, but the people in them definitely screwed older in the past. Once more a demographic breakdown would be great. What people miss is that for millions of people in rural areas especially the stock market literally has no effect on their life and never will once come into how they view the economy. The economy is good if they can get an hourly job 25% better, gas is cheaper, beer and food stay stable. They will never invest so market has no bearing. Ironically I'm sure the market was great when all kinds of hell was going on with places closing by them. Everyone assumes that others answering are kinda similar to them. So many have no concept of how others life, want, need.
Also I realize the stock market is not directly relevant for everyone, but I think it's more applicable to most than you think. Well more than half of workers contribute to retirement plans, and that means they're invested in the stock market. Most pension funds are invested in stocks too. But beyond the stock market, unemployment levels have been very very good for about the past decade, other than a brief blip in 2020 right after the shut downs. It's hard to say the economy has actually been BAD since 2015, other than that blip and current fears. You want bad you need to look at the aughts.
Are you suggesting that instead of considering the stock market, we should be looking at the price of beer?
The chart does allow you to filter the responses by most of those variables.
I’m doubting this data on its face. If true (I’m confused about the site UI and don’t want to spend time trying to change it to find the data), it’ll be the only example of this phenomenon I’ve ever seen. I’ve always seen it as being tribalistic on both sides.
Here's 51 more examples: https://imgur.com/a/YZMyt
I’ve looked at many of them so far, and the only one that is even plausibly not a false equivalency is the first one.
An opinion changing between one president isn’t the same, and there are other sociopolitical phenomena that caused the changes (like BLM, the rise of wokeness, etc.).
An opinion changing between presidents as sharply as it does for republicans IS the same
I don't know if this is included since the album is quite old, but while Republican's belief that the election was legitimate went from ~20% to ~80% from 2020 to 2024, for Democrats it stayed above 80% both times, dropping only a few percentage points in 2024.
Another example, i e. The place I originally found this Imgur link from, was showing how Republicans support of Ukraine dropped drastically after the Oval Office meeting.
I agree that Republican beliefs about election legitimacy based on who wins are worse on average - while Russiagate from the left was excessive, Trump’s stolen election claims were worse. But there is, in general, a seeming near equality in how people view how the economy is going based on who is in power in most of the polls I’ve seen.
Again, the Ukraine meeting isn’t the same. GOPers watched or saw clips of the meeting, thought Zelenskyy looked bad (rationally or not) and changed their mind on whether they wanted to support Ukraine. Same with Middle East interventions. Democrats and Republicans really do have different approaches to the Middle East, so GOPers assumed, correctly or not, that Obama was doing a bad job in the Middle East. I think that’s excusable.
What’s inexcusable imo is thinking that e.g. the Dow Jones is in the hole or going down over time just because the other party is in power, which both parties do. I could be completely wrong, but my priors based on past experiences is that this irrationality is bipartisan.
Maybe, but the degree to which they are irrational matters. No one claims that there are 0 ideologically possesed Democrats. But this data shows that it is indeed by large the Republicans rather than the Democrats who have large violent swings in opinion instantly. Yes, some Democrats do the same, but overall they are not so.
The reality is that Dems are meaningfully more educated, intelligent, and reality-based than GOP'ers/goobers.
The actual chart doesn't support your claim.
You need to filter the responses by just Dems and just Republicans. Yes it does.
I'm looking at this, shows very sharp changes when the presidency changes hands (particularly in Jan 2025):
https://civiqs.com/results/economy_us_now?uncertainty=true&annotations=true&zoomIn=true&net=true&party=Democrat
Why are you ignoring the only slight decrease in sentiment when trump was elected the first time in 2016? Also the only slight increase when Biden came into office?
Economic sentiment rightly fell in 2025 AFTER his inauguration speech because he said some pretty unhinged stuff (assuming you are non MAGA and already skeptical of Trump).
It wasn’t sharp, but the sentiment was still going down significantly even if gradually even though the economy was getting better after the 2016 election.
The poll is about economic conditions *right now,* not what it’ll be like in the future. So the opinions shouldn’t have changed that sharply.
The economy had been growing since the nadir of the '08-'09 recession. It didn't "get better" after the '16 election.
When I commented the other day that recent events had led me to conclude that Trump's takeover of the GOP was a huge mistake, and that I'd rather have Mitt Romney back, I didn't expect to have that viewpoint this vindicated, this quickly, as it has been with the tariff insanity of yesterday.
Like you write here, I assumed Trump 2 would be similar to Trump 1. Since it is demonstrably not the same, I've had to update my priors. Before the election, I and I believe most other right-wingers found your criticisms of us to be hysterical and obnoxious, with the constant talk of "low human capital" and such. In hindsight, there is no denying that you were on to something, and are now entitled to take a couple of victory laps.
Ironically, I did not vote for Donald Trump as I still assessed him to be insufficiently aligned with my personal values, and I felt that his victory would further drag the right in a direction that I would prefer it not to go. I didn't see it being anything like this, though. This is much worse than I expected and we're what, barely two months in? Fun times.
What's sad is that you are correct in observing that most rightoids will still blindly defend Trump, oblivious to reality. In this way they have become like the wokesters, insert here that quote about he who fights monsters or however it goes.
I respect you coming around but where have you been in the last ten years to be able to say you wouldn't expect this? When he asked Ukraine to produce dirt on Biden or it wouldn't get weapons? When he led a mob on Jan 6 to attack the Capitol? During birtherism?
As I said--I looked back at Trump 1 as the expectation for what Trump 2 would be like. I didn't have any big complaints about Trump 1. This isn't like Trump 1.
You didn't see both plots of his that lead to impeachments as bad? You didn't see him witholding aid on Zelenskyy for him to simply ANNOUNCE — not actually do, but ANNOUNCE — investigations into Hunter, as bad? You didn't see the whole plot and buildup behind January 6 as unconstitutional and bad? His tariffs and trade war with China, that he lost and had to bail out farmers for?
The problem here is that you ARE, sadly, the uninformed voter. You thought Trump 1 was OK because you, as Richard says, weren't plugged into the news. The only thing different with Trump 2 is that there isn't anyone holding him back and he's louder. But this was clearly going to be the case. How could you not see that Trump was appointing loyalists, promising RFK and Elon positions, GOP Congressmembers becoming more sycophantic, attacking the deep state at every turn? It was so obvious that he would not be the same president that was inhibited from his worst desires by the establishment.
I think that hysterics like the ones you engage in here have actually played a key role in leading us to this situation. Trump has been called Hitler for the past ten years regardless of anything he did or didn't do. This predictably led the rest of us who weren't caught up in TDS to simply tune people like you out, because your answer was always the same no matter what the reality on the ground was--"Orange Man Bad." If you'd been capable of calling balls and strikes from the start, maybe people wouldn't have written you off as The Boy Who Cried Fascism.
These aren't hysterics. Trump is simply so depraved that for anyone who actually paid attention, the correct reaction would be one so much more alarmist than any prior candidate. That meme where the left wing runs off to the left, making the guy in the center right wing is literally what happened in reverse. Trump became so crazy, and then right wingers kept asking "why don't you listen to both sides?" "Why are you not conceding the right wing is just as valid?"
The idea that you'd shut your mind off because some people called Trump Hitler is also baffling. It reminds me of people who say they supported X/Y/Z civil cause until the protesters got too annoying. Then they had to support the complete opposite of their views. You elected a retard because you didn't like pink haired protesters. You became just as much of a sheep, just of the other herd. When the shepherd said go right, you went invariably left.
You can call it hysterics all you want. The fact remains that Trump is a uniquely bad, uniquely horrible, uniquely corrupt politican, but because right-wingers had to rally around SOMEONE and Trump won the primary this is all post-hoc rationalisation. The reason I know I'm right is because plenty of right wing politicians called Trump for what he was, before he won the primaries. VANCE called him America's Hitler. Then they fell in line.
I mean, even now, calling him Hitler is still hysterical. He's not Hitler, he's just a moron high on his own supply (not that uncommon in politics, what's unique about Trump is the degree to which he's been enabled by a cult of personality). The more you stick with the Hitler comparisons the less anyone cares what you have to say. That's been true since 2015 and no amount of text walls that you write will change it.
The voting public agrees with me. You know how I know I'm right? Because the squishy voters in the middle who just wanted to vote for the least crazy option, broke for Trump. The left dove so far off the deep end that they handed him a bunch of 80-20 issues to run on the 80% side of. I'll say it as many times as this conversation happens: There was a chance for the Biden administration to stop doing this and they screwed it up.
Another thing I'll keep saying as many times as this conversation happens: I didn't even vote for Trump, never have. But because I don't have TDS either, you see me the same as his true believer cultists. You're their mirror image.
>The only thing different with Trump 2 is that there isn't anyone holding him back
That is a significant difference.
Now, unlike the OP I had many complaints about Trump 1.0 and I always thought it would have been foolish to trust a person like him with any position of power (like, seriously, why not literally any other person who isn't a huge scumbag).
But it's also true that the material reality on the ground during Trump 1.0 was... Fine. He made a lot of noise, broke a lot of decorum, but economy was good throughout. I know it ended with COVID but that obviously wasn't his fault, and some of the response was actually good (warp speed).
The economy was fine overall, but Trump did many things to puncture that, such as his 2018-19 trade war with China, India and the EU, which by all measures he markedly lost. He had to use taxpayer dollars to bail out US farmers. He lost jobs overall because of that war. The 2019 stock market was much worse off for this war.
Trump ran record deficits at a time where the economy was ostensibly doing well, and we were getting 10-20% YoY improvements. This is not the time that you need to run deficits. $8T in 4 years.
The economy on the ground seems fine to the average voter who is uninformed because the average voter sees an ostensibly good economy but not the horrendous things behind it that Trump did to create it.
The thing you missed is that during Trump 1 he was surrounded by people the old guard GOP picked for him. Between not knowing what he was doing and not expecting to win in 2016, he was unprepared to staff the White House and the government, so McConnell et al did it for him, and those competent, old-style GOP appointees mitigated, slow-walked and sometimes outright blocked Trump's worst impulses. In the process, they also realized he was an unhinged moron and left or got forced out, most of them on very bad terms. By the end of Trump 1 he was mostly (though still not entirely) free of their restrictions but by then he was campaigning full time, rather than trying to enact his agenda.
But in 2024 he had the whole Project 2025 team working for him. They spent a couple of years preparing to staff the WH and the government with people who were loyal to Trump first and foremost. So for Trump 2 he rolled into office with a cadre of "yes men" and nutcases. No one is holding him back now, and many of them are actively encouraging him.
Also, Trump himself has gotten dumber, and that was clear in 2024 for anyone who was looking (just as Biden was clearly declining, for anyone who was looking). But that's not as big a factor as the replacement of the traditional GOP staffers and cabinet members with the Trump-loyalist staffers and cabinet members.
How did you not have big complaints about Trump 1?
January 6 alone should have broken through even the most wilful ignorance.
His attempt to extort Zelenskyy, contrary to the interests of the USA and its allies, should have shown you how he would like to operate if he could get away with it.
His constant lying about having a healthcare plan should have made it clear that he had no regard whatsoever for ordinary citizens.
I hope you can reflect on how you missed these gigantic warnings, along with many many others.
All of that stuff I consider to be an average day for Democrats. Really, what he's doing right now is also sort of an average Tuesday for Joe Biden, i.e. doing some really retarded and destructive policy that totally flies in the face of obvious reality. That describes most of the major policies that Democrats have spent the last ten years promoting. Perhaps this is worse than any single policy Democrats have done recently, although I'd disagree with that if we count COVID policy failures as a single instance.
As I've said and will repeat as many times as it takes: It's easy to make the case that Trump is repulsive in a vacuum, but then you have to account for the existence of the alternative. Even now I'm hardly convinced that Harris was the correct choice. This just takes it from non-debatable that Trump was the correct choice into a realm where people who prefer Harris actually have a leg to stand on.
In that case you are simply a wilfully blind cultist.
Do yourself a favour and stop posting on the Internet. You’re just embarrassing yourself and the people close to you.
So, you think the response to COVID was totally fine, and people having a grudge against Democrats for it makes them "wilfully blind cultists?" Just checking.
No complaints about Trump 1? His mishandling of COVID led to hundreds of thousands of preventative deaths. His attack on science the same science that gave his administration the vaccine and then he became anti vaccine. His ridiculous press conferences and statements like telling people to ingest bleach or light therapy while denigrating an apolitical and world class scientist like Fauci. His politicalization of the pandemic and withholding PPE and assistance to Blue States. The constant grift for instance his daughter’s deals with China, son-in-laws billions from the Saudis and his own attempted shakedown of Zelensky which led to his first impeachment. The constant revolving door of cabinet members proved his autocratic and moronic management style and world views needed sycophants instead of leaders. Oh, and that little thing on Jan 6, you know the tourist visits to the Capital. 60+ lost legal challenges, lawyers who supported crazy theories on subjugating laws and the Constitution losing law licenses but still he he claims he election fraud and that he won in 2020z Just face it, Republicans, conservatives whatever you call yourselves care only about power and not governing. You also only care about “owning the libs.” Trump said he likes the uneducated and you went along with it. Just own it, you can intellectualize all you want, but time after time your side took power over reality and the betterment of our country and society.
You were as wrong as someone could possibly be. You're an idiot. You should log off and shut up for a bit.
This is magisterial. I'm glad I stuck with you over the years; this is clear and informed thinking presented perfectly.
Exactly right Richard. Rightists are quick to point out various flaws with our institutions. For example, they'll bring up a slanted story about black crime, doctors signing onto flawed ideas about sex and gender, and other excesses of our time.
But the issue at hand is that Trump and MAGA are noxious to smart and informed people. They're especially noxious to people who have a strong moral compass around corruption. Pointing out examples of hypocrisy where our institutions have gone wrong on those counts only underscores the fact that our institutions at least care to be *perceived* as morally upright and correct.
So the result is that you have one side of the political aisle which is a home to more informed people, and the other side which elevates the dumbest among us. This is a problematic turn of events.
The geopolitical implications of Trump's tariffs against China's neighbors are grim. Countries like Vietnam will be forced to deepen economic ties with Beijing, which means political subordination to the CCP. China's stranglehold deepens. America is irrelevant. Trump is more an agent of China than of Putin, from the looks of it.
Populism results from a decline in trust in institutions and gatekeepers. In recent years, the loss of public confidence in academic institutions, public health officials, and mainstream media was well-earned. Populist movements may not fare better, but they are a cry for change in the face of institutional intransigence.
I think the right-wing media landscape and culture in the U.S. is different from the rest of the anglosphere. If institutions had "earned" distrust, why are institutions still trusted in Australia, Canada and New Zealand?
Great article. One comment about Milei since you mentioned him at the end and I'm from Argentina. I think it's worked out very well also because his administration was staffed with serious people from the center-right party called PRO. I think the more his party deviates from serious people, the more we might see a populist clown show.
And Milei was a professional economist with real credibility, not a game show host.
Who took advice from his dead dog through a psychic. I guess you could say Argentina is going well if you're a tourist and you can now go there for free.
Argentina is going very well. Poverty is down, inflation is WAY down, country risk is way down, debt is being paid, and currency exchange is relatively stable, so we've seen a huge appreciation of the peso in 2024. Real wages have also grown every single month since May.
https://www.google.com/search?q=argentinian+peso+to+usd
Do you understand how exchange rates work? What are you even saying with your comment? If the peso to dollar rate was around 1200 when Milei took office and it's now around 1300, it's remained VERY stable. In REAL terms (with over 100% inflation in the middle) the peso has massively appreciated against the dollar.
It was 791 when he took office.
There's no proof it every happened. It was published by an opposition "journalist" who wrote an unsanctioned biography during the election cycle. It was a hit piece that the global media ate up.
I think part of reason Milei has worked out pretty good so far is simply that he was a antidote of some pro-market populism to established and institutionalized anti-market populism (Peronism and its variants). It's easier to fix a crisis- just stop doing the stupid thing - than to steer the ship in "normal times". Basically Milei has been successful so far but it's still possible he'll end up wrecking his own success down the road
That's partially true, but Milei also has whacky ideas. For example, he wanted to implement full-reserve banking inspired by Henry Simons.
Yeah I known and that's kind of what I'm talking about in the last part. Once inflation comes down and stabilizes etc. what's he gonna do then?
He wants to dollarize the economy supposedly.
That might not be a bad idea and I'm not sure I'd its populist. Many mainstream economists have made that argument going back to the 80s
Yeah, that's not populist at all. The populist stuff seeps out in other ways. Plus, the guy is a clown. That's why the whole crypto scam debacle even happened.
Also Argentine. I think his populism helped to some extent in his chosen field: he was willing to go fast and break things. This allowed him to reduce the deficit by 5%+ (estimates vary) in a single year, leading to most of the other variables to improve. This was pure Milei, it was what he ran on before he brought on any of the ex-PRO economists.
Maybe more important he only has a small congressional minority. He can't do anything meaningful without approval by the big legacy parties. A fully unhinged Milei administration with congressional and judicial support might look very different.
It's also a bad comparison as it's just pitting 2 versions of populism against each other, and one had been the dominant force for 20 years.
Like you said at the end, a Milei administration with a lot more Deputies and Senators would probably look very different. I agree with you that to some extent, his craziness did help, but he's still a populist who if he surrounded himself with sycophants, would probably be a disaster.
Excellent essay. Instantly one of your highlights, and with admirable introspection about your 2024 vote.
Populism is ultimately an anti-ethos that can only define itself in opposition to what the "elite" believe, and since the "elite" are usually smarter and have better judgment, that results in the populists reflexively getting a lot of things wrong (and then doubling down out of pride when the elites make fun of their predictable failures).
Milei is perfectly consistent with this view, as he ascended in a society where the "elite" were actually so ignorant and cloistered as to have fallen well below the 50% threshold for getting things right versus wrong.
I wonder if you're prepared to recant your tentative support for Trump and the MAGAfied populist Right more generally. I know you've been reconsidering the merits of the political Right, and am curious as to whether there is a determinable limit to the madness you're willing to tolerate.
I read the article as a big yes to all these questions. Right-left is a false dichotomy, top (libertarian) and bottom (populism) need to be added for more accuracy and it will still miss many Americans.
People have been saying that right-left is a false dichotomy for decades, and yet it still stands. Maybe there's something to it.
Other than that, yeah I agree that a one-dimensional measure of political ideology is incomplete. I prefer to think of ideologies like distinct culinary cuisines: some dishes are complicated and involve lots of seasoning, while others are more simplistic and focused around providing adequate nutrition.
He's been writing articles like this for years but still confessed on election night that he voted for Trump and all Republicans.
I know how RH voted. I know the extensive caveats he gave about his vote. I read this as an admission error, that as negative as some of his judgements about Trump were before he was in office, he thought Trump would be better for our financial outlook. I think the last day's news has disabused him.
Libertarianism and populism are by no means on opposite sides of the spectrum. Populism isn't so much an ideology on how things should be done but a thin centered logic or narrative framework. Libertarianism and populism can even co exist happily together take for example the current president of argentina Javier Miles, who is very clearly a populist constructing his narrative against the "caste of old politicians" and presenting himself as a savior of the nation and the true representative of the public will.
Good points, I agree.
He explicitly did here: https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1907908222025085241
"For those asking: yes, voting for Trump was a mistake.
I thought we'd get a repeat of the first administration, but we didn't. The signs were there, I just did not take my own ideas about the awfulness of Trump and MAGA seriously enough."
I think the critical mistake here was that many underestimated not only the extent to which Trump had gone "powerful", but more importantly, the degree to which potential counters to this inanity had been selected against within the MAGA movement.
In retrospect my take on the election seems prescient, even if I say so myself: https://karlin.blog/p/trumpism-cant-get-fooled-again
> Trump wants to impose 10% or higher tariffs on America’s allies, implement mass repatriations of undocumented immigrants, and subvert the independence of the Federal Reserve. Each of these proposals, taken separately, is at least as bad as a ban on price gouging. Tariffs are one of the most regressive taxes, raising consumer prices across the board just to protect notable strategic industries such as toaster production. Mass deportations will raise the costs of services, in addition to the human rights violations and restrictions on human liberty they will entail. Central bank independence is one of the foundation stones of modern developed economies, and is so central to international credibility that even a strongman like Putin has to date avoided interfering with it. *Furthermore, Trump’s bad ideas are far likelier to get these implemented, given the greater role of Presidential prerogative in these sectors and the collapse of any internal Republican culture of critique.*
I think you might be underestimating the vast amount of younger males who felt that the system was definitely not working for them in all areas of life. For some of them they absolutely don't buy into the ridiculousness of the right but being atomized, no attachments, not many prospects, only time realized that the small chance of having something meaningful only could occur with enough chaos and destruction that the elite on both sides above them would be upended. They are so atomized that why should they care about how it effects anyone else after how those people treated them. I don't buy it myself, but I'm around enough of them in my job that I understand it. To them the high downside risk is unknowable from their prospective. They also have the most to gain. Hasn't it been proven before a link between youth unemployment and political chaos and violence? They may not have crazy unemployment but god every other area of their life is shit and they hate work. Chaos to them is a chance.
Yup, they fucked around, and now they are going to find out. Unemployment won't stay low for long and the system they decided to tear down isn't going to be around to help them.
That is exactly the possible huge issue that not many have contemplated. At the start it's there problem, if it continues and grows in size it's everyone's problem. Having a large number of young males with hopeless futures and a sense of being wronged by their society is a powder keg and usually results extremely negative consequences for all. I'm almost twice the age of many of them and the direction things are headed, combined with their headspace, and society current response makes me feel sick.
I agree with you, but I'm at a loss as to how to fix the problem. AI is only going to make things worse. Our country is capable of creating massive amounts of wealth, but most of the population has no meaningful role to play in the process.
Speaking of AI, this is well worth the long read or watching the interview
https://open.substack.com/pub/astralcodexten/p/introducing-ai-2027?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=16mod
I know Richard wrote an amazing piece on Scott this past year. I've been reading him since like 2011. These aren't his exact views, a believe he said he would come out with essay Monday regarding them, but he helped but into narrative the story that this high market rating super forcaster & and AI alignment reasecher who in 2021 wrote predictions for AI for the next 3 years that blew Scott away because it reads like an exact summary of what did occur. The guy also is famous for when he left open AI in 2024 they told him he had to sign a non disparage agreement to get his stick options which he refused on principal causing them to back down and get rid of requirements.
If this reallyis how close we are AGI, basically by year end then Trump's Greenland push makes more sense. Microsoft is currently tryin to push quicker their $60 billion data center. Overall $400 billion dollars in data centers are in process of being built. I wonder if Greenland confer some of the benefits the Iceland does for their data centers?
US youth unemployment isn't that high tho? If anything lower than historical averages?
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/youth-unemployment-rate
You say you work with these young guys - what sort of things do they complain about? What are their experiences? Do they like Trump or support him out of desperation?
I've found the older one is the more bitter, standoffish, dickhead they are. The youngest ones I see are "roleplaying" people they see on YouTube. At least until they meet supporters in their mid 20s to early 30s. It's that group that I've witnessed a fascinating cultural development that has given me pause. I work at a casual, but nice cocktail bar. We have no TVs. I saw over the last year this group of mid 20s to early 30s men, mostly, but not totally trump supporters all slowly start carrying flip phones instead of smart phones, thus becoming an oddity for not starting at their phones. It sounds stupid, but I saw this group start attracting more and more people through genuine social interactions. They only really rib people for being buried in their phone. There is a definite correlation between trump supporters acting in a machismo asshole fashion and their smart phone usage, haha. I've seen that group triple in size and pull in younger ones that a year prior were tate wannabes. So I feel like their is a huge generational rift in trump supporters. The older ones seem obsessed with news/social media and their support is one of bitterness and desperation. The younger ones I see much more a rejection of culture. It shocked me to see a group of them actually try building something different, even if it was a rejection of smartphone/social media. The ones within the group certainly appear much happier over the last year as well as turning into customers I enjoy having for the atmosphere they foster. The few but growing number of young women who've become part of the group, trading in there iPhones for flip phones I've seen the most drastic changes for the positive in. This all leads me to believe their is a strong current of cultural rejection in the younger ones. At the extreme end is all that trad crap that gets all the press, but I feel it would be a deadly error for those against trump to wholeheartedly throw out everything trump supporters are doing just because it's tainted with trump. I've seen many more people gravitate to this group than away. I hardly hear them talk politics, they will talk to anyone, they always seem to be laughing. Their politics are subtle and people who join in more and more are more likely to become trump supporters due a cultural osmosis and their friend group changing than hard political analysis. I'm more center left, in I admit weird ways that don't align with the center left stereotype today. However, it hasn't been until recently that my much more progressive friends have taken notice and gave merit to my criticisms of them. They all turned into these doom scrolling robots who catastrophize everything, only speak in morbid snark, gatekeep all social interactions until limtus tests are passed, and generally seem miserable and vindictive. The thought learning from the past and imagining a new inclusive future that can motivate their base and bring back some of the younger current trump supporters not yet ruined by bitter grievances seems to fill many of their cohort with rage. Rage of the same intensity I see of older trump supporters. I feel we sit at a precipice controlled by how deeply our societys group narcissism has rotted our souls. There is a way forward.
I had been saying to myself…”this is what the people voted for”.
Now I find myself saying ….”if people are stupid enough to vote for this….should they get a vote at all”?
Of course they should….universal suffrage blah blah….no taxation without representation yada yada…but while I always say there is no cure for stupid, it does burn something fierce when their stupid starts to affect me.
Lately I’ve found myself thinking the Founding Fathers were correct in having some barrier to entry for voting. Yes, I know, problematic for a myriad of reasons but allowing just about anyone to vote has eroded the electoral process. People are not voting for a generational vision of the country as a whole but on the basis of vibes, podcasts and niche grievance politics. Clearly a disaster. I am not sure what the answer is to this. However, it seems reasonable that one must have a significant stake in society besides existing in it be an eligible voter. At the very least people could pass the citizenship test before getting their voter registration card; that collapses civic engagement, literacy and something of an aptitude test into one.
So an IQ test for voters?
When the right wanted make voting harder as a means to ensure voters who turned out were informed and not just voting for free stuff paid for by someone else, we heard cries of racism and white supremacy.
Democrats responded with trying to allow illegals to vote because residency, however short, is all that matters.
How the tables have turned.
I’m not sure what you mean by tables turning. I’ve never been against voter ID…and I’m sure this is the first time I’ve even commented on this Substack so not sure what your frame of reference is here.
Also I’m not sure “free stuff” is a huge motivating factor for voting seeing as poor people are less likely to show up. The people most likely to vote for the “free stuff” party are significantly correlated with so called “costal elites”, who make 100k+ salaries and don’t use welfare.
I struggle with these tensions too. I am torn because the singular destruction of America’s manufacturing capacity by elite economic paradigm was a critical error. It was an error deserving of Trump 1.0. Throw in 2008, Iraq, the FAA hiring scandal, the Hamas reaction in 2023 and the acute housing shortage and the case for a serious correction is strong. I just don’t know where you balance this.
This may be too facile. I think Americans are really ill-served by the two-party system that often forces them to choose (what they perceive as) the lesser of two evils. A true multi-party system could prevent an unhinged executive from indulging their id.
And here we go. An ostensibly smart person still flogging the completely useless idea of third parties, which will never work in a system with a powerful executive. You should know this. You should also know that populist figures have risen in parliamentary systems, like Le Pen in France.
This is why I despair for our country. Even the smart people don't understand the basics. If you read the comments on NYT articles, the top one is invariably some screed about how Bernie Sanders would have saved us. No acknowledgement that he never even planned to get majority of votes in the 2020 primary. He got exactly the percentage he expected, 30%. No acknowledgement that Biden basically ran a Bernie Sanders presidency, with Manchin constraining its ambitions. No acknowledgment that Biden passed the largest climate bill in history and essentially ended drone warfare. This isn't even a complete list.
Everyone here is horrible, and I hate you all.
You read too much into my brief comment. First, I'm not American. I'm Indian, though I lived for many years in the US a while ago, so understand the system well.
I'm well aware of the potential for populist leaders to win and hold power in parliamentary systems. Modi in India has done just that for 3 election cycles (yes, he is a populist in most ways; he carried out a daft act of demonetization years ago, somewhat like Trump's silly tariffs.)
If there were more than 2 strong parties in the US, Congress could become competitive and put a check on the (powerful) executive. Congress can do that now too, but its members are individually too scared of Trump's wrath to break ranks.
My main point, that people are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils in the American system, still stands. Richard Hanania is a prime example of that. Voters would have more positive reasons to vote for someone. This holds even if you consider the emergence of a third (or more) party to be impossible in the US.
But you literally just negated your own comment. Congress is supposed to control tariffs. They just stopped doing it, because it's impossible to get anything done. Your complaint is that Congress, which the Founders envisioned as the most powerful branch of the government, has ceded most of its control to the courts and the executive. That has nothing to do with third parties.
Furthermore, complaining about Harris versus Trump is like complaining that your only two breakfast choices are cereal and dog shit. Hanania should have known better. Multi-party systems are what produced Turkey, Germany, and France's repeated near misses.
I am begging people to stop flogging an idea that is (1) impossible in the American system and (2) wouldn't even accomplish what they want it to.
Also, on Congress, if a feasible third party option was available, there would be more defections from the two major parties whenever they threatened to go insane, thereby (potentially) improving policy. Right now, there's no incentive to defect if you other side is insane too, just in a different way.
*There will never be a third party in a presidential system.* Look up Duverger's Law.
Furthermore, there is nothing to stop lawmakers from defecting *now*. Some Republican senators break with Trump. That lawmakers in the Hiuse don't do it reflects his iron grip on the party. Huge parts of Biden's agenda got held up by one senator.
Finally, you guys's obsession with a handful of confused teens is honestly unhealthy. There are 350 million people in the country. Of those, maybe 0.0001% are trying out lifestyles you strongly disapprove of. You're going to need to get over it.
Please relax. All I was trying to say was that the public would be better served if their only two options (other than to crawl into a cave and never leave) were not "you must accept lunatic social policy, like the unquestioned transing of your kids" and "you must accept lunatic economic policy, like worldwide tariffs that could crash the global economy". Even one more option would have helpful.
Also, Elon's brain wasn't completely melted by right-wing slop. I'm sure ketamine had a lot to do with it.
Thanks for showing that you don't have to be a professional Democrat to think that Trumpniks are morons. And thanks for admitting that you made a mistake in voting for him. But if Milei works because you have to "thoroughly destroy your country with socialism" for his policies to go over, Trump is making a great case for leftism to come back stronger than ever by thoroughly destroying our country with its opposite.
Dunno. The idea that everyone should just trust and defer to their better educated betters who just happen to have better jobs, better financing, better housing which they no doubt deserve because of their better education and connections.....Well, f*** that. The trick is to create some over-arching societal mythos that makes large parts of the population OK with second-class status. Religion used to help with that, but that darned populist bias often creeps in.
Why should better educated people not get better jobs overall, controlling of course for the nature and field of education? Isn't getting a better job one of the drivers for seeking more education in the first place? Why would anyone have a problem with that?
What do you think about the heart-warming stories of men and women who are the first to get "higher" education in their families so they can get BS jobs that neither produce anything tangible nor really help anybody. And lose all the skills their families developed over lifetimes?
In your first comment, you were talking about "better jobs". Now you are calling them "BS jobs". Make up your mind: are they better jobs or BS jobs?
Don't ask me; ask the people doing the jobs. Or the people in the communities those jobs have created.
Not interested in arguing like a politician. If that's your thing, you probably should go be an activist and avoid commenting on message forums like this.
Those better educated betters tend to be the ones that want to help the "second class citizens" the most with things like welfare programs. Those second class citizens love to cry that it's communism though.
kcat— no good deed goes unpunished, especially when the recipient is lazy, uneducated, and thinks they're a victim