Congress - the Senate in particular - is still comprised of elites and doesn't believe all the dumb conspiracies. They're just completely cowed by Trump's cult of personality. When that is gone, you'll see Congress assert itself more and a (marginally?) smarter policy direction.
No. Since the institution of direct election of senators, the Senate has become nearly as populist as the House. Alice Roosevelt Longworth even pointed this out in her autobiography "Crowded Hours", published 1933. (...and well worth reading for her other pungent observations upon the life and politics of that age.)
The question is, how electable will post Trump Republicans be without his cult of personality to energize the base? It seems likely that without Trump's skill for showmanship, Republican craziness will become a much more serious electoral liability. We may end up seeing something like the Democrats are going through now, where they are trying to appeal to the wider electorate, but the crazy elements of their base form a millstone around their necks.
If the Democrats manage to get their actual even halfway together by the time Trump leaves office, the Republican party might spend many years in the wilderness post-Trump. I expect that Republican elites may have even more trouble purging their parties of madness than the Democrats are.
I'm of the opinion that the conspiratorial circles will eat their own via purity tests and spirals of anti-authority belief fairly quickly.
The nature of conspiracy theorists is to be anti-authority. Trump is chaotic and charismatic enough that he seems to have them mostly under control, but I think they'll fracture when he dies. When Republicans are the new authority and most of the nation's problems haven't been solved they'll splinter on a thousand different wacky conspiracies. I think it'll be difficult to get them to vote straight ticket republican on anything.
Conspiracy theories are fun and often at least in the ball park of being correct. Even flat Earth reveals how most normie people can't explain why we know the Earth is round without defaulting to "BUT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY TOOK PHOTOS!"
"But the most likely successor is Vance . . . ." I always assumed this, too, until recently when someone pointed out that Trump would love to keep his name in office by having one of his sons succeed him.
Have you done a piece on why Stephen Miller thinks an authoritarian government will be an improvement? There must be some rationale for the extremes of Project 2025 - a rationale beyond the objecting to the crazy policies of some Democrat politicians and mobs. My daughter drew a parallel with the Grimm Fairy Tales and their connection to German nationalism. She suggests it's because Miller et al are not deep thinkers and have a superficial, fairy tale, version of what USA will be like once POTUS has enough power. Is there something more? I don't buy the explanation that "those guys hate the USA". We're obviously not in civil war, so why are they saying the USA is at war with itself? What do they get out of that? Anybody who has studied any history knows their policies don't end well.
Did yo ever read "Little Green Men," by Christopher Buckley? It's a about a George Stephanopoulos type Washington insider who gets abducted by aliens (actually a covert government program). He goes public with his story and overnight his audience changes from boring establishment politicos to conspiracy theorists.
Based on your conclusion, it would seem to make some sense to , in the worse-than-optimal case scenario, be prepared to cautiously ally with the goofy if potentially dangerous conspitiards against the hardcore racial nationalists (not that these are purely mutually exclusively groups, I know, but I’m talking about to the extent that the overlap still isn’t completely overwhelming). There are too many obstacles for the conspiritards to act on their delusions substantively in the short term (maybe with the exception of MAHA, at least for now), whereas the radical racialists have actual policies and legislation they can target in a relatively short amount of time via executive actions.
That said, JD Vance is probably an acceptable outcome all things considered. Maybe there’s increased ethnonationalist potency in some respects, but the symbolic effect of family will probably remain significant. I think it will act as a sort of short circuiting mechanism for the effectiveness of ethnic hostility-mongering, where the more based JD acts, the more it cements in peoples’ minds that basedness can come from someone willing to engage in interracial relations. It will almost certainly be demoralizing for the current race influencer crowd on X, and objections can be cast as being based in resentment (again, assuming JD holds a based enough line). Therfore, over time, the equilibrium will tilt away from outright catastrophe as far as relationships with foreigners. Not optimal, but not one-shotting ourselves either.
When Democrats overreach on an issue, we usually see Republicans overreaching in the opposite direction. When Democrats arguably overreached on COVID vaccines, Republicans went too far in the opposite direction and became conspiratorial and anti-vax. When Democrats stopped caring about immigrants assimilating and later got softer on illegal immigration, Republicans went too far in the opposite direction and became extremely nativist and against legal immigration.
Right now, Democrats might still be overreaching with crime and prosecutorial discretion in cities. They might also be overreaching at schools and college campuses: many teachers and professors still seem like they are very partisan Democrats in a way that would be less tolerated if they were right-wing. Therefore, this frame would predict that in the next ten years, we may see Republicans become very 'tough on crime' and advocate for 90s style criminal sentencing norms, and we may see Republicans more actively 'wage war' on 'left-wing bias' among professors and teachers. This would fit the pattern of 'Democrats overreach and Republicans overreach in the other direction in response'.
Arguably? "When Democrats arguably overreached on COVID vaccines." Might? "Democrats might still be overreaching with crime and prosecutorial discretion in cities." Bold analysis! But I suppose the long journey that begins with one step can also begin with a hesitant step.
Congress - the Senate in particular - is still comprised of elites and doesn't believe all the dumb conspiracies. They're just completely cowed by Trump's cult of personality. When that is gone, you'll see Congress assert itself more and a (marginally?) smarter policy direction.
No. Since the institution of direct election of senators, the Senate has become nearly as populist as the House. Alice Roosevelt Longworth even pointed this out in her autobiography "Crowded Hours", published 1933. (...and well worth reading for her other pungent observations upon the life and politics of that age.)
The question is, how electable will post Trump Republicans be without his cult of personality to energize the base? It seems likely that without Trump's skill for showmanship, Republican craziness will become a much more serious electoral liability. We may end up seeing something like the Democrats are going through now, where they are trying to appeal to the wider electorate, but the crazy elements of their base form a millstone around their necks.
If the Democrats manage to get their actual even halfway together by the time Trump leaves office, the Republican party might spend many years in the wilderness post-Trump. I expect that Republican elites may have even more trouble purging their parties of madness than the Democrats are.
I'm of the opinion that the conspiratorial circles will eat their own via purity tests and spirals of anti-authority belief fairly quickly.
The nature of conspiracy theorists is to be anti-authority. Trump is chaotic and charismatic enough that he seems to have them mostly under control, but I think they'll fracture when he dies. When Republicans are the new authority and most of the nation's problems haven't been solved they'll splinter on a thousand different wacky conspiracies. I think it'll be difficult to get them to vote straight ticket republican on anything.
Conspiracy theories are fun and often at least in the ball park of being correct. Even flat Earth reveals how most normie people can't explain why we know the Earth is round without defaulting to "BUT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY TOOK PHOTOS!"
"But the most likely successor is Vance . . . ." I always assumed this, too, until recently when someone pointed out that Trump would love to keep his name in office by having one of his sons succeed him.
It would greatly help if the DNC and their network of federally funded NGOs would stop forming conspiracies.
Just a thought.
Have you done a piece on why Stephen Miller thinks an authoritarian government will be an improvement? There must be some rationale for the extremes of Project 2025 - a rationale beyond the objecting to the crazy policies of some Democrat politicians and mobs. My daughter drew a parallel with the Grimm Fairy Tales and their connection to German nationalism. She suggests it's because Miller et al are not deep thinkers and have a superficial, fairy tale, version of what USA will be like once POTUS has enough power. Is there something more? I don't buy the explanation that "those guys hate the USA". We're obviously not in civil war, so why are they saying the USA is at war with itself? What do they get out of that? Anybody who has studied any history knows their policies don't end well.
Did yo ever read "Little Green Men," by Christopher Buckley? It's a about a George Stephanopoulos type Washington insider who gets abducted by aliens (actually a covert government program). He goes public with his story and overnight his audience changes from boring establishment politicos to conspiracy theorists.
Based on your conclusion, it would seem to make some sense to , in the worse-than-optimal case scenario, be prepared to cautiously ally with the goofy if potentially dangerous conspitiards against the hardcore racial nationalists (not that these are purely mutually exclusively groups, I know, but I’m talking about to the extent that the overlap still isn’t completely overwhelming). There are too many obstacles for the conspiritards to act on their delusions substantively in the short term (maybe with the exception of MAHA, at least for now), whereas the radical racialists have actual policies and legislation they can target in a relatively short amount of time via executive actions.
That said, JD Vance is probably an acceptable outcome all things considered. Maybe there’s increased ethnonationalist potency in some respects, but the symbolic effect of family will probably remain significant. I think it will act as a sort of short circuiting mechanism for the effectiveness of ethnic hostility-mongering, where the more based JD acts, the more it cements in peoples’ minds that basedness can come from someone willing to engage in interracial relations. It will almost certainly be demoralizing for the current race influencer crowd on X, and objections can be cast as being based in resentment (again, assuming JD holds a based enough line). Therfore, over time, the equilibrium will tilt away from outright catastrophe as far as relationships with foreigners. Not optimal, but not one-shotting ourselves either.
When Democrats overreach on an issue, we usually see Republicans overreaching in the opposite direction. When Democrats arguably overreached on COVID vaccines, Republicans went too far in the opposite direction and became conspiratorial and anti-vax. When Democrats stopped caring about immigrants assimilating and later got softer on illegal immigration, Republicans went too far in the opposite direction and became extremely nativist and against legal immigration.
Right now, Democrats might still be overreaching with crime and prosecutorial discretion in cities. They might also be overreaching at schools and college campuses: many teachers and professors still seem like they are very partisan Democrats in a way that would be less tolerated if they were right-wing. Therefore, this frame would predict that in the next ten years, we may see Republicans become very 'tough on crime' and advocate for 90s style criminal sentencing norms, and we may see Republicans more actively 'wage war' on 'left-wing bias' among professors and teachers. This would fit the pattern of 'Democrats overreach and Republicans overreach in the other direction in response'.
Arguably? "When Democrats arguably overreached on COVID vaccines." Might? "Democrats might still be overreaching with crime and prosecutorial discretion in cities." Bold analysis! But I suppose the long journey that begins with one step can also begin with a hesitant step.
I take it you think Megyn Kelly is positioned to be first female POTUS, MAGA-lite?
The first woman president will be Usha Vance in 2036. After JD in 2028 and 2032.