After nearly a decade of being forced to take Trump seriously, Democrats increasingly call BS on the whole charade

Sure, Donald Trump is a threat to democracy — a would-be dictator on day one who has called for terminating the U.S. Constitution so he can hold onto power even after losing a free and fair election. But while draped in the rhetoric of populism, Trump and his MAGA movement are not actually popular; the man himself has never won more votes than the person he ran against, a majority of Americans twice rejecting him and his off-putting cult of personality. That he was ever president is more or less because a few thousand swing voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania thought it would be fun.

President Joe Biden won in 2020 largely by promising to a return to normalcy and baseline competency. In 2024, Democrats are making a similar argument but more forcibly: They’re pointing, laughing and dismissing Trump and his circus as a total freak show to which we can’t return.

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    421·
    5 months ago

    It’s because it’s a fascist movement.

    Fascism is organized around a strong leader who supposedly embodies the values of the movement. A fascist leader isn’t a leader who’s thoughtful and fair, they’re strong, determined, filled with righteous anger, etc.

    Corrupt and criminal can be twisted into those characteristics. It’s not “corruption”, it’s taking advantage of suckers. Something you have to be clever and ruthless to do. It’s not “criminal”, it’s ignoring laws meant for lesser people.

    On the other hand, a fascist leader’s image isn’t compatible with weakness and strangeness. Fascism is all about claiming the national identity is under threat by “others”, immigrants, intellectuals, homosexuals, etc. The fascist leader needs to be seen to embody all that’s good and right about the true national spirit. But, if they’re seen as weak and weird, that’s not something anybody wants to associate with.

    • Vittelius@feddit.org
      21·
      5 months ago

      To add to that I’d like to quote Ian Danskin (aka Inuendo Studios) from his guest lecture about Gamergate at UC Merced:

      Bob Altemeyer has this survey he uses to study authoritarianism. He divides respondents into people with low, average, and high authoritarian sentiments, and then tells them what the survey has measured and asks, “what score do you think is best to have: low, average, or high?”

      People with low authoritarian sentiments say it’s best to be low. People with average authoritarian sentiments also say it’s best to be low. But people with high authoritarian sentiments? They say it’s best to be average. Altemeyer finds, across all his research, that reactionaries want to aggress, but only if it is socially acceptable. They want to know they are the in-group and be told who the out-group is. They don’t particularly care who the out-group is, Altemeyer finds they’ll aggress against any group an authority figure points to, even, if they don’t notice it, a group that contains them. They just have to believe the in-group is the norm.

      https://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/660337457916706817/i-was-invited-to-give-a-talk-on-gamergate-over

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        12·
        5 months ago

        Great quote. It explains why they’re especially sensitive to the idea that their position is not normal.

        • Vittelius@feddit.org
          14·
          5 months ago

          exactly. In the next paragraph Ian even has some examples of how that works in modern day American conservative political culture:

          Reactionary politics is rebellion against things they dislike getting normalized, because they know, if they are normalized, they will have to accept them. Because the thing they care about most is being normal.

          This is why the echo chamber, this is why Fox News, this is why the Far Right insists they are the “silent majority.” This is why they artificially inflate their numbers. This is why they insist facts are “biased.” They have to maintain the image that what are, in material terms, fringe beliefs are, in fact, held by the majority. This is why getting mocked by Stephen Colbert was such a blow to GamerGate. It makes it harder to believe the world at large agrees with them.

          This is why, if you’re trying to change the world for the better, it’s pointless to ask their permission. Because, if you change the world around them, they will adapt even faster than you will.

          Honestly the whole talk is worth a listen. It’s depressing because, well, it’s about gamergate but it explains so much (and it’s probably one of the parts of his alt right playbook series of video essays getting shared the least on social media

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            3·
            5 months ago

            Yeah, that’s really interesting. I think on the left there’s more acceptance for being weird. In fact, I think that’s one of the things the left fights for: the freedom to not be normal. If you’re not hurting anybody, then nobody should care what you do.

            This is probably what has led to the MAGA people being so deeply weird. The right is used to their neighbours policing them and keeping them from drifting too far from normal. The left generally doesn’t care too much about normal. So, when the MAGA movement made the Republican base so weird, their neighbours were caught up in it, so they weren’t criticizing the drift away from normal. The democrats didn’t really care so much about the lack of “normality”, but were instead focused on all the actual bad shit, like refusing to confirm Supreme Court justices, banning muslims from entering the US, etc. So, now pointing out how far from normal they’ve drifted is really having an effect.

          • Zink@programming.dev
            2·
            5 months ago

            You have to love the irony of the far right considering themselves the “silent” anything.

    • bitwaba@lemmy.world
      16·
      5 months ago

      Its really fascinating. Their image is to embody what is “normal”, “natural”, “right”. They’re bullies, claiming they’re better than everyone else, and using those differences to push that superiority.

      It turns out the most effective method to combat bullies is to… bully them. Point out how abormal, unnatural, and inferior they are. Its such a core element of their existence that they fall apart without it.

      I’m not proud of it. But also, I’m not crying about it.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        16·
        5 months ago

        It’s not even necessarily bullying them back, it’s more refusing to be bullied.

        Beating up a bully can be an effective strategy, but it’s risky, you might lose the fight. And, since it’s a fight they want it’s one they probably think they can win.

        Laughing at a bully is attacking them where they’re weak. It’s defusing the fight by making people not want to back them, and by doing that making them want to retreat.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        10·
        5 months ago

        I see it more as calling out that the emperor wears no clothes. Don’t play by their rules. Expose the farce!

        The media have been complicit in this. Treating Trump like a serious candidate helped him win the election.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      5 months ago

      It was creepy how many times they said the words “strong” and “strength” during the Republican convention. They worship strength. Might makes right.