It's certainly reasonable to request from Trump the explanation you seek, illuminating in his address to Congress on Tuesday evening the rationale behind the seeming disparities between what he promised his voters as candidate and what he's provided his voters as president.
I'm unsure if his voters feel these disparities as acutely as those who didn't vote for him feel them. His voters might see thematic through lines others don't see. Or they might at least believe through lines exist, whether seen or unseen. But there are various, arguable disparities. There are causes he's embraced I don't recall hearing about during his campaign, which are in that way a disparity, causes like buying Greenland, annexing Canada, seizing the Panama Canal, and building the "Riviera of the Middle East" in Gaza. There's a blindingly fast pace few anticipated to his actions on causes he was indeed vocal about during his campaign, the speed a disparity, causes like ending diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and shrinking the size of the federal government. Even though these causes are no surprise to his voters, who support them, the pace of his actions on them is, a disparity.
There's no disparity in style, of course. I imagine even his voters would find it difficult to claim they're surprised by Trump's manner. "I'm shocked, shocked to find there's gambling going on in here," as Captain Louis Renault duplicitously put it in Casablanca. In style Trump's been as president what he was as candidate. His voters knew what they were getting and maybe wanted what they've gotten. There's also no disparity in political philosophy. He telegraphed clearly and consistently his long-held intent to move the country in a national, bilateral, and transactional direction.
Still, it would seem wise of Trump to offer tomorrow evening the explanation you seek. If through lines exist, it'd be to his advantage, and to the country's advantage, to better articulate them.
Appreciate the thoughtful comment, Bob, and can’t say I disagree. Whatever the polls say, I’ll bet that most people who voted for Trump remain quite pleased that they did. He’s taking it to the deep state and, to the extent that they care, is realigning our country in ways that he promised he would, presumably to keep us out of more endless war. In that sense, my plaintive plea is nothing more than the sour grapes is nothing more than the gasp of a dying elite (however puny and humble I might feel in comparison with, say, Musk or Trump…)
I wrote that piece on a spur, interrupting one that I am trying to write (and thought a lot about) even as I know I am not qualified to do so. It concerns the collapse of consensus reality—which to me is the deeper structural problem underlying all the other problems we face. Other people have written in ways I can’t hope to top, including Walter Lippman back in the day (Public Opinion) and Jonathan Rauch more recently (The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth is among the deepest contributions to this analysis as any I have read). I am currently listening to “Invisible Rulers-The People Who Turn Lies into Reality” that gets at the same problem from a slightly different angle, the fragmentation of our world into scores if not thousands (or even millions) of so-called bespoke realities—most of them induced by interested parties. Given that Trump supporters are entitled to their own facts (I suppose some might say thing about us, or me), the reality I project is plainly false.
Where does that leave us? Where does that leave the possibility for positive collective action? I don’t believe I need to answer those questions. Thanks again for weighing in.
I look forward to your post on the collapse of consensus reality, which I've thought about considerably in recent years, as well. I agree with you that this collapse is "the deeper structural problem underlying all the other problems we face," as you wrote. A few years ago, I wrote half a novel about precisely this phenomenon. You've prompted me to consider finishing it.
Take a look at Curtis Yarvin, the father of neo-reactionary (dark enlightenment) thought. Why is the Trump regime doing what it’s doing? Because it has adherents of this philosophy in its administration, most chiefly, JD Vance. And its money comes from those who espouse these goals as well - Thiel, Musk, et al.
In a nutshell, it is a rejection of democracy with the goal of destroying it and replacing it with a corporate monarchy run by tech bros. This is what is happening.
Yes, I have read (or read and heard about) that preposterous sophomoric techno-utopian/authoritarian nonsense, which for that very reason scares the hell out of me. As I noted in a separate comment on a substack article summarizing the universe according to Yarvin about a week ago, I never thought the axiom I used to use as a political officer overseas in tenuous political environments would apply in my own country; namely, the more absurd the idea, the more legs it was likely to have among the illiterate masses and the elites who manipulated them. Ergo, never dismiss an idea because it is prima facie absurd; on the country, take it all the more seriously. In that sense, I take Yarvin very seriously, callow, foolish, and nonsensical as he is, as well as his inane assumptions. We’re still people, not machines, so normal political rules apply, including the rule that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, well, absolutely. Putting a CEO/techno-authoritarian dictator in charge and we’ll speed like a bullet train right off the cliff, losing everything we know and cherish—including in all likelihood a dynamic economy, which depends on the collision of many contrary ideas. (I wrote that before too.)
More importantly: while this might sound naive, don’t the American people deserve to be told that that is the plan, if so, and to decide freely whether they agree? I’m going to be that even some in the most brainwashed part of the MAGA crowd don’t. I know, I know. That brings us back to the great epistemic debates about bespoke vs consensual realities, which I’ve been thinking about a lot since well before retiring from the foreign service over a year ago. Thanks for you comment.
Thanks for the reply Alexis, and couldn’t agree more. As a diplomat (now retired), I spent years living in, and reporting on, failed and failing states. And you’re right, we all fall prey to the assumption that the horrors we’ve witnessed elsewhere can’t happen to us in our own country. America is exceptional we assume (or in my case, Canada). But it isn’t. And the very same democratic guardrails we’ve taken for granted and have seen disintegrate overseas are found to be weak in our own house as well. They needed tending and we forgot.
One observation - it’s not like this has been particularly hidden from the American public. Whether it’s Project 2025, or Thiel’s funding of Vance’s election to office, or Trump’s statement to be a dictator from day one of his second term, they’ve been saying the quiet part very much out loud. Many Americans simply chose not to listen, or to embrace it (dare I say want it?). So welcome to the brave new world - one in which the US abrogates any pretense of being the leader of the free world, instead relegating that to the dustbin of history as its nouveau neo-imperialist, techno-authoritarian regime divvies up the world with Russia, Chine, India and others. Authoritarianism is on the march, and democracies have been caught flat footed and navel gazing. And the greatest democracy the world has ever seen just switched sides.
Not sure I have a counter to that very effective thrust at the moment. Let’s check back in a few weeks time to see where we stand, if we still do. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
No, no ….. you don’t get to ask him to explain. You must thank him for whatever he does, especially if it harms you and your family.
That is republican dogma nowadays.
Alexis,
It's certainly reasonable to request from Trump the explanation you seek, illuminating in his address to Congress on Tuesday evening the rationale behind the seeming disparities between what he promised his voters as candidate and what he's provided his voters as president.
I'm unsure if his voters feel these disparities as acutely as those who didn't vote for him feel them. His voters might see thematic through lines others don't see. Or they might at least believe through lines exist, whether seen or unseen. But there are various, arguable disparities. There are causes he's embraced I don't recall hearing about during his campaign, which are in that way a disparity, causes like buying Greenland, annexing Canada, seizing the Panama Canal, and building the "Riviera of the Middle East" in Gaza. There's a blindingly fast pace few anticipated to his actions on causes he was indeed vocal about during his campaign, the speed a disparity, causes like ending diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and shrinking the size of the federal government. Even though these causes are no surprise to his voters, who support them, the pace of his actions on them is, a disparity.
There's no disparity in style, of course. I imagine even his voters would find it difficult to claim they're surprised by Trump's manner. "I'm shocked, shocked to find there's gambling going on in here," as Captain Louis Renault duplicitously put it in Casablanca. In style Trump's been as president what he was as candidate. His voters knew what they were getting and maybe wanted what they've gotten. There's also no disparity in political philosophy. He telegraphed clearly and consistently his long-held intent to move the country in a national, bilateral, and transactional direction.
Still, it would seem wise of Trump to offer tomorrow evening the explanation you seek. If through lines exist, it'd be to his advantage, and to the country's advantage, to better articulate them.
--Bob
Appreciate the thoughtful comment, Bob, and can’t say I disagree. Whatever the polls say, I’ll bet that most people who voted for Trump remain quite pleased that they did. He’s taking it to the deep state and, to the extent that they care, is realigning our country in ways that he promised he would, presumably to keep us out of more endless war. In that sense, my plaintive plea is nothing more than the sour grapes is nothing more than the gasp of a dying elite (however puny and humble I might feel in comparison with, say, Musk or Trump…)
I wrote that piece on a spur, interrupting one that I am trying to write (and thought a lot about) even as I know I am not qualified to do so. It concerns the collapse of consensus reality—which to me is the deeper structural problem underlying all the other problems we face. Other people have written in ways I can’t hope to top, including Walter Lippman back in the day (Public Opinion) and Jonathan Rauch more recently (The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth is among the deepest contributions to this analysis as any I have read). I am currently listening to “Invisible Rulers-The People Who Turn Lies into Reality” that gets at the same problem from a slightly different angle, the fragmentation of our world into scores if not thousands (or even millions) of so-called bespoke realities—most of them induced by interested parties. Given that Trump supporters are entitled to their own facts (I suppose some might say thing about us, or me), the reality I project is plainly false.
Where does that leave us? Where does that leave the possibility for positive collective action? I don’t believe I need to answer those questions. Thanks again for weighing in.
Alexis,
I look forward to your post on the collapse of consensus reality, which I've thought about considerably in recent years, as well. I agree with you that this collapse is "the deeper structural problem underlying all the other problems we face," as you wrote. A few years ago, I wrote half a novel about precisely this phenomenon. You've prompted me to consider finishing it.
--Bob
Take a look at Curtis Yarvin, the father of neo-reactionary (dark enlightenment) thought. Why is the Trump regime doing what it’s doing? Because it has adherents of this philosophy in its administration, most chiefly, JD Vance. And its money comes from those who espouse these goals as well - Thiel, Musk, et al.
In a nutshell, it is a rejection of democracy with the goal of destroying it and replacing it with a corporate monarchy run by tech bros. This is what is happening.
Yes, I have read (or read and heard about) that preposterous sophomoric techno-utopian/authoritarian nonsense, which for that very reason scares the hell out of me. As I noted in a separate comment on a substack article summarizing the universe according to Yarvin about a week ago, I never thought the axiom I used to use as a political officer overseas in tenuous political environments would apply in my own country; namely, the more absurd the idea, the more legs it was likely to have among the illiterate masses and the elites who manipulated them. Ergo, never dismiss an idea because it is prima facie absurd; on the country, take it all the more seriously. In that sense, I take Yarvin very seriously, callow, foolish, and nonsensical as he is, as well as his inane assumptions. We’re still people, not machines, so normal political rules apply, including the rule that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, well, absolutely. Putting a CEO/techno-authoritarian dictator in charge and we’ll speed like a bullet train right off the cliff, losing everything we know and cherish—including in all likelihood a dynamic economy, which depends on the collision of many contrary ideas. (I wrote that before too.)
More importantly: while this might sound naive, don’t the American people deserve to be told that that is the plan, if so, and to decide freely whether they agree? I’m going to be that even some in the most brainwashed part of the MAGA crowd don’t. I know, I know. That brings us back to the great epistemic debates about bespoke vs consensual realities, which I’ve been thinking about a lot since well before retiring from the foreign service over a year ago. Thanks for you comment.
Thanks for the reply Alexis, and couldn’t agree more. As a diplomat (now retired), I spent years living in, and reporting on, failed and failing states. And you’re right, we all fall prey to the assumption that the horrors we’ve witnessed elsewhere can’t happen to us in our own country. America is exceptional we assume (or in my case, Canada). But it isn’t. And the very same democratic guardrails we’ve taken for granted and have seen disintegrate overseas are found to be weak in our own house as well. They needed tending and we forgot.
One observation - it’s not like this has been particularly hidden from the American public. Whether it’s Project 2025, or Thiel’s funding of Vance’s election to office, or Trump’s statement to be a dictator from day one of his second term, they’ve been saying the quiet part very much out loud. Many Americans simply chose not to listen, or to embrace it (dare I say want it?). So welcome to the brave new world - one in which the US abrogates any pretense of being the leader of the free world, instead relegating that to the dustbin of history as its nouveau neo-imperialist, techno-authoritarian regime divvies up the world with Russia, Chine, India and others. Authoritarianism is on the march, and democracies have been caught flat footed and navel gazing. And the greatest democracy the world has ever seen just switched sides.
Not sure I have a counter to that very effective thrust at the moment. Let’s check back in a few weeks time to see where we stand, if we still do. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.