I'm not sure where you see a contradiction. Could you explain it to me? As I see it, the author claims that those who appear shameless are increasingly successful in today's day and age. The second statement is a prediction that basically follows from that and I feel like the prediction is holding up.
What I meant was that on the one hand the article says that we shouldn’t underestimate the shameless. On the other hand it says that the person who employed shamelessness in the first election likely won’t win again (thereby underestimating the shameless).
It says the opposite to me. It's saying shamelessness won. And if you don't be shameless but instead stick to pre-2016 techniques you'll lose. To win you have to be shameless.
What? He did win again.
Shamelessly authentic might be what is causing the increasingly success now days.
Doubt that shamelessly corrupt will have the same effect.
Nigerian here.
> Shamelessly authentic might be what is causing the increasingly success now days.
I 100% agree with this. It's hard to pull off; I've just the one example[0]. Also this buttresses:
> Under open borders, sanctions will backfire, because they just serve as a signaling boost for the transgressor, attracting outsiders who resonate with that person’s message. What’s meant to be punishment instead becomes a flare shot straight into the night sky.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VeryDarkMan
I mean, it seems to be working for MAGA so far