I think that's exactly what OP meant? While Trump's policies take the long term gerontocratic/anarcho-capitalist dynamics strangling of our society and crank them to 11, a lot of younger people ended up buying into his "burn it all down" messaging imagining it would result in some principled evenly-applied reform that might get the boot off their own necks. And that level of foolishness seems straight from the naive rashness of youth.
I think it’s better to reevaluate what voters’ interests are instead of throwing up our hands and assuming they just don’t understand what’s good for them.
My wife’s much younger half siblings are in their early 20s. They come from middle or lower middle class backgrounds in a secondary or tertiary city in Oregon. The one who is mixed race is MAGA, and the one who is white shares her pronouns on Zoom so I assume she leans liberal. But I’ve never heard them talk about the economy the way you’re talking about it (“boot in their neck”). Their parents aren’t rich, but they’ve been able to afford to give them some runway to launch, and both have gone into healthcare fields (one into occupational therapy, the other into nursing). Their lives are pretty comfortable and I don’t think they see politics through the perspective of some 1930s West Virginia mine worker like you do.
There is too much to unpack here. Perhaps you'd like to make your point in something other than identity politics anecdotes and personal attacks?
If you don't like my phrasing of "boot on their necks", feel free to substitute your own when constructively responding to the point. The frustrations that have led to Trumpism are certainly palpable and understandable, so don't feign like I'm using hyperbolic language out of nowhere.
But no, in general I am comfortable modeling Trump's second term as a complete self-own on the part of voters - regardless of whether they've realized it yet, or ever will. As a libertarian who partook in both red and blue tribe media and was both sidesing through 2020, I have not come to this conclusion lightly. There has simply been no way I've been able to steelman it.
I’m not attacking you, I’m criticizing your analytical approach. You’re starting from the values that you think should matter to people, then faulting them for not making decisions you think are rational according to those assumed values.
Your dismissal of “identity politics” is a good illustration of that. Identity is a dominant force in politics! Around the world and throughout history, identity trumps almost everything else when it comes to conflict between humans.
I mentioned the demographic factors because those demographics (young white women and young non-white men) had notably different trend lines in the last couple of elections, despite having pretty similar economic circumstances. It’s worth considering whether those kids aren’t irrational and actually just value different ends than what you think they should value.
> through the perspective of some 1930s West Virginia mine worker like you do.
That was the personal attack I was referring to. I was referring to the dynamic of the obvious frustrations seemingly driving much of Trumpism, and yet you're imparting that back onto me. That's called shooting the messenger.
> You’re starting from the values that you think should matter to people, then faulting them for not making decisions you think are rational according to those assumed values.
No, you're assuming here. As I said, I've been trying to steelman Trumpism in terms of any kind of constructive policy for some time and I can no longer find anything that fits.
> Your dismissal of “identity politics” is a good illustration of that
No, that dismissal is based on the red tribe making a good show of dismissing identity politics for the past ~16 years - aka stated preferences. Would you say that my assertion that people should be honest about their preferences is imparting too much of my own opinion about what should matter? The alternative of course, which seems to have good predictive power, is straight up hypocrisy.
> value different ends than what you think they should value
Solving for these values is exactly what I have been doing, as I have been saying. For example in 2016, I was the weirdo telling my blue tribe friends that Trump was likely to win as he was resonating with a lot of frustrations people have that the blue tribe just did not understand. Maybe from that you can see that I am capable of seeing, respecting, and even sympathizing with others' values even if there may be other values I prioritize instead?
Or alternatively you could just come out and state those values! This should be easy right? Rather than beating around the bush?
I would only insist that they be constructive values that aim to be beneficial rather than merely making some spectacle of hurting others. So for example "deport illegal immigrants" doesn't qualify as it's a destructive framing - the constructive framing would be something like "fix the labor market for blue collar citizens". But if this movement truly has some substance making our country better and is not merely just lashing out about our problems, this should be easy.
And of course since we're talking about continued support for Trump, those values should be congruent to the policies he is actually enacting.
@rayiner, responding to your [dead] comment -
You keep attributing straw man points to me, and then dutifully knocking them down.
A recognition that many people feel disenfranchised and preyed upon by our system, which is why they turn to [what I consider] extremist fantasies like communism or Trumpism, does not represent "my analytical perspective".
More germane to our "conversation", I merely threw out "fix the labor market for blue collar citizens" as an example, reflecting a context of arguments that most people make.
So no, I am not "taking cultural relativism as axiomatic" - that's merely your strawman pigeonholing of my position. An example of constructively stating your point about culture could be something like "re-popularize values that made our culture successful".
Of course culture in the abstract has the same vague generality as "values" or "policy", and so I would ask the analogous thing about which specific constructive aspects of culture you see Trump and Trumpism as improving. For example simply "deport people from other cultures" is not constructive as it's framed on the negative dynamic rather than as a constructive outcome to be achieved. I'm not going to give a constructive example this time lest you make another straw man out of my attempting to fill in the blanks of your argument. Rather as it's your argument, you should make it!
Also note that it is necessary to talk in terms of objective cultural values rather than handwaving about a previously dominant culture because, love it or hate it, our society is intrinsically multicultural. And I know that M-word can be triggering for a whole host of negative talking points, hence the need to focus on the positive/constructive.
[flagged]