That's their rhetoric in any event. Though in my view, the republican party can hardly be anti-establishment given that they're half the establishment. It's not like they want to abolish their own position, they intend to remain an elite. They just want to extend their power. — Echarmion

They're actually making lists of loyalists to plop into critical spots. I think they're serious. This isn't the old Republican party.

What's different is also that the rising right wing movement is not traditionally conservative but progressive in the sense that they want to actively change society. — Echarmion

Exactly. The Democrats stand for the status quo. The parties switched roles (again).

We could say that the establishment is centrist by definition. — Echarmion

I don't think that's true. The political pendulum swings and the establishment is a dragging reflection of that. This is why people like Vance want to actually change out the government's employees in a far reaching way. He wants to get rid of everyone who refused Trump's orders the last time around. They're saying the government needs to be friendlier to the Right. They mean they want obedience.

I think economic anxieties are a big part of it everywhere. — Echarmion

Which is weird considering the economy is booming.

They're actually making lists of loyalists to plop into critical spots. I think they're serious. This isn't the old Republican party. — frank

Right, but that makes it a power grab, I don't see how it's anti-establishment. These are not revolutionaries, they're part of the elite cementing their (relative) power.

Exactly. The Democrats stand for the status quo. The parties switched roles (again). — frank

At least partially, yeah.

I don't think that's true. The political pendulum swings and the establishment is a dragging reflection of that. — frank

That's also true, but requires some amount of comparison either in space (other democracies around the world) or time. I just wanted to note that it's hard to make definitive statements around the terms "left", "right" or "centrist" because they don't have fixed definitions.

Which is weird considering the economy is booming. — frank

By the numbers it is. Lots of people seem to "feel" that something is deeply wrong though, and have been feeling that for some time.

Right, but that makes it a power grab, I don't see how it's anti-establishment. These are not revolutionaries, they're part of the elite cementing their (relative) power. — Echarmion

I guess you could call Trump elite, but I wouldn't say he's part of the establishment, which is those who set foreign and domestic policies. His power came from public support that was so strong that establishment Republicans dared not antagonize him. In that way he's anti-establishment. The only reason he's not a revolutionary is that he couldn't pull it off. No?

I think economic anxieties are a big part of it everywhere.
— Echarmion

Which is weird considering the economy is booming. — frank

The Biden administration record is quite good. The American public have been sold a bill of falsehood and rhetoric that has affected/effected the common persons' opinion in such a way that they believe all sorts of thing that are simply not true about this administration.

I'm not a Biden fan.

Look behind the curtain of Trump's bullshit and you'll see a pending American reformation. That's how the puzzle pieces are coming together for me. How about you? — frank

That whole post is wishful thinking. Note what he did during his presidency was mostly to benefit rich people. Duties on Chinese goods also protects local business, which can be a smart industry policy but since no such policy existed, we know why it happened. Not to help main street.

When I read that Vance's memoir is a good way to understand how Trump was elected, I thought about a conversation I had with a woman from Kentucky. The way she described it, heroin addiction is like a plague there. This was back when it was coming in from Afghanistan, so I don't know if it's improved since then. I'm not sure what to do with those puzzle pieces.

I guess you could call Trump elite, but I wouldn't say he's part of the establishment, which is those who set foreign and domestic policies. His power came from public support that was so strong that establishment Republicans dared not antagonize him. In that way he's anti-establishment. The only reason he's not a revolutionary is that he couldn't pull it off. No? — frank

Trump as a person is not, or was not, part of the establishment. But since he also did not come with any formed policy, his actions ended up being mostly in favour of the republican establishment.

He has the irreverence and the populist instincts of a revolutionary, but not the conviction. So I guess we could say that he is not an establishment candidate, but he also doesn't care about being anti-establishment. As long as the establishment - in this case the republicans - stroke his ego he won't move against them.

Trump is not only part of the establishment, he is the Republican wing of the establishment. The Republican Party is Trump. Trump is the Republican Party. Any daylight between then has vanished.

Yes, but I think this is a conscious choice on the part of the more strategic thinkers among the Republicans.

Trump as a person is not, or was not, part of the establishment. But since he also did not come with any formed policy, his actions ended up being mostly in favour of the republican establishment.

He has the irreverence and the populist instincts of a revolutionary, but not the conviction. So I guess we could say that he is not an establishment candidate, but he also doesn't care about being anti-establishment. As long as the establishment - in this case the republicans - stroke his ego he won't move against them. — Echarmion

i agree. I'm just more focused on what it means that there was so much popular support for him. He was telling people what they wanted to hear. Let's focus again on what that was: what did they want to hear? Think about it terms of social forces instead of personalities. That's what I've been doing since he was elected, anyway. Focusing specifically on him as if that's going to tell you what's happening is forest for the trees.

So if you think of Trump vs Harris in terms of the social forces involved, how do you read it?

i agree. I'm just more focused on what it means that there was so much popular support for him. He was telling people what they wanted to hear. Let's focus again on what that was: what did they want to hear? — frank

This kinda goes into the realm of armchair psychology, but my take from talking to Trump supporters is this: Trump is the emperor with no clothes, only he proudly displays his nakedness. His message is "we're all naked, don't be ashamed. In fact the ones who pretend they have clothes are the stupid ones."

His populism is otherwise pretty boilerplate stuff. It has a nationalist/ isolationist bend but nothing about it is unique. So I think the appeal lies mostly in the irreverence itself.

So if you think of Trump vs Harris in terms of the social forces involved, how do you read it? — frank

At the core of Trumpism is ultimately a deep pessimism, I think. That's what his apocalyptic rhetoric fuels. "Make America Great Again" is the slogan, but it's more like great rearguard action, fending off the encroaching decline. It's willing to throw formerly sacred values overboard because they cannot be saved anyways. So better throw them away now to get what advantage you can.

A counter-movement would be one that develops a positive vision for the future.

A counter-movement would be one that develops a positive vision for the future. — Echarmion

If you listened to his speeches in 2016, the message was: we're going back to the 1960s and 70s in terms of job security. That was the positive vision he outlined. Obama commented on how his vision was impossible because the industrial infrastructure of America is already gone. I take it you missed that aspect of his first campaign.

Trump is the emperor with no clothes, only he proudly displays his nakedness. — Echarmion

To borrow from Homer: Trump clothes himself in shamelessness.

According to Politico, the attack theme that Trump is working up is that Harris is 'as dumb as a rock'. Which strikes me as being, well, about as dumb as a rock. Harris is a career politician, Senator, courtoom prosecutor, and now VP. Look at her ancestory - her father, Donald J. Harris, was an eminent Jamaican-American economist and professor at Stanford. Her mother, Shyamala Gopan, 'was a biomedical scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, whose work in isolating and characterizing the progesterone receptor gene stimulated advances in breast biology and oncology.' Folks like these don't have rocks for progeny. Harris is a formidable debater and public speaker, if Trump goes up against her in debate with that attitude, she'll tear strips off him. See a televised sample of the approach she intends to take with Trump. ("In those (prior) roles I took on perpertrators of all kinds." Incidentally Bryan Tyler Cohen is pointing to tweets by Trump declaring that ABC is 'corrupt' and the debate must be televised on Fox - already preparing the ground to bail if the organisers don't comply.)

When Trump got elected, I posted my general thoughts on the matter, something like "What did you f***ing expect to happen when huge swathes of Americans have been lied to by both parties since the Carter administration. The end result is no teeth in consumer protection, no teeth in antitrust law enforcement, no recourse for those who've watched their livelihoods be swiped away by the stroke of the legislative pen, no decent paying jobs for non college folk, few decent paying jobs for those who got swindled by college for profit, etc."

The American government has not erred on the side of the overwhelming majority of people when there is a conflict of interest between those who already have the most and those who have the least. Chomsky and Sanders both make irrefutable argument by just plain stating the facts that led up to all that.

In short, Americans have the best government money can buy. It sickens me to think about it, so I stay busy making stuff.

Oh, and Vance's memoir is pretty well written. He's a fraud though. Profit and power are his sole motives. Coincidentally, he and I happened to be born in the same town, a once thriving area chock full of industrial opportunity. Now a zombieland full of hopeless people with little to no chance of any decent livelihood, unless their lucky enough to have been born into it.

Yes, creating a "flexible" labor market was supposed to help avoid stagflation episodes. That meant less job security. It wasn't just evil doers on high, there was a theory.

Oh, and Vance's memoir is pretty well written. He's a fraud though. Profit and power are his sole motives. — creativesoul

Why do you think that?

If you listened to his speeches in 2016, the message was: we're going back to the 1960s and 70s in terms of job security. That was the positive vision he outlined. Obama commented on how his vision was impossible because the industrial infrastructure of America is already gone. I take it you missed that aspect of his first campaign. — frank

I do think it fits in, actually. It's nostalgia as a substitute for the future. Obama is ultimately correct here, though of course one can debate the details.

It's nostalgia as a substitute for the future. — Echarmion

It was anathema to neoliberalism, so anti-establishment. I think we're just quibbling over who the establishment actually is?

Trump just referred to himself as a “fine and brilliant young man.” :rofl: :rofl:

Now he has to be a young man, since he’s currently the oldest candidate. I can’t wait for the sheep to fall in line and agree. The spin will be fantastic!

Oh, and Vance's memoir is pretty well written. He's a fraud though. Profit and power are his sole motives.
— creativesoul

Why do you think that? — frank

His schtick, which is very much tailored towards the Midwest rural Americans, is a shared distain for the 'elite'. The 'elite' are scapegoats to be blamed regarding all the lost opportunity for regular folk. It's their fault in those peoples' worldview. He may have believed all that at one time. The problem, of course, is that the people who've lost those opportunities have been convinced to be mad at and blame the wrong people for the wrong reasons. He knows that now. Rural Americans have been talked into voting for people and policies against their own best interests as well as being convinced that ideas and things that really are good for them, are not.

His railing against the 'elite' just perpetuates the problems above. He's cozied up to Trump, which goes against all the earlier talk of 'elites'. He's not so much against elitism insofar as they think their better than regular people. Rather, he shares the same sort of thinking that he's better than others. He just wants to change things so that he's in the elite group.

He's Trump's running mate. I have a hard time believing that a Yale graduate would have such a change of heart about Trump and people like Trump based upon an understanding of Trump and the way things work in US politics. He has both. So, why/how the sudden change of heart? Trump is transactional, and offered Vance the reward of a means for power, status, and privilege.

That's part of "why" I think that.

That's part of "why" I think that. — creativesoul

He openly expresses pessimism about democracy. That doesn't sound like a schtick to me. It sounds like something else.

People can openly express and complain about real issues, and then perpetuate them.

People can openly express and complain about real issues, and then perpetuate them. — creativesoul

I don't think you understand. He believes in authoritarianism. I get that you're not taking it seriously. I do, though. I don't think it's an act.

It was anathema to neoliberalism, so anti-establishment. I think we're just quibbling over who the establishment actually is? — frank

No, I don't disagree that the rhethoric is anti-establishment. But I'm not seeing any evidence that it's connected to any actual conviction. Trump did enact some tariffs on China, but he doesn't have a plan to restructure the entire US economy. As I said he has good populist instincts, but what's his actual plan to combat neoliberalism?

No, I don't disagree that the rhethoric is anti-establishment. — Echarmion

Exactly. His rhetoric gave him so much power that he seemed untouchable. That's a social current worth examining.