A lot of good content in this post. Thanks, Anne Lutz Fernandez.
There is one piece of content missing: namely, that it was Sidney Blumenthal, in Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, who first pursed the birther idea about Obama.
Really don't like describing a person as "intersectional." This whole article is about how it's bad to draw lines to exclude people - may I suggest that you not draw categorical lines between people either, regardless of your intentions? Classification & division lead to exclusion somewhere down the line. "But it's different!" It's not. "But we're the good people!" Right now. Have a little perspective.
In this article it was just shorthand for her various identity layers. She's multi-ethnic, she's black, and she's a woman. The point was that the Trump campaign had a number of different identity-based openings to "exploit" (since that's the kind of stuff its supporters want to see).
Agree and nothing was mentioned about the only acceptable vet was one who was either participating in one of the far right militias or those who will do so as soon as they end their tour. And we know who will be leading them. We got a preview 1/6/21. They are the people who say, “Screw the Constitution” and shit all over mores and norms that keep us more or less civilized. Men lusting after power and wealth have managed this country into a dangerous rut but only if we choose to remain there. It’s time for new, younger and far more intelligent blood to take the reins and see where she can take us.
I am sorry. I don’t know you and am certainly not a Trump fan but you checked every single “talking” point for someone who suffers from Trump derangement syndrome. The Manichean mindset is easy but leaves out true circumspection - asking the question “Could I be wrong?” “Have I considered what both parties have said vs what they have done?” “Am I thinking or just swallow slogans and regurgitation them?” Would it just be easier to say “I hate Trump.” That would be something I would respect (not that you need it.) much better than spouting a party line. Please know I love that you can say how you feel as can I. That’s one of the many rights I enjoy about this country even though sometimes I have to check my desire to attack as opposed to debate. We have to get beyond this ad hominem boring form of speech. 34 years in academia has taught me much about why we are currently living in a time absolutism. Shibboleths are vacuous. Respectfully, Kevin.
The fundamentals of populism and radicalisation which underpin Anne's article operate independent of party allegiance and bias. (ref. political scientist Jan-Werner Mueller's - What is Populism?). By fixing on the local expression (America) the dynamics at play are ignored or insufficiently highlighted. Brexit radicalisation and anti-pluralism in the UK followed the exact same principles, but most here can't get past the local details and personalities to see it.
It's often a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Provide too much detail and it offers more ammunition for people to pick holes - too little and accusations of vagueness or one size fits all sterile academics ensue.
But, how else was Turkish author Ece Temelkuran (How to Lose a Country) able to predict how things would pan out in America based upon her experience and study of Erdogan's populism in Turkiye?
She even cautioned against appointing a Biden in response. "We had our own Biden in Turkey. And believe me when I say all the countries that had a Trump were as brilliant as the American Democrats in coming up with or inventing a Biden of their own. Replacing Bernies with Bidens has never worked in the long run."
I think it fair to say that the majority of Americans are unaware of how far right the Democrats are on the spectrum. Even AOC's policies would represent a shift right of centre in most European countries, and not because Europe is predominantly socialist, it isn't. Many parties have also shifted further right to counter populists. Many of the Uk's policies under new PM Starmer are centre right or worse, but right wing media still call them woke lefties.
Gore Vidal was onto this decades ago:
"I have been saying for the some time now that America has only one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporation, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican."
"Friends, there is no Left in American politics."
This following article ostensibly concerns Turkiye 2002-2017 - but the radicalisation and anti-pluralistic parallels to what subsequently transpired with Trump and America are telling.
"Meanwhile" Temelkuran writes, "Erdogan, who still is “the man who is not allowed to speak”, is giving endless speeches about how he and his people are silenced.
Leavitt and Sunshine need their tongues cut out, just like DJT and everybody who continues the filthy nightmare of covering for him. their target audience is already sold for the worst reasons — piling comments on top of that is mind-numbongly gratuitous.
I have heard Biden sneer at me for having the audacity of being Trump supporter. Not once, but continually. Do not suggest that Biden, Harris, or any progressive is representative of We the People. In reality, they are as partisan as it gets. To presume that your side is right, and that anyone who opposes you is wrong, is the reason I support Trump. Think about. Just once, THINK!
I think I have a right to my own opinion without being hated on by a president who claims to be against hate speech. I managed to think of that all by myself.
"To presume that your side is right, and that anyone who opposes you is wrong, is the reason I support Trump."
Trump more than anyone does presume that his side is right, and that anyone who opposes him is wrong.
Yet you support Trump despite him being the arch exponent of this dating back to 2016?
In fact it dates back to his mentor and lawyer Roy Cohn who taught Trump all the vindictive tricks in the game. "If you need someone to get vicious toward an opponent you get Roy" Trump told Newsweek in 1979.
I think a lot. I think about how one side thinks they have the right to sexually assault women, that women should be second class citizens if they don’t reproduce per the state’s requirements, and that the government should be allowed to decide what medical care women can have. I thought about it and I’m not supporting that side. Have you thought about how it makes you look to think a rapist should lead the country?
Have you thought about why the UK Labour Party recently banned "puberty blockers" for minors? (No, the evidence didn't change. It was never there. Why were they being prescribed on no evidence? Lots to think about, really.)
I'm voting Taylor Swift, but another thing for you to think about is, why would so much of the country want to vote for such a crass and garish man? It's not like they disagree that he is so. Is it possible -or maybe probable - that at least a few people find a permissive attitude toward child castration to be far more horrifying than boorishness, or rape, or storming the Capitol? Is it possible that a few more people consider both of these things so horrifying that they've checked out entirely?
This blog grows more preposterous with every article that fails to mention the gender extremism which in the Democratic Party is not only an orthodoxy but is held above criticism -- so far above criticism that criticism means you're the enemy. Those dratted "populists" and those "people" - why won't they listen to we intellectuals? Pumping children full of cross-sex hormones *with zero evidence of benefit* is not only fine but a moral duty! We just know!
When one thing you say is batshit insane, people tend to distrust you on the rest.
What side are you talking about? Who allows men into women's locker rooms? Who allows men to compete in women's sports? What side allows men to sexually assault women? What law are you talking about, that mandates women to have a specific number of children, or ANY children? Name a party that wants to outlaw ALL abortion. What rapist is leading the country? Are you talking about Bill Clinton?
This is a non-answer. A response like this leaves me no choice but to presume that you are bluffing. You pretend to know what you're talking about, but don't.
A lot of good content in this post. Thanks, Anne Lutz Fernandez.
There is one piece of content missing: namely, that it was Sidney Blumenthal, in Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, who first pursed the birther idea about Obama.
Great post, with some familiar themes! I expanded on Swiftboating Walz, MAGA's inability to fathom Democratic veterans, the overlap with toxic masculinity in military culture, and why it proves MAGA doesn't really love the military here: https://open.substack.com/pub/exasperatedalien/p/democrats-cant-be-real-veterans?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=ksl93
Alternate title: "MAGA's ever-shrinking definition of who counts as a "real" veteran"
Really don't like describing a person as "intersectional." This whole article is about how it's bad to draw lines to exclude people - may I suggest that you not draw categorical lines between people either, regardless of your intentions? Classification & division lead to exclusion somewhere down the line. "But it's different!" It's not. "But we're the good people!" Right now. Have a little perspective.
In this article it was just shorthand for her various identity layers. She's multi-ethnic, she's black, and she's a woman. The point was that the Trump campaign had a number of different identity-based openings to "exploit" (since that's the kind of stuff its supporters want to see).
Good piece. A thoughtful and detailed analysis of specifically how Trump/MAGA keep narrowing the criteria for who’s acceptable.
Agree and nothing was mentioned about the only acceptable vet was one who was either participating in one of the far right militias or those who will do so as soon as they end their tour. And we know who will be leading them. We got a preview 1/6/21. They are the people who say, “Screw the Constitution” and shit all over mores and norms that keep us more or less civilized. Men lusting after power and wealth have managed this country into a dangerous rut but only if we choose to remain there. It’s time for new, younger and far more intelligent blood to take the reins and see where she can take us.
I am sorry. I don’t know you and am certainly not a Trump fan but you checked every single “talking” point for someone who suffers from Trump derangement syndrome. The Manichean mindset is easy but leaves out true circumspection - asking the question “Could I be wrong?” “Have I considered what both parties have said vs what they have done?” “Am I thinking or just swallow slogans and regurgitation them?” Would it just be easier to say “I hate Trump.” That would be something I would respect (not that you need it.) much better than spouting a party line. Please know I love that you can say how you feel as can I. That’s one of the many rights I enjoy about this country even though sometimes I have to check my desire to attack as opposed to debate. We have to get beyond this ad hominem boring form of speech. 34 years in academia has taught me much about why we are currently living in a time absolutism. Shibboleths are vacuous. Respectfully, Kevin.
Both-sideism isn't the answer.
The fundamentals of populism and radicalisation which underpin Anne's article operate independent of party allegiance and bias. (ref. political scientist Jan-Werner Mueller's - What is Populism?). By fixing on the local expression (America) the dynamics at play are ignored or insufficiently highlighted. Brexit radicalisation and anti-pluralism in the UK followed the exact same principles, but most here can't get past the local details and personalities to see it.
It's often a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Provide too much detail and it offers more ammunition for people to pick holes - too little and accusations of vagueness or one size fits all sterile academics ensue.
But, how else was Turkish author Ece Temelkuran (How to Lose a Country) able to predict how things would pan out in America based upon her experience and study of Erdogan's populism in Turkiye?
She even cautioned against appointing a Biden in response. "We had our own Biden in Turkey. And believe me when I say all the countries that had a Trump were as brilliant as the American Democrats in coming up with or inventing a Biden of their own. Replacing Bernies with Bidens has never worked in the long run."
I think it fair to say that the majority of Americans are unaware of how far right the Democrats are on the spectrum. Even AOC's policies would represent a shift right of centre in most European countries, and not because Europe is predominantly socialist, it isn't. Many parties have also shifted further right to counter populists. Many of the Uk's policies under new PM Starmer are centre right or worse, but right wing media still call them woke lefties.
Gore Vidal was onto this decades ago:
"I have been saying for the some time now that America has only one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporation, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican."
"Friends, there is no Left in American politics."
This following article ostensibly concerns Turkiye 2002-2017 - but the radicalisation and anti-pluralistic parallels to what subsequently transpired with Trump and America are telling.
"Meanwhile" Temelkuran writes, "Erdogan, who still is “the man who is not allowed to speak”, is giving endless speeches about how he and his people are silenced.
https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/03/ece-temelkuran-what-will-become-of-erdogans-little-clones-when-hes-gone/
Leavitt and Sunshine need their tongues cut out, just like DJT and everybody who continues the filthy nightmare of covering for him. their target audience is already sold for the worst reasons — piling comments on top of that is mind-numbongly gratuitous.
I have heard Biden sneer at me for having the audacity of being Trump supporter. Not once, but continually. Do not suggest that Biden, Harris, or any progressive is representative of We the People. In reality, they are as partisan as it gets. To presume that your side is right, and that anyone who opposes you is wrong, is the reason I support Trump. Think about. Just once, THINK!
Do you think you're right?
I think I have a right to my own opinion without being hated on by a president who claims to be against hate speech. I managed to think of that all by myself.
"To presume that your side is right, and that anyone who opposes you is wrong, is the reason I support Trump."
Trump more than anyone does presume that his side is right, and that anyone who opposes him is wrong.
Yet you support Trump despite him being the arch exponent of this dating back to 2016?
In fact it dates back to his mentor and lawyer Roy Cohn who taught Trump all the vindictive tricks in the game. "If you need someone to get vicious toward an opponent you get Roy" Trump told Newsweek in 1979.
Hi from the UK.
I think a lot. I think about how one side thinks they have the right to sexually assault women, that women should be second class citizens if they don’t reproduce per the state’s requirements, and that the government should be allowed to decide what medical care women can have. I thought about it and I’m not supporting that side. Have you thought about how it makes you look to think a rapist should lead the country?
Have you thought about why the UK Labour Party recently banned "puberty blockers" for minors? (No, the evidence didn't change. It was never there. Why were they being prescribed on no evidence? Lots to think about, really.)
I'm voting Taylor Swift, but another thing for you to think about is, why would so much of the country want to vote for such a crass and garish man? It's not like they disagree that he is so. Is it possible -or maybe probable - that at least a few people find a permissive attitude toward child castration to be far more horrifying than boorishness, or rape, or storming the Capitol? Is it possible that a few more people consider both of these things so horrifying that they've checked out entirely?
This blog grows more preposterous with every article that fails to mention the gender extremism which in the Democratic Party is not only an orthodoxy but is held above criticism -- so far above criticism that criticism means you're the enemy. Those dratted "populists" and those "people" - why won't they listen to we intellectuals? Pumping children full of cross-sex hormones *with zero evidence of benefit* is not only fine but a moral duty! We just know!
When one thing you say is batshit insane, people tend to distrust you on the rest.
What side are you talking about? Who allows men into women's locker rooms? Who allows men to compete in women's sports? What side allows men to sexually assault women? What law are you talking about, that mandates women to have a specific number of children, or ANY children? Name a party that wants to outlaw ALL abortion. What rapist is leading the country? Are you talking about Bill Clinton?
Be careful. Your lack of understanding nuance and truth is showing.
This is a non-answer. A response like this leaves me no choice but to presume that you are bluffing. You pretend to know what you're talking about, but don't.
Another great post!