JzG vs President Donald J. Trump

[Cla68]

I remember the days when we used to quickly publicize and ridicule every new lunacy committed by a member of WP's inner cabal and share some good laughs over what was usually another example of double-standards and authoritarian dictating. The last few years, however, we haven't been doing it so much, perhaps because they (the Cabal) haven't been doing it as much and/or maybe because we've gotten tired of it.

Anyway, JzG's Trump Derangement Syndrome got the best of him (as it has of many) and he wrote a long screed in his user space condemning the current US president and basically telling his followers, including any of them who are editing WP, to take a long walk off a short pier. The essay has been nominated for deletion.

One of the double-standards in play here is that JzG, if I remember correctly, once nominated an essay I had written in my userspace for deletion. I don't remember what mine was about, perhaps POV-pushing? So, I guess he can write polemics in his userspace, but no one else can, or, at least, only those editors with whom he agrees.

Nevertheless, as is common in these types of episodes, the convoluted logic and grief expressed in that deletion discussion have added comedy when you realize that those people actually take this stuff seriously. By the way, this isn't intended to start another thread on Trump, but someone probably should remind JzG that Trump's supporters know that he grossly exaggerates when he extemporizes; the difference being that we take him seriously, not literally, while his detractors do the opposite, which is why, like JzG, they're just not getting it.

[Kumioko]

I believe JzG is under a topic ban for political articles so as such, as they did to me when I spoke about admins when I was unbanned, he should be banned indefinitely for violating his topic ban.

Aside from that, this edit is also likely a violation of this General topic ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... politics_2

Of course none of that matters because JzG is an admin (or at least sports the Userbox) and because none of the admins or arbs want to do the right thing and get rid of him once and for all. JzG is, and has always been, a drama magnet.

[Mason]

I believe JzG is under a topic ban for political articles

I believe you are mistaken.

That said, I would not be surprised if someone slapped a discretionary sanction on him once the MfD wraps up, if not before.

[Midsize Jake]

I'm probably going to catch some shit for saying this, but this is probably the first really decent thing JzG has done as a Wikipedia admin. Not because I agree or disagree with his political views (though admittedly I do agree with most of these views), but because all Wikipedians (especially admins) who edit political articles, even tangentially-related ones, should write essays like this explaining in detail what their standards and basic assumptions are.

Think about this: JzG has been one of the most arrogant and nasty admins on WP for at least 13 years, but imagine how many disputes and outright fights could have been defused during that time if people had been able to refer to a handy explanation of where he was coming from on any given hot-button issue? People wouldn't have had to spend all that time guessing, worrying about how he'd react or whether or not he could be relied on to support or oppose a particular viewpoint. If all admins were to write statements like this, everything would be out in the open and the n00bs wouldn't be at such a huge disadvantage.

In the past, I always saw JzG as one of that relative minority of Wikipedians who are probably just as unpleasant in real-life as thay are on Wikipedia, but now, reading this, I'm not so sure. He might actually be a fairly nice guy.

One thing I do take issue with is that James Buchanan (T-H-L) was a worse President than Warren G. Harding. Maybe not objectively so, and certainly not as bad as Trump, but worse than Harding.

[Kumioko]

I'm probably going to catch some shit for saying this, but this is probably the first really decent thing JzG has done as a Wikipedia admin. Not because I agree or disagree with his political views (though admittedly I do agree with most of these views), but because all Wikipedians (especially admins) who edit political articles, even tangentially-related ones, should write essays like this explaining in detail what their standards and basic assumptions are.

Think about this: JzG has been one of the most arrogant and nasty admins on WP for at least 13 years, but imagine how many disputes and outright fights could have been defused during that time if people had been able to refer to a handy explanation of where he was coming from on any given hot-button issue? People wouldn't have had to spend all that time guessing, worrying about how he'd react or whether or not he could be relied on to support or oppose a particular viewpoint. If all admins were to write statements like this, everything would be out in the open and the n00bs wouldn't be at such a huge disadvantage.

In the past, I always saw JzG as one of that relative minority of Wikipedians who are probably just as unpleasant in real-life as thay are on Wikipedia, but now, reading this, I'm not so sure. He might actually be a fairly nice guy.

One thing I do take issue with is that James Buchanan (T-H-L) was a worse President than Warren G. Harding. Maybe not objectively so, and certainly not as bad as Trump, but worse than Harding.

I really don't like Trump but I do find it ironically that he is probably the first American president to be hated for following through on his campaign promises. At the end of the day the question that should be asked isn't how did Trump get elected, it is what drove so many people to vote for him because they are fed up with the political landscape and the politicians. I don't think Trump got elected because if his intelligence or his personality, he got elected because people wanted someone who came from the outside that wasn't entrenched in politics and didn't do everything along party lines...Just my opinion.

[Midsize Jake]

I really don't like Trump but I do find it ironically that he is probably the first American president to be hated for following through on his campaign promises.

Well, it's not "ironic" if you believe (as many do!) that he promised to do hateful things. "Predictable" would be the more appropriate term there, I should think.

At the end of the day the question that should be asked isn't how did Trump get elected, it is what drove so many people to vote for him because they are fed up with the political landscape and the politicians.

You're not satisfied with the "30-year-long right-wing mass-media blitz" explanation? I mean, I am, but maybe I'm in the minority on that one.

There's probably no way to veer this thread more towards JzG (and this essay of his) than towards Trump, is there? It's just another example of Trump "sucking the oxygen out of the room," I'm afraid. If one of his campaign promises was to continue sucking all the oxygen out of every room he's in, well then... promise kept!

[Kumioko]

I believe JzG is under a topic ban for political articles

I believe you are mistaken.

That said, I would not be surprised if someone slapped a discretionary sanction on him once the MfD wraps up, if not before.

Yeah I was looking for it and couldn't find it so it's likely I am thinking of someone else. I would look forward to seeing a DS on him, because it's unlikely he would follow it and it would end up as a big show.

[Midsize Jake]

I read Mr. JzG's essay again and noticed that he didn't mention holocaust denial. Probably not something you'd want to leave out, given the overall context - he'd better add that in ASAP, before someone else notices.

Also, he said you should "get lost" if you think cryptids are real, but he didn't specifically say you should get lost if you think Cthulhu is real. So, clearly a bit of mixed-messaging there.

[iii]

we take him seriously, not literally, while his detractors do the opposite

This just in: Cla68 is a Trump supporter.

I guess I'm not surprised.

[Midsize Jake]

I guess I'm not surprised.

He's right about one thing, though - pretty much nobody outside the Trumpcult "gets" why anyone would vote for someone who lies so constantly, shamelessly, and consistently.

I know I don't!

[LargelyRecyclable]

I guess I'm not surprised.

He's right about one thing, though - pretty much nobody outside the Trumpcult "gets" why anyone would vote for someone who lies so constantly, shamelessly, and consistently.

I know I don't!

Because a lot of people don't view voting for or supporting the Trump administration as an act of affirmation of his character. He's a liar, a boorish blowhard, a bad husband, a frequent demagogue, a narcissist of the highest order, and an all around unpleasant personality. But I've also just described the overwhelming majority of (male) politicians. The difference is optics. For whatever reason many people are under the impression that the person they see giving an interview on cable news, or a speech at a rally, is an actual person, instead of a carefully honed caricature of a person created to signal qualities they think will win them elections. The reality is that many of these polished people are monsters or sociopaths. Trump just lets it all hang out, what you see is what you get. So, Republicans who are tired of losing, or constantly negotiating the terms of their surrender, are willing to throw their support behind a guy who seems to have altered the previously inexorable flow of their country's political and cultural landscape to the left. Most Republicans know he's a crank, but they also see him reshaping the Overton window in a way that seemed impossible only a few years ago.

[Randy from Boise]

Because a lot of people don't view voting for or supporting the Trump administration as an act of affirmation of his character. He's a liar, a boorish blowhard, a bad husband, a frequent demagogue, a narcissist of the highest order, and an all around unpleasant personality. But I've also just described the overwhelming majority of (male) politicians. The difference is optics. For whatever reason many people are under the impression that the person they see giving an interview on cable news, or a speech at a rally, is an actual person, instead of a carefully honed caricature of a person created to signal qualities they think will win them elections. The reality is that many of these polished people are monsters or sociopaths. Trump just lets it all hang out, what you see is what you get. So, Republicans who are tired of losing, or constantly negotiating the terms of their surrender, are willing to throw their support behind a guy who seems to have altered the previously inexorable flow of their country's political and cultural landscape to the left. Most Republicans know he's a crank, but they also see him reshaping the Overton window in a way that seemed impossible only a few years ago.

The difference between Trump and other "male politicians" is that Trump is a fucking fascist and other "male politicians" are not.

Also, his lies are exponentially more brazen, in the worst Goebbels tradition...

RfB

[LargelyRecyclable]

The difference between Trump and other "male politicians" is that Trump is a fucking fascist and other "male politicians" are not.

I see this a lot but I don't see any real objective evidence to back it, mostly just emotional backlash to a person whose stature and popularity they simply can't understand. There was an okay Munk Debate about a year ago that touched on this sort of hysteria, taken by many as a self-evident truth. The basic assertion put forth by Andrew Sullivan and EJ Dionne was that Trump represented an existential crisis for American democracy and American political institutions. When pressed by the other side to provide concrete examples they really struggled. It's worth watching just to contrast the pure emotion of the participants vs the substance of their actual arguments, because nobody on that stage is a dummy or a hysteric. Which is to say that, even among very intelligent people, there is a divergence between how people feel about Trump, and what they actually know about Trump. I'd say the same thing was true about Obama. At this point the rhetoric around Trump is just as far into the gutter as the rhetoric he himself vomits up. We've become stuck in a sort of negative feedback loop, where every unprecedented decline of standing norms and ethics is responded to by a new, unprecedented, reaction. And Trump is a big part of this, even a manifestation of this, but it started before him, around 2006.

Also, his lies are exponentially more brazen, in the worst Goebbels tradition...

Well, now that we've reached the point of Godwin's Law. Trump's lies are brazen, but they're mostly jocular, petty reactions, or off-the-cuff nonsense. The pile of lies fed to the American people by their politicians since the rise of modern media are endless, and often far more serious than whatever turd a ruffled up Trump dropped at his latest press conference or rally. Trump will lie about the size of his crowds but that pales in comparison to the Machiavellian lies that gave us the Golf of Tonkin, or Wilson campaigning on keeping the US out of WWI while secretly planing to do the exact opposite. A University of Florida professor wrote an interesting article on this, basically saying Trump isn't a liar, he's a bullshitter, and the difference is meaningful. I think some of the conclusions she drew from this reasonably sound observation are overwrought, but it's a good read.

[Midsize Jake]

There was an okay Munk Debate about a year ago that touched on this sort of hysteria, taken by many as a self-evident truth.

The problem is that you completely ruin your own argument when you refer to it as "hysteria." I was reading parts of Mein Kampf earlier today (and not for the first time) to fact-check myself on this post from another thread, and I was reminded again - it isn't just that the parallels are "chilling," the parallels are exact. I don't particularly want to quote Hitler here, but all you really have to do is overlook the fact that we didn't lose a World War recently and substitute "Mexicans and Muslims" for "Jews," and it's basically the exact same damn thing.

There's absolutely nothing hysterical about it; Trump might not be planning to take over the world, but he is quite clearly a fascist. He might also not think so himself, in fact he probably doesn't even know what the term actually means - but that doesn't make him any less a fascist.

[iii]

I guess I'm not surprised.

He's right about one thing, though - pretty much nobody outside the Trumpcult "gets" why anyone would vote for someone who lies so constantly, shamelessly, and consistently.

I know I don't!

I think I understand. It's an argument similar to that which Roosevelt apparently made about Nicaraguan Dictator Anastasio Somoza.

Funny how quickly dictators and fascists show up in these analyses, huh?

[Poetlister]

Trump is in many respects unique, but there is no shortage in the USA of politicians with views that I, and I think many people here, deplore. We saw one or two running against Trump in 2016. Ironically, Trump castigated at least one of them as a liar.

[iii]

Trump is in many respects unique, but there is no shortage in the USA of politicians with views that I, and I think many people here, deplore. We saw one or two running against Trump in 2016. Ironically, Trump castigated at least one of them as a liar.

One or two? Try something more like nine or ten. Like you, I don't see Trump as an aberration in rhetoric, temperament, or ideology. To the GOP insiders, his only real sin is that he is an outsider. I think that many of the members of his party who pretend to be outraged by his excesses secretly envy his ability to get away with it. They certainly vote in lock-step with his agenda (I'm looking at you Ben Sasse).

Okay, now I'm

[Cla68]

I've said it before, but the conundrum with Trump is that the current socio-political conflict at which he is the center is not really about traditional (or classic) conservative vs liberal. Instead, it's economic nationalism vs open-borders, neo-Socialist globalism. Of course if you're a proponent of the latter (which JzG apparently is, trying to keep this thread a little on topic), you're going to see anyone who is strongly against that as a fascist, because only a fascist would be against the equality that globalism promises to instill in our world order, right? I mean, who could be against Equality except for those nasty fascists?

Anyway, this latest episode with JzG reveals, once again, why he and so many people like him are drawn to Wikipedia in spite of its many failings- its Google juice. He's openly admitting that he sees Wikipedia, and likely other Internet forums which he participates in under different handles, as a medium to try to influence ("control" is likely the more apt word with JzG) his world. He has admitted in the past that his time spent on the Internet pushing his political and cultural ideologies (when he isn't editing content about chesty porn stars or making homophobic slurs) has had a negative impact on his family and work life. Yet, after all of that, Brexit still passes and a "fascist" gets elected president of the United States. It must be extremely frustrating. In fact it might give you some kind of derangement syndrome.

By the way, JzG's history of interest in porn starlets and the like, plus his authoritarian personality, are the probably the best indicators of why he really is like he is, more than his politics. I would go so far to say that it's the same thing that influences the behavior of a lot of WP's male administrators.

[Randy from Boise]

I've said it before, but the conundrum with Trump is that the current socio-political conflict at which he is the center is not really about traditional (or classic) conservative vs liberal. Instead, it's economic nationalism vs open-borders, neo-Socialist globalism. Of course if you're a proponent of the latter (which JzG apparently is, trying to keep this thread a little on topic), you're going to see anyone who is strongly against that as a fascist, because only a fascist would be against the equality that globalism promises to instill in our world order, right? I mean, who could be against Equality except for those nasty fascists?

You utterly miss (or flagrantly ignore) the racial component of Trumpism. It is about WHITE American nationalism, and beyond that, MALE-DOMINATED white, American nationalism. And beyond that, it is based upon LEADERSHIP-DOMINATED, male-dominated, white American nationalism.

It is anti-dissent. It is anti-free speech. It is anti-free press. It is based upon militarism abroad and the police state at home. It cares not about the tender faded traditions of democracy. It scoffs at the notion of checks-and-balances. It is about unbridled, centralized power in conjunction with a big business-driven economy and a ruling class exempt from taxation to the greatest extent possible.

tim

[Midsize Jake]

Well, we keep trying to remind Mr. '68 that exploiting middle-aged white-guy resentment over low wages/no pensions/constant layoffs doesn't amount to "economic nationalism," that adherence to international law regarding asylum-seekers doesn't amount to "open borders," and adherence to international trade agreements that the Republicans themselves insisted on in the 90s doesn't amount to "globalism." (Though in the latter case, that's probably because he's also using the completely unconventional right-wing definition of "globalism" that only they use.)

But for some reason, it just doesn't seem to sink in with him.

As for Mr. JzG, I'm not seeing a whole lot of stuff in his essay that's related to "globalism" by any definition, or economics or immigration in general, other than the one line where he says he disagrees with trickle-down economics... but trickle-down economics has been proven to not only not work, but make the economy worse time and again. I guess it doesn't really help much that in the next line he only links to the article on Sweden (T-H-L) as his means of proving that Socialism can work (though of course it does work just fine there), but he was probably just getting tired at that point in the writing process.

[Ming]

I've said it before, but the conundrum with Trump is that the current socio-political conflict at which he is the center is not really about traditional (or classic) conservative vs liberal. Instead, it's economic nationalism vs open-borders, neo-Socialist globalism.

Well, no. That's an oversimplification of both sides.

There are a lot of "never Trump" conservatives, who object to Trump's nativism (and his economics) and who surely have no use for anything neo-socialist. (A lot of them have holed up at National Review and The Atlantic.) There are also plenty of liberals, as opposed to progressives, who have no particular use for this supposed globalism either. There is a huge middle which tends to oppose Trump (if for no other reason than that he is so manifestly amoral) but who are being cut out of this "no compromise" battle; their only chance at a voice is to vote Republicans out in a month, but it's not that likely they'll gain many politicians speaking for them in the process. Republicans who try to distance themselves from the Trumpist frenzy tend to get beat up in the primaries, so there are very few of them left except in weirdo places like Maryland, which historically has liked the occasional moderate GOP county exec or governor.

The bigger problem is that, the way things are acted out, the Dems are now the party of morality, and the GOP is manifestly not. Trump, of course, is completely beyond the pale by anyone's standards, a political id monster unfettered by any sort of self-restraint. His conservative religious mouthpieces are bellowing hypocrites: one can complain that LGBTQ-etc advocacy is immoral by someone's standards, but that is an argument over those standards, whereas the support for the at-least-twice-of-not-more-times adulterer-in-chief is manifestly in conflict with the standards the Son of God set forth unambiguously. Progressive arguments, when it comes to it, are all morality-based. You might not like that system, but that's where it comes from. But this puts a split in the GOP side. The actually moral conservatives are by and large Never Trumpers, because they cannot choke him down. Trump's MAGA-hat followers have largely abandoned a moral sense beyond gut feelings. And that leaves the GOP politicians: well, they come across as (a) in hock to money, and (b) mostly interested in power (and hence the authoritarianism) and not much else.

None of this says much about JzG's views or their publication on WP, of course.

[Midsize Jake]

None of this says much about JzG's views or their publication on WP, of course.

Well, like I suggested earlier, until he gives us some kind of definitive statement on whether or not it's OK to believe Cthulhu is real, most people are just going to tune all that stuff of his out.

[Poetlister]

One or two? Try something more like nine or ten.

Yes, despite what Jeremy Corbyn claims, I fully understand English irony.

open-borders, neo-Socialist globalism

Do Americans really regard all mainstream European right-wingers such as Theresa May, Angela Merkel and François Fillon as neo-Socialists?

[Bezdomni]

Agree that JzG and some others (§) are insufferable.

[Midsize Jake]

open-borders, neo-Socialist globalism

Do Americans really regard all mainstream European right-wingers such as Theresa May, Angela Merkel and François Fillon as neo-Socialists?

Of course not. The Trumpcult, like many previous Republican "movements," just likes to drag out the word "socialist" to incite fear in their voter base, because fear is the main thing that motivates them. Most of them have never heard of any of those people.

JzG, though... actually, naaaah, I guess they've never heard of him either.

[Ming]

Surely he is one of Soros's many minions.

[Poetlister]

Surely he is one of Soros's many minions.

You mean Trump? Yes, I expect so. Most people seem to be.

[MysteriousStranger]

I've said it before, but the conundrum with Trump is that the current socio-political conflict at which he is the center is not really about traditional (or classic) conservative vs liberal. Instead, it's economic nationalism vs open-borders, neo-Socialist globalism. Of course if you're a proponent of the latter (which JzG apparently is, trying to keep this thread a little on topic), you're going to see anyone who is strongly against that as a fascist, because only a fascist would be against the equality that globalism promises to instill in our world order, right? I mean, who could be against Equality except for those nasty fascists?

You utterly miss (or flagrantly ignore) the racial component of Trumpism. It is about WHITE American nationalism, and beyond that, MALE-DOMINATED white, American nationalism. And beyond that, it is based upon LEADERSHIP-DOMINATED, male-dominated, white American nationalism.

It is anti-dissent. It is anti-free speech. It is anti-free press. It is based upon militarism abroad and the police state at home. It cares not about the tender faded traditions of democracy. It scoffs at the notion of checks-and-balances. It is about unbridled, centralized power in conjunction with a big business-driven economy and a ruling class exempt from taxation to the greatest extent possible.

tim

Thank you. Unfortunately, many Republicans miss this too. So deep in denial they won't even admit to the existence of dog-whistles. And this coming from a libertarian (me) who doesn't like Democrats much either.

[Cla68]

You utterly miss (or flagrantly ignore) the racial component of Trumpism. It is about WHITE American nationalism, and beyond that, MALE-DOMINATED white, American nationalism. And beyond that, it is based upon LEADERSHIP-DOMINATED, male-dominated, white American nationalism.
tim

Closed borders benefits the US working class, which is made up of every race in the US, but especially of minorities. Have you forgotten that Cesar Chavez, a big hero of leftists, was stridently against illegal immigration in California, as it hurt the members of his farmers union? He even sent union goons to the border to beat up border crossers in the 1970s. For some reason the Democrats have, since 2006, pivoted from supporting closing the borders to protect America's working class to opening them up, providing amnesty to illegal immigrants, and expanding legal immigration. Why is that? I'd say it's two reasons: 1) because the globalist robber barons who give them lots of money are telling them to do it (they want the cheap labor), and 2) they think it will give them more Democratic voters (so, power).

By the way, open borders ideology is racist, through-and-through. It encourages mainly people of color to put themselves at risk crossing deserts and oceans to get to the US and Western Europe. Hundreds of thousands have died trying. It also devastates their home communities in South America, Africa, and South Asia with the brain drain and the absence of males between 20-40 years old. The women and children left behind in their communities suffer the absence of their men. So, its misogynist also. Trump's election was a blow to this worldwide epidemic of racism and misogyny, and it was American white people (and 30% of the Hispanic community) who helped land this blow by voting for Trump.

Anyway, here is a short list of campaign promises that President Trump has kept:
1. Moved the US embassy to Jerusalem (Clinton, Bush, and Obama promised to do this and reneged)
2. Crush and destroy ISIS- Almost there
3. Travel ban on countries that posed a security thread- done and upheld by SCOTUS
4. Punish Syria for using chemical weapons- done twice after Obama failed to do so
5. Put conservatives on SCOTUS- done twice
6. Put conservatives on federal appellate and trial courts- As of this week, 84 have been appointed, most by any president at this point in history
7. Pass tax rollback and tax reform- Done (8th largest tax cut in history, not the largest as Trump claims, LOL)
8. Regulatory rollback- 22 federal regulations have been eliminated for every new one imposed
9. Said he would improve African-American employment- now the lowest in US history, plus imposition of "opportunity zones" in urban areas
10. Cancel Obama's Clean Power Plan
11. Withdraw from Paris Climate Accord
12. Withdraw from TPP
13. Renegotiate NAFTA
14. Renegotiate US-S. Korea trade agreement
15. Approve Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines
16. Open Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for energy exploration
17. Impose tariffs on steel and aluminum
18. Impose tariffs on China
19. Approve "right to try" for Americans with terminal conditions who wanted access to experimental treatments (to Jytdog's and MastCell's probable dismay)
20. Impose limits on US acceptance of legal immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers (just anecdotal, but an acquaintance of mine who works as a clerk in a DoJ immigration court told me recently that they've been working overtime and deporting people right and left; she's never seen anything like it)

Campaign promises that he has tried to do, but has not gotten done so far:
1. Tackle opioid abuse- A bill should be in front of him on this one fairly soon
2. Build the wall- blocked by Democrats and cuckservatives
3. Reform healthcare- same as above

Campaign promises he has reneged on:
1. Withdraw US from Afghanistan

He has been in office less than two years and he has gotten done about 80-90% of what he promised to do. So, I can understand you not liking him for his agenda. However, you can't say that he hasn't been effective at doing what he said he was going to do.

[Kumioko]

For what it's worth, he will probably get to replace another Supreme Court Justice before he leaves office. My guess is Ginsberg will be the next to be replaced.

I think it's actually kind of funny. Trump is hated while at the same time being the only American President/politician who actually followed through on his campaign promises.

[Ming]

I think it's actually kind of funny. Trump is hated while at the same time being the only American President/politician who actually followed through on his campaign promises.

You are forgetting Polk.

Also, Trump did, after all, promise to do a lot of things that lots of people thought (and still think) were ill-advised or otherwise objectionable. Personally, Ming feels that, as the Role-Model-in Chief, it's rather a problem to have a casual liar, a repeat adulterer, a bully, a tax cheat, and all-around nasty person in the position, even if Ming does by some coincidence share a couple of his policy points. And Ming presumes that at some point his interference with financial regulation is going to bring the economy crashing down when any of the next several bubbles gets popped, or when the economy fails to adjust to his tariffs. It's all a question of when: the GOP has to hope that (as with the last time around) the Dems manage to retake the White Huse again in time to take the blame.

[Kumioko]

I think it's actually kind of funny. Trump is hated while at the same time being the only American President/politician who actually followed through on his campaign promises.

You are forgetting Polk.

Also, Trump did, after all, promise to do a lot of things that lots of people thought (and still think) were ill-advised or otherwise objectionable. Personally, Ming feels that, as the Role-Model-in Chief, it's rather a problem to have a casual liar, a repeat adulterer, a bully, a tax cheat, and all-around nasty person in the position, even if Ming does by some coincidence share a couple of his policy points. And Ming presumes that at some point his interference with financial regulation is going to bring the economy crashing down when any of the next several bubbles gets popped, or when the economy fails to adjust to his tariffs. It's all a question of when: the GOP has to hope that (as with the last time around) the Dems manage to retake the White Huse again in time to take the blame.

Oh you're absolutely right. I am not a fan of "the wall" but I do support doing something to strengthen border security. I also believe we have to allow for people to work here because, to be frank, the average American doesn't want to be out in the fields picking fruit or vegetables or other manual labor things. So rather than letting that food rot on the vine or cost $12 for a gallon of milk because they have to pay Union wages with benefits, we need to allow for people who are willing to do that type of work to get here.

I do also agree he is not a nice person; he is certainly a bully but that's true of most billionaires and businesspeople; being an adulterer is between him and his wife and not really my problem for the most part; being a tax cheat is a big deal and that may come around to bite him in the ass if that turns out to be true but I think "exploiting the rules" is different than cheating it so my guess is he just worked around the system but we'll see.

As far as bubbles go, I personally think there is an education bubble that's going to get popped (and it's already showing signs of that now).

[Midsize Jake]

However, you can't say that he hasn't been effective at doing what he said he was going to do.

I'll just say it again: Promises to do grievous harm to the country, the economy, the rule of law, the world environment, and the human race in general are not something sane people should be voting for, particularly if those promises are actually "kept."

Your list could have a thousand items on it, and that would only make the situation that much worse.

[Mason]

Trump's election was a blow to this worldwide epidemic of racism and misogyny, and it was American white people (and 30% of the Hispanic community) who helped land this blow by voting for Trump.

Priceless.

[Midsize Jake]

Priceless.

He has a point, though. Who's going to provide the innocent cannon-fodder victims for all those religious extremists, drug cartels, military dictatorships, terrorists, human traffickers, polluters, and other death-dealers if people keep escaping from their home countries and coming to places that, until recently at least, were governed competently by people who believed in the rule of law? What are they going to do, fire their machine-guns at tackling dummies? Can't anyone please just think about the religious extremists, drug cartels, military dictatorships, terrorists, human traffickers, polluters, and other death-dealers for once? They have the right to pursue happiness too, don't they?



I mean, never mind that nobody in the mainstream American "left" has ever actually espoused "open borders," and that all they really wanted was to adhere to international law on the subject. And maybe allow immigrant parents to stay in the country with their kids who were born here. And that immigration actually helps the economy...

[iii]

If I squint I can see Cla68 in that mob.

It's such your classic fairytale. Starts with a blinkered sealioning commitment to "neutrality" on Wikipedia, morphs into being a big PITA bothering the center-left political consensus there, and ends with calling Jeff Flake a "cuckservative".

[Poetlister]

Trump is now angry because his own appointee as Chairman of the Federal Reserve is having to raise interest rates because of Trump's economic policies.

[LargelyRecyclable]

He has a point, though. Who's going to provide the innocent cannon-fodder victims for all those religious extremists, drug cartels, military dictatorships, terrorists, human traffickers, polluters, and other death-dealers if people keep escaping from their home countries and coming to places that, until recently at least, were governed competently by people who believed in the rule of law? What are they going to do, fire their machine-guns at tackling dummies? Can't anyone please just think about the religious extremists, drug cartels, military dictatorships, terrorists, human traffickers, polluters, and other death-dealers for once? They have the right to pursue happiness too, don't they?

This used to be a very common canard, but the frequency in which I see it has declined a lot over the past decade. This is likely because professional, volunteer service members are much more vocal now about be condescend to and patronized as cannon-fodder without agency, and because the statistics are so unambiguous as to how wrong it is. At 13.5% of the total population immigrants are one of the most underrepresented groups in the US Armed Forces, accounting for 5% of the total force. Additionally, every notable demographic segment of the US military is wealthier and more educated than its civilian counterparts. Among the troops who volunteered for combat positions, such as the infantry and special operations, whites are overrepresented. As an unsurprising consequence, whites account for a disproportionate number of troops killed (pdf) as a proportion to the population in every major conflict the US has participated in.

And that immigration actually helps the economy...

It has a slight affect on GDP growth, but it also creates significant parallel costs with only a small number of the most educated or wealthy immigrants creating a net economic contribution.(pg 19) Additionally, that GDP growth is redistributive and, among native population groups, is overwhelming funneled to the wealthiest of Americans who exploit the near slave wage labor of legal and illegal immigrant groups while undercutting median wage growth of the indigenous working class population in order to reduce their overall labor costs.

[Midsize Jake]

This used to be a very common canard, but the frequency in which I see it has declined a lot over the past decade.

It's still declining, because I wasn't referring to the US military at all, I was referring to potential asylum-seekers from (mostly third-world) countries.

It has a slight affect on GDP growth, but it also creates significant parallel costs with only a small number of the most educated or wealthy immigrants creating a net economic contribution.(pg 19) Additionally, that GDP growth is redistributive and, among native population groups, is overwhelming funneled to the wealthiest of Americans who exploit the near slave wage labor of legal and illegal immigrant groups while undercutting median wage growth of the indigenous working class population in order to reduce their overall labor costs.

I see what you're doing there, though. You're using an international study to back up the word "slightly" WRT the GDP growth, knowing the effect is more pronounced in the USA, which is what we're talking about. Then you use a US-specific study to point out that the wealthiest Americans get most of the benefit from cheap(er) immigrant labor, which is also a dodge because the USA is set up so that the wealthiest always get everything, regardless of what the source is. (The situation there is much better in Europe, or at least it was until recently.) Also, you don't include the fact that in political terms at least, it's right-wing/conservative policy that keeps wages down at the low end, and increasingly in the middle as well.

This is what the Dems mean when they talk about people "voting against their interests" - anyone who really wants wage growth should never vote for a Republican at any level, but still they do, because they're apparently incapable of seeing that it's the policies that impoverish them, not the immigrants themselves. (That, or they're completely obsessed with distraction issues like whether or not Afrtican-American football players are kneeling during the national anthem.)

Even JzG would probably agree with this, if he ever bothered to read these threads. (It looks like they're probably going to delete that essay of his, btw. Maybe we could host it here for him!)

[LargelyRecyclable]

This used to be a very common canard, but the frequency in which I see it has declined a lot over the past decade.

It's still declining, because I wasn't referring to the US military at all, I was referring to potential asylum-seekers from (mostly third-world) countries.

Ah, the chain of replies led me to assume you were talking about cannon-fodder vis-a-vis fighting the named groups, not constituting them. It's pretty obvious in retrospect. Sorry to assume the worst.

I see what you're doing there, though. You're using an international study to back up the word "slightly" WRT the GDP growth, knowing the effect is more pronounced in the USA, which is what we're talking about. Then you use a US-specific study to point out that the wealthiest Americans get most of the benefit from cheap(er) immigrant labor, which is also a dodge because the USA is set up so that the wealthiest always get everything, regardless of what the source is. (The situation there is much better in Europe, or at least it was until recently.) Also, you don't include the fact that in political terms at least, it's right-wing/conservative policy that keeps wages down at the low end, and increasingly in the middle as well.

This is what the Dems mean when they talk about people "voting against their interests" - anyone who really wants wage growth should never vote for a Republican at any level, but still they do, because they're apparently incapable of seeing that it's the policies that impoverish them, not the immigrants themselves. (That, or they're completely obsessed with distraction issues like whether or not Afrtican-American football players are kneeling during the national anthem.)

The opposite, in fact. Borjas in particular has written extensively on this topic. The short version is that the more developed the host country and the less skilled/educated the immigrant, the less economic benefit the host country receives, as the normal economic growth achieved by technological innovation across the labor force in highly developed countries would outstrip the potential benefit of a mass influx of low skilled labor. The mass influx of such immigrants to developed countries mainly serves to drive down the cost of the labor pools in which they can participate. He's very specific that this scenario causes damage to the indigenous working class for little overall economic benefit.

No disagreement that Republican supported policies over the past few decades have done substantial damage to the American working class. Once upon a time Democrats opposed these policies. But, decades of a cursory understanding of the dominant school of neo-liberal economics and the influx of corporate money into the Dems' coffers has solidified the Washington Consensus as a bipartisan affair. There is absolutely no credible argument at this point that voting for a mainline Democrat will help arrest the consolidation of wealth in the top .1% or shake loose wage stagnation. The alternatives in the Democratic Party are retreads. The new reality is that Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and the immigration lobby own the Democratic Party. The economic populism of Trump is unprecedented in this regard, and a real break from the policies of both major American parties. He's talking about American industry and the American working class in a way not seen en vouge since the 70's. The guy won Michigan and Pennsylvania for crying out loud.

Even JzG would probably agree with this, if he ever bothered to read these threads. (It looks like they're probably going to delete that essay of his, btw. Maybe we could host it here for him!)

Haha, you should.

[Randy from Boise]

For what it's worth, he will probably get to replace another Supreme Court Justice before he leaves office. My guess is Ginsberg will be the next to be replaced.

I think it's actually kind of funny. Trump is hated while at the same time being the only American President/politician who actually followed through on his campaign promises.

Yeah, if he was actually representative of a majority of voters, you could say it was "democracy in action" or something...

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Trump's election was a blow to this worldwide epidemic of racism and misogyny, and it was American white people (and 30% of the Hispanic community) who helped land this blow by voting for Trump.

Priceless.

You are very polite.

RfB

[LargelyRecyclable]

I was reading parts of Mein Kampf earlier today (and not for the first time) to fact-check myself on this post from another thread, and I was reminded again - it isn't just that the parallels are "chilling," the parallels are exact. I don't particularly want to quote Hitler here, but all you really have to do is overlook the fact that we didn't lose a World War recently and substitute "Mexicans and Muslims" for "Jews," and it's basically the exact same damn thing.

I can't believe I missed this. I've read Mein Kampf too, I actually own the original Reynal & Hitchcock edition. You can grab quotes from the book to say almost anything, he was all over the place and it meanders quite a bit. Still, I'm interested to know the quotes you're referencing; exact parallel is quite the claim. Change my mind.

There's absolutely nothing hysterical about it; Trump might not be planning to take over the world, but he is quite clearly a fascist. He might also not think so himself, in fact he probably doesn't even know what the term actually means - but that doesn't make him any less a fascist.

But he's not. I know that fascist is a somewhat enthusiastically applied pejorative these days but it has a real meaning, an actual definition. There are very specific markers that delineate actual ideological fascism from generic right-wing populism, even right-wing populism grounded in an nationalistic identity. I'd be surprised to find a serious scholar of fascism who has publicly claimed what you're claiming. I know that, at least, Robert Paxton, probably the best scholar of fascism alive, has definitively refuted it.

[Midsize Jake]

Look, I'm probably never going to convince you that Trump is a fascist, especially if doing so means I have to quote Mein Kampf extensively in a public thread. I'm just not going to do that, sorry. (And let's not move the goalposts too much - my intention was to argue that it wasn't "hysteria," not to convince you that he's a fascist by some objective standard that probably doesn't even exist.)

But since you're familiar with Mein Kampf, you at least know what Hitler says about discrediting the free press, about appealing to emotion over fact, about endless repetition of lies and distortions to the point where people completely believe the lies (i.e., gaslighting the population), and ensuring that the racial out-group is blamed for pretty much every problem the society has. You've also read his grossly-distorted account of his own family, upbringing, education, and personal abilities - just as Trump has been grossly distorting his own background for practically his whole life. The fact that Trump is distorting his in a different way (i.e., he was always super-sexy, super-smart, fabulously wealthy, and a "great deal-maker") strikes me as immaterial. Both are playing to their own national audience and have absolutely no compunctions about lying about, or at the very least "mythologizing," themselves to increase their appeal.

I'll also say this, though I mean no offense by it: I think you're two years behind. You've probably read articles like this one in Vox, which basically says the same thing you're saying:

Kagan is wrong. Donald Trump is not a fascist. "Fascism" has been an all-purpose insult for many years now, but it has a real definition, and according to scholars of historical fascism, Trump doesn't qualify. Rather, he's a right-wing populist, or perhaps an "apartheid liberal" in the words of Roger Griffin, author of The Nature of Fascism. He doesn't want to overthrow the existing democratic system. He doesn't want to scrap the Constitution. He doesn't romanticize violence itself as a vital cleansing agent of society. He's simply a racist who wants to keep the current system but deny its benefits to groups he's interested in oppressing.

That was written in May 2016, though. Since then, Trump has proven that he wants to overthrow the democratic system; he has proven his contempt for Constitutional norms and the rule of law; and he has proven that he's not above encouraging (at least tacitly) violence against those who oppose him and his followers. Just because he hasn't been successful at these things (and hasn't fired Rosenstein or Mueller yet) doesn't mean we shouldn't take him at his word when he says stuff that clearly shows his contempt for his country and its institutions. (Or, for that matter, his affinity for Russia and its institutions.) The main difference between Trump and Hitler in this regard is that Hitler actually knew something about his country and its institutions.

I already admitted that he isn't interested in military expansionism, which many of the conventional definitions of "fascist" require, but think about that - why did the 20th-century fascists want military expansion? It's easy to say, "oh, they were obviously violent megalomaniacs," but why not also believe what they themselves stated, over and over again - Germany, Italy, and Japan were at a severe economic disadvantage because they weren't drawing income and natural resources from extensive colonial holdings like Britain, France, and the United States were, nor did they have the vast untapped resource-wealth of countries like Russia, or even Canada and Brazil. The 20th-century fascists simply wanted (and felt entitled to) more than everyone else, and for them, the only way to get more back then was to start wars and take it. But the USA doesn't have that problem, so Trump doesn't have that problem. Long story short, I'm sorry, but I reject the notion that the definition of fascism - at least in the modern context - should necessarily include military expansionism as a "required characteristic."

Even Robert Paxton himself ended up having to revise his own article in Harper's in May 2017 (sorry, this is behind a pretty expensive paywall) to make allowances for Trump's increasingly fascist tendencies as exhibited up to that point, and he'd only been President for four months. (Admittedly though, he still won't call him a "fascist" outright.)

So again, we're probably never going to agree on this, and in any event, this isn't what this website is for. I'm hoping I won't have to move the thread into the "Off Topic" forum (since it was never really about JzG, let's be honest), but right now I'm willing to bet that Mr. 68 thinks he's PWNED us all, while of course most of us just think he's made himself look like a nutcase in an ever-deepening downward spiral towards right-wing paranoid delusionality. Nobody wins in this scenario, I'm afraid.

[Randy from Boise]

I'd be surprised to find a serious scholar of fascism who has publicly claimed what you're claiming. I know that, at least, Robert Paxton, probably the best scholar of fascism alive, has definitively refuted it.

Well, that settles it.

"Scholars of fascism" is an absurdity. Fill in the blank: "scholars of capitalism"... "scholars of communism."

No, there are historians of specific times and places. Trump and the Trumpist mob and the reactionary political party which has evolved to accommodate his whims and preferences certainly differs from each of the previous examples of fascist regimes in certain ways, but this does not negate the fundamental essence of his own particular regime. Trumpism differs from full blown fascism only by the virtue that it is still bounded (as of yet) by the rule of law.

RfB

[LargelyRecyclable]

So again, we're probably never going to agree on this, and in any event, this isn't what this website is for. I'm hoping I won't have to move the thread into the "Off Topic" forum (since it was never really about JzG, let's be honest), but right now I'm willing to bet that Mr. 68 thinks he's PWNED us all, while of course most of us just think he's made himself look like a nutcase in an ever-deepening downward spiral towards right-wing paranoid delusionality. Nobody wins in this scenario, I'm afraid.

Fair enough, I'll wave off. I hadn't read that Vox piece but it's amusing to me that, even if it's in the most backhanded of ways, Vox ended up doing a piece on how Trump isn't a fascist. That's delightful.

Well, that settles it.

"Scholars of fascism" is an absurdity. Fill in the blank: "scholars of capitalism"... "scholars of communism."

No, there are historians of specific times and places.

What? It's late, have you been drinking? Stop, before it gets any worse.

[Midsize Jake]

Personally, I'm OK with saying you can be a "scholar" of fascism, or communism, or even anarchism and hey, why not Situationism too? They're basically just branches of Political Science, and with the last two you could probably have some Sex Pistols content involved... who wouldn't want that?

Amherst University even has an entire course on Fascism, currently taught by the unfortunately-named Thomas L. Dumm, author of the just-as-unfortunately-titled Loneliness as a Way of Life. (I'm sure it's just a coincidence that he's an expert on both things.)

I mean, if they can have scholars of stuff like the New Science of Understanding Dog Behavior, or even Scholars of the First Sin, not to mention the inevitable Margaritaville University, why not fascism?

Frankly, I think more people should just go to vocational school.

[Ming]

Ming's view is that Trump himself simply knows of no way to run things except like a CEO in a fairly small establishment, which is to say, as an autocrat unfettered by checks and balances. That is, after all, what you have when you make your own little real estate empire starting from a great pile of money from Daddy: you don't have to listen to anyone, and a great deal of the time you can just roll over other people. It doesn't help him that he has been in a notoriously crooked line of business. He has always had the indulgence of being able to be crude in all senses of the word and of never having to have served someone else, and he enjoys bossing other people around.

The GOP is another story. Trump appeals to people who like autocracy, because a business like his is, after all, an autocracy, and his gut sense is to appeal to people who are as crude as he is; Ming also gathers that he cannot gain entrance to upper class society for a variety of reasons. But it does not seem to Ming that he is interested in political power so much as he is in self-aggrandizement. The rest of the party, however, is very much about that power, in fact, sometimes it seems almost only about that power.

[Randy from Boise]

Personally, I'm OK with saying you can be a "scholar" of fascism, or communism, or even anarchism and hey, why not Situationism too? They're basically just branches of Political Science, and with the last two you could probably have some Sex Pistols content involved... who wouldn't want that?

Point taken, but on the other hand "political science" is also an absurdity of terminology if you spend about 15 seconds thinking about it...

RfB

[Dysklyver]

Personally, I'm OK with saying you can be a "scholar" of fascism, or communism, or even anarchism and hey, why not Situationism too? They're basically just branches of Political Science, and with the last two you could probably have some Sex Pistols content involved... who wouldn't want that?

Point taken, but on the other hand "political science" is also an absurdity of terminology if you spend about 15 seconds thinking about it...

It's very valid though really, with the rise of fascism-esqe groups globally, this kind of background can lead to journalism or civil service jobs. Political analysts will probably always be needed by the media and government, so the industry is secure enough.

Also I translated Guy Grant's 'divisive' userpage into bad latin and it's way more popular than it should be on my blog. He may be controversial, but clearly people think it's interesting enough.