All of this was predictable, indeed all of it was predicted because these were Trump’s campaign promises. And since he was president for four long years, we all had an unfortunately long chunk of our lives to learn that, yes, he really does try to follow through on his hatreds. No one gets to pretend they’re surprised. Shocked at the speed and aggression maybe, but surprised? No.
The bulk of responsibility for Trump’s election goes to his supporters, of course, but not all of it. By the same token, credit for how close the Dems came to winning goes to their active supporters. That leave a motley crew of people non-voters, wobblers, and teh category that interests me: people who should have supported the Dems but didn’t. They are, as Gregory Bateson put it, the “difference that makes a difference.”
They come in two flavors: (1) self-perceived elites who condemn our actual political sphere as too degenerate and corrupt to take seriously on its own terms, and (2) fanatics who fixate on some lens (“genocide,” for example) and denounce anyone who doesn’t immediately embrace it. These two types share one thing in common, but it’s not what you think: they’re neoplatonists, more concerned with simplistic abstractions than mucky realities. In that respect, they also have something crucial in common with the other type that landed us in this mess: self-styled “institutionalists,” who care more about imaginary ideals than actual people.
All of these groups will tell you their politics are motivated by a firm grasp on reality — real politics like we used to have, real abuses that need to be opposed, how the world really works — and there’s certainly some truth to that. But what they won’t tell you, because they themselves don’t recognize it, is that their politics are also dominated by denialism. For each, there’s always something else more important than here and now: how things used to be, how things are somewhere else, how things are “behind closed doors” or “in the corridors of power.”
The proof of their denialism is simple: they’re all “surprised” that Trump is doing what he promised. There was a cornucopia of excuses: he’s insane and a liar, he’s surrounded by bumbling fools, his advisors aren’t qualified and incompetent, he makes all kinds of threats but never follows through, it’s really just a distraction, he doesn’t have a mandate, his majorities in Congress are two thin, his coalition is about to fall apart, the courts or Wall Street or the military won’t go along with it, bla bla bla.
Since we’re all mired to some extent in this denialism (some more than others…), here’s a thought experiment you can try — an exercise, so to speak. Describe Trump, MAGA, Musk, without using the word not or any other form of negation (for example, no unethical or incompetent). That is, try to say what they actually are and what they actually are doing without casting it as a failure, a violation, or a shortcoming.
Good luck!