I do not have the proper words to convey just how excellent this piece is. However, what I can say is: imagine yourself delivering this article in speech form at a well attended conference. I’d be the first to stand and applaud you. Kudos.
In all seriousness, this is an excellent dissection of both where November 5 came from and where it's going! Kudos. It's unnerving to contemplate where America will end up when under the control of posthuman technocrats, or the Middle East under Zionist warmongers (or America again when the consequences come back to our shores). The Boomercon rhetoric is going to get even more ugly and stupid I just know it, "We keep trying to foment regime change in Iran, and they want to kill Trump! The evil bastards!" I guess this is why I keep putting my eggs in the metapolitics basket. Electing Trump didn't divert Armageddon, but electing Trump shifting the Overton window far enough that conversations about the futures that'll actually divert it can be more easily had. That counts for something!
It’s not really about what Trump personally wants. As I mention in the article, there is a powerful elite faction in the US that has been lobbying for confrontation with Iran for years, and the geopolitical situation in the ME today is significantly different than it was in 2016. This faction (i.e. the Israel Lobby) is an important part of Trump’s winning coalition. Does that make sense?
In Indonesia, we have a political culture that consider presidency as strongest political force, like France. Last president, Joko Widodo, lost support from his party who no.1 in parliament. But he regain political control so that party basically lost latest election.
Does that kind of thing can be done by Trump?
I think he has his own will, can he control a faction?
That’s what I really meant. Or Americans consider presidency an extension from his faction?
Trump has his own will, but just like anyone else, that will can be influenced. Moreover, the factions I’ve highlighted here can bring a large amount of money, media influence, and advice to bear to achieve certain outcomes.
This reads to me like a very low brow analysis anchored in salience bias. Meaning, we could argue something similar about the pharma lobby (Vivek and others), the Evangelical lobby, the new media lobby (lots of money in the galaxy of podcasts and blogs), etc., etc.
A simpler perspective is that certain things have always been coded “right,” especially in the English speaking world - free markets, Israel, family values, low taxes, deregulation, muscular foreign policy, tough on crime policies, etc., etc.
Coincidentally, your ‘simpler’ perspective is also less correct. Your theory appears to give the vague feelings and sentiments of the masses more agency than the shrewd and dedicated groups of interested elites.
If you’re going to analyze politics, you have to have a theory of how power works. I think that tracing how organized, monied factions are moving affords one more predictive power than asking whether or not some particular policy is ‘right-coded’ or ‘left-coded’.
Ultimately, policy happens in the world of concrete realities, not in the realm of ideas.
But I did just demonstrate to you how other monied interests (pharma, new media, etc.) could star in a similar piece. For whichever arbitrary reason you chose tech and Israel, whereas there’s a whole menu of other options. So I think your argument is specious, or more kindly, suffers from salience bias.
And reading through the rest of your “work” I do get a similar sense of a monomaniacal obsession with the most banal of conspiracies.
So your argument is that because there are monied interests besides the ones I highlighted that could be driving American politics, monied interests in general aren’t explanatorily important? There is a major problem with this:
You haven’t demonstrated that these other factions did, in fact, have a major role in Trump victory. I acknowledge that it’s plausible other groups played an important role—I even acknowledge it’s possible my article suffers from salience bias. The problem for you is that you haven’t actually proven this.
I suspect that don’t like people raining on your Trump 2024 parade, and so you’ll find some way to write off the argument and data I’ve put forward here. If you want to defend your position, do the homework and write an article on it. I’d be happy to read a well-researched essay challenging my theory. I’m much less interested in snide comments from someone who insults my writing without contributing any “work” of their own.
Let me know when you’ve written something. Merry Christmas.
A HUGE thanks for the restack. Much appreciated. God bless.
I do not have the proper words to convey just how excellent this piece is. However, what I can say is: imagine yourself delivering this article in speech form at a well attended conference. I’d be the first to stand and applaud you. Kudos.
Thank you very much! God bless you and Merry Christmas.
Good work, solid research
I'm late to it, via NLF, but wanted to express appreciation anyway.
Thank you very much!
Oh boy, a wonderfully optimistic analysis 😮💨
In all seriousness, this is an excellent dissection of both where November 5 came from and where it's going! Kudos. It's unnerving to contemplate where America will end up when under the control of posthuman technocrats, or the Middle East under Zionist warmongers (or America again when the consequences come back to our shores). The Boomercon rhetoric is going to get even more ugly and stupid I just know it, "We keep trying to foment regime change in Iran, and they want to kill Trump! The evil bastards!" I guess this is why I keep putting my eggs in the metapolitics basket. Electing Trump didn't divert Armageddon, but electing Trump shifting the Overton window far enough that conversations about the futures that'll actually divert it can be more easily had. That counts for something!
I’m Indonesian so I don’t really understand: Why there is significant changes of rhetoric on Trump 2.0 war mongering threats?
Like a few weeks ago they threatened Iran for nukes etc.
Now they’re threatening nearest neighbors like Canada or Panama.
Is this sign of factional fighting as well?
Do Trump intends to fight war in ME?
It’s not really about what Trump personally wants. As I mention in the article, there is a powerful elite faction in the US that has been lobbying for confrontation with Iran for years, and the geopolitical situation in the ME today is significantly different than it was in 2016. This faction (i.e. the Israel Lobby) is an important part of Trump’s winning coalition. Does that make sense?
In Indonesia, we have a political culture that consider presidency as strongest political force, like France. Last president, Joko Widodo, lost support from his party who no.1 in parliament. But he regain political control so that party basically lost latest election.
Does that kind of thing can be done by Trump?
I think he has his own will, can he control a faction?
That’s what I really meant. Or Americans consider presidency an extension from his faction?
Trump has his own will, but just like anyone else, that will can be influenced. Moreover, the factions I’ve highlighted here can bring a large amount of money, media influence, and advice to bear to achieve certain outcomes.
The TechBros Are Traitors.
Death To TechBros.
This reads to me like a very low brow analysis anchored in salience bias. Meaning, we could argue something similar about the pharma lobby (Vivek and others), the Evangelical lobby, the new media lobby (lots of money in the galaxy of podcasts and blogs), etc., etc.
A simpler perspective is that certain things have always been coded “right,” especially in the English speaking world - free markets, Israel, family values, low taxes, deregulation, muscular foreign policy, tough on crime policies, etc., etc.
Go in peace!
Coincidentally, your ‘simpler’ perspective is also less correct. Your theory appears to give the vague feelings and sentiments of the masses more agency than the shrewd and dedicated groups of interested elites.
If you’re going to analyze politics, you have to have a theory of how power works. I think that tracing how organized, monied factions are moving affords one more predictive power than asking whether or not some particular policy is ‘right-coded’ or ‘left-coded’.
Ultimately, policy happens in the world of concrete realities, not in the realm of ideas.
God bless. Christ is King.
But I did just demonstrate to you how other monied interests (pharma, new media, etc.) could star in a similar piece. For whichever arbitrary reason you chose tech and Israel, whereas there’s a whole menu of other options. So I think your argument is specious, or more kindly, suffers from salience bias.
And reading through the rest of your “work” I do get a similar sense of a monomaniacal obsession with the most banal of conspiracies.
So your argument is that because there are monied interests besides the ones I highlighted that could be driving American politics, monied interests in general aren’t explanatorily important? There is a major problem with this:
You haven’t demonstrated that these other factions did, in fact, have a major role in Trump victory. I acknowledge that it’s plausible other groups played an important role—I even acknowledge it’s possible my article suffers from salience bias. The problem for you is that you haven’t actually proven this.
I suspect that don’t like people raining on your Trump 2024 parade, and so you’ll find some way to write off the argument and data I’ve put forward here. If you want to defend your position, do the homework and write an article on it. I’d be happy to read a well-researched essay challenging my theory. I’m much less interested in snide comments from someone who insults my writing without contributing any “work” of their own.
Let me know when you’ve written something. Merry Christmas.
It’s a bit difficult to explain to wordcels, but your reasoning basically suffers from something like this.
https://www.thehebrewconservative.com/2023/11/05/the-pretense-of-knowledge-if-hayeks-friends-talked-a-lot/
You need to train yourself to think in probability and differential terms. Such is life.
Perhaps, it’s difficult to explain because you don’t understand it nearly as well as you think you do!
Either way, if you don’t like it, move on. Enjoy a nice Christmas brunch!
Brunch is over, waiting for dinner! But yes, I’ll leave you to it.