08-07-2020, 05:55 PM
(08-07-2020, 02:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Here you complain that I don't accept the conclusion of your "argument" because I (again) require that you provide more support. The single operative premise of your "argument," that Trump's priorities etc. are largely dependent on his political presence, is a bare claim with much that speaks against it.
I and others have noted how the party was already primed for Trump before he arrived. His "priorities" evolved organically, beginning with his 1989 editorial on the Central Park Five and moving on to his support of birtherism. As he noted how Republican voters responded enthusiastically to xenophobic nasty, he introduced his wall and his call for Muslim bans and his Snake Poem. Then in a LANDSLIDE, Republican supported shifted from your "GOP NORM" to Trump. They didn't want Trump's policies/priorities because Trump wanted them. They wanted his policies because they ALREADY SHARED HIS PRIORITIES and figured Trump would fight for them where the GOP establishment wouldn't. "Establishment"-- those would be the guys leading that "reversion to the norm" you predict.
My objection, far from "ignor[ing] the central thrust of [your] argument," addresses it directly, via its weak warrant. There is every reason to believe that Trump tapped into and followed voter frustrations which pre-existed him and which he, in his contempt for civil norms, enthusiastically articulated and further developed. STYLE as much as policy. What speaks against that? How would you show that his base's hatred of immigrants/Muslims didn't pre-exist Trump? Will disappear when he is gone?
Further, in 3 1/2 years of presidency, he has fundamentally undermined his base's view not only of the free press, but also of FBI, CIA, courts, the CDC, the NIH, the State Department, and the electoral process itself, creating an alternative reality of hoaxes and conspiracies which indeed define "stable and responsible" in a very different way than the majority of voters and I do. Your "argument" conveniently ignores this alternative, Fox-bred worldview, in which people are easily led to believe that Ukraine was really responsible for hacking the DNC server and the US election and the FBI attempted a deep state coup. But your "argument" asks us to believe all this will suddenly stop when Trump leaves office via "rigged" election. Because the GOP platform is "the same."
So stop saying people ignore your "argument" and explain why those rabid crowds we see at Trump rallies will suddenly forget their hatred of immigrants and trust the "deep state" when Trump leaves office, happily supporting another iteration of Jeb, Marco and Ted. They are about as likely to become Democrat as (to borrow your words) to "revert to form."
You're confusing the voters with the party, so yes, you are ignoring my point. Those types of people are always going to exist and they will vote Dem or GOP based on their political leanings.
(08-07-2020, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course what I define as "stable and responsible" is not so defined by some others. That is why they are voting for Trump and not Biden. E.g. you just said you'd prefer "gridlock" to Dem control of Congress and the Exec.
Yes, I am aware of that because I would absolutely prefer it.
Quote: I suppose that is an ideological kind of stability, or maybe "paralysis" would be a better word, but it doesn't comport with managing the business of the nation. So yes, your "stability" is different from mine. And that is why I am arguing against it.
For one so versed in history and founding of our nation I'd expect you'd be aware that this was exactly how the Framers wanted it.
Quote:At this point, the majority of American voters share my "entirely subjective" ideals of stable and reasonable government, including many "normal" Republicans. Can there be mass "solipsism"?
In what way? That they don't want Trump? That they prefer Biden but don't want a Dem controlled Congress? There's a lot of options between Trump wins and GOP controlled Congress and Biden wins and a Dem controlled Congress. I don't think there's nearly as many people who want the latter, as you do, as you apparently seem to think.
(08-07-2020, 02:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. Your "actual argument" is that the mass of Trump voters will suddenly go docile when he is out office. Perhaps in a few cases support for Trump can be "utterly simple,"* e.g., among Republicans who don't follow the news. But your claim isn't just that some few simply oppose the Dem party positions, but that the current Trumpism of Republican voters en masse is only based on the "presence" of Trump and will disappear when he is gone. Because some few are not "married to the ideology of Trump" seems a very weak warrant for that conclusion.
No, that's not my argument and it's never been my argument, hence my continued statements that you aren't addressing my argument.
Quote:2. The "point actually being made" is analogous to that made regarding Republicans--that in both cases the parties' mass voting behavior and choice of leadership doesn't reveal who the parties really are. For you, the "fringe" defines each party and its future potential. My "resort to mockery" calls attention to how little broad party support there actually is for some "deep root" of CA "leftism" (whose goals, by the way, deserve a hearing). That does refute the point actually being made until you can explain why in either case people should ignore what the majority of voters in each party do or do not want, will or will not tolerate.
It's interesting that you would make this point as it is precisely describes your position as well. Unfortunately I don't see the extremes I mention on the left as that "fringe" anymore. I'd be very happy to be wrong, I just don't think I am.
Quote:*Even that is doubtful, since everyone who votes for Trump also has to accept the high likelihood of his continued abuse of power if left in office, especially to block investigations into that abuse, in addition to the divisive public misogyny and racism, and four more years of undermining public institutions, especially the courts. Fox-driven fear of radical leftist Dems--a fear built over almost 3 decades-- is the only thing now keeping voters "not married to the ideology of Trump" in the fold. In voting for Trump now, one is not "simply" rejecting Dem positions but ACCEPTING an unprecedented level of malfeasance which in itself compromises any pure desire for a Republican platform supposedly based upon Constitutionalism and rule of law and carries great future risks for functioning government. That is why so many Republicans who prefer the GOP platform and abhor the Dem's are nevertheless voting Dem. They understand that any endorsement of Trump now, however qualified, is an endorsement of dishonest and bad government--putting party goals above the interest of the nation. CA "leftists" will not scare them away from that Dem vote.
Except it's not that simple. You also keep mentioning the hordes of GOP voters who aren't voting for Trump as if the election already happened and we're doing a post mortem. You may end up being right, but there's a lot of time between now and election day. As I stated before for a gentlemen who appreciates nuance there's very little to none of it in your position on this topic.
