Good question and points Jesse. It made me think about George W. and Trump. I thought both were disastrously bad presidents in their own ways; but definitely dislike Trump far more intensely even though I would agree that from a pure policy perspective, George W. was worse. To your point, Trump didn't launch any wars and the economy was strong during his presidency.
So why do I dislike Trump so much more intensely? I think it comes down to two things:
- First, I think Trump's behavior during and after the 2020 election has been disastrously bad for the country, in ways that could permanently damage it. Trump lost a close election in 2020, just as he won a close one in 2016. The idea that the election was stolen has been comprehensively debunked (https://www.readtangle.com/2000-mules-fact-check-stolen-election/). But Trump has continuously claimed he was cheated in a way unlike any other Presidential candidate in American history. And while that would be bad enough in and of itself, the fact that has managed to parley that claim into being nominated again means that candidates may conclude that falsely claiming they were cheated is the best way to remain politically viable. I think that could be terrible for the country's future.
- The second reason has to do with character. You're right that "class" and "civility", while I hope and think they are helpful, are not prerequisites for being a president (and maybe not even for being a good president). Certainly, those are freighted concepts. But I think I always believed, maybe naively, that all of our presidents before Trump were men of character. Which doesn't mean they were perfect or even good people all of the time (many were unfaithful, LBJ stole a Senate election, Wilson was a racist , etc. etc.), but I think they all ran for President not only because of personal ambition but because they actually did want to make a difference for their country. And I think that is also true for most Congresspeople today, even the ones I disagree with intensely, whether it is an Ilhan Omar on the left or a Mike Johnson on the right. I don't think that is true for Donald Trump. I believe that Trump as President is the same person he was before he became President: a completely amoral person whose only motivation is self aggrandizement. I think it's sad that we had someone like that as our President for even one term, much less two.
Finally, Jesse, to your last point, I think you're probably right that lots of folks lean toward Trump because they associate him with a good period of time in their lives. What is sad, however, is that this association is likely to prove disastrous if Trump is reelected. Trump was incredibly fortunate to come to office at a time when he inherited an economy in marvelous shape and one where low interest rates meant that even increasing the budget deficit in the way that Trump did was not going to lead to bad outcomes for people. But whoever is President in 2025 is going to be faced with a very different situation, and Trump's plan to simply run it back will lead to a huge spike in inflation this time around: https://www.slowboring.com/p/trump-would-make-inflation-worse
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the articulation of actual reasons, even if I don't agree with them.
1. The first reason I think is overstated, considering such behavior is not uncommon for the loser. I took 60 seconds for an Internet search, and it's easy to find stories--even on CNN and NPR--of Democrats questioning and challenging the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Yes, Trump's complaints were louder and longer--in part because he planned to run again, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Hillary--but I don't see how that translates to permanently damaging the country.
2. Your second reason is a big part of Trump's popular appeal. You are not alone in naively thinking previous presidents were men of character; but at this point, I think most of us realize politicians (on both sides) are sleazy, who will do or say anything to get elected. When people saw Trump in all his buffoonery, they said, "That's who he really is; he's not pretending to be someone else in order to secure votes." As Trump himself said, "I'm not a politician. That's why I got elected."
3. I agree the debt/economy will be a big challenge, no matter who is elected. I'm not pleased that Trump increased the national debt, even though nearly half of it was covid relief.
Were I to wholly agree with your three reasons, I still don't see how this translates to....Adolf Hitler. Some say: "But he tried to take over the country!". It's a great propaganda point against Trump, but very silly when thought through. Consider the scenario: this vile, extremely charismatic dictator with 500,000 of his loyal devotees, most of whom own GUNS, are gathered to take over the country, with only 340 National Guard soldiers and the Capitol Police to stop them. In the afternoon, 1100 more Guardsmen are called, and in the evening, another 6200. (These numbers from the National Guard website report on Jan. 6.)
According to Wikipedia (which leans left), there were five deaths (one by shooting, one by drug overdose, three of natural causes); 174 injured police officers; and $2.7 million in damage. Five hundred thousand gun owners (following orders from their charismatic dictator) against a few thousand troops, and that's the best they can do? This is the wimpiest revolution of all time. It's hard to imagine a less Hitlerian result than that feeble attempted insurrection.
I know you, Gordon, didn't bring up "Hitler," but John and many others have made the comparison, and you state you agree 100% with John.
"1. The first reason I think is overstated, considering such behavior is not uncommon for the loser. I took 60 seconds for an Internet search, and it's easy to find stories--even on CNN and NPR--of Democrats questioning and challenging the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Yes, Trump's complaints were louder and longer--in part because he planned to run again, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Hillary--but I don't see how that translates to permanently damaging the country."
Here's why that "Dems did it too:" argument comes across to me as incredibly weak.
In 2000, Al Gore believed that with a proper recount of FL, he would have won. He said as much, he took that claim to court, I think he won some legal victories in Florida but eventually lost when the US Supreme Court ruled against him in Bush v Gore. The VERY NEXT DAY, he gave a very gracious speech in which he acknowledged that he was giving up his legal challenges and acknowledging Bush as the next President. On Jan 6, 2001, the date of the electoral vote certification, a few Democratic House members made objections to counting the electoral vote count, and Al Gore himself, presiding over the electoral vote count as the sitting VP, ruled all of the objections out of order so that Bush could be certified the winner.
Other than the fact that both Trump in 2020 and Gore in 2016 filed lawsuits, absolutely no part of what Gore did in 2000 has even the slightest resemblance to what Trump did 2 decades later. No attempts to break Florida law by producing an "alternate" slate of electors, no attempts to bring a huge mob to Washington to strom the Capitol, and even though Gore was literally the guy who presided over the electoral vote count, no attempts to monkey with that.
In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry, and Kerry conceded. A smattering of Dem lawmakers protested, including one Senator who actually did object to the electoral vote count, but that objection was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 74-1 (8 Dems and 17 Republucans did not bother to vote). Kerry himself filed no lawsuits and made no efforts to scheme or foment violence in order to steal the election.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton called Trump and congratulated him on his victory on election night and gave a concession speech the next day. No lawsuits, no mobs, no "alternate" slates of electors. On Jan 6th, 2017, the then VP presided over the counting of electoral votes and overruled all objections from the floor. No mob stormed the Capitol that day in an effort to change the result.
Good points, Michael. "Dems did it too" is not to say their behavior matched Trump's precisely; it's mentioned only because there seems to be a large contingent who think the very thought of questioning the election (no matter the method) is dangerous and unpatriotic, etc.
My main point was this: in each case (2000, 2004, 2017, 2021) the RESULT was the same: a peaceful transition to the next president on the appointed day. In other words, mostly a lot of hot air. I think it's naive to assume other presidential candidates (and governors, mayors, senators, etc) don't work hard to "find" votes, and ask (in private conversation) for help finding such votes. Bush and Gore probably both did it in Florida. Politics is dirty business, yet the country abides. You can say Trump went overboard, that he worked dirtier than Gore and Hillary, but he still left office on the appointed day, and the country is still here. The aftermath of each election was the same. The outrage over Trump seems to be largely over what MIGHT have happened. But to repeat my earlier comment: if Trump actually wanted to "take over the country" in an unlawful manner (i.e. not through the courts)--with tens of millions of brainwashed, gun-toting followers at his disposal--don't you think he could have done more damage than a few broken windows, some trespassing arrests, and five deaths (only one--a Trump supporter--killed by another human)?
I don't think there is any reasonable characterization of what happened in 2021 as a peaceful transition. Moree than 1,000 police engaged in hand to hand fighting for several hours is "peaceful." Nope.
It is true Trump give up his fight after losing that battle, but there was still a physical battle fought, and it could have turned out differently than it did.
I would say there are a lot of meaningful differences between 2021 and 2001, 2005, and 2017, but the largest of these is this: in each of the prior years, the losing candidate accepted the outcome of the election and made abundantly clear long before it mattered they had done so. Outside of Gore's lawsuit, none made any effort, through the courts or outside them, to change the result. When Gore lost he abided by the decision. Trump did not accept his defeat until after his attempt to subvert the election failed.
To be clear Jesse, I'm definitely not saying that Trump equals Hitler. Nor is he Stalin or Mao. Or Idi Amin. Or even Castro. But to be fair, I don't think John was really equating Trump to Hitler either. I think his point about reading the Hitler biography was just that he was trying to understand how demagogues come to power.
Anyway, two points (and then I'll probably give you the last word if you want it).
First, I think it's sad that so many people believe, in the way that you describe, that there is no real difference between Trump and other politicians. I really do think that all previous presidents (and most politicians) are fundamentally different from Trump. I believe almost all of them were motivated by a mix of wanting to do some good for the world as well as personal ambition. I think Trump’s complete narcissism and self-centeredness is literally unprecedented among major American political figures.
I believe that virtually everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is a better person than Trump. In fact, with the exception of MTG (who I think is simply a whack job), I'm not aware of a single person in Congress of either party who I would not prefer to Trump as President. The only one who even gives me a moment of pause is Ted Cruz. While Cruz is obviously a much smarter and more competent person than Trump and doesn’t present the same kind of threat to democracy, I pause with him only because I've never heard of anyone else in politics who is so disliked by everyone who has ever spent time with him from colleagues to school mates. And like Trump, it seems sad for that bad a person to become President.
Second, with regard to Trump as a danger to democracy, for me it has little to nothing to do with January 6th. While that was obviously the visible moment in his effort to overturn the election, I agree it never had any real chance to actually change anything.
What I think was much scarier was both Trump’s phone call to Kemp trying to get the necessary votes in Georgia by whatever means necessary and his effort to get a slate of fake electors selected in Michigan. These were both real attempts to steal the election that could have succeeded if more officials had been MAGA rather than people of principle.
And I will tell you, speaking only for myself personally, that if a state legislature ever uses its powers to override the votes of the people in the state to throw its electors to its preferred candidate over the will of the voters, I would consider it a coup (even if technically constitutional) and would consider it legitimate to fight back by any and all means (including taking up arms if necessary).
And I think this gets to the real danger of Trump. American is a constitutional republic, but it’s not simply the constitution that has assured peaceful transfer of powers. It’s that we have norms. It’s that candidates for office, once they have exhausted their legal remedies for contesting an election, have agreed to concede and call for their supporters to stop fighting the election and become the loyal opposition. The ultimate example of this, of course, being Al Gore just 24 years ago. Can you imagine if the situation were reversed today? If Trump were to lose an election because supporters of Biden stopped a recount in a state where Biden’s brother was the governor? But 24 years ago, for the good of the country and despite the fact that it was terrible for him personally, when Gore was faced with this situation he agreed to stop the fight once the Supreme Court had made its final ruling.
I do believe that the way Trump has flagrantly violated this norm is immensely dangerous. And it’s all the worse that his supporters back him in this, despite the fact that his the kind of man that Matt Yglesias describes here: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-orange-man-is-bad
It is refreshing to hear you reject the Trump=Hitler equation. No matter how much one dislikes him, it's still baffling to make the comparison; and people have been doing it since well before January 6. I'm curious if it is simply an ignorance of history. There may be, for instance, a whole generation of young voters who grew up on social media, who don't even know who Hitler was. They might think insulting people on Twitter is actually a Hitler-like move.
Trump has a big ego but I do believe he cares about America. I recently saw a clip from the early 1990s where Trump was on one of the big talk shows (Oprah, I think), talking about how Americans were getting screwed by overseas manufacturing, demanding something be done about it. (The host, seemingly impressed by this off-script rant, asked if Trump would consider running for president someday!) But I get how his ego can distract from any pro-America sensibilities he does have. He has become, unavoidably, a politician; but when people say he's different (or at least *was* different), they mean he's not a career politician. He was never a congressman, senator, or governor; thus he never had those years of "refinement," learning how to be phony, brown-nose, lie with a smile, &c. He's a straight shooter.
I think the Georgia phone call is similar to Jan. 6, in that people overreacted as if the country was in peril, when in both cases nothing (or very little) actually happened. As with Jan. 6, don't you think Trump could have done more, if he were really the evil dictator? Perhaps send some of his gun-toting supporters to Atlanta and demand Kemp's removal, or even his life? (This is just a hypothetical; I know you've clarified Trump is not on par with the evil dictators.) In both cases, Trump was very loud, but it was only words. He's actually followed the rules. He left office Jan. 20th. He's said "Find me votes," but he hasn't actually produces his own votes out of thin air. He was simply saying, in his verbose way, "Make sure you've counted all the votes properly." But again, I can clearly see how Trump's opponents interpret it as trying to steal the election. I'm sure many on the other side would accuse Biden of doing the same, if the scenario were reversed.
Sorry. Having trouble resisting the urge to make one last point. Your bar what constitutes a threat to democracy seems incredibly high to me Jesse. You seem to be saying that anything short of a military coup doesn't qualify.
Finally, if you think Trump's call to Kemp was his way of saying "make sure you have counted all the votes properly", I don't know what to tell you. It's like believing that Tony was telling Christopher to help these guys get a suit (https://youtu.be/9va2KKNCg4o?si=aPjP1Ht1Kf0Die_0&t=261).
But I think my view is plausible until proven otherwise--that is, until Trump actually takes power in an unlawful manner. He doesn't appear to be doing this, as we are now close to the next presidential election. Or, until the Orbanization of America. Maybe that will happen, but until it does, I stand by my statement: Trump's complaints have been mostly hot air.
To be fair, Republicans do this too. With the elections of Biden, Obama, and probably every Democrat before them, Republicans have made sky-is-falling, world-is-ending statements. Yet we are still here. 2020 obviously is freshest in mind, when Trump and others claimed that a Biden victory would destroy America; it would fall to socialism, China, fill in the blank. Now they are doing the same here: "2024 is the most pivotal, important election in our history."
Good question and points Jesse. It made me think about George W. and Trump. I thought both were disastrously bad presidents in their own ways; but definitely dislike Trump far more intensely even though I would agree that from a pure policy perspective, George W. was worse. To your point, Trump didn't launch any wars and the economy was strong during his presidency.
So why do I dislike Trump so much more intensely? I think it comes down to two things:
- First, I think Trump's behavior during and after the 2020 election has been disastrously bad for the country, in ways that could permanently damage it. Trump lost a close election in 2020, just as he won a close one in 2016. The idea that the election was stolen has been comprehensively debunked (https://www.readtangle.com/2000-mules-fact-check-stolen-election/). But Trump has continuously claimed he was cheated in a way unlike any other Presidential candidate in American history. And while that would be bad enough in and of itself, the fact that has managed to parley that claim into being nominated again means that candidates may conclude that falsely claiming they were cheated is the best way to remain politically viable. I think that could be terrible for the country's future.
- The second reason has to do with character. You're right that "class" and "civility", while I hope and think they are helpful, are not prerequisites for being a president (and maybe not even for being a good president). Certainly, those are freighted concepts. But I think I always believed, maybe naively, that all of our presidents before Trump were men of character. Which doesn't mean they were perfect or even good people all of the time (many were unfaithful, LBJ stole a Senate election, Wilson was a racist , etc. etc.), but I think they all ran for President not only because of personal ambition but because they actually did want to make a difference for their country. And I think that is also true for most Congresspeople today, even the ones I disagree with intensely, whether it is an Ilhan Omar on the left or a Mike Johnson on the right. I don't think that is true for Donald Trump. I believe that Trump as President is the same person he was before he became President: a completely amoral person whose only motivation is self aggrandizement. I think it's sad that we had someone like that as our President for even one term, much less two.
Finally, Jesse, to your last point, I think you're probably right that lots of folks lean toward Trump because they associate him with a good period of time in their lives. What is sad, however, is that this association is likely to prove disastrous if Trump is reelected. Trump was incredibly fortunate to come to office at a time when he inherited an economy in marvelous shape and one where low interest rates meant that even increasing the budget deficit in the way that Trump did was not going to lead to bad outcomes for people. But whoever is President in 2025 is going to be faced with a very different situation, and Trump's plan to simply run it back will lead to a huge spike in inflation this time around: https://www.slowboring.com/p/trump-would-make-inflation-worse
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the articulation of actual reasons, even if I don't agree with them.
1. The first reason I think is overstated, considering such behavior is not uncommon for the loser. I took 60 seconds for an Internet search, and it's easy to find stories--even on CNN and NPR--of Democrats questioning and challenging the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Yes, Trump's complaints were louder and longer--in part because he planned to run again, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Hillary--but I don't see how that translates to permanently damaging the country.
2. Your second reason is a big part of Trump's popular appeal. You are not alone in naively thinking previous presidents were men of character; but at this point, I think most of us realize politicians (on both sides) are sleazy, who will do or say anything to get elected. When people saw Trump in all his buffoonery, they said, "That's who he really is; he's not pretending to be someone else in order to secure votes." As Trump himself said, "I'm not a politician. That's why I got elected."
3. I agree the debt/economy will be a big challenge, no matter who is elected. I'm not pleased that Trump increased the national debt, even though nearly half of it was covid relief.
Were I to wholly agree with your three reasons, I still don't see how this translates to....Adolf Hitler. Some say: "But he tried to take over the country!". It's a great propaganda point against Trump, but very silly when thought through. Consider the scenario: this vile, extremely charismatic dictator with 500,000 of his loyal devotees, most of whom own GUNS, are gathered to take over the country, with only 340 National Guard soldiers and the Capitol Police to stop them. In the afternoon, 1100 more Guardsmen are called, and in the evening, another 6200. (These numbers from the National Guard website report on Jan. 6.)
According to Wikipedia (which leans left), there were five deaths (one by shooting, one by drug overdose, three of natural causes); 174 injured police officers; and $2.7 million in damage. Five hundred thousand gun owners (following orders from their charismatic dictator) against a few thousand troops, and that's the best they can do? This is the wimpiest revolution of all time. It's hard to imagine a less Hitlerian result than that feeble attempted insurrection.
I know you, Gordon, didn't bring up "Hitler," but John and many others have made the comparison, and you state you agree 100% with John.
"1. The first reason I think is overstated, considering such behavior is not uncommon for the loser. I took 60 seconds for an Internet search, and it's easy to find stories--even on CNN and NPR--of Democrats questioning and challenging the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Yes, Trump's complaints were louder and longer--in part because he planned to run again, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Hillary--but I don't see how that translates to permanently damaging the country."
Here's why that "Dems did it too:" argument comes across to me as incredibly weak.
In 2000, Al Gore believed that with a proper recount of FL, he would have won. He said as much, he took that claim to court, I think he won some legal victories in Florida but eventually lost when the US Supreme Court ruled against him in Bush v Gore. The VERY NEXT DAY, he gave a very gracious speech in which he acknowledged that he was giving up his legal challenges and acknowledging Bush as the next President. On Jan 6, 2001, the date of the electoral vote certification, a few Democratic House members made objections to counting the electoral vote count, and Al Gore himself, presiding over the electoral vote count as the sitting VP, ruled all of the objections out of order so that Bush could be certified the winner.
Other than the fact that both Trump in 2020 and Gore in 2016 filed lawsuits, absolutely no part of what Gore did in 2000 has even the slightest resemblance to what Trump did 2 decades later. No attempts to break Florida law by producing an "alternate" slate of electors, no attempts to bring a huge mob to Washington to strom the Capitol, and even though Gore was literally the guy who presided over the electoral vote count, no attempts to monkey with that.
In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry, and Kerry conceded. A smattering of Dem lawmakers protested, including one Senator who actually did object to the electoral vote count, but that objection was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 74-1 (8 Dems and 17 Republucans did not bother to vote). Kerry himself filed no lawsuits and made no efforts to scheme or foment violence in order to steal the election.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton called Trump and congratulated him on his victory on election night and gave a concession speech the next day. No lawsuits, no mobs, no "alternate" slates of electors. On Jan 6th, 2017, the then VP presided over the counting of electoral votes and overruled all objections from the floor. No mob stormed the Capitol that day in an effort to change the result.
Good points, Michael. "Dems did it too" is not to say their behavior matched Trump's precisely; it's mentioned only because there seems to be a large contingent who think the very thought of questioning the election (no matter the method) is dangerous and unpatriotic, etc.
My main point was this: in each case (2000, 2004, 2017, 2021) the RESULT was the same: a peaceful transition to the next president on the appointed day. In other words, mostly a lot of hot air. I think it's naive to assume other presidential candidates (and governors, mayors, senators, etc) don't work hard to "find" votes, and ask (in private conversation) for help finding such votes. Bush and Gore probably both did it in Florida. Politics is dirty business, yet the country abides. You can say Trump went overboard, that he worked dirtier than Gore and Hillary, but he still left office on the appointed day, and the country is still here. The aftermath of each election was the same. The outrage over Trump seems to be largely over what MIGHT have happened. But to repeat my earlier comment: if Trump actually wanted to "take over the country" in an unlawful manner (i.e. not through the courts)--with tens of millions of brainwashed, gun-toting followers at his disposal--don't you think he could have done more damage than a few broken windows, some trespassing arrests, and five deaths (only one--a Trump supporter--killed by another human)?
I don't think there is any reasonable characterization of what happened in 2021 as a peaceful transition. Moree than 1,000 police engaged in hand to hand fighting for several hours is "peaceful." Nope.
It is true Trump give up his fight after losing that battle, but there was still a physical battle fought, and it could have turned out differently than it did.
I would say there are a lot of meaningful differences between 2021 and 2001, 2005, and 2017, but the largest of these is this: in each of the prior years, the losing candidate accepted the outcome of the election and made abundantly clear long before it mattered they had done so. Outside of Gore's lawsuit, none made any effort, through the courts or outside them, to change the result. When Gore lost he abided by the decision. Trump did not accept his defeat until after his attempt to subvert the election failed.
To be clear Jesse, I'm definitely not saying that Trump equals Hitler. Nor is he Stalin or Mao. Or Idi Amin. Or even Castro. But to be fair, I don't think John was really equating Trump to Hitler either. I think his point about reading the Hitler biography was just that he was trying to understand how demagogues come to power.
Anyway, two points (and then I'll probably give you the last word if you want it).
First, I think it's sad that so many people believe, in the way that you describe, that there is no real difference between Trump and other politicians. I really do think that all previous presidents (and most politicians) are fundamentally different from Trump. I believe almost all of them were motivated by a mix of wanting to do some good for the world as well as personal ambition. I think Trump’s complete narcissism and self-centeredness is literally unprecedented among major American political figures.
I believe that virtually everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is a better person than Trump. In fact, with the exception of MTG (who I think is simply a whack job), I'm not aware of a single person in Congress of either party who I would not prefer to Trump as President. The only one who even gives me a moment of pause is Ted Cruz. While Cruz is obviously a much smarter and more competent person than Trump and doesn’t present the same kind of threat to democracy, I pause with him only because I've never heard of anyone else in politics who is so disliked by everyone who has ever spent time with him from colleagues to school mates. And like Trump, it seems sad for that bad a person to become President.
Second, with regard to Trump as a danger to democracy, for me it has little to nothing to do with January 6th. While that was obviously the visible moment in his effort to overturn the election, I agree it never had any real chance to actually change anything.
What I think was much scarier was both Trump’s phone call to Kemp trying to get the necessary votes in Georgia by whatever means necessary and his effort to get a slate of fake electors selected in Michigan. These were both real attempts to steal the election that could have succeeded if more officials had been MAGA rather than people of principle.
And I will tell you, speaking only for myself personally, that if a state legislature ever uses its powers to override the votes of the people in the state to throw its electors to its preferred candidate over the will of the voters, I would consider it a coup (even if technically constitutional) and would consider it legitimate to fight back by any and all means (including taking up arms if necessary).
And I think this gets to the real danger of Trump. American is a constitutional republic, but it’s not simply the constitution that has assured peaceful transfer of powers. It’s that we have norms. It’s that candidates for office, once they have exhausted their legal remedies for contesting an election, have agreed to concede and call for their supporters to stop fighting the election and become the loyal opposition. The ultimate example of this, of course, being Al Gore just 24 years ago. Can you imagine if the situation were reversed today? If Trump were to lose an election because supporters of Biden stopped a recount in a state where Biden’s brother was the governor? But 24 years ago, for the good of the country and despite the fact that it was terrible for him personally, when Gore was faced with this situation he agreed to stop the fight once the Supreme Court had made its final ruling.
I do believe that the way Trump has flagrantly violated this norm is immensely dangerous. And it’s all the worse that his supporters back him in this, despite the fact that his the kind of man that Matt Yglesias describes here: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-orange-man-is-bad
It is refreshing to hear you reject the Trump=Hitler equation. No matter how much one dislikes him, it's still baffling to make the comparison; and people have been doing it since well before January 6. I'm curious if it is simply an ignorance of history. There may be, for instance, a whole generation of young voters who grew up on social media, who don't even know who Hitler was. They might think insulting people on Twitter is actually a Hitler-like move.
Trump has a big ego but I do believe he cares about America. I recently saw a clip from the early 1990s where Trump was on one of the big talk shows (Oprah, I think), talking about how Americans were getting screwed by overseas manufacturing, demanding something be done about it. (The host, seemingly impressed by this off-script rant, asked if Trump would consider running for president someday!) But I get how his ego can distract from any pro-America sensibilities he does have. He has become, unavoidably, a politician; but when people say he's different (or at least *was* different), they mean he's not a career politician. He was never a congressman, senator, or governor; thus he never had those years of "refinement," learning how to be phony, brown-nose, lie with a smile, &c. He's a straight shooter.
I think the Georgia phone call is similar to Jan. 6, in that people overreacted as if the country was in peril, when in both cases nothing (or very little) actually happened. As with Jan. 6, don't you think Trump could have done more, if he were really the evil dictator? Perhaps send some of his gun-toting supporters to Atlanta and demand Kemp's removal, or even his life? (This is just a hypothetical; I know you've clarified Trump is not on par with the evil dictators.) In both cases, Trump was very loud, but it was only words. He's actually followed the rules. He left office Jan. 20th. He's said "Find me votes," but he hasn't actually produces his own votes out of thin air. He was simply saying, in his verbose way, "Make sure you've counted all the votes properly." But again, I can clearly see how Trump's opponents interpret it as trying to steal the election. I'm sure many on the other side would accuse Biden of doing the same, if the scenario were reversed.
Thanks for the discussion.
Sorry. Having trouble resisting the urge to make one last point. Your bar what constitutes a threat to democracy seems incredibly high to me Jesse. You seem to be saying that anything short of a military coup doesn't qualify.
To be clear, I'm not worried about a military coup; I trust the military not to get involved domestically. What I worry about is the Orbanization of America (https://www.illiberalism.org/dismantling-democracy-the-orbanization-of-hungary/), which is what I genuinely think Trump would try to do.
Finally, if you think Trump's call to Kemp was his way of saying "make sure you have counted all the votes properly", I don't know what to tell you. It's like believing that Tony was telling Christopher to help these guys get a suit (https://youtu.be/9va2KKNCg4o?si=aPjP1Ht1Kf0Die_0&t=261).
Ha, I understand.
But I think my view is plausible until proven otherwise--that is, until Trump actually takes power in an unlawful manner. He doesn't appear to be doing this, as we are now close to the next presidential election. Or, until the Orbanization of America. Maybe that will happen, but until it does, I stand by my statement: Trump's complaints have been mostly hot air.
To be fair, Republicans do this too. With the elections of Biden, Obama, and probably every Democrat before them, Republicans have made sky-is-falling, world-is-ending statements. Yet we are still here. 2020 obviously is freshest in mind, when Trump and others claimed that a Biden victory would destroy America; it would fall to socialism, China, fill in the blank. Now they are doing the same here: "2024 is the most pivotal, important election in our history."