The main criticism from economists today is not about incoherence. It's that it was rolled out haphazardly so as to maximize uncertainty.

I guess the question is whether there was a safer way to do it. Either way, we only have elections every 4 years, so we can't just vote him out.

↪Punshhh ↪Joshs

The tariffs and the return of "industrial policy" that differed radically from the neo-liberal orthodoxy that had dominated the GOP for decades were discussed throughout the campaign. You can find all sorts of articles on this from before Trump was elected, and he had rhetoric focused on the trade deficit in his speeches on a regular basis.

It's certainly true that when voters pick a candidate they are rarely selecting on a single issue, but it's hardly a move that has come out of left field. Both polling and my person experience living in an area that went hard for Trump suggest that the most common attitude for supporters is that they are willing to "try it out" and suffer some "short term pain for long term gain." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Based on his first term , voters learned to take what Trump said ‘seriously but not literally’. Whatever he had been babbling about for 40 years concerning tariffs and reproducing 1950’s industrial America, what he actually did in term 1 was to slap mild tariffs on China, and renegotiate Nafta by changing a few apostrophes and commas here and there. More importantly, he lowered taxes for wealthy corporations, tried to get rid of Obamacare and made other efforts to please the pro-business small government libertarians. These corporate types, who could care less about making things in America again and just wanted to free themselves from high taxes and Biden’s regulatory crusade (Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk, etc) had every reason to believe Trump’s second term would be a repeat of the first. I certainly thought it would be, and like many was stunned to find out that he actually took his half-assed 19th century mercantilism seriously and was willing got to go the distance with it (at least so far). His current all-out tariff war may not have been a surprise to North Carolina MAGA supporters, but it sure as hell was to many wealthy businesspeople who voted for him, and are now regretting it mightily.

Second, it's perhaps dysfunctional that major policy choices are made wholly by presidents in this way. That's an outgrowth of decades of dysfunction in Congress, which can no longer govern — Count Timothy von Icarus

The reason he is getting no opposition from Congress is because they are terrified that if they do oppose him Trump will direct the wrath of his MAGA army on them. Unlike the first time around, MAGA and Trump together have made sure that Trump is surrounded by only yes-sayers in his second administration and in Congress. There is no one left to act as a check on his power, or to question his decisions.

This leads to a profoundly important issue concerning you, me and everyone else who cares about the future of this country as a democracy. You’re trying to make an equivalence between Trump’s actions and the seemingly dictatorial overreach of Democratic leaders like Binden. If this were a ‘normal’ president, I would agree with you. Such overreach can be found throughout the history of American government. One of the most egregious examples of this was the period surrounding World War I, where under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson severe restrictions of free speech were allowed to occur, with long imprisonment for those, such as Eugene Debbs and Emmas Goldman, who opposed the war. Even the Supreme Court sanctioned such restrictions.

But Timothy, it is absolutely vital to make a distinction between zealous executive overreach in the name of policies and principles that have wide popular support (even if that support is purely partisan) , and something quite different. In the first case, the overreach is motivated by, and continues to feed itself, through the aims of a community consensus. It is not just that the decision-making leader sees themselves as speaking on behalf of a ‘we’, they have no interest in usurping the authority of this ‘we’ so as to concentrate itself in an ‘I’ that tolerates no challenges to its sovereignty. Such a notion would be repugnant to most U.S. presidents, with the exception of Andrew Johnson , and I believe , Trump. Unlike some, I am not saying that Trump’s desire for supreme power is motivated by purely selfish interests, such as greed or self-aggrandizement.

I think he truly believes he has a way to ‘make America great again’. But I think this is also the case with Victor Orban, Erdoğan, Putin and Maduro. What distinguishes the authoritarian from the kind of executive overreach you cite is a personality that needs to be the sole decision maker, and considers all dissent as disloyalty. They strive to replace a law-based system of government with that of edicts from one man at the top. If Trump were to be given absolutely free reign, he would use intimation and threats to weaken and then destroy the ability of law firms and judges to move against him, would cement a grip on academic institutions, media and other organizations which attempt to maintain independence from his control. To be successful at such attempts he cannot do all this by himself. He need the acquiescence of these institutions, their willingness to preemptively give up their independence to avoid his punishments. And it is not as though he is alone in his preference for despotism. An admiration for figures like Orban and an outright rejection of Enlightenment values runs through MAGA.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/03/enlightenment-trump-far-right-europe/682086/

Could I be wrong about Trump? Sure. In fact I was reluctant to ascribe these extreme dispositions to him for a long time, perhaps partly out of denial. I just couldn’t allow myself to imagine that a majority of Americans would elect as president someone who sees power as absolute one-man rule. But the last three months have convinced me. I suspect that you may never be convinced. I would like to say that it is enough for me that people like you oppose him for whatever reasons you come up with.
But if I am right about Trump, simply passively sitting back and waiting till the next election may not protect our democracy. I have no doubt now that, left to his own devices , this country would end up looking as repressive as Hungary. But this country has a more robust civic culture than Hungary, and as long as we all act to resist his attempts at intimidation and support independent institutions, we can avoid that fate.

If so, then why don't people do anything about it?
— Christoffer

How, though? He’s been empowered by the popular vote to do what he’s doing. — Wayfarer

This is how:

https://contrarian.substack.com/p/15-ways-you-can-fight-for-democracy

But if I am right about Trump, simply passively sitting back and waiting till the next election may not protect our democracy. I have no doubt now that, left to his own devices , this country would end up looking as repressive as Hungary — Joshs

I don't think Trump is an ideologue of any kind, but he has gathered people to him who actually do have a new political outlook involving authoritarianism of a kind the US has never had. There's a developing philosophy to it, denying certain assumptions of the Enlightenment, for instance.

I think you're imagining that this is all Trump bumbling his way toward dictatorship. I think the people around him, like Vance, are not bumbling at all. They have clear reasons for driving the country toward dictatorship.

Poo pooing Trump's economic policy isn't going to change that, or the fact that people watched Trump encourage a mob to execute Mike Pence and they still elected him president. This is a new world we're entering. The old one is gone. The fact that AOC is emerging as the leader of the Democrats should confirm that for you.

:100: :up:

It's not incoherent. Ceteris paribus, slapping tariffs of imports will tend to reduce a country's trade deficit. Whether this is a worthy goal is another thing. However, it will tend to increase domestic production, particularly in a country with a huge trade deficit. This might very well be a benefit if the country is one in which the top 10% account for over half of all consumer spending, since the people taking jobs in new production and benefiting from increased domestic investment will tend to be part of the 90% who are not consuming most of the goods.

At any rate, it's not the worst timing. Apparently, there is a decent likelihood that the next decade will see a tumultuous shedding of white collar jobs due to AI (the looming crisis in academia as enrollment peaks and declines only adds to this) and this will lead to a rapid acceleration in the tendency of wealthy nations to have most of their income come from capital, not labor. Production is certainly liable to become more automated, but not in the sea change way that white color work might soon be getting reduced. So, there is a sort of impetus there for an increased focus on production as well.

Of course, something like a carbon tax (or something even broader on pollution) might have accomplished something similar in a more rational way.

There's a developing philosophy to it, denying certain assumptions of the Enlightenment, for instance. — frank

If that is the banner they are sailing under, it is exquisitely anti-constitutional:

For the hardcore neo-reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative. The subterranean current that propels such anti-politics is recognizably Hobbesian, a coherent dark enlightenment, devoid from its beginning of any Rousseauistic enthusiasm for popular expression. Predisposed, in any case, to perceive the politically awakened masses as a howling irrational mob, it conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption. The democratic politician and the electorate are bound together by a circuit of reciprocal incitement, in which each side drives the other to ever more shameless extremities of hooting, prancing cannibalism, until the only alternative to shouting is being eaten. — Land, The Dark Enlightenment

And since the people carrying out this agenda are sworn to defend the Constitution, it is treasonous.

And since the people carrying out this agenda are sworn to defend the Constitution, it is treasonous — Paine

Yea.

These corporate types, who could care less about making things in America again and just wanted to free themselves from high taxes and Biden’s regulatory crusade (Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk, etc) had every reason to believe Trump’s second term would be a repeat of the first. I certainly thought it would be, and like many was stunned to find out that he actually took his half-assed 19th century mercantilism seriously and was willing got to go the distance with it (at least so far). His current all-out tariff war may not have been a surprise to North Carolina MAGA supporters, but it sure as hell was to many wealthy businesspeople who voted for him, and are now regretting it mightily. — Joshs

Many took the wrong lessons from Trump's first administration.

First time Trump came to office totally unprepared (as he didn't think he would win) and chose to his administration a lot of "ordinary" Republicans and people that weren't at all MAGA-people, starting from secretary of state Rex Tillerson or secretary of defense general Mattis, just to give two examples. Rex Tillerson might have dealt with a lot with Russians, but he naturally took his job as serving the US government. Generals like Mattis, Kelly, McMaster were basically from the same mold as the joint chiefs of staff in the military are made from. Hence you had "the adults in the room" that wouldn't go to attack the NATO alliance or cozy up with the Russians.

Now there is nothing like that at all. The current administration truly listens to what Trump wants and tries to fulfill his ideas. This is what people should start to understand here. Republicans are literally afraid of Trump and don't want to be seen as foes of the President. With other Presidents, the own party might have been quite critical and sometimes against the administration, but not now in MAGA-land.

Trump might have been following the stock market at first when it was going up, but now any fears he would have of the stock market going down doesn't matter. Because the stock market has plummeted. Just like Trump won't budge now when the US economic indicators turn negative and we can talk about a real recession. The reason is that Trump will likely believe that this is the "Detox"-period, the pain that has to be passed before the it comes better.

Trump can (and likely will) live inside his White House cocoon and not turn away from his beloved tariffs even if no investments are made in the US domestic sector, if the economy turns into a recession and even if all prices end up increasing and not only "the imports". This is why the US can continue make similar decisions like it did on "Liberation Day".

Thanks, Josh. I do subscribe to Contrarian (unpaid), joined when Rubin left the Post.

What I mean is, why aren’t anyone doing something when he breaks constitutional laws and regulations? — Christoffer

There are dozens of current lawsuits against Trump’s executive actions. But legal cases take time, and Trump is a seasoned expert in throwing sand into the gears of lawsuits. Before the election, he managed to delay all of the actions against him until he was able to escape them altogether. I think real resistance is starting to manifest and is going to grow. There are multi-city demonstrations this weekend and meanwhile four Republicans joined a Democratic motion to limit Trump’s ability to impose tarrifs. And if Trump drives the economy into recession, which looks highly likely, then there will come a huge backlash. But so much damage has already been done.

The reason he is getting no opposition from Congress is because they are terrified that if they do oppose him Trump will direct the wrath of his MAGA army on them. Unlike the first time around, MAGA and Trump together have made sure that Trump is surrounded by only yes-sayers in his second administration and in Congress. There is no one left to act as a check on his power, or to question his decisions. — Joshs

Recently, four Republican senators pushed back against Trump by helping pass a resolution to block his tariffs on Canadian products. Perhaps Republican opposition to Trump's policies in Congress will emerge when they start feeling pressure from their constituents.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj9end2ze9lo

I just couldn’t allow myself to imagine that a majority of Americans would elect as president someone who sees power as absolute one-man rule. — Joshs

Perhaps something dramatically changed between November 4 and January 20. The concentration of power followed its own dynamics, in alliance with the creation of an imaginary and ideological counterpart, vigorously emphasizing the urgency and grandiosity of Trump’s mission.It seems that Trump believes in his exclusive and grandiose role in fulfilling MAGA’s promises.
Apparently, his current tariff actions go beyond the rhetoric of his campaign, and he recently shifted his interpretation of MAGA, pushing it beyond the boundaries of practical policies. Furthermore, Trump does not act alone. Members of his team seem confident in his latest policies, a shift from their previously more moderate positions. And it doesn't appear that they are motivated solely by fear and intimidation. On the contrary, it looks like that most of them share Trump's vision and genuinely believe in his mission.

I don't think Trump is an ideologue of any kind, but he has gathered people to him who actually do have a new political outlook involving authoritarianism of a kind the US has never had. There's a developing philosophy to it, denying certain assumptions of the Enlightenment, for instance. — frank

He's an ideologue when it comes to trade. He's been singing about his love for tariffs for as long as Bernie has been going on about universal healthcare which is why none of what's happened thus far should come as a surprise to people. His belief that trade is a zero-sum game where the side who makes more cash is the "winner" is perhaps an idea from his childhood that he never admitted was wrong because according to him he's never wrong about anything.

Apart from that, the MAGA movement is mostly a vehicle for grifters like Musk, RFK Jr, and the Heritage Foundation to come in and enact their own personal agendas.

It's not incoherent. Ceteris paribus, slapping tariffs of imports will tend to reduce a country's trade deficit. Whether this is a worthy goal is another thing. However, it will tend to increase domestic production, particularly in a country with a huge trade deficit. This might very well be a benefit if the country is one in which the top 10% account for over half of all consumer spending, since the people taking jobs in new production and benefiting from increased domestic investment will tend to be part of the 90% who are not consuming most of the goods.

In principle yes, perhaps this is what some of these voters thought when they voted for him. But this isn’t what they got, they got a vindictive trade war which will bring in economic turbulence which will drown out any increase in domestic production and alienate all their allies.
Anyway my use of the word incoherent was probably too nebulous, there is coherence in the message, but when it comes to implementing it in the real world, it’s unhinged. There may well be a way, a policy framework which can address the imbalances highlighted in this thread caused by globalisation etc. But this isn’t it, this is a wrecking ball and now it emerges that this “liberation” wasn’t about what people thought it was about, but rather it was about turning Trump into a demagogue bestride the world stage arm in arm with Putin.

Did these people vote for recession, destruction of the apparatus of state, the alienation of all their allies around the world. To make Russia great again. Contempt for the constitution and the rule of law. I could go on, but I don’t remember this being on the ticket.

At any rate, it's not the worst timing. Apparently, there is a decent likelihood that the next decade will see a tumultuous shedding of white collar jobs due to AI (the looming crisis in academia as enrollment peaks and declines only adds to this) and this will lead to a rapid acceleration in the tendency of wealthy nations to have most of their income come from capital, not labor. Production is certainly liable to become more automated, but not in the sea change way that white color work might soon be getting reduced. So, there is a sort of impetus there for an increased focus on production as well.

Yes, I agree on the direction of travel you describe here. Presumably you’re suggesting some kind of UBI (universal basic income). The trouble with this is that people on the right of politics will never stomach such a thing. They believe that every cent and dime must be earnt with sweat and toil, or genius innovation. For such people UBI is tantamount to communism. Better to have people who can’t earn a living some way to be poor, destitute. In the U.K. this is literally what they want a return to Victorian squalor.

All true. The fact remains that the two American political parties have switched roles. The Democrats are now the party of the status quo. Republicans have become the party of change. This isn't Trump's doing exclusively. It's been coming for a while.

What I'm saying is that however you assess Trump and his allies, you have to admit that they've shaken up the whole political domain. They have won in that regard. We aren't going back to the way things were. The Democratic party showed up as hollow and nothing more than tools of Wall St. No one has had the courage to question the almighty status of the financial sector in the name of the well-being of Main St. It's a lesson in the nature of human affairs that the person who finally did it is an amoral asshole.

There are dozens of current lawsuits against Trump’s executive actions. But legal cases take time, and Trump is a seasoned expert in throwing sand into the gears of lawsuits. Before the election, he managed to delay all of the actions against him until he was able to escape them altogether. I think real resistance is starting to manifest and is going to grow. There are multi-city demonstrations this weekend and meanwhile four Republicans joined a Democratic motion to limit Trump’s ability to impose tarrifs. And if Trump drives the economy into recession, which looks highly likely, then there will come a huge backlash. But so much damage has already been done. — Wayfarer

Yes, but I'm wondering what the people are willing to do if he starts to control the departments of government to the extent that he gains essentially authoritarian power through removing institutions which are supposed to stop a president from abusing power and breaking the constitution and laws of government.

What I find far more interesting than nations falling into dictatorships is the psychology of people existing in a society that is right on the edge of something like that. There has been lots of failures in other nations to fight back against someone abusing their power. Just look at Turkey and Hungary, or even Russia to some extent (even though it never really truly got out of its fucked up state after the wall fell).

Trump is trying to do what they did, it's so obvious. And if he starts to control the system that's supposed to be a fail safe against abusers of power, then the only way for people to fight back is by some form of revolutionary actions. Doesn't mean straight violence, but rather a disruption of the nation, like stop going to work or sabotaging. And if Trump fights back against that, it would probably just spark even more hostility against him.

I actually think the only way to fight the populistic conspiracy theory people in government would be if such a failure of them against the people of the US happened. Because the problem is cultural, not really just Trump. There needs to be a backlash on a certain type of opinions and thinking that we see in the MAGA cult. In which people look down on them with far more aggression. Really making "being a MAGA follower" something no one wants to associate with. Make it shameful socially, an unwelcomed status because they stand for something that nearly destroyed the nation. An enemy of the nation. That no media or influencer will want to be associated with promoting or legitimizing. It's kind of like this already, but no more than people laughing at them. It needs to be branded radicalized thinking, just as we think of any other radicalized religious thinking that has a negative effect on society.

All true. The fact remains that the two American political parties have switched roles. The Democrats are now the party of the status quo. Republicans have become the party of change. This isn't Trump's doing exclusively. It's been coming for a while. — frank

Agreed.

What I'm saying is that however you assess Trump and his allies, you have to admit that they've shaken up the whole political domain. They have won in that regard. We aren't going back to the way things were. The Democratic party showed up as hollow and nothing more than tools of Wall St. No one has had the courage to question the almighty status of the financial sector in the name of the well-being of Main St. It's a lesson in the nature of human affairs that the person who finally did it is an amoral asshole. — frank

The amoral asshole was preferred by Wall St primarily because such a person wouldn't go after their interests. The establishment is more terrified of the far left than the far right and in a time where people yearn for change the far right ends up ascending. It's happened before in early 20th century Germany where the fear of communism partially led to the rise of Hitler.

Things aren't gonna go back because people don't want things to go back. It'll be up to the Democrats whether they accept that lesson or try to run another "restore the soul of America" type candidate.

The amoral asshole was preferred by Wall St primarily because such a person wouldn't go after their interests — Mr Bee

He has, though. The tariffs aren't good for Wall St. because they need a trade deficit.

They thought he wouldn't do that. That being said he needs to pay for those tax cuts somehow. The assumption was that he'll inflate the national debt again and that probably will still happen in part because it'll cost trillions to fund.

Are you talking about extension if the 2017 tax cuts?

I wonder if any of the media are keeping a damage report - a tally of all of the valuable agencies, services and programs being cut by the Trump/DOGE chainsaw (there's one here, although it's probably already outdated). Huge numbers of highly specialised employees are being summarily fired, often with zero notice, locked out of their systems and shown the door, with little or no grounds given.

Today's case in point: National Institutes of Health scientists:

Senior leaders across the Department of Health and Human Services were put on leave and countless other employees lost their jobs Tuesday as the Trump administration began a sweeping purge of the agencies that oversee government health programs.

Top officials at the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration were put on administrative leave or offered reassignment to the Indian Health Service. Other employees began receiving layoff notices or learned they had lost their jobs when their entry badges no longer worked Tuesday morning. ...

At the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, some employees who were laid off were told to contact Anita Pinder, former director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights, with discrimination complaints. Pinder died last year. ...

At the National Institutes of Health, a nearly $48 billion biomedical research agency, at least five top leaders were put on leave. Among those offered reassignment were the infectious-disease institute director Jeanne Marrazzo, according to emails obtained by The Post and multiple people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. ...

At the Centre for Disease Control, senior leaders who oversee global health, infectious diseases, chronic disease, HIV, sexually transmitted disease, tuberculosis, outbreak forecasting and information technology were among officials notified that they would be reassigned to the Indian Health Service, according to one leader who was reassigned and other current and former agency employees.

“CDC clobbered,” the official said. “The agency will not be able to function. Let’s be honest.” ...

Tuesday’s layoffs continue weeks of tumult at U.S. health agencies, where large numbers of federal grants have been cut and hundreds of research projects paused or slated for cancellation. ... — Washington Post

If anyone raises these cuts with the DOGE-MAGA Administration, the answer is always the same: these were useless bureaucratic positions which are wasting taxpayer funds, although in reality one suspects that they were culled purely on the basis of making up the numbers by DOGE interns with acccess to the personnel database

Another Post report notes that a promising line of cancer therapy has been impacted by the NIH cuts:

Two patients’ treatments using the experimental therapy had to be delayed because NIH’s capacity to make personalized cell therapies has been slowed by the firing of highly skilled staff and by purchasing slowdowns. Those occurred even before major layoffs took place Tuesday.

here needs to be a backlash on a certain type of opinions and thinking that we see in the MAGA cult. In which people look down on them with far more aggression. Really making "being a MAGA follower" something no one wants to associate with. Make it shameful socially, an unwelcomed status because they stand for something that nearly destroyed the nation. An enemy of the nation. That no media or influencer will want to be associated with promoting or legitimizing. — Christoffer

Spot on!

What I mean is, why aren’t anyone doing something when he breaks constitutional laws and regulations? — Christoffer

In many cases, he is breaking the law in order to fulfill his camaign promises/threats. Many think it's great to deport alleged gang members, and don't give a damn if it violates Constitutional due process.

In many cases, he is breaking the law in order to fulfill his camaign promises/threats. Many think it's great to deport alleged gang members, and don't give a damn if it violates Constitutional due process. — Relativist

Because he breaks it, innocents have been sent there. What the MAGA zealots think or not is irrelevant. Neonazis also like when laws are broken for something they think is right. But as a society, the majority would act when laws are broken. Democracy doesn’t work when part of the population aren’t able to act on a rational experience of truth. When people operate within a concept of reality more akin to the fantasies of a cult. That is not democracy, and if people want to protect democracy, they need to stop viewing things like there’s nothing that can be done ”because he was elected”. Democracy is never just the election every 4 years, yet people believe they’re powerless in between.

It’s the tolerance paradox. A tolerant society should not allow someone like Trump to be able to run in the first place. Especially not with the track record before this election.

I do not blame any of the racist, conspiracy idiots that gained power, they do what the do. I blame the apathetic other people who are so mentally lazy they never believed someone this incompetent and racist would be able to reach office… even as he’s already been in office one term.

Democracy doesn’t work in the US. Any time a person who’s clearly out to change or corrupt democracy gets into power through that democracy, that democracy is already dead.

It doesn't sound like Trump understands how tariffs work.... He's saying that inflation is gone and that these tariffs will get nations who treated the US badly to pay back billions. Like, how? They're not paying the tariffs, so is he just fucking stupid in all this believing the money will flow into the nation and not just out of the pockets of its businesses and citizens?

Like, what the fuck is going on here? Really?

They're not paying the tariffs, so is he just fucking stupid in all this believing the money will flow into the nation and not just out of the pockets of its businesses and citizens? — Christoffer

Big time stupid ( or as Paul Krugman calls him, ‘a feces-flinging chaos monkey’). And big-time dangerous. How did it come to this? Lots of people left behind by cultural and economic changes wanting to believe in a fantasy of a return to the days of abundant high-paying low skill industrial jobs. And a slimy used-car salesman who believes in that same fantasy uses his best skill, selling snake oil, to become the prophet of the deluded. But his own delusions of grandeur and need for absolute power will ultimately betray his own followers (and the billionaire ‘tech-bro’ supplicants who hoped to get even richer by ass-kissing the King, but are now seeing substantial chunks of their fortunes wiped away in the carnage he is unleashing).

Big time stupid ( or as Paul Krugman calls him, ‘a feces-flinging chaos monkey’). And big-time dangerous. How did it come to this? Lots of people left behind by cultural and economic changes wanting to believe in a fantasy of a return to the days of abundant high-paying low skill industrial jobs. And a slimy used-car salesman who believes in that same fantasy uses his best skill, selling snake oil, to become the prophet of the deluded. But his own delusions of grandeur and need for absolute power will ultimately betray his own followers (and the billionaire ‘tech-bro’ supplicants who hoped to get even richer by ass-kissing the King, but are now seeing substantial chunks of their fortunes being wiped away in the carnage he is unleashing). — Joshs

I've been advocating for improving society and politics past democracy for years now. What we see here is the perfect example of why I think representative democracy isn't working anymore. There's this fundamental belief that the will of the people ushers in the best leader for the job, but powerful people have learned to adapt to this, using targeted ads, manipulation and indoctrination to guide elections by will.

Society needs to move into politics that is not operating on marketing and campaigning. In which the majority vote by their needs and wants rather than on a candidate.

Society needs to move away from democracy into a "solution-based democracy" formed around solutions to problems in society rather than on fantasies about some leader solving things.

We do not have actual representatives for the people in politics. We have people using their power and influence to remain in power and play power games to get what THEY want, not what's good for the people.

The only politicians who actually care are in the fringes of society and politics, never getting promoted or put into the spotlight because the people at the top of any party has accumulated so much support around them that they essentially controls everything.

I do not blame any of the racist, conspiracy idiots that gained power, they do what the do. I blame the apathetic other people who are so mentally lazy they never believed someone this incompetent and racist would be able to reach office… even as he’s already been in office one term. — Christoffer

Only about 30% of Trump's voters are in the cult, but that was enough to overwhelm all other GOP candidates for the nomination. Beyond that, the problem is party loyalty. Only a handful of Republicans could bring themselves to vote against their party's candidate: a morally bankrupt criminal Republican is more acceptable than any Democrat. Independents were won over by 4-years of demonizing immigrants by the GOP, and by blaming the above average inflation on the incumbent party.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Beyond that, the problem is party loyalty. Only a handful of Republicans could bring themselves to vote against their party's candidate: a morally bankrupt criminal Republican is more acceptable than any Democrat — Relativist

That’s not party loyalty. The Republican party which existed for decades was destroyed by the MAGA populist movement, and many of its brightest lights either fled to the Democratic party or became independents. It is precisely because loyalty to the old Rebublican party dissolved that a former Democrat like Trump could become the new embodiment of the party. To the extent that a percentage of his voters were not MAGA populists, this was because they thought that when it came to running the economy he would govern like a free market, small government pro-business Republican, which is precisely what he did in his first term.

As Paul Krugman writes:

Many wealthy people imagined that Trump II would be like Trump I, mostly a standard right-winger with a bit of a protectionist hobby. They thought he would cut their taxes, eliminate financial and environmental regulations and promote crypto, making them even wealthier. They expected him to back off his tariff obsession if the stock market started to fall. If he ripped up the social safety net, well, they don’t depend on food stamps or Medicaid.

And if Trump II really had been like Trump I, America’s oligarchs would be very happy right now.