I think the total divorce from reality evinced by these efforts to overturn the election are not a positive sign for the country's political life and I really don't understand the continued "Oh, haha, it's all ridiculous nonsense" in some quarters

There's this reflexive need to denigrate custom because defending it is either duping oneself into going along with "the system" or just dowdy; I don't share that disposition. I agree it's important to keep perspective and recognize the absurdity, but it's also disturbing
Corey Robin, someone who I admire a lot even though I disagree with him, said recently "Well, Trump lacks the sort of emphasis on the power of the will that fascists have." The point is taken: he is lazy, but his will manifests itself in this total denial of reality
Trump's combination of utter cynicism and total belief in nonsense is part of the reason why fascists viewed him as an avatar of their type of politics, maybe he's more a John the Baptist than a Christ but its nonetheless in the same vein
Again, my position is that this not what Paxton calls "classical fascism" so much as some kind of para-fascism, but the idea "Oh it can't be anything like fascism because its manifestly absurd and attracts losers and crackpots" is just self-contradictory
I think it's obviously true that Trump was not very good at using the power of the state etc., but we've absolutely seen glimpses of the kind of power that totalitarian movements have to deny and distort reality: the insistent lying and invention of bizarre conspiracies etc.
This question "Are they just delusional or do they really believe this insanity?" that we are constantly forced to ask is precisely the same question people as about totalitarian regimes, because they practice a politics that confounds the boundaries between belief and cynicism
The response to this by critics on the left is often to point to precedents, "Oh, the Bush administration did so and so," Yes, of course there are precedents, this type of politics requires time to crystallize and damage to be done
When you point to pure facts like "there are paramilitaries, there is street fighting, there is an effort to overturn election", critics have to respond with a series of interpretations, namely "it's not very powerful, it's a bunch of loser jerks", maybe, but the facts remain
Being charitable, I think the problem is that this type of politics outrages common sense, so the reaction of sensible people is often to be like "oh this couldn't be happening because its absurd", sometimes that judgment will be correct, of course, but sometimes it will not
I still think the intellectually honest approach to this era and its politics is that it poses real serious challenges to our powers judgment, and its not really that easy to dismiss or encapsulate whats going on with a phrase
Sometimes it's actually harder for people with a record of good judgment and discerning critical powers to see what's going on, because they are relying (correctly in most cases) on common sense to do so much of the work for them
But there’s the worry in some quarters about the political implication of admitting that something special is up with Trump, there’s a sense that would be a concession to the politics of centrism, I think that’s just a bad approach to argument

More from Politics

THREAD:
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.

We'll start with the complaint in a minute.

But first, I want to give you a quick explanation for why I'm going to keep talking about these cases even after the inauguration.

They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.

It's a direct descendent, in more ways than one, of birtherism. And here's the thing about birtherism. It might have been a joke to a lot of people, but it was extremely pernicious. It obviously validated the racist "not good enough to be President" crowd. But that wasn't all.

Don't get me wrong, that was bad enough. Validating racism helped put the kind of shitbird who would tweet this from an official government account into power. But it didn't stop


(Also, if you agree with Pompeo about multiculturalism - the legendary melting pot - not being what this country is all about, you need to stop following me now. And maybe go somewhere and think about your life choices and what made you such a tool.)
I told you they’d bring this up


I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see


Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.


There are 3 important moments in that transcript.

1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.


2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “

Okay!

Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”

You May Also Like

I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.