You've been very on the money when it comes to these things. I think your assessment of 30% is also correct --but it's not 100% the case that the only negative reactions to Trump are due to the economic blunders.
The general assholery is not particularly popular. It seems odd because many Americans like his asshole style. But I think it's more appealing to them when they are interpreting it a particular way--more as an anti-hero Clint Eastwood style macho bluster with some kind of redeeming core.
They want an asshole to get up there and say offensive things and make liberals cry but not the kind of full-blown Hitler asshole that turns the government into a terror machine.
When it comes across as pure nihilistic darkness, many people who didn't care or who like the whole 'he's an ass but he gets things done' don't find it as appealing. They may not find it unappealing enough to vociferously reject it but it's a different vibe than the one they like.
So combined with the fuck ups in other domains, that aspect is going to have a negative valence to them. There's a core number that wanted to vote for Hitler but there are more who wanted to vote for Dirty Harry.
Yes, those people are idiots. They are going purely on vibes. A certain kind of vibe shift will make them turn away. Not turn against Trump but turn away and wait for things to change --at which point, they will become annoyed at rational governance and yearn for Dirty Harry again. Which means we're trapped in a downward spiral no matter what but the bottom may be different.
Reagan did most of the damage that led us to Trump and was tremendously damaging. Bush II also did some of this massive damage. It was like a crack in the foundations. But note they came across as jovial fellows even as they committed massive human rights atrocities and ruined the possibility of a middle class or a rights-respecting government. So this is more the American style. Damien Omen III does not have quite the right tone. Trump seemed like a clown, a buffoon, but a 'CEO-leader asshole' and a cross between the anti-Christ in Damien Omen III and Reagan. If he begins to look like pure unleashed darkness, plus a shitty economy, people will start to peel off. (Not evangelicals, of course. They are dying for the anti-Christ.)
Seems like the whole Noem-Hegseth review has gone to ground - I can't find reference to it anywhere!
That said, surely the recent popular protests across the US (that don't seem to get much popular coverage) raise the chance of popular resistance marginally higher...
Do you see developments in the Trump-Russia axis affecting the flow chart? For example, do you expect we'll see a "1999 Russian apartment bombings"?
“… his path to a life presidency (and probably hereditary absolute monarchy) will be smooth.”
I challenge “hereditary”. Securing the succession has been a major problem for autocrats over millennia. If you designate a crown prince, he (gender deliberate) often becomes the focus of dissent from your policies, and Oedipal resentment does the rest. If you don’t, the possible successors will have to fight it out, a process that need not wait for you to die (Henry II). As a minimum, you have to put some effort into building loyalty to your dynasty and not just yourself, and training your heir(s) for the job by giving him or them real work. Trump has done neither. His family are just parasites cashing in on his position, without any political following. The scale of the problem can be illustrated by the failures at it of three leaders infinitely more capable than Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China, and Alexander of Macedon.
I think much of this is a problem for the successor. Trump is already old, so the correct play is to be loyal and hope to be anointed. The potential focus of dissent for the moment is Vance, who doesn't look to have much of a chance at the succession.
And being grotesquely unqualified isn't a problem in this regime.
So round 1 in the succesion wil be a cage fight. For Round 2, the non-trivial problem of establishing a dynasty would be compounded by the abysmal quality of the Trump team. The original diadochi were all experienced generals, hand-picked by a military genius.
An under-used solution is adoption. Julius Caesar adopted Octavian in his will - fairly distant relative, and quite young, but a very good pick. Jean Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans who backed Joan of Arc, was brought into his noble father's household by his Sforza wife. When one of the two legitimate sons was killed in battle and the other captured and incarcerated for decades in the Tower of London, Dunois became the head of the family. As things turned out, he was also an unorthodox and successful general who cleared the English out of Normandy. Trump's vanity and stupidity will not permit him to follow these examples.
A hereditary mechanism probably won't be legitimate in the United States. A hereditary dynasty might work, but it would rely on votes for legitimacy, not the hereditary principle. (The Kennedys and Bushes are examples.) The problem, of course, is that the only scion of Trump with any ability has been smart enough to stay away from Trump II, having burned her fingers with Trump I.
Sure, just as in North Korea, Syria etc, the hereditary succession will be endorsed by votes. But unlike the case with Bushes and Kennedys there won't be any doubt about the outcome of the voting.
John, I just want to say that the stuff about hereditary monarchy is the least sensible thing here. Trump wants to be the man who restored pre-1913 America (see his latest interview with The Atlantic), not the man who restored absolute monarchy to North America. Some other Trumps may end up in politics, but that would just make them another political family like the Bushes or Clintons, not the perpetual First Family of a genuine monarchy.
Mitchell, are you relying on Donald Trump's word, as your reference to his interview suggests? Whatever he said about 1913, you must be aware that of his announced intention to continue in office beyond 2028. And there is plenty of evidence that lifetime presidencies (Assads, Duvaliers, Kims etc) produce hereditary rule.
Well, now he's announced (on Meet The Press) his intention to be a two-term president only, and hand things over in 2028.
Trump says a lot of things. Promises that never happen, thought bubbles that burst immediately, things that are true but taboo for politicians, relentless self-praise, even sometimes a plan that he follows through on. Whether by design or not, it all creates a haze around what is actually going to happen. A third term is just barely possible in that the USA could in principle change its laws to allow it, but there's no demand for it and for now it's officially off the table.
I suggest that what Trump does can be seen as a compromise between what his movement wants, what he can get away with, and what the powerbrokers around him (whether friend or foe) want. He'll talk with his donors about their demands, he'll try to extend his family brand (e.g. by riding the crypto train), and he'll also give MAGA the deportations, gender laws, and economic nationalism that they want.
You've been very on the money when it comes to these things. I think your assessment of 30% is also correct --but it's not 100% the case that the only negative reactions to Trump are due to the economic blunders.
The general assholery is not particularly popular. It seems odd because many Americans like his asshole style. But I think it's more appealing to them when they are interpreting it a particular way--more as an anti-hero Clint Eastwood style macho bluster with some kind of redeeming core.
They want an asshole to get up there and say offensive things and make liberals cry but not the kind of full-blown Hitler asshole that turns the government into a terror machine.
When it comes across as pure nihilistic darkness, many people who didn't care or who like the whole 'he's an ass but he gets things done' don't find it as appealing. They may not find it unappealing enough to vociferously reject it but it's a different vibe than the one they like.
So combined with the fuck ups in other domains, that aspect is going to have a negative valence to them. There's a core number that wanted to vote for Hitler but there are more who wanted to vote for Dirty Harry.
Yes, those people are idiots. They are going purely on vibes. A certain kind of vibe shift will make them turn away. Not turn against Trump but turn away and wait for things to change --at which point, they will become annoyed at rational governance and yearn for Dirty Harry again. Which means we're trapped in a downward spiral no matter what but the bottom may be different.
Reagan did most of the damage that led us to Trump and was tremendously damaging. Bush II also did some of this massive damage. It was like a crack in the foundations. But note they came across as jovial fellows even as they committed massive human rights atrocities and ruined the possibility of a middle class or a rights-respecting government. So this is more the American style. Damien Omen III does not have quite the right tone. Trump seemed like a clown, a buffoon, but a 'CEO-leader asshole' and a cross between the anti-Christ in Damien Omen III and Reagan. If he begins to look like pure unleashed darkness, plus a shitty economy, people will start to peel off. (Not evangelicals, of course. They are dying for the anti-Christ.)
Seems like the whole Noem-Hegseth review has gone to ground - I can't find reference to it anywhere!
That said, surely the recent popular protests across the US (that don't seem to get much popular coverage) raise the chance of popular resistance marginally higher...
Do you see developments in the Trump-Russia axis affecting the flow chart? For example, do you expect we'll see a "1999 Russian apartment bombings"?
If you really wanted to get this done, would you pick this pair to kick it off?
“… his path to a life presidency (and probably hereditary absolute monarchy) will be smooth.”
I challenge “hereditary”. Securing the succession has been a major problem for autocrats over millennia. If you designate a crown prince, he (gender deliberate) often becomes the focus of dissent from your policies, and Oedipal resentment does the rest. If you don’t, the possible successors will have to fight it out, a process that need not wait for you to die (Henry II). As a minimum, you have to put some effort into building loyalty to your dynasty and not just yourself, and training your heir(s) for the job by giving him or them real work. Trump has done neither. His family are just parasites cashing in on his position, without any political following. The scale of the problem can be illustrated by the failures at it of three leaders infinitely more capable than Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China, and Alexander of Macedon.
I think much of this is a problem for the successor. Trump is already old, so the correct play is to be loyal and hope to be anointed. The potential focus of dissent for the moment is Vance, who doesn't look to have much of a chance at the succession.
And being grotesquely unqualified isn't a problem in this regime.
So round 1 in the succesion wil be a cage fight. For Round 2, the non-trivial problem of establishing a dynasty would be compounded by the abysmal quality of the Trump team. The original diadochi were all experienced generals, hand-picked by a military genius.
An under-used solution is adoption. Julius Caesar adopted Octavian in his will - fairly distant relative, and quite young, but a very good pick. Jean Dunois, the Bastard of Orleans who backed Joan of Arc, was brought into his noble father's household by his Sforza wife. When one of the two legitimate sons was killed in battle and the other captured and incarcerated for decades in the Tower of London, Dunois became the head of the family. As things turned out, he was also an unorthodox and successful general who cleared the English out of Normandy. Trump's vanity and stupidity will not permit him to follow these examples.
A hereditary mechanism probably won't be legitimate in the United States. A hereditary dynasty might work, but it would rely on votes for legitimacy, not the hereditary principle. (The Kennedys and Bushes are examples.) The problem, of course, is that the only scion of Trump with any ability has been smart enough to stay away from Trump II, having burned her fingers with Trump I.
Sure, just as in North Korea, Syria etc, the hereditary succession will be endorsed by votes. But unlike the case with Bushes and Kennedys there won't be any doubt about the outcome of the voting.
John, I just want to say that the stuff about hereditary monarchy is the least sensible thing here. Trump wants to be the man who restored pre-1913 America (see his latest interview with The Atlantic), not the man who restored absolute monarchy to North America. Some other Trumps may end up in politics, but that would just make them another political family like the Bushes or Clintons, not the perpetual First Family of a genuine monarchy.
Mitchell, are you relying on Donald Trump's word, as your reference to his interview suggests? Whatever he said about 1913, you must be aware that of his announced intention to continue in office beyond 2028. And there is plenty of evidence that lifetime presidencies (Assads, Duvaliers, Kims etc) produce hereditary rule.
Well, now he's announced (on Meet The Press) his intention to be a two-term president only, and hand things over in 2028.
Trump says a lot of things. Promises that never happen, thought bubbles that burst immediately, things that are true but taboo for politicians, relentless self-praise, even sometimes a plan that he follows through on. Whether by design or not, it all creates a haze around what is actually going to happen. A third term is just barely possible in that the USA could in principle change its laws to allow it, but there's no demand for it and for now it's officially off the table.
I suggest that what Trump does can be seen as a compromise between what his movement wants, what he can get away with, and what the powerbrokers around him (whether friend or foe) want. He'll talk with his donors about their demands, he'll try to extend his family brand (e.g. by riding the crypto train), and he'll also give MAGA the deportations, gender laws, and economic nationalism that they want.
Claims elsewhere that a broad 3.5% protest is the tipping point to correct the insanity https://robertreich.substack.com/p/what-would-a-national-civic-uprising
However, broad implies a way for centralists republicans to defect from blind followship in favor of own interests.