This line of analysis really highlights just how incompetent Trump is at being fascist.
I’ve got to disagree. This isn’t incompetence, its a deliberate strategy. One candidate plays the Nice Polite Republican and the other whips the base.
Traditionally, you get your aw shucks Good’ole’Boy on the front of the ticket - your Bush, your McCain, your Romney - and the nail-eating red meat psychopath as VP - Cheney / Palin / Ryan. In this particular election, Trump’s press is so bad that Vance looks sane by comparison. And the debate was an opportunity to really layer the mask on thick to calm the rubs into thinking he’s the normal one.
any one of the more competent fascists could potentially take his place
Just look at the primary ballot. Your options ranged from the vindictive culture-war sadists DeSantis and Christie to the neocon forever war hawks Hailey and Scott, with a few paleocons and grifters sprinkled in the margins.
Then there’s the ones who didn’t run - Abbot and Cruz down in Texas are both gunning for the Presidency in 2028. All these people suck.
I just don’t see anyone on the Dem side of the aisle who is going to do better than Hilary did in 2016, once Trump is off the stage.
This isn’t incompetence, its a deliberate strategy. One candidate plays the Nice Polite Republican and the other whips the base.
Maybe I could see that? I mean, if Vance rationalizes Trump enough to actually win then I guess it’s effective. Trump is just such a sweaty big boy, a lot of libs who would otherwise go along with it just can’t get themselves to associate, whereas if Vance was at the top of the ticket I think a lot of libs would be like “fuck me, that doesn’t sound so bad”.
Idk. If i’m thinking of any other historical example of fascist leaders, they’re basically all deeply serious people. Bibi is a good example actually - Harvard educated, military background, exceptional political maneuvering. When he makes his threats you know he has the political capital to actually back it up. Contrast with Trump: he is just so plainly self-obsessed that his fascist message misses the mark for most people. Trump just flubs around in front of a camera and makes demands and only about half of his target audience takes it seriously, maybe less.
Taking a step back even, maybe what you’re saying could apply to the duopoly, too. It would certainly explain Harris’ shift to the right on immigration and law enforcement: Trump riles up the electorate into pogroms, and the liberal candidate offers a reactionary policy as a concession to placate the bloodlust.
I just don’t see anyone on the Dem side of the aisle who is going to do better than Hilary did in 2016, once Trump is off the stage.
Yea, that’s my thing. Trump has created an appetite for reactionary governance, and the democrats just don’t have a real response to it except “yea ok, I guess you’re right”. They’ll either lose to the next republican or they’ll slide into fascism themselves.
I’ve got to disagree. This isn’t incompetence, its a deliberate strategy. One candidate plays the Nice Polite Republican and the other whips the base.
Traditionally, you get your aw shucks Good’ole’Boy on the front of the ticket - your Bush, your McCain, your Romney - and the nail-eating red meat psychopath as VP - Cheney / Palin / Ryan. In this particular election, Trump’s press is so bad that Vance looks sane by comparison. And the debate was an opportunity to really layer the mask on thick to calm the rubs into thinking he’s the normal one.
Just look at the primary ballot. Your options ranged from the vindictive culture-war sadists DeSantis and Christie to the neocon forever war hawks Hailey and Scott, with a few paleocons and grifters sprinkled in the margins.
Then there’s the ones who didn’t run - Abbot and Cruz down in Texas are both gunning for the Presidency in 2028. All these people suck.
I just don’t see anyone on the Dem side of the aisle who is going to do better than Hilary did in 2016, once Trump is off the stage.
Maybe I could see that? I mean, if Vance rationalizes Trump enough to actually win then I guess it’s effective. Trump is just such a sweaty big boy, a lot of libs who would otherwise go along with it just can’t get themselves to associate, whereas if Vance was at the top of the ticket I think a lot of libs would be like “fuck me, that doesn’t sound so bad”.
Idk. If i’m thinking of any other historical example of fascist leaders, they’re basically all deeply serious people. Bibi is a good example actually - Harvard educated, military background, exceptional political maneuvering. When he makes his threats you know he has the political capital to actually back it up. Contrast with Trump: he is just so plainly self-obsessed that his fascist message misses the mark for most people. Trump just flubs around in front of a camera and makes demands and only about half of his target audience takes it seriously, maybe less.
Taking a step back even, maybe what you’re saying could apply to the duopoly, too. It would certainly explain Harris’ shift to the right on immigration and law enforcement: Trump riles up the electorate into pogroms, and the liberal candidate offers a reactionary policy as a concession to placate the bloodlust.
Yea, that’s my thing. Trump has created an appetite for reactionary governance, and the democrats just don’t have a real response to it except “yea ok, I guess you’re right”. They’ll either lose to the next republican or they’ll slide into fascism themselves.