(in response to yet another NYT article quoting clueless politscientists on Trump)
Anyway, all this is completely missing the forest for the trees.
The reality is that America’s elite has caused pre-revolutionary conditions to come into existence. How many votes Trump gets, whether he gets assassinated, impeached, jailed, etc. have no bearing on this.
According to Burnham:
“From a Machiavellian point of view, a social revolution means
a comparatively rapid shift in the composition and structure of
the elite and in the mode of its relation to the non-elite. It is pos-
sible to state the conditions under which such a rapid shift takes
place. The principal of these conditions are the following:
“1. When the institutional structure, and the elite which has the
ruling position within this structure, are unable to handle possibilities opened up by technological advances and by the growth,
for whatever reason, of new social forces.
“2. When a considerable percentage of the ruling class devotes
little attention to the business of ruling, and turns its interests to
such field; as culture, art, philosophy, and the pursuit of sensuous
pleasure.
“3. When an elite is unable or unwilling to assimilate rising new
elements from the masses or from its own lower ranks.
“4. When large sections of the elite lose confidence in themselves
and the legitimacy of their own rule; and when in both elite and
non-elite :here is a loss of faith in the political formulas and
myths that have held the social structure together.
“5. When the ruling class, or much of it, is unable or unwilling to use force in a firm and determined way, and instead tries to
rely almost exclusively on manipulation, compromise, deceit, and
fraud.
“These are the general pre-conditions of social revolution in any
culture. “
Notice how Burnham conspicuously avoids mentioning bigotry, MAGA hats and Frogtwitter (well, Frogtwitter is pretty well described in point 1) and yet manages to describe our reality EXACTLY. Without any statistical analysis or polling! Magic.
Now, please tell me, why are Ivy League professors and NYT writers not bringing this up? Why does it take my autodidact religious fanatic ass to point out that we’ve got the playbook for what’s emerging right in front of our eyes, written in concise and readable modern English? Why is it that the elite popular discourse (pretty well exemplified by your Facebook page and comments) avoids talking about the big picture and deeper issues, and speaks in shallow cliches about the most significant development in American politics since the New Deal? I’d be embarrassed, if I was a guy who got his paycheck for thinking and producing intellectual discourse, to operate on this level. But everyone thinks this is normal!
