Yeah, yeah.
Aaron Loeb

What I find amusing is that you feel that “ Trump’s nostalgia for a great American past” is somehow fascistic, but the pure unadulterated jingoistic nationalism that Hillary provides (you must have missed the DNC) is not. Also, I find biased use of “ pure America” an interesting as well. “Purity” is a national socialist ideal, not a fascist one (Fascism held that state identity was what was important, NS is the one with racial purity) — not that I am implying something stupid like wanting to restrict immigration is somehow akin to promoting racial purity.

If we do a bullet list of some key points:

  • Nationalism. Trump harkens to a nostalgic past which — objectively — was more prosperous than today. People had more real wages and upward mobility. Surveys indicate that this has changed. This promise of something different from the policies that led us to this state has resonated to the ignored portion of our society who are (evidently) larger than the political class thought. Hillary promotes the manifest destiny view of America being number one right now. We are the greatest country on earth and justified in doing whatever we want. Our “burden” (q.v. Kipling) is to impose by coercion our vision of how other people and cultures should behave and live out their lives.
  • Statism: Hillary, being a progressive, favors diminished individual liberties and greater state control (to force people to “behave” and to silence dissident opinion). Trump is less clear on this. I think he may be less inclined to greater state control, but he has made statement that imply otherwise
  • Militarism: Hillary has supported every military action since her husband’s time in office. Regimes and people who were deemed contrary to her vision of how the world should be were taken out, and in most cases the people we supported were far worse than those we deposed — or so weak that the vacuum allowed worse elements to take over. Further, she shows a consistent tendency to lie and manipulate data in order to promote these wars. Whether it be the mischaracterization of Milosevic to justify ripping apart Serbia (I refer you to the Hague tribunal findings on Mladic, Milosevic died due to our failure to provide medical care so his trial never ended, but the portion on Milosevic in the Mladic inquiry regarding his attempt to stop the ethnic cleansing is quite informative) to supporting the Iraq invasion (again on made up evidence, and which she has recanted when it became politically expedient) to Libya (where we lied about him bombing his own civilians, and where the terror groups we supported captured and sodomized Qaddafi with a bayonet before a French(?) agent ended his suffering by administering a gunshot to the head) to the Syrian conflict, where she wants to fight Russia in some anachronistic throwback to some cold war/Dr. Strangelove aesthetic. Trump is less warlike in his rhetoric. Whether he would remain so after office is unclear (after all, Obama did a 360 on being the peace president). He has spoken of maintaining a strong military.
  • An Other to rally around: Trump has painted immigrants and Muslims as the other. Illegal and legal aliens do have an impact on the economy and are often in competition for the jobs which a large portion of Trumps support derives. You may agree or disagree on whether this is a good or bad thing, but that is an ideological stance informing your moral outlook, not indicative of facts. Likewise, our wars for the past 15 years (and many terrorists’ actions for past decades) have involved people subscribing to one form or another of Islam (mostly Salafist). Further, we have a tight relationship with Israel who has been fighting Muslims for 70 years. You may disagree with actually targeting them, but there is no denying that there is a reason for these targets. Hillary seems to have settled on the classic enemy of Russia. (Every time I hear “the Russians did it,” I hear the line from Dr. Srangelove about how the Russians are after our precious bodily fluids). Since everyone who was aware prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union has been conditioned (to some extent) into distrusting the Russians, this plays nicely on the American Cultural conditioned response — it also explains why it is less effective against Millennials. However, it has been remarkably effective in diffusing the controversies. People are more concerned about the possible activities of the Russians than in the content of the emails (et al).

PS. You live in a strangely coddled environment if you think I am being “Weirdly Hostile”. I get it that partisans generally view disagreement as “hostility” or “hate” — when their not dismissing it as a “mental issue” or “ignorance” — but it still surprises me when I encounter it.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.