I really appreciate this post. It has articulated a lot of what has been at the tip of my tongue, but that I have been too bogged down by to make sense of. That said, hopefully this will not be too incoherent.
I am interested in further unpacking the crisis of the “Blue church”. It seems to me that there is two interesting phenomena that is relevant to these ends. There are a plurality of *disparate* discourses that seem to have achieved increasing coherence in post-war(?) United States under the umbrella of “the left”. If we move to a higher level of abstraction, could we analyze the data at a higher specificity to problematize the red/blue dichotomy? For example, following Guattari’s “subjective pluralism”, or some deployment of affect theory?
It also seems to me that “blue” media, at least at a lower level, has been very successful. How do we make sense of BLM, the Women’s March, the rise of feminism in general? These movements have certainly activated a large portion of the population, but at the same time are very uncomfortable, arguably incompatible, with the left. What falls under the left seems highly stratified. Of course, the heterodox political apparatuses are rupturing on either side, on which Trump has deftly capitalized. What is we saw Trump’s rise from below? Is Trump’s success actually to create a (false?) nationalism in opposition to many separatisms?
Trump seems most comfortable with chaos. Perhaps the greatest strength of his insurgency is its ability to play the cards as they lay. Does Trump have a definable ethics? Perhaps such an analysis would reveal a vulnerability. Then again, maybe the discontinuity between Trump’s “alternative facts” and his affective momentum will continue to crack. I posit this will heavily rely on his ability to continue to obfuscate existing systems of knowledge.