Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

democrats

Democracy

Bill Maher made an ominous prediction about Trump supporters and the 2024 election

Real Time with Bill Maher/YouTube

Bill Maher described the "slow-moving coup" happening in the U.S.

We are living in weird times in far more ways than one. Not only are we coping with a global pandemic that some people still refuse to acknowledge, but we are also dealing with an ex-president who still refuses to admit that he lost the last election, whose fan base keeps spiraling deeper and deeper into kooky conspiracy theories and whose adopted party inexplicably failed to cut bait and run from Q-ville when it had the chance.

So now we're watching democracy flail and sputter because millions of Americans simply reject objective reality. It's genuinely, mind-bogglingly weird.

Such is the backdrop of Bill Maher's recent run-down of what he sees happening in the next election. Under normal circumstances, it would be far too early for such punditry from comedic political commentators, but the U.S. sailed right past normal years ago. So now, not even a year past the last election—and with no one even announcing an intention to run—we're already pondering what will happen in 2024. (Seriously, why does everything have to be so dumb?)

Maher laid out the plan that appears to be unfolding before our eyes in a segment titled "A Slow-Moving Coup," starting with the Eastman memo that basically was a blueprint for Trump overturning the results of the election he lost.

New Rule: The Slow-Moving Coup | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)www.youtube.com

"Here are the easiest three predictions in the world," said Maher. "Trump will run in 2024. He will get the Republican nomination. And whatever happens on election night, the next day he will announce that he won.

"I've been saying ever since he lost, he's like a shark that's not gone, just gone out to sea," continued Maher. "But actually, he's been quietly eating people this whole time. And by eating people, I mean he's been methodically purging the Republican Party of anyone who voted for his impeachment or doesn't agree that he's the rightful leader of the Seven Kingdoms."

Maher explained how the small number of Republicans who outwardly opposed Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election will be gone by 2024, and how state legislatures and election officials are being replaced with loyalists who will hand him the presidency whether he actually wins it or not. He predicted that Republicans would win the House in 2022.

"And yet, 2024 comes and Democrats treat it as a normal election year," he said. "They are living in a dream world where their choice of candidate matters, their policies matter, the number of votes they get matters, none of it does. I won't even predict who the Democratic nominee will be, because it doesn't matter."

Maher explained that even if the Democratic nominee wins the election, "Trump won't accept it." But this time, his conspiracy theories about election fraud "will be fully embraced by stooges he is installing right now."

The only thing that kept the U.S. from a full-blown constitutional crisis was that some Republican elected officials put their foot down and insisted on reality. What happens without people who are willing to go against pressure from their party and do the right thing?

"The ding dongs who sacked the Capitol last year? That was like when Al Qaeda tried to take down the World Trade Center the first time with a van. It was a joke. But the next time they came back with planes," Maher said.

"I hope I scared the shit out of you!" Maher said, in conclusion.

Yeah. A majority of Americans are already there, Bill.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

democracy

Democracy

It's time to flush these 10 meaningless and harmful buzzwords from our politics

Photo by Brian Wertheim on Unsplash

Politics has always been a mixed bag of genuine discussions about governance, inane partisan bickering, and ongoing struggles for power. As much as I wish we could engage in the first more often, it feels like politics in America has become far more of the latter.

Within those partisan power struggles, the language of politics gets skewed and molded to fit specific purposes. Sometimes, phrases are used as dog whistles calling on people's prejudices. Far too often, the manipulation of words and their meanings—political rhetoric—renders certain terms meaningless as they get tossed around without nuance or context. Ultimately, the repeated use of certain terminology ends up destroying discourse instead of adding to it.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but here are 10 terms I'd love to see us flush from American political discussions:

1. "Real Americans"

There's no excuse for anyone ever using this term. To call certain people "real Americans" implies some kind of defining characteristic that some Americans have and some don't, which is the complete opposite of the country's diverse reality. And who would get to determine that definition, anyway? Do we go by majority? A full 82% of Americans live in urban areas. Does that mean city people are "real Americans" and the rural minority are not? Obviously, that's ludicrous—just as ludicrous as the idea that Americans in diners talking about the Bible are "real Americans." There's simply no such thing.

2. "Identity politics"

It's not that politics based on identity doesn't exist—it's that it has always existed. The entirety of American history is filled with white, land-owning men creating politics around their own identity and excluding people of different identities from the political process in both overt and covert ways. We are where we are because inequality and injustice necessitate pushing for policies based on identity, but let's not pretend that the concept is new. It's just that the identities that are finally getting a voice are those that were kept out by the white, male identity politics that dominated the nation for centuries.

3. "Elites"

This word may have had some meaning at some point, but now it gets tossed around to mean anyone who lives in a city, lives on a coast, has above a certain amount of money, or has a college education. I've also seen it used as a pejorative to describe experts in a field, which is just silly. While yes, there are uber-wealthy people with undue power in politics who can be rightfully scorned as "elites" for snubbing their noses at the concerns of the rest of us, that's a very small group of people. Dismissing the entirety of academia or the entirety of the American coasts or the entirety of people with post-secondary educations as "elitist" is a misuse of the word and needs to stop.

4. "Working class"

On the flip side, the term "working-class Americans" has far too narrow a meaning the way it's usually used. When someone says "working-class Americans" it's usually meant to conjure up images of generally white farm, factory, or mining workers toiling away somewhere in Middle America. Rarely is the term "working class" used to refer to Black or Latino or immigrant workers in big cities, even though they make up a huge percentage of what's technically considered working-class labor. Rarely is the economic anxieties of those urban workers utilized in the same way politically. (The term also makes it sound like only certain kinds of jobs count as "work," which is just weird.)

5. "Blue states/Red states"

The way our electoral system is set up makes the illusion of blue and red states a thing, but it's really not a thing. All states are mish-mosh of people, and all states are closer to 50/50 than 100/0 when it comes to red/blue, Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative votes. I wish we could do away with those binary political labels altogether, but at the very least we need to stop assigning them to entire states. (And let's ditch the Electoral College that perpetuates the illusion altogether.)

— (@)

There are lots of different versions of maps that more accurately portray the way the U.S. votes, but the truth is that every place is some shade of purple. And our differences are based much more along an urban/rural divide than a state line one.

— (@)

6. "Career politician"

Yes, some people make a career out of being in government. Yes, there are some people who stay in politics for the wrong reasons or who have been in their positions for longer than they should. But let's stop saying "career politician" like it's automatically bad. Experience and expertise in any field is generally a good thing, and that's as true for public service as it is for anything else. Newcomers add fresh perspectives and voices to government, but there is also value in putting people who know what they're doing in powerful positions of leadership. We could address the negatives of long-term service by introducing term limits where there aren't any, but let's stop demonizing people who dedicate their lives and careers to public service.

7. "Socialism"

This word has a meaning, and it's not what the vast majority of Americans mean when they use it these days, on either side of the aisle. Socialism is a "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources." Practically no one is advocating for actual socialism in the U.S. Some people think anything having to do with equality or equity is synonymous with socialism, but that's not anywhere close to true. Some people think universal healthcare is a slippery slope to a socialist state, even though they'd never think of public education in the same way. Some people just hear "radical socialist agenda" and start foaming at the mouth, even if what's being described as radical socialism would be considered center-right ideology in most democratic nations we consider our peers. And on the same note...

8. "Radical"

What is often called "radical" isn't really radical these days. The only reason that some things seem radical—as defined by advocating a sweeping change—is because of how long certain things have been allowed to remain status quo. The idea that anyone who works a full-time job should be able to afford to live is not a radical idea. It's just common sense. The idea that no one should go bankrupt or die because they have a medical issue isn't radical—it's the way people in almost every other country live. The idea that people should be able to live free from discrimination for being who they are is not a radical idea—it's simply freedom. The word "radical" is used to make any idea sound out-there, no matter how reasonable it might be in reality.

9. "Fascist"

Not everyone who enacts legislation we don't like is a fascist. Not everyone who pushes nationalism is a fascist. Not even everyone who uses prejudice and fear to drum up populist support is a fascist. Like socialism, this word has been thrown around so often as to have virtually no real meaning anymore. Fascism was a specific form of rule during a specific time and place in history, and though we can point to some similarities of thought or action between politicians now and then, they're not the same. It's not likely that an autocrat dictator would find success with actual fascist practices here, and labeling everything that smacks of authoritarianism or demagoguery as fascism muddies the waters. Authoritarianism and demagoguery are problematic enough on their own, and jumping straight to "Fascism!" enables people to dismiss legitimate concerns over them.

10. "Patriot"

A patriot is someone who loves their country and is willing to defend it. A patriot is not someone who terrorizes their own seat of government because they reject reality and don't like the way the voting went. A patriot doesn't defend an attack on our Capitol or the attempted overturning of an election. A patriot doesn't fly the flag of a defeated country that fought with the United States over the right to enslave Black people and nearly split the nation in two. A patriot doesn't try to keep Americans they disagree with or don't like from voting. A patriot doesn't accuse half of their fellow Americans of being demonic pedophiles. If the people who do any or all of those things are the ones calling themselves patriots, then the word is useless.

Words and their actual meanings matter. Let's discuss ideas. Let's debate policy. But let's do so without slinging around buzz words and phrases that oversimplify positions, play on people's prejudices, and remove the nuance necessary for reasonable discourse.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

politics

Videos

AOC reveals more personal details in new harrowing video account of Capitol attack

AOC/Facebook/Instagram

What happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 was a violation. Even Americans observing from home felt it. The loss of security. The destruction in the seat of our democracy. The peaceful transfer of power tradition broken. The flag of the United States being replaced by the flag of Donald Trump.

The details of the storming of the Capitol have only gotten worse as more footage has come out. It's now clear how narrowly our lawmakers escaped a rabid mob who had built gallows and chanted "Hang Mike Pence!", who sent men dressed in tactical gear and carrying flex cuffs into Congress chambers, who dared to carry white supremacist symbols through the hallowed halls as they trespassed, leaving a trail of literal piss and shit behind them.

Few Congress members have given detailed accounts of what they personally experienced that day, but there's no question it was traumatic for everyone involved. Lawmakers had to flee for their lives. People were killed in their workplace as they hid from the insurrectionists. They survived a terrorist attack. That's a big deal.

But it would be wrong to pretend the threat was equal for all lawmakers. Republican members of Congress who peddled election lies were not the target of the attack (some, in fact, appeared to be on the side of the insurrectionists). Considering the nature of the mob and what they were there for, the worst position to be in that day was to be Democrat woman of color.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fits that bill. As an attractive, outspoken woman, she has also been a specific target of violent and often sexualized death threats online since she came to Congress. But it's one thing to deal with online trolls, even particularly troubling ones, and another to know that there is a mob who wants to kill you roaming the halls of your workplace looking for you.

Other women of color who serve in Congress spoke of their trauma and fears of the racist mob during the attack in a piece published on Slate yesterday. But AOC took to Instagram Live last night to share a much more detailed account of what she personally experienced.

The full video (shared below) is long, but it's worth watching. After making it clear that it's her personal story, not "the" story of the Capitol attack, she shared a detail that informed her experience and shouldn't be brushed aside. AOC is a sexual assault survivor—an admission she'd never made publicly before. It's an important detail because 1) It's not uncommon—approximately 1 in 5 American women have survived a rape or attempted rape, which means it's statistically likely that many other members of Congress are also survivors, and 2) That trauma colors other traumatic experiences—such as surviving a terrorist attack—since trauma tends to compound.

AOC's description of how she hid in the bathroom and thought she was going to die is harrowing, but details in the story require an understanding of her perspective as a survivor. For instance, as she was hiding in the bathroom, a man came into her office yelling "WHERE IS SHE? WHERE IS SHE?" In those few seconds, she literally thought she was going to die. It turned out the man was a Capitol Police officer, but he didn't announce himself as such. As she was hiding behind the bathroom door, all she could see was that he was a white man in a beanie cap. When her aide told her it was safe to come out, she did, but even then she said something didn't feel right, as the officer looked at her with anger and hostility.

She questioned if she was projecting. Maybe she was. That's the thing about having survived a sexual assault and knowing you're a target in an attack—you really don't know who you can trust. And considering how terribly prepared law enforcement was for the attack, she had reason to be fearful.

The officer told her and her aide to flee to another building but didn't tell them exactly where to go. She ended up banging on the door of Rep. Katie Porter's office and hiding out in there for hours. She changed out of her heels and into gym shoes that belonged to one of Porter's aides and borrowed a puffer jacket from Porter in case she needed to escape out a window and blend in with the mob. She worried about the aides who were willing to put themselves in between the mob and the lawmakers.

The simple telling of the story, with AOC talking straight into the camera, is powerful. It's a reminder that this is not just about politics, but about human beings, that what they experienced in that attack was real, and terrifying, and traumatic. And most importantly, it makes it clear that calls to "move on," as if the attack wasn't really a big deal or should just be forgotten, are wrong.

See on Instagram

That point cannot be made any clearer. The lawmakers who don't want people held accountable for the Big Lie that led to American citizens attacking their own government in a violent coup attempt are wrong. The attack on the Capitol wasn't just a random blip—it was an enormously big deal. According to the Coup D'etat Project at the University of Illinois' Cline Center—an academic group dedicated to studying government overthrows around the world—Jan 6 was an "attempted coup d'état: an organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition by displacing the power of the Congress to certify the election."

An attempted coup on behalf of an outgoing president who refused to accept the results of an election is unprecedented and unAmerican. And yet lawmakers are refusing to accept and acknowledge their role in supporting the basis for the coup. Even worse, some have called for AOC to apologize for being angry at the lawmakers who pushed the Big Lie—which she rightly called out as a manipulation tactic used by abusers to avoid accountability.

Unfortunately, one of the reasons people don't speak about traumatic experiences is that they fear they won't be believed. Not being believed just adds to the trauma, but it's a common scenario with sexual assault, as well as domestic violence and other forms of abuse. Considering the video footage we have of the Capitol attack, AOC's account of what she experienced is totally believable, but she's still being attacked for being "overly dramatic" or making it all up or using it as a way to manipulate people.

She literally just shared her experience and how she feels about it. Is she supposed to not do that? Is she supposed to remains silent so people don't have to be reminded of the trauma the whole nation has experienced? So that people culpable in the Big Lie can remain comfortable despite the trauma they contributed to? Eff that.

Telling her story is an act of courage and hopefully it will inspire other Congress members to share their own accounts. It shouldn't be necessary, and no one should feel pressured to relive their trauma for all the world to see, but since there's a whole lot of denial going on, we need to hear these stories to get the full picture of what the Capitol attack entailed and what it meant. There can be no "moving on" without fully investigating this attack on our country and holding those responsible for it accountable. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Democracy

17 freshmen GOP House members sent President Biden a letter offering to work with him

Briteheart/Twitter

In the hours before he was sworn in as the 46th president of the United States, then-President-elect Biden was sent a letter signed by 17 freshmen GOP members of the House of Representatives.

In sharp contrast to the 121 Republican House members who voted against the certification of Biden's electoral votes—a constitutional procedure merely check-marking the state certifications that had already taken place—this letter expresses a desire to "rise above the partisan fray" and work together with Biden as he takes over the presidency.

The letter reads:

Dear President-elect Biden,

Congratulations on the beginning of your administration and presidency. As members of this freshman class, we trust that the next four years will present your administration and the 117thCongress with numerous challenges and successes, and we are hopeful that – despite our ideological differences – we may work together on behalf of the American people we are each so fortunate to serve.

After two impeachments, lengthy inter-branch investigations, and, most recently, the horrific attack on our nation's capital, it is clear that the partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans does not serve a single American.

The constituencies we represent showcase the variety of thought across our great nation. From Texas to California and from Oklahoma to New York, Americans are tired of the partisan gridlock and simply want to see leaders from both sides of the aisle work on issues important to American families, workers, and businesses.

We hope to work with you to extend targeted, meaningful coronavirus relief for families and businesses, protect Americans with pre-existing conditions, strengthen and modernize our infrastructure, enforce our antitrust laws against emboldened technology monopolies, and restore our economy struggling in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic.

We firmly believe that what unites us as Americans is far greater than anything that may ever divide us. In that spirit, we hope that we can rise above the partisan fray to negotiate meaningful change for Americans across the nation and maintain the United States' standing as the best country in the world.

Sincerely,

Beth Van Duyne, Stephanie Bice, Madison Cawthorn, Scott Franklin, Andrew Garbarino, Carlos A. Gimenez, Yvette Herrell, Ashley Hinson, Young Kim, Nicole Malliotakis, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Barry Moore, Jay Obernolte, Burgess Owens, Jerry L. Carl, Peter Meijer, David G. Valadao

It may be worth pointing out that 17 out of 211 is a pretty small number, and some of the names on this list overlap with those who voted to reject Biden's certification. It's also worth pointing out that referencing the two impeachments and inter-branch investigations in the same breath as the attack on the Capitol (which they mistyped as "capital") feels a bit off, especially when pointing to them as seemingly equal examples of "the partisan divide."

But hey, any formal acknowledgment that partisan gridlock sucks and serves no one is a step in the right direction. We have to start somewhere if there's to be any hope of getting anywhere.

— (@)

George Washington tried to warn us of "the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally" and explained what would happen if we didn't heed that warning. (Spoiler: It's exactly what is happening in our politics right now.) Imagine how much more we could get done in our government if it weren't for lawmakers playing toxic partisanship like a team sport. Partisan politics itself is inherently divisive, and it would be fabulous if we could come up with a better system, but here we are. If we have to work within a two-party system, we need the people in it to approach bipartisanship in good faith.

Whether this letter was issued in good faith by all who signed it remains to be seen, but at least it's a start. With some Americans being unwilling to accept the legitimacy of Biden's presidency, we need leaders across government to step up and speak up, put an end to the lies and the partisan rhetoric that pushes people to extremes, and work across the aisle to solve the problems we all face.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

politics

Democracy

Expert on tyranny explains the Trump 'Big Lie' you've been hearing so much about lately

Reuters/Twitter, Timothy Snyder/Twitter

In October, the Washington Post shared an updated count of the lies or misleading claims President Trump has made since he was elected. The count, as of August 27, was 22,247 claims in 1,316 days. Why did the count only go through August? Because the president's pace had accelerated to more than 50 lies or misleading claims per day, and the fact-checking team couldn't keep up.

And it's not just the Washington Post. Fact checkers across the media landscape have repeatedly lamented that it's impossible to keep up.

All politicians stretch the truth sometimes, some more often or egregiously than others. But the frequency, nature, and shamelessness of President Trump's lying is in an entirely separate category than most politicians. This is not an opinion or even a judgment; it's an axiomatic fact.

The problem is, a shocking number of people overlook his lies, believe his lies, or in some cases, even love his lies. Opportunistic politicians and idealogues have seen him rise to power through lies, have seen the adulation he receives from his base for his lies, and have decided it's worth it to hitch their wagon to his lies. That's largely how we've ended up here, in a broken government and political culture where the president's supporters rally behind the lie that he won the election with a not-insignificant number of them willing to die or kill to defend that lie.

Yale historian Timothy Snyder calls the claim that Trump won the election a "Big Lie." Snyder, who specializes in the history of Central Europe and the Holocaust and has written books on tyranny, explained what that means in a Twitter thread.

— (@)

Snyder wrote:

"The claim that Trump won the election is a Big Lie.

A Big Lie changes reality. To believe it, people must disbelieve their senses, distrust their fellow citizens, and live in a world of faith.

A Big Lie demands conspiracy thinking, since all who doubt it are seen as traitors.

A Big Lie undoes a society, since it divides citizens into believers and unbelievers.

A Big Lie destroys democracy, since people who are convinced that nothing is true but the utterances of their leader ignore voting and its results.

A Big Lie must bring violence, as it has.

A Big Lie can never be told just by one person. Trump is the originator of this Big Lie, but it could never have flourished without his allies on Capitol Hill.

Political futures now depend on this Big Lie. Senators Hawley and Cruz are running for president on the basis of this Big Lie.

There is a cure for the Big Lie. Our elected representatives should tell the truth, without dissimulation, about the results of the 2020 election.

Politicians who do not tell the simple truth perpetuate the Big Lie, further an alternative reality, support conspiracy theories, weaken democracy, and foment violence far worse than that of January 6, 2021."

— (@)

Everyone who lives in objective reality understands that Trump did not win this election. There was no widespread fraud, and not enough small instances of fraud (which have occurred on both sides in every single election throughout history) to even come close to changing the outcome of the election. The election officials charged with carrying out the elections in every state, both Republican and Democrat, have said so. International election observers that Trump invited to witness our elections have said so. The federal agency charged with election security under Trump's own administration has said so.

Investigations into allegations have borne no fruit, and nearly all of the affidavits and "testimonies" (notably, not given under oath) we've seen have been from people describing normal voting and tallying processes that they don't fully understand. Voting machine companies have now launched billion-dollar defamation lawsuits against Trump allies who pushed conspiracy theory-laded lies about voting machines. The courts have been decisive in their rulings against the president and his allies, who are now 1 and 64 in lawsuits attempting to prove both fraud and unconstitutionality in some states' election processes.

The facts are not in question; it's only what people believe or want to believe that is in question.

Psychologists have explained that the president will never concede because his narcissistic nature and pathology will not allow it. He will double down on the Big Lie for the rest of his life. That's a problem—but it's not the only one.

— (@)

A Big Lie can't succeed without support. Those in power who have gone along with this lie have breathed life into it, which also fuels the anger and resolve of those who believe the lie. Every person who has supported and disseminated this lie since election day bears responsibility for the attack on our U.S. Capitol and for how close we came to witnessing a massacre of our lawmakers last week. Every single one.

The bombardment of thousands of lies over the past four years have wounded and weakened our body politic. But the Big Lie slashed an artery and our democracy is bleeding out. Every single enabler of this lie needs to stand up and say "It wasn't true. We were wrong," as a tourniquet to stop the bleeding. Not just the politicians, but the media personalities who know the truth but supported the "Stop the Steal" message anyway. The only immediate remedy is to decisively end the lie, to clamp down on it hard and fast. Damage has been done and will need to be assessed, but right now the goal is survival.

That requires putting the truth and the country before any and all political or popular ambition, which some have proven time and again they will not do. But if there's ever been a time to swallow your pride and do the right thing, it's right now.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

democracy

Equality

Why I regret writing about trying to understand Trump supporters

Photo by David Todd McCarty on Unsplash

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article about how I was done trying to understand Trump supporters after having spent four years at it. While I try to only write things I am proud of, I occasionally write something that doesn't sit well with me after it's published. This is one of those times.

I have messages in my inbox from people thanking me for that piece, saying it helped them understand their loved ones better, so I know some people found some parts of it helpful. But ultimately, I would take it back if I could. Please bear with me while I try to explain why.

My goal as a writer is to put stories and ideas out into the world that will, in some small way, help humanity progress toward a better future. Sometimes that means writing something positive that lifts people's spirits and gives them hope. Sometimes it means writing about injustices and hardships that need to be brought into the light and better understood. Sometimes it means challenging the status quo and helping people see things in a different way.

It also means avoiding things that I think are ultimately counterproductive to progress. While I don't shy away from tackling issues, I avoid writing about partisan politics because I see our two-party system as inherently divisive. I try to avoid writing about specific politicians as well, unless they've done something praiseworthy. There are more than enough political pundits putting out hot takes these days, and I have no desire to add my voice to that fray.

These past four years, however, have tested my convictions on these fronts, both internally and externally.

Issues that should not be considered partisan or divisive have become so in the eyes of many, making it nearly impossible to have a conversation that doesn't devolve into labels and generalizations and assumptions. When I write about racism or climate change or human rights—even basic public health at this point—I'm automatically placed into a political box, despite having never aligned myself with any political party. Even if I write about objective reality and verifiable fact, I'm placed into a political box, despite that making no sense whatsoever.

Labeling and categorizing is a natural tendency that's easy to slip into, especially in our current climate. But all it does is create an "us vs. them" filter on everything we discuss. I think that's the point of most political rhetoric, actually. "Us vs. them" is the simplest way to gain political power. Demonizing and "othering" make it easy to maintain.

The sneaky thing is that once that tendency takes hold, it starts to feel not just right, but righteous to "other" the people we see as on the wrong side of history or democracy or justice. It can even feel necessary and truthful to put them in the "other" category. Then it starts to feel okay to state the truth about them more and more harshly. Then we throw some potshots in, because those people deserve it. It so easily escalates from "they're wrong" to "they're insane" to "they're evil."

That's literally how everyone justifies division, on every "side," in every political system. But where does that lead us in the long run?

Whenever divisions seem intractable, I like to zoom out and look at the big picture. It's not like we haven't seen what we're seeing now in various times and places throughout history, from toxic partisanship to populist demagoguery. So the real root of the problem isn't the individual people or politics we keep arguing and complaining about, but something more fundamental.

In my opinion, the root cause of nearly all of our issues is people's inability or unwillingness to recognize that we are all "us." The lack of recognition of our essential oneness as human beings is manifested in all kinds of "othering"—racism, sexism, xenophobia, religious prejudice, political party prejudices, and so on and so on. But no matter the form, the root of most human problems is the "othering" of a group of people. My group = good. Other group = bad. So simple, but so wrong, every time.

I talked in my Trump supporters post about people wanting problems and solutions to be simple, but I should have been clearer that none of us is immune to that pull. We are all tempted to jump down the "us vs. them" hole because problems are simpler down there. It's easier to think in dichotomous groups and "sides" than to wade through complex ideas and nuanced beliefs on an individual level. Everything in our political discourse is designed to draw us into that hole.

And I allowed myself to fall in when I wrote that piece. I made Trump supporters a "them," and by doing so, perpetuated the very thing I see as the root of the problem. I fed the beast I was fighting while trying to fight it.

In the big picture, the beast isn't one individual with power or one political party or the people who support both of those things, no matter how it may appear in this era. The beast is the human tendency towards prejudice—a tendency that we have to overcome in ourselves and convince others to overcome in themselves.

How to get people to understand this is the challenge. But I know that categorizing a group of people in a way that they feel belittles or insults them isn't going to get us where we need to go, no matter how justified it feels. It's just not.

Cynicism about the redeemability of our fellow Americans won't get us where we want to go, and writing off millions of human beings will just have us living in perpetual limbo. Lasting solutions to our problems aren't going to be found in political boxes, and they aren't going to be found down an "us vs. them" hole, either.

We all have to decide how we are going to use our voice and how we're going to contribute to humanity's progress. I'd rather focus on the universal truths at the heart of the issues we face and work toward solutions in that way, rather than analysis of the political labels and ideological "sides" that only serve to divide us further.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

United states of america

Democracy

I've spent 4+ years trying to understand Trump supporters. I'm all done now.

Photo by David Todd McCarty on Unsplash

Writer's note: I wrote a follow-up to this piece explaining some things I would change about it. You can read it here.

Many Americans had been hoping for an overwhelming Biden landslide win in this election. Not just the clear majority victory that it turned out to be, but a full-on tsunami that would thoroughly wash away the stain of Trumpism from America forever.

That didn't happen. And we really shouldn't be surprised by that.

As in 2016, there's a push in the social discourse to try to understand why 71 million Americans thought Donald Trump was a better choice than Joe BIden. (Cue the thousandth media interview with a rural, small-town American.) But Trumpism isn't that hard to understand. It's multi-faceted and multi-layered, but it's not complicated. In fact, simplicity is one of its key features, which I'll explain in a minute.

I am going to speak frankly and somewhat forcefully about my fellow Americans here, but first I want to be clear about my perspective. I am a political independent who would best be described as "leaning left," though I hate those kinds of labels. I have always voted for both Democrats and Republicans, including on my own state's ballot in this election. The only real passion I have for politics is my disgust with our two-party system, so don't take my words here as toeing some partisan or ideological line.

I also believe there is a distinct disconnect between why Trump supporters think they support him and why they actually do. I've spent four years listening to their reasoning. I've tried to make it make sense. And though entire books can and will be written about this, I've landed on what I see driving Trumpism the most.

Though partisanship certainly plays a role in his number of supporters, the support for Donald Trump isn't about political parties. Yes, there are people who will vote Republican even if they have to hold their nose or sell their soul to do so (same with some Democrats, I would assume). For some people, elections are all about one issue—usually abortion or taxes—so they vote Republican, but Trump hardly represents the traditional party identity.

I mean, let's be real here. Anyone who thinks a serial-adultering, porn star banging, pussy grabbing, charity stealing, student defrauding, non-church-going, faith-mocking, unrepenting man like Trump is a reflection of true conservative values is as delusional as he is. And anyone who thinks that a military-bashing, deficit-building, debt-ballooning grifter is a true Republican is fooling themselves. There's a reason why many lifelong Republicans rejected Trump from the beginning.

Despite appearances, Trumpism isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. Political parties are merely weapons Trump wields in his battle for personal glory. After all, this is a man who changed his political party four times in less than three decades. He's not now and has never been about party.

No, Trump is about Trump. It's what he's always been about and will always be about. He is a textbook malignant narcissist, always and forever obsessed with what will serve his personal need for power, glory, and adulation.

The question then is, how did Trump get 70+ million voters to believe he's all about America or all about them? He did it the same way every demagogue with authoritarian tendencies throughout history has done it—by keeping the message painfully simple, appealing to people's basest human instincts, lying egregiously and relentlessly, and undermining people's faith in the real-world journalism and fact-checking that keep them from being sucked into his unreality.

Let's start with the messaging. Trump's gist is this: "The government is broken. I'm an outsider, but clearly a powerful one because I have money and fame. I alone can fix what's wrong. The problems are simple and are caused by [insert 'other' group—undocumented immigrants, Muslims, Democrats, long-time public servants, etc.] and the solutions are simple too [build the wall, ban them from the country, vote for me—I'll drain the swamp]. Yay, America!"

No matter how ridiculous that all sounds to many of us, there's a significant portion of the country who relish in such simplicity. We don't want to have to think about complicated problems or work through unclear solutions. Making things black and white, removing all the gray area and nuance and complexity from the issues, feels refreshing to a lot of people. It doesn't matter if it's based on falsehoods instead of facts. Keeping problems simple and making it seem like solutions are cut and dry makes people feel safe.

The problem is, in order to reach that simple, safe world, you have to appeal to people's prejudices and fears. People of every persuasion are easy prey for fear-mongering. Prejudices are common, fear is an easy instinct to manipulate, and Trump is shameless about combining the two. Scary caravans of immigrants. Scary Muslims coming in from scary Muslim countries. Scary gang members moving in next door. Scary poor people coming to live in your suburban neighborhood. Scary rioters. Scary ANTIFA.

I know there's some debate about exactly how racist Trump is, but we don't even have to quantify that. It's very clear that he utilizes and allows for racism when it suits his needs. Same with xenophobia. Same with partisan tribalism. Again, Trump is all about Trump. And pushing people's prejudice buttons, indicating when they should feel fear or enmity and then convincing them he'll keep them safe with his simple solution is a strategy that works.

One of the weirdest things for those of us outside of Trumpland, of course, is that it doesn't matter whether anything he says is true at all. His followers don't seem to care that he lies constantly and egregiously. I've heard some try to brush it off as "Oh, all politicians lie," but no, all politicians don't lie like Trump. Trump doesn't just stretch the truth or mislead by creative wording or omission like most politicians. Trump does the Big Lie thing, where if you say untrue things enough times and with enough conviction, people will believe you, even when what you say is verifiably false.

This part of Trumpism gets tricky, because in order for it to work, you have to also successfully discredit the people who hold politicians accountable and fact check them. Hence the outright dismissal of mainstream media. Hence the constant "Fake News!" drumbeat. Hence today's Twitter rampage against Fox News for actually reporting facts instead of constantly praising him. Hence the proliferation of right-wing news outlets that keep going further and further into conspiracy theory land.

Misinformation is Trump's engine and praise and flattery are Trump's fuel. The more he gets, the more he pushes the simple messaging and fear-mongering that give people the brain chemical releases they crave. (If you think people don't like having their fears triggered, there's an entire horror movie industry that disagrees with you.) And the more he gives people what they want, the more they give him what he wants—big crowds and rabid fandom and heaps and heaps of adulation. And so the cycle goes on, with Trump seeing himself in the thousands of faces in the crowd, which serve as narcissistic mirrors in which he sees his power and glory.

Which he then turns around and claims is all for them. And they believe him because at this point, his reality is their reality and real reality doesn't exist anymore.

Of course, not everyone has full-on fallen into the Trump cult. We can't discount the role that good old-fashioned self-interest plays in some people's decision. There are a whole lot of people who simply don't want to pay taxes, don't care who Trump's policies hurt, and think destroying the dignity of the office of the presidency is a small price to pay for filling their own pocketbook. There are also those who will put up with anything if they think it'll "own the libs."

So yeah. Trump's support is not hard to understand. Between playing on people's loyalties, prejudices and fears, and manipulating people with misinformation, Trump's demagoguery works the way it has always worked in other cultured countries throughout history. Americans are not immune to the psychological pull of a "Dear Leader" type—we're just incredibly lucky that this particular demagogue also happens to be an incompetent fool.

I know that Trump supporters will fall all over themselves trying to claim that I've gotten them all wrong here, but here's what they'll miss. If they genuinely believe that a known conman who has embarrassed the country on the world stage and whose pandemic oversight has caused countless American deaths is a truly a better choice than a man with more than four decades in government and who is personally well-liked on both sides of the aisle, then whatever they believe about either Biden or the Democrats is almost assuredly based on misinformation pushed in Trump's unreality.

At this point, you can't support Trump and be living in the same objective reality as the rest of humanity. You really can't. And if you are living in objective reality and chose him anyway? Sorry, but you've got some soul-searching to do.

There's nothing more to be understood at this point.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

election 2020

democrats

Bill Maher made an ominous prediction about Trump supporters and the 2024 election

It's time to flush these 10 meaningless and harmful buzzwords from our politics

AOC reveals more personal details in new harrowing video account of Capitol attack

17 freshmen GOP House members sent President Biden a letter offering to work with him

Expert on tyranny explains the Trump 'Big Lie' you've been hearing so much about lately

Why I regret writing about trying to understand Trump supporters

I've spent 4+ years trying to understand Trump supporters. I'm all done now.

Woman who was pressured to quit her job to raise stepdaughter's baby makes a bold decision

Comedian's viral video perfectly nails how each generation arrives at someone's house

Emily Ratajkowski explains why women are 'obsessed' with Pete Davidson

15 hilarious parenting comics that are almost too real