Like others, since late Tuesday night, my phone has been blaring with text messages asking how this could have happened (as some of my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances know, I had been fully convinced that Donald Trump would win this election handily). Instead of responding in detail to every message, I will offer my explanation here.
For 2,300 years, at least since Plato’s Republic, philosophers have known how demagogues and aspiring tyrants win democratic elections. The process is straightforward, and we have now just watched it play out.
In a democracy, anyone is free to run for office, including people who are thoroughly unsuitable to lead or preside over the institutions of government. One telltale sign of unsuitability is a willingness to lie with abandon, specifically by representing oneself as a defender against the people’s perceived enemies, both external and internal. Plato regarded ordinary people as being easily controlled by their emotions, and thus susceptible to such messaging – an argument that forms the true foundation of democratic political philosophy (as I have argued in previous work).
Philosophers have also always known that this kind of politics is not necessarily destined to succeed. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued, democracy is at its most vulnerable when inequality in a society has become entrenched and grown too glaring. Deep social and economic disparities create the conditions for demagogues to prey on people’s resentments, and for democracy ultimately to fall in the way that Plato described. Rousseau thus concluded that democracy requires widespread equality; only then can people’s resentments not be exploited so easily.
In my own work, I have tried to describe, in minute detail, why and how people who feel slighted (materially or socially) come to accept pathologies – racism, homophobia, misogyny, ethnic nationalism, and religious bigotry – which, under conditions of greater equality, they would reject.
And it is precisely those material conditions for a healthy, stable democracy that the United States lacks today. If anything, America has come to be singularly defined by its massive wealth inequality, a phenomenon that cannot but undermine social cohesion and breed resentment. With 2,300 years of democratic political philosophy suggesting that democracy is not sustainable under such conditions, no one should be surprised by the outcome of the 2024 election.
But why, one might ask, has this not already happened in the US? The main reason is that there had been an unspoken agreement among politicians not to engage in such an extraordinarily divisive and violent form of politics. Recall the 2008 election. John McCain, the Republican, could have appealed to racist stereotypes or conspiracy theories about Barack Obama’s birth, but he refused to take this path, famously correcting one of his own supporters when she suggested that the Democratic candidate was a foreign-born “Arab.” McCain lost, but he is remembered as an American statesperson of unimpeachable integrity.
Of course, American politicians regularly appeal more subtly to racism and homophobia to win elections; it is, after all, a successful strategy. But the tacit agreement not to conduct such a politics explicitly – what the political theorist Tali Mendelberg calls the norm of equality – ruled out appealing too openly to racism. Instead, it had to be done through hidden messages, dog whistles, and stereotypes (such as by talking about “laziness and crime in the inner city”).
But under conditions of deep inequality, this coded brand of politics eventually becomes less effective than the explicit kind. What Trump has done since 2016 is throw out the old tacit agreement, labeling immigrants as vermin and his political opponents as “the enemies within.” Such an explicit “us versus them” politics, as philosophers have always known, can be highly effective.
Democratic political philosophy, then, has been correct in its analysis of the Trump phenomenon. Tragically, it also offers a clear prediction of what will come next. According to Plato, the kind of person who campaigns this way will rule as a tyrant.
From everything Trump has said and done during this campaign and in his first term, we can expect Plato to be vindicated once again. The Republican Party’s domination of all branches of government would render the US a one-party state. The future may offer occasional opportunities for others to vie for power, but whatever political contests lie ahead most likely will not qualify as free and fair elections.
*Jason Stanley, Professor of Philosophy at Yale University, is the author of Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future (Atria/One Signal Publishers, 2024). Copyright 2024 Project Syndicate. Here with permission.
128 Comments
Very good article. Should be compulsory reading for all politicians and readers here.
Underneath it all Trump has created expectations. Those expectations are based on the belief by some people, a majority if the election result is truely indicative, that they were better off 2016 - 2020, worse off 2020 - 2024 and will be better off the next four years. The USA at street level is hardly humming with happiness. If the new expectations are not met and don’t look like they will be it is more than likely those that voted for Trump will feel betrayed and turn, rapidly and demonstrably against him. Having said all that, imagine it would take a sizeable volume of work to identify and describe the expectations that will be on the general list.
Donald Trump won because Kamala Harris promised nothing except to not be Donald Trump.
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/11/07/chris-hedges-the-politics-of-cult…
and Bernie Sanders:
https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1854271157135941698
and Bernie again:
https://youtu.be/QVlum0tUsTs
Those that voted for Trump obviously have some belief, expectations that he will improve their lot. Should he do so such voters should quite rightly feel vindicated and appreciative. But regardless of what Harris and the Democrats did or did not offer, delivery of those outcomes are now on Trump’s shoulders and should they not materialise it is hardly likely the same voters will be satisfied with remembering what they didn’t vote for.
They cannot materialise.
When you're well into the last Doubling Time of them all - it's game over.
So all incumbents will get voted out, until the system collapses or someone changes the rules.
Oh some expectations will materialise undoubtedly. It all depends on the level or the characteristics of items of interest or events for which satisfaction is sought. For example a community may well be satisfied with the upending and removal of a sizeable lot of illegal immigrants nearby that they don’t like. Imagine if you travelled around the USA for six months you would canvass a very sizeable ledger of requests, requirements and grievances folk would put forward from trivial to the impossible but whatever they are they will be, across the vast board, of such a myriad as to be an obvious insurmountable proposition.That’s why pre election utterances by politicians are utterly meaningless as it is nothing much more than salesman speak. But you might then arrive at the somewhat sad and unexpected, but nonetheless realistic , comment by here by PM Muldoon that to leave the nation in a state no worse than when you took over is not such a bad thing.
Yes. To illustrate the elitist arrogance of academics.
"In a democracy, anyone is free to run for office, including people who are thoroughly unsuitable to lead or preside over the institutions of government."
Note: I am definitely not a fan of Trump.
I'm not either, but fair to say I am questioning my own world view. I have a family member in Aus heavily involved in Soc Media. She picked Trump based on social media platforms.
Reckons he comes across completely different on social media His podcast interviews were very funny and entertaining. Real contrast to what msm was putting out there.
In contrast, Kamala uncut interview on 60 minutes was leaked and showed her bumbling many questions terribly. When the programme was released they had edited in different responses.
What is truth?
Trump is simply more authentic. He talks, not entirely cogently, but earnestly. Kamala reads flowery language form teleprompters and vets questions prior to interviews. In a nation of 300 million, the president is traditionally a very remote figure. Trump brings it down to earth. I entirely disagree that this is the end of American democracy, and I'd even be willing to place a large bet on that.
Hmmm ... Tell me ... What will Trump do at the end of his 4 year term?
My honest prediction is that JD Vance will run and win the presidency, in a free and fair election. If he (or whatever GOP candidate) loses, Trump will cede power peacefully just as he did in 2020. (Don't give me "but Jan 6" as a response, that was a riot, not a bona fide insurrection.) I have no doubt he'll be loud about it, but that's how he is about everything.
And I hope at that stage that Vance will pick Tulsi Gabbard as his own VP.
"Trump is simply more authentic"
Trump tells blatant lies left right and centre, so I don't think "authentic" is a term that I'd use in describing him.
In contrast, Kamala uncut interview on 60 minutes was leaked and showed her bumbling many questions terribly. When the programme was released they had edited in different responses.
What is truth?
Here it is: the question that was cut and the response that remained;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prZbTxbM4ts
Not 'many questions' as you have claimed - just the one.
Although I'd be really interested if you have a link to the "many questions" to prove what you suggest.
It appears we may have some common ground on an issue.
Is there a more arrogant take on the US election than using Rousseau as a basis that the election was undemocratic because of income and social inequality? The US does have a high Gini coefficient but also has a very high HDI.
Perhaps Cardi B and Megan thee Stallion and various other deeply tainted celebrities were not great vote winners??
I'm no Trump fan either, but it's clear which party had more adults.
"Perhaps Cardi B and Megan thee Stallion and various other deeply tainted celebrities were not great vote winners?? "
They made million$ on their endorsements and do not represent the average voter in any way. Add the lack of votes in primaries, airbrushing of interviews and near total support of the MSM, continuation of the perpetual wars and I think the result was a forgone conclusion.
Who'd ever have thought that having live twerking demonstrations on stage, or getting weirdo celebrities (who have literally nothing in common whatsoever with the average person) to say weird things like 'Dick Cheney is brat', is not a particularly effective vote winning strategy.
Apparently Harris' campaign spent around $1 million on the set for her appearance on the 'Call Her Daddy' podcast (an episode with under 1 million views on YouTube). Trump is up to nearly 50 million YT views on his Rogan podcast. No fancy set, no script, he just rocked up and shot the $hit for 3 hours about all sorts of interesting topics. He got almost 10x more views in the episode clip of him talking with Rogan about UFOs than in her entire choreographed appearance on one of the most successful podcasts in the world.
The more you look, the more you realise it was a rubbish campaign. Perhaps one of the great marketing fails of the modern age, to be honest.
Thankyou Dumbthoughts. Trump is an interesting man and yakked with Joe for 3 hours. Kamala on the other hand wanted a Rogen chat. But would only give him 45 minutes. Rogan declined. He said you cannot possibly do what he does in 45 minutes. And lets face it Rogan is the best broadcaster, interviewer out there.
This opininion piece is rubbish. Facebook came out and said the dems/fbi gave them 400 million to stop people talking about Covid etc in a way that the dems/fbi did not like. So Facebook did it. They gagged and muzzled users.Twitter and Youtube were the same.
Now that Elon has fixed X, democracy is coming back with freedom of speech. The dems hate Elon for it.
Agree. It's why I've always argued for the teaching of the philosophy of ethics. So many philosophers through the ages have given us wisdom that we have all but lost an awareness and an understanding of.
I was really disappointed when I read the NZ curriculum on civics education. The philosophical basis was just not there.
Allow me to retort, Harris and the Democrats spent significantly more than Trump and the Republicans on the election (not only that, she overspent by $20m which Trump has generously offered to cover)
While Trump and Vance spend 6 hours on Rogan, Harris is paying celebrities extortionate amounts to buy their endorsement.
The liberal wailing fails every single test of decency and humility.
Meanwhile, Trump's every utterance, foolish or sound - it made little difference - was carried by media, both mainstream and social media - which is all owned by billionaires ... for FREE.
Methinks you need a better measure than money for how much airtime the respective candidates got.
@Te Kooti - huh? I said nothing about the US election. That's the weirdest retort I've ever had!
Have you got anything to say about my actual post? LOL
I think I replied to the wrong comment!!
One thing about the US - while Trump may like to act like a tyrant, a good portion of the population don't actually believe him. In some respects he must be smarting that some Republicans actually oppose him and not everyone supports him. The "us and them" mentality can put a tyrant into power but also bring them down when they can't deliver. They are still subject to the mob ( and I use that term purposely) .
In the next 10 years, the EU will be "Musilimlized". Canada and the AUS will be "Indianized". The US will become USA, USB, USC and etc...
Look over here.... we have the Treaty.
Don't look over there...where the real time new wave of colonisation is occurring.
I find it notable that the good philosophy professor does not mention the opponents of Trump once.
Where were they ? Have they no ability to counter-act his message ( let us grant for a second that that message is as bad as the professor paints it .. ) ?
Or may be they ( the Dems ) are so awful that the author could not even bring himself to mention them , despite his life-long cheerleading ?
"Where were they ? Have they no ability to counter-act his message?"
Pretty damn hard to get any alternative message out when just about all US media, both mainstream and social media, is in the pockets of the billionaires.
And let's not forget - the billionaire owners didn't need to sink Trump's opposition to the depths of the abyss. It was enough to paint them as weak, say nothing would change with them, while convincing just 1-3% that a 'change' was necessary (when, in effect, nothing much would change).
And under an antiquated and corrupted "first past the post" system - which is what the US has - 1-3% is all that is needed.
Need I also point out that those 1-3% might come from those whose I.Q. would put them in the 'borderline' or below category?
Whatever ... I get it that you don't like facts, nor logic. Not my problem.
"In the pockets of billionaires." - which mostly supported the Dems
The republicans got $879 million in political donations compared to $327 million (democrats) from the top 100 political donors (source).
The total value of her donations is more impressive/sad.
She took in more than $1.2 billion in contributions. Her donors numbered in the millions, including many new to the political process. But in the end, it didn’t matter.
Vice President Kamala Harris lost her bid for the White House on Wednesday despite spending most of the funds on an expansive ground operation, staffing and a flood of ads. President-elect Donald Trump won a second term with half of what Harris’s campaign spent.
I was talking to a friend who is a Trump supporter. He told me "you have to stop listening to the official news". So, to be a Trump supporter, I should disregard journalists who have studied their profession and official news outlets who can be sued for diffamation, in favour of... FB, TikTok and YouTube ?
Correct but you have to remember even most of the MSM media has been corrupted now and is one eyed so that leaves you with very few options. You end up not knowing who to believe unless you saw it first hand.
You're out of touch (again).
Media in the USA, both mainstream and social media, is all owned by a small number of billionaires. And most backed Trump. And the ones that did back the Dems - much fewer in number - threatened to stop backing the Dems when the Dems suggested the rich must pay more tax ... So the Dems dropped that policy ... real fast ... even though it was wildly popular among voting 'Mericans.
Keep drinking the Kool-aid, Zwifter.
So you just proved my point, nice one.
Absolutely. Strangely, Chris does that quite a bit. He starts by disagreeing but then ends up stating the same in different words, Very strange, I suppose he likes to disagree as a principle.
Yup. Being vague, hedging, and generally wasting time, gets my goat.
But let's be clear ... Zwifter, the Grifter, was hedging for likes.
I was talking to my wife the other night about exactly that. She was lamenting the fact that he won. My response was that the only perspective we have of Trump is essentially the MSM that reaches NZ. Chris and Zwifter make good points on the reliability of alternative sites, and the difficulty of determining what is fact or not (or worse; a little fact mixed with a lot of fiction) and provide the primary reasons we tend to avoid them. Even the Trump campaign tried false endorsements, and people still voted for him, giving more weight to Jason's article. Many people in the US clearly have a very different perspective of the man, and we just don't see that here.
But it's crazy, people complained they couldn't trust their politicians, that they were all liars, yet they voted in droves for the biggest liar of all. And there was no subtlety about his lies. Go figure.....
The USA electorate is so vast and complex, so corrupt and convoluted it is impossible to appraise it convincingly from either inside or outside. Having lived and worked there for a short while and with admittedly no other qualification, it seems that what impacts on and affects the population moves like large waves rolling up and over folk whether or not they are giving any matter any great thought. That suggests why for instance, the nation is so inexplicably prone to conspiracy theories. To put it over simplistically, often it appears to be little more than a general reflex, a situation of jumping on the band wagon before the band wagon jumps on oneself.
I think a huge global issue is that people are losing trust of institutions so much that they will only believe things that they intuitively agree with. Eventually their social media algorithms will push them into consuming more and more extreme content and they have no way of getting out because any contradictory information is deemed to be propaganda.
Emotive reasoning
Are you saying Here.for.the.c… is wrong?
Let's be clear, under the USA's antiquated and corrupted "first past the post" system - which is what the US has - 1-3% is all that is needed to take any election. Need I also point out that those 1-3% might come from those whose I.Q. would put them in the 'borderline' or below category?
So tell me ... Is he wrong?
Earth to Chris - Trump also won the popular vote.
...and now he has to deliver.
So what? Is it really a real choice when a vote for either party would change sweet f##k all?
Rest assured, the wealth gap will continue to grow, the federal deficit will spiral further, and the middle class will shrink, poverty will increase ... and the possibility for a very real crunch continues to grow ever more likely by the day.
That darling of the Left , "champion of change and working class " Bernie Sanders got even fewer votes than Kamala in his state .. but of course that just little detail .
You know Bernie Sanders wasn't on the Presidential ticket, right?
You know he was standing for a Senate post, right?
You also know he won with 63.3% of the vote, right?
What was the point of your post, paashass?
Surely it wasn't just to make a fool of yourself?
Yes, Kitchen table economic issues won the day for Trump--but that was far from it. A RNZ reporter in Arizona hit the nail on the head when he heard a Trump supporter characterize the election as "The Revenge of the Normies". Normal people (Trump won the majority of the Families win incomes under NZ$170,000 yr and he won the majority of married women-- but lost bigglie the "cat ladies vote". The most effective ad Trump ran was Kamela Harris bragging about her being the reason prisoners--even illegal aliens prisoners-in California could get State funder gender change surgery in prison. That and poor people in the inner cities feeling the repercussions of the border invasion in their neighbourhoods and schools. The Elites pushing that agenda were thoroughly repudiated and the Democratic analysts have been all over the News programs saying the same. There was more to the win than hope for better incomes and lower costs. It was a revenge against "Scraton Joe" whose administration was hijacked from the start--and has anyone heard from the Obamas'? Not a word.
Perhaps I should have been clearer - what is being described is emotive reasoning - I feel bad about (insert idea here), therefore it must be bad and banned - when in fact the world is full of nuances.
Ok but where did I comment anything like that?
I am not saying you - the process you describe of echo chambers.
Great comment, Here.for...
You may be labouring under the misapprehension that professional bodies requiring qualifications exist to uphold standards rather than to protect their turf or exlcude qualified but dissenting practioners. Examples of this are easy to find in most disciplines such as science, law, medicine, architecture, building etc.
Indeed well known journalists have been denied access to the press gallery for their unfavorable reports.
If dissent did not represent truth when the accepted wisdom was just wrong we would remain mired in mysticism.
In a conversation with my brother - he criticized me for getting my news from the wrong sources. So I asked what news outlets should I follow - he said Twitter/X.
From the context it seem to me that you find it pretty outrageous ( correct me if I am wrong ) .
Can you explain why - everybody ( Left , Right , Middle ) is on Twitter/X ? Or should we all just get our news from fair and balanced CNN \ sarc ?
Are you one of those people who don't understand that your twitter feed - and FB feeds - are carefully manipulated by two of the richest people on earth?
everybody ( Left , Right , Middle ) is on Twitter/X
Not me :-) Cannot be bothered with it personally. The world is getting more and more saturated with things that suck your attention and time down the drain, of which it is one.
Me either. Had an account as my brother used to post his poetry on there - but then he got his account suspended (posting/re-posting conspiracy theories I assume) and on the day Musk's purchase was confirmed I closed my account.
Closing your account won't help. The echo chamber will survive. And it will suck more in. Until it collapses. Much like any cult.
But by then .... It may well be - way, way too late. History, sadly, has a history of repeating.
It WAS an echo chamber. All free thought was etched out. Kate confirmed it. Her brother was biffed off. It doesnt matter what his thoughts were. He was not free to express them . Now he is. Perhaps its people like you that think only your way of thinking should be allowed to be expressed. Elon bought Twitter so everyone could go back to saying what they want.
I am not suggesting that mainstream media is perfect or neutral. But I would like to ask, honestly and without sarcasm, "what is the better alternative for a source of news?" I'm genuinely looking forward to some answers and suggestions, hopefully supported by a solid reason why.
I think people need to actively seek out alternative news sources. YouTube is the best place. If there is a riot going on in Southport or Amsterdam you will be able to find someone on the ground reporting on it first hand. Build up a diverse list of YouTube subscriptions and try and get a balanced and informative view from all angles. You will get a feel for who is genuine. I follow a large number of channels of both left and right persuasion. Avoid the large mainstream news sources except for initial, quick and dirty, updates. They are a good place to start learning about a news story but if you want to go deeper and seek out the truth you will need to do your own searching for deeper analysis. The algorithm will assist your search as well.
I respectfully disagree for YouTube being a reliable source of news. I'm saying this because I have tried to get a varied source of views from YouTube, for many months about the war in Ukraine. I have given up. There is the RT or TOI type of Russian backed news or the Western news and the nutters. I can decide to follow one, and algorithms will feed my bias endlessly. There are also multiple YouTubers with a chip on their shoulder, or with an agenda, or with the IQ of a peanut. I cannot see how these "news" can be more reliable than say Interest.co.nz. All they do is to confirm what we like to hear, whatever that is.
There's a huge amount of content and in-depth analysis from both sides and in-between regarding the war in Ukraine. No one is going to have the whole story until it's all over and the armies have completed their regimental histories, soldiers their biographies, historians their books and so on. However, you can get a lot of current information about the state of the front lines and the weapons being used. You can find numbers of aircraft, tanks and so on lost. There's a lot of battle video available online. Of course, this is an active war so discretion and plenty of salt is advised. Truth is the first casualty of war after all.
If this is the left's summation of why they lost the election, they'll be out of office for a very long time. The media and academics have for some reason gone down the pathway of talking down to the public, rather than engaging with the public to understand how & why they feel they way they do about politics. Theory versus reality is very different. The public are much smarter than what the media and academics imply with these types of articles.
Have a look and see how rich Obama, Clintons and Pilosi is……
Dem party no longer for working man and woman.
Yup, the party of rich woke folk who love telling the working class what they can and can't do. Kiwi's sort of let it slide when politicians start meddling in their daily lives...American's are on a whole other level and simply don't put up with it.
....but the right is just as woke.
There are cohorts in society who have never really had their opinions and values challenged, which may have led to the current arrogance in the Left.
When we have prime time tv such as the View with their hard line views calling men racist and mysogenist, all the way out to feminists who are disappointed Margot Robbie didn't abort her baby boy - completely unchallenged by the media. They are incredulous the general public didn't just do what they were told and fall in line.
This is the long overdue wake up call, no one cares what you think and your platform is legacy media.
So lets be clear here, Trump can only do two terms under the current constitution right ? He will be the true dictator when he tries to stay on this time.
I presume you will acknowledge that this comment was rubbish when the reality plays out and Trump simply hands over the Presidency to whoever wins the next election?
While also receiving a pardon, for all past and future acts, for life?
Hi Chris, when do you think you'll accept the result and move in? You seem to be hung up on it, getting a bit repetitive now.
I have accepted the result.
It came as absolutely no surprise to me. Voter's weren't really presented with any choice whatsoever.
However, I'll give up posting about the bigger picture when a) I'm proved wrong with some facts, or b) stop reading superficial comments that completely miss the bigger picture because recency bias is so strong among those who spend far too much time reading what they've been fed on social media.
Its OK - will be like the Dems - try and hand off to another close family member - Don Jr anyone?
Or alternatively he can take a leaf out of his mate Vladimir's book and rewrite the law to remove that requirement.
Do you think he'll try?
Ironically it was the Republicans that introduced the limitation of the presidency to two terms. They were outraged that FDR had ignored two terms as being accepted practice by both parties. Of course WW2 raging and that FDR had several Republicans in his office, created unusual circumstances. However I think changing it away from that now would be near to impossible to get through the senate.
ps. just looked it up. The 22nd Amendment 1951 defines the two year limit. To repeal it both Congress & Senate would require a two thirds majority and then it would require the agreement of three quarters of the States.
If the GOP control both houses, which it looks like they will, then it'd get through right?
Well according to my arithmetic would need to have the votes of 345 out of 535 in Congress and 66 out of 100 in the the Senate. Of course there are independents and opposing political members can cross the floor. After that 38 of the 50 States would need to agree.
not if as mentioned, you need 2/3 of both houses (and 3/4 of the states)
If you are disputing my calculations, then just as well and I apologise. No excuse, should have first found my reading glasses though. How about Congress 357 out of 535, Senate 67 out of 100 and the States 38 out of 50?
I think he will try. He was already warming people up for it suggesting it a while ago:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they-wont-have-…
But he is really old, so he will have to put in place some plan so that his children inherit the reins of power. He could also do it shadow style if changing the constitution doesn't work, promote a family member heavily to follow on from him while still ruling from behind the scenes.
Blobbles. I don't think you understand the US system of Government designed by 18th Century British rebels. They set about to make it hard to pass laws. Thus 3 chambers of Government have to pass a bill for it to become law. They set up the Senate to slow things down. They wrote the Constitution so that no Government could change things abruptly. Since the Bill of Rights was added-the first 10 Amendments less than 20 Amendments have been passed by the States in nearly 250 years. . Bottom line--what can't happen-won't happen. The US system is the opposite of a Parliamentary Democracy without a written Constitution.
one has to define democracy first. if it means everyone has equal say in decision making for a society, or essentially has equal rights to resources, then democracy has never happened.
the reality is that, no all persons in society enjoys the same privilege, nor resources. not even remotely equal.
In America's case, America was always controlled by elites, and the money. the agenda's already being set before it's reached voters' choosing by voting.
one has to define democracy first. if it means everyone has equal say in decision making for a society, or essentially has equal rights to resources, then democracy has never happened
Neither of those are even remotely a definition of democracy.
I don't mind you find my understanding of democracy poor.
however, can someone please clarify the definition of democracy?
A list of some accomplishments:
https://youtu.be/5SzYikDkLQQ?t=527
United States of America: You're Hired!
The fact that Trump was able to be elected indicates that their democracy is still strong. The democrats will re-take power next time if they do some serious soul searching and kick-out the Obama and Clinton influence etc.
They probably need to go back to before Carter (who is somehow still alive) to shake off the neoliberal idea that the market is magic and makes everything better
And due to 'recency bias', people will blame Trump and the current generation when it all collapses.
But in actual fact it began with one of the supposedly 'great' US presidents ... Ronald Reagan.
For it was he that sold the fallacious 'trickle down theory' and enabled the wealth gap to rapidly accelerate with massive tax cuts for the wealthy and tiny tax cuts for the plebeians so they remained fooled and ignorant of what was really afoot.
Yes a lot of people seem to think Trump is some sort of wild departure from the Republicans when in 2016 his positions were more moderate than many of the establishment Republican positions e.g. it was standard for Republicans to campaign on:
- Federal Abortion ban
- More wars in the middle east
- Disestablishing social security
- Banning same-sex marriage
The main things he was more extreme on was immigration, and his rejection of free trade.
He is much more a continuation of Republican positions with a veneer of populism than any great departure from the core Republican positions.
Dreadful opinion piece and something I would expect from one of the bastions of woke, Yale. Seems like Jason Stanley is cherry picking a few philosopher observations to form his clearly obvious contempt for Trump and the 'deplorables' that voted 'the wrong way.'
People like Stanley are those who would have thought Harris was a shoo-in. All the brand-name political analayst polls suggested as such or that it would have been a 'close race' at worst. People like Stanley would have been the fist to belittle the likes of Polymarket as it doesn't fit comfortably within his ivory tower understanding and acceptance.
You seem triggered . I find this fascinating - people getting so wound up about anything that is said about (insert person, belief or idea here) when I believe (when I last checked) we are in a free society where we can believe what we want and question what we want.
(except if you are a journalist asking the government awkward questions that my embarrass)
You seem triggered
But I'm not. I also expected Trump to lose but thought it was possible he could win. Unlikely Stanley, I practice what I preach about philosophy: "all I know is that I don't know." I have no emotional triggers for either Trump or Harris.
Do I think that people like Stanley's opinions should be aired because he's a Professor at Yale? For sure. I have utmost respect for academics. But it's also important to remember that even in at the highest levels of academia, people can be rejected for 'wrong think'. In fact, it's a major problem across the Anglosphere.
That is the point I am trying to get across - there seems to be an idea that there is "correct think" and it is pushed by both sides.
Did we read the same article?
Have you read Plato’s Republic or Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract or Discourse on Inequality, both covered (among others) when I did Social Philosophy 101 many, many years ago? (I still have the books.)
I guessing not. Had you, you'd see exactly where Stanley is coming from.
"Them's that don't study history are doomed to repeat it."
I guessing not. Had you, you'd see exactly where Stanley is coming from.
"Them's that don't study history are doomed to repeat it."
OK. Like saying Hitler rose to power because of socio-economic discontent. Trump rose to power because of socio-economic discontent.
So from this, do I infer that Trump is Hitler?
It's not reduction ad absurdum. It's a question with the answer being 'no'. It doesn't follow that Trump is like Hitler because both rose to power through socio-economic discontent.
You should understand terms before using them.
Sure ... I still maintain it remains a Reductio ad absurdum.
Unless you agree your arguments supports the view that Trump could become a Hitler.
You won't. Ergo, it is a Reductio ad absurdum.
Maybe just a big fan given his bedtime reading of Hitler's collected speeches?
Why not ? Even Trumps VP called him Hitler at one point in time. The Parallels are obvious. World events got Trump elected its that simple.
Immigrants, feminists and trans were Trumps scapegoats. The disaffected male ego his brownshirts.
Funny that democracy is deemed to have failed just because your preference didn't win.
"The future may offer occasional opportunities for others to vie for power, but whatever political contests lie ahead most likely will not qualify as free and fair elections."
Bold claim with not much to back it up. Last time I looked, Trump only has four more years in office unless he plans to change the rules.
The Republican Party’s domination of all branches of government would render the US a one-party state.
This is a stupid claim. A one party state is a state that only has one party to vote for at election time. One party attracting so many votes is a reflection on the losing party. This is what democracy is. Two parties holding the power in balance is often seen as a failing of the Western democratic system. We are usually pleased when a party makes a clean sweep. This happens because the losing party has drifted so far out of touch with the majority of the electorate. The losing party should have very little influence in the next term.
The end of US democracy was all too predictable
Was the homepage headline for this article misinformation or disinformation?
This is disappointingly poor from a professor of philosophy. Amongst other things, one party having simultaneous control of different branches of government is not how a 'one-party state' should be defined.
My hot take: Trump won because he's a clown, an entertainer, and people don't take the notion that he will become an actual dictator seriously. Maybe they should, but I don't think they do, or they wouldn't have voted for him.
Harris was a vote for the status quo. She was offering absolutely nothing except not being Donald Trump.
If you're unhappy with the status quo - particularly if you feel like politics no longer seems to have an actual effect in the real world, that events are driven by market forces and entropy rather than what politicians try to do - then it might make more sense to vote for an unpredictable clown, who might somehow, even accidentally, change things for the better, than to vote for the certainty of continued decline.
I just hope that those Trump voters' judgment - that he is not dictator material, but a hyperbolic showman - proves correct; and that the next election offers the USA a far better set of candidates to choose from.
People voted for Trump because their wallets were empty. If inflation had not taken off, people had not lost jobs and their standard of living went up instead of taking a crash dive, Trump would have never got in. Its all about the money at the end of the day and they think Trump can take them back 4 years but I'm betting he can do way better than that, probably the stone age.
definitely agree look at the anti-incumbency bias in the last couple of years or here for a graph
Good article.
What a lot of commentators are saying "Oh, you are just upset your candidate didn't win" is wrong, the article is on point.
- Only one of the candidates has openly said "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote".
- Only one of the candidates has had a lot of his ex-supporters come out against him saying that he will be a disaster as he wants absolute power
- Only one of the candidates has expressed a desire to use the military internally to find and destroy "the enemy within"
These are all verified quotes from Trump himself, not "MSM reporting bias" or some such argument.
Trump is openly courting dictatorship/authoritarianism. Kamala was hapless/hopeless, but at least not a wannabe dictator? If trump was your preferred candidate and you can't see through your own political bias to see he is directly threatening democracy in the USA, then there is something really wrong with your ability to judge information in an unbiased way, to make logical conclusions or to understand the way this has played out before throughout history.
Trump talks a lot of bs that he doesn't carry out. For example, he was going to jail Hilary, and later said that she was ok and he never intended to do so. He raved about building a wall, but in reality it was just a continuation of a wall that had been gradually built over many decades.
He also talks about a lot of stuff he does carry out. So which is it this time I wonder? Could go either way...
Are we going to get David "the boy who cried Trump" Cay Johnston back to make doomy Trump predictions again?
Trump wants to run the US like a banana republic
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/97762/dcreports-david-cay-johnston-s…
I asked ChatGPT to create a right-leaning summary of the article ... I got this:
From a right-leaning perspective, this analysis could be seen as an attempt to pathologize the appeal of populist movements, particularly those tied to Trump. Critics often claim that Trump's rhetoric is divisive, but supporters view it as a necessary pushback against an entrenched political establishment that has ignored the concerns of ordinary Americans. Trump’s willingness to speak plainly and challenge the so-called "elite" is seen as a sign of strength rather than demagoguery.
Additionally, the article’s prediction that a “tyrant” like Trump could eventually dominate the U.S. political system reflects a typical left-wing concern about authoritarianism, but many on the right would argue that Trump’s leadership, far from signaling a descent into dictatorship, represents a much-needed recalibration of American politics—a challenge to political correctness, entrenched bureaucracy, and globalist agendas.
While the author warns of a one-party system under Trump’s rule, many conservatives would argue that Trump's approach, while unconventional, is a necessary reaction to what they see as the failure of the political establishment to represent the interests of working-class Americans. The fears of a collapsing democracy often reflect elite anxieties over the erosion of their influence, not necessarily the death of American democracy itself. Many on the right view Trump's presidency as an expression of the will of the people—pushing back against the growing left-wing dominance in media, academia, and cultural institutions.
And the left-leaning one ...
The article examines how the rise of populist figures like Donald Trump fits into the long-standing warnings of philosophers such as Plato and Rousseau about the dangers of demagogues in democratic societies. Drawing from Plato’s Republic, the author argues that democracy becomes vulnerable when inequality deepens, creating fertile ground for leaders who manipulate public fear and resentment. In the case of Trump, the article highlights how his rhetoric plays on division and scapegoating, particularly targeting immigrants, minorities, and political opponents, in a manner that directly contradicts the norms of civil discourse and democratic values.
The piece suggests that Trump’s political strategy has broken with the tacit agreement that once prevailed in American politics, where even conservative politicians like John McCain refrained from openly stoking racial or cultural divisions. Instead, Trump’s explicit use of "us vs. them" rhetoric—calling immigrants "vermin" and labeling his opponents as enemies—has shattered any remaining boundaries of political civility, enabling a more dangerous form of populism. This is framed as a manifestation of Plato’s prediction that leaders who rely on fearmongering and identity politics ultimately endanger the fabric of democracy itself.
The article also draws attention to the systemic inequalities in American society, particularly wealth inequality, which it argues undermines social cohesion and makes people more susceptible to the manipulations of demagogues. It warns that America’s failure to address these disparities creates conditions ripe for authoritarianism, where the democratic process becomes less about healthy competition and more about consolidating power through division.
Finally, the author echoes the philosophical concern that leaders who rise through these divisive tactics—like Trump—are often on a path to tyranny. The article predicts that, under a Trump-led government, the U.S. could evolve into a de facto one-party state, with elections that may no longer be free and fair. From a left-leaning perspective, this highlights the urgent need to confront the forces that enable Trump-style populism, including economic inequality, the erosion of democratic norms, and the unchecked power of a political elite that thrives on division.
The piece ultimately serves as a cautionary tale, warning that unless these structural issues are addressed, the U.S. could face a grim future where democracy is hollowed out by the very forces that have allowed figures like Trump to rise to power.
Which of the two do people think better reflects what mattered to the average voter in the US ... keeping front and center the view that voter's primary concerns were a) the economy and b) the cost of living?
Why did I do this?
Just so you'd be aware that A.I. could be creating comments on this forum - or any other for that matter - and you'd be never be any the wiser.
Hmmm ... And if I was to create a trump supporters nasty reply to the article using no more than 200 words?
This article is just another pathetic attempt by the left to vilify Donald Trump and his supporters. The author completely ignores the real reason Trump rose to power: he's the only one brave enough to stand up to the corrupt establishment that has been running this country into the ground for decades. The so-called “division” they’re whining about is simply the people finally fighting back against the elites who’ve ignored us for too long.
Trump doesn’t need to play by their rules of political correctness. He speaks the truth that the establishment is too scared to say: we need stronger borders, we need to put America first, and we need to reject the globalist agenda. This isn’t about “tyranny”—it’s about taking power back from the people who’ve been selling us out.
The left is terrified of Trump because he’s a threat to their power. They know their globalist, identity-politics-driven agenda is dying, and they’re using every trick in the book to smear him. The real tyrants are the ones trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Trump is fighting for freedom, and that’s exactly why we support him.
A.I. in public discourse is going to be friggin' awesome, right?
A lot smarter than the average interest.co commenter. We're doomed!
Yes, it's an amazing tool. But it comes down to the question.
For example, if you ask it the question, "Is the premise of the argument in the analysis supported by historical evidence" the response would be interesting - although not sure AI is there yet.
Try it.
I had already.
What a piece of liberal elite nonsense!
Instead of being gracious in the face of a trouncing, the team that called anyone who wouldn't support them: racist, misogynistic, bigoted, "weird" and "garbage" now try to claim their own moral superiority!
If using rhetoric makes a tyrant, then it's the Democrats who are the tyrants.
Just more of the same "end of democracy" nonsense. Little wonder they lost.
There's a lot of projection coming from the anti-Trump brigade.
Yup.
They're hugely triggered by the fact Trump will make no difference to the inevitable.
This is sometimes called "buyer's regret".
But in this instance - we need a whole new name.
We can get all emotional about Democracy, but the Electoral College stands as a counterpoint as the Founding Fathers intended. Technically the Founding Fathers established a Constitutional Republic, which shouldn’t be confused with Democracy.
Now, we may also get emotional in terms of hating Trump or loving Trump; but frankly at this point it does not matter if you are “Blue Team” or “Red Team” or, never been interested in politics – nothing can change what is/has been in place since circa 2016.
The United States of America is under Martial Law [Military Occupation] with suspension of the United States Constitution. You’ve been witnessing a Continuity of Government under Military Laws & Orders; with Donald J Trump as sitting war time President, ergo Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
Technically the DASH [-] on Trumps MAGA cap ’45-47’ represents the Military Operation [Government in Exile] happening before our very eyes. Please understand #46 “Biden” & “Harris” et al., are not real – this is all kabuki theatre ergo A SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION. So, sit back eat your popcorn and enjoy the rest of the movie - because now through to January 6, 2025 & January 20, 2025 will be epic. A Renaissance is coming. . .
Um. The Founding Fathers saw the USA as a Republic.
I.e. where the plebeians (i.e. those entitled to vote, which at that time excluded women, blacks, and many others) voted for far smarter representatives that would eventually make everyone's lives better.
Question from Rob Sidon (Editor/Publisher of Common Ground Magazine) to ChatGPT:
“If you were going to take over society and keep humanity from reaching its full enlightened potential, how would you do it?”
ChatGPT's Response:
"If I were tasked with such a hypothetical scenario, here’s how a plan might unfold, focusing on limiting critical thinking, fostering dependence, and creating divisions. It’s worth noting that these are purely hypothetical ideas meant to illustrate ways control might be maintained, not strategies I endorse.
1. Control Information
- **Limit Access to Knowledge**:
Restrict information that promotes independent thought and critical thinking. Filter or censor educational content, history, and scientific knowledge to align with a certain narrative.
- **Spread Misinformation**:
Saturate media with conflicting information so people struggle to discern what’s true. This would lead to confusion and disillusionment, making it easier to control public perception.
- **Encourage Entertainment Over Education**:
Prioritize mindless entertainment and distractions over meaningful content. Make it more appealing to consume entertainment rather than engage in self-improvement or intellectual pursuits.
2. Encourage Division
- **Amplify Social and Political Divides**: Foster division by encouraging people to define themselves primarily by their differences. Promote an "us vs. them" mentality to keep groups focused on each other rather than on larger systemic issues.
- **Exploit Cultural Tensions**:
Use propaganda to stoke fears and prejudices, dividing society along cultural, racial, or ideological lines. In doing so, people are less likely to unite for a common cause or question those in power.
3. Undermine Critical Thinking
- **Encourage Surface-Level Thinking**: Emphasize quick conclusions, superficial analysis, and emotional reactions over rational discourse. Discourage open debates or dissenting opinions.
- **Minimize Education on Logic and Philosophy**: Remove or reduce curriculum that encourages critical thinking, logical reasoning, and philosophical exploration, which can challenge the status quo and encourage independent thought.
4. Foster Dependency
- **Promote Dependence on Technology**: Make daily life increasingly reliant on technology and centralized systems that are controlled or monitored. Encourage people to store their data, memories, and even health records in centralized systems to limit privacy and autonomy.
- **Create Economic Dependency**:
Cultivate an economy where people are dependent on a few corporations or institutions for employment and essential goods. Limit opportunities for self-sufficiency or small business growth, making it harder for people to function independently.
5. Erode Personal and Spiritual Growth
- **Downplay Individual Purpose**:
Promote the idea that individual lives are only significant in terms of material success, and downplay personal development, spiritual growth, or the search for meaning.
- **Subdue Creative Expression**:
Restrict or commercialize creative outlets, making them less about personal expression and more about conforming to a standardized form of entertainment or profit.
Each of these tactics is designed to erode autonomy and discourage the pursuit of knowledge, enlightenment, and unity. This thought experiment highlights the importance of staying aware, valuing critical thinking, and fostering connections with others to counter potential threats to individual and collective freedom.”
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.