1) Sadopopulism explains how oligarchy—those who seek to have both power and wealth—stay in power. It works like this: Sadopopulist leaders enact policies designed to inflict suffering on the people . . . 2/ Policies such as tax cuts for the rich and eliminating health insurance for millions of Americans creates an abundance of suffering.The leader directs that suffering into anger at the "enemies" (immigrants, minorities, migrants seeking asylum, Democrats, etc." 3/ If the GOP repeals Obamacare, 21 million Americans could lose health insurance Think how many families this will hurt. When families can't afford the medical bills, they'll be thrown into poverty. Loved ones will die unnecessarily. 4/ Trump then channels all that suffering into anger at immigrants, minorities, and the Democrats who champion their rights. See how clever this is? Trump enacts legislation that (1) makes him richer, (2) hurts his constituents and (3) keeps his base enraged. 5/ When the people are suffering, he consoles them by promising that he is hurting their enemies. He's the strongman protecting them from minorities who are displacing them and beggars at the gates who want to take what they have. 6/ NYT reporter Maggie Haggerman explained that Trump’s base “thrills at his fights with the establishment, seeing him as warrior against self-satisfied elites who look down on many Americans.” Yup. "Many Americans" = Whites who feel dispossessed. 7/ What Timothy Snyder is suggesting [when he cites an example of Sadopopulism in action] is that the repeal of Obamacare isn't spite. The repeal of Obamacare part of a larger pattern of policies and legislation specifically designed to inflict suffering on the very people who put Trump into office. 8/ Just before the 2016 midterm elections, Trump tweeted this: "Republicans will totally protect people with Pre-Existing Conditions, Democrats will not! Vote Republican." Now that it's clear the Trump administration is working to repeal all parts of the ACA, you might expect his base to dislike discovering that he lied to them. Nope. They don't mind at all! 9/ Here's the part that is just as bizarre as the effectiveness of sadopopopulism: Trump’s base loves it when he lies. 10/ The authors explain that those who want to destroy the political establishment enthusiastically embrace a “lying demagogue” because they know that the lies are destructive and they want to be destructive. 11/ The reason: They believe the establishment puts the needs of others ahead them, the “real Americans." The best explanation for why Trump’s supporters not only accept but actually cheer his lies comes from Hannah Arendt’s the Origins of Totalitarianism. 12/ When a demagogue’s followers learn that he has lied, “instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.” 13/ If Trump’s supporters believe that the lie [that is the tweet quoted above in point 8] tricked people into voting Republican, they’ll cheer the lie. Scholars Hahl, Kim, and Sivan, in “The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue” explain why Trump’s base loves it when he lies. They will cheer—even though many of them will suffer when Trump makes it harder for them to get health care. 14/ They cheer as Trump and his inner circle enrich themselves at their expense. They cheer the strongman who hurts them and who lies to them because they think he's "protecting them" and hurting their enemies more. There you have it, folks: Sadopopulism. With slight editing, from: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1111271974779518976.html Links to book and reviews referenced herein in this ^^^ link.
You can replace "lies" with "cheats" and it works just as well. As a fan of an NBA team, you probably hated really good players that cheat, until they are on your team. Could explain the trump fans, seeing politics as a sport, where lies and cheat is all okay, especially when they can get away with it and it doesn't penalize their team. Hurting them personally? Just taking one for the team. Trump is the best at golf “To say ‘Donald Trump cheats’ is like saying ‘Michael Phelps swims,'” writes Rick Reilly in the new book “Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump” “He cheats at the highest level. He cheats when people are watching and he cheats when they aren’t. He cheats whether you like it or not. He cheats because that’s how he plays golf … if you’re playing golf with him, he’s going to cheat.” Reilly, a former Sports Illustrated columnist who has played with Trump in the past, spoke to dozens of players — both amateur and professional — to recount some of the president’s worst cons on the course, starting with his declared handicap of 2.8. In layman’s terms, the lower the handicap, the better the player. Jack Nicklaus, winner of a record 18 major golf titles and generally considered the greatest golfer in the history of the game, has a handicap of 3.4. “If Trump is a 2.8,” writes Reilly, “Queen Elizabeth is a pole vaulter.” And Trump doesn’t just tamper with his own balls. During a game with Mike Tirico before Trump was elected, the former ESPN football announcer hit the shot of his life, a 230-yard 3-wood towards an elevated green he couldn’t see. But he knew it was close. When he got to the putting green, however, Tirico’s ball was nowhere to be seen. Instead, it was 50 feet left of the hole in a bunker. It made no sense — until Trump’s caddy caught up with him after the round. “Trump’s caddy came up to me and said, ‘You know that shot you hit on the par 5?’” Tirico says. “‘It was about 10 feet from the hole. Trump threw it in the bunker. I watched him do it.’” Quite why Trump cheats is another matter. He is, by all accounts, a very good golfer for his age (even Tiger Woods was impressed) but seems incapable of playing by the rules. Does he even care? To that, Reilly offers a simple reply. “Golf,” he writes, “is like bicycle shorts. It reveals a lot about a man.”
It's exactly what it is. You hear and see it in their rhetoric, the whole "winning." I'm like are you people idiots. Wooohoo, You're winning over the only other party, the one that was in reign for 8 years and will eventually be back in power after your 8 years. It's like Barcelona FC and Real Madrid fans touting who is better.
I think this is one component. I think another is the lie that people struggles are due to blacks, immigrants, and Muslims. Demagogues need a scapegoat to blame all the problems on, and the fear overpowers rational thought as well. By turning liberals into the boogeyman he makes himself the lesser of two evils. You indeed saw this with Clinton, how people would say Trump is bad, but Clinton was the greater evil.
Violence and racial tensions increased under 8 years of Obama ... even with Obamacare. Trump is not an honest man but he runs a tight ship and this appeals to a lot of people A similar strategy can be laid out for democrats and you can point to veyr liberal zones like SF where middle class is priced out, homeless thrive and there is more economic inequality than anywhere else in America Your extreme bias hurts liberals and that is why trump was elected, backlash against your tunnel vision ... moreso than arbitrary theories
So Trump was elected because San Francisco? You know there are actual studies on the election and why, San Francisco was not in the running. Keep promoting your arbitrary theories though.
It is just as arbitrary as racism being the primary factor His strong stance on immigration is why alot of current immigrants who are citizens voted for him They know the cycle These theories never do ANYTHING Like colin k kneeling, they get hardcore liberals excited and have intellectuals and moderates rolling their eyes If you want real change you have to stop looking at everything with extreme bias
Bullshit mountain. I don't know why but you have led an influx of horrible posters into this forum where facts don't matter and BS rules the day.
More likely, you have a problem with anything that doesn't fit your predetermined narrative A common problem for extremists on both sides
Except that when white right wing extremists commit murders it is just a horrible bad apple and not a problem based on that segment of the population according to Trump. He treats crimes by minority immigrants completely different. When they do it it is because immigrants are supposedly prone to crime and an infestation even though actual stats and research goes against what Trump claims. It is fair to argue that race and ethnicity might part of the root of Trump's rhetoric. We don't know whether or not he believes it or just stokes those bigoted fears.
Yes, both sides. False equivalence is a big part of the wingnut toolbox dontchaknow. I tell you what, post some actual facts and we can discuss that instead if your arbitrary theories based on whatever right wing media you've been consuming.
It's too bad you don't any reading endurance because it's a pretty interesting observation on human behavior. If it makes it go down easier, forget about how it might apply to Trump and think about some of the villains of history -- think about Maduro! -- and how these same phenomena bear out.
"runs a tight ship" is my favorite description of Two Scoops yet. still laughing. Why don't y'all apply a ship captain analogy, and see how that plays out. Tons of sailers leaping overboard, lots of positions unstaffed, abrupt changes of course based on whim... tight!
I don't think the two major political parties are exactly the same or represent the same positions on every matter -- I think it's quite clear that isn't the case, with the exception of two things: the duplicitous means by which they fund themselves and misrepresent their positions with voters, and the unquestioned advocacy of the maintenance of US hegemony with force and at great expense. The good actors that are most outspoken about these things and advocate change are a small subsection of both parties. I can't speak to wingnuts or their media of any stripe, but I know most politicians in DC spend at least half their working time in elected office fundraising because of the high cost of elections and that troubles me a great deal. This then makes them privately beholden to monied interests that compromise whatever they ostensibly are about, and then to their constituents they ramp up culture war stuff and scare them into believing something will be taken away if they vote for the other party. That's not a desirable state of affairs or one that's sustainable for the long term. Having voters submit to lesser-evilism almost always results in voting in evil, and few things improve for the nation for the better. And with all this time devoted to these things, they aren't providing much service to their constituents (regardless if they are people who voted for them), which is their first job. I think if we looked at political candidates as job applicants and voters as participants in a hiring committee, we would focus less on personality and empty rhetoric, or their identity, or who we most identity with, and more on who we think are best suited for a job, we would prioritize by a different criteria and not treat the public interest as a sporting event and dig ourselves into more dysfunction. This is what people in public sector jobs do every week when they make hiring decisions or evaluate the performance of their employees. I see no reason to treat political candidates or politicians any differently, judging them by their individual merits to decide who to hire, and their performance to the main job duties in an assessment of their work, like any other public sector employee. Those good actors in Congress and elsewhere in government,the conspicuous outliers of this practice, if you will, tend to be progressives in the Democratic Party, and the libertarian-leaning in the GOP, which is not hard to see if your political identity is not predicated on tribalism or cults of personality. I disagree with each of them about something (and obviously some more than others), but it's those two specific groups that attend to the banal duties of their office to their constituents, vote on principle, propose legislation that aims to change the status quo for the good of the nation (and not just the interests of themselves, their donors, or their party), be openly critical of bad faith arguments, corruption, and bad legislation, and advocate for a less heavy handed and jingoistic foreign policy. But it is for all these same reasons both groups are purposely excluded from the narrowing Overton window, covered unflatteringly by the press, and treated as pariahs from their own party leadership, who really don't want them disrupting the status-quo-supporting narrative that benefits them and their most stage-managed campaigns.
Great post. I feel a little differently re: the treatment received by progressive candidates by the press or in general. I get that the DNC didn't do Bernie any favors but for the most part it appears (at least to me) that the current slate of potential Presidential contenders are by and large espousing a progressive platform. But that is quibbling (sorry) with an excellent post.
This is all mostly true I'd agree. However, if everyone voted their own economic interests, Republicans could not get elected. Anyway, the problems you cite are solvable but there's a bigger problem that is much more difficult to solve and that is the fact that large swaths of Americans are ignorant, really shitty people. So I see a thread like this talking about sadopopulism and I have to nod my head. This is how empty rhetoric wins the day. I don't know how you solve that one.
