What will become of the right once Trump is gone?

[Joshe]

I feel like ideological drive will lose steam without Trump. 

Before Trump, they were all fine in their disparate bubbles and we didn't have to resist their lies all the time. Do you think it would go back to that or will the void from Trump's absence create demand for another like him? I worry Tucker Carlson might fill his shoes. 

I'm trying to get an idea of the degree we'll have to resist falsehood after Trump is gone. Any reason to think things will improve or do we just have to wait and see? What do you think is likely? 

[What Am I]

But wouldn't you say that the increased anti-establishment movement is more of a global event occurring in all Western countries? I get how it can appear like Trump is the source of all this when he's so loud in the US, but I think it's likely that's just obscuring a more deep-rooted situation. It's almost as if we're dealing with some kind of species-wide phenomenon, like how historically, breakthrough technologies were mysteriously discovered in different locations of the world at nearly identical times, or the way the beating of the 4-minute mile seemingly triggered many other athletes to perform the same feat.

I'm just making the point that from my perspective, this seems to be a lot bigger than Trump, even though he's the current avatar for it in the US. To answer your questions directly, I predict it will grow rather than shrink. And if something were to happen such as Trump's assassination, I believe it'd grow at a shockingly quicker pace rather than dying with him.

Edited September 20 by What Am I

[Inliytened1]

37 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I feel like ideological drive will lose steam without Trump. 

Before Trump, they were all fine in their disparate bubbles and we didn't have to resist their lies all the time. Do you think it would go back to that or will the void from Trump's absence create demand for another like him? I worry Tucker Carlson might fill his shoes. 

I'm trying to get an idea of the degree we'll have to resist falsehood after Trump is gone. Any reason to think things will improve or do we just have to wait and see? What do you think is likely? 

It will get much better.   Guys like Trump don't come around that often.   I don't want to compare him to Hitler but in terms of rhetoric he is right there.   Most will not stir up this type of radical movement like Trump does. So it will be good when he is gone.

[Raze]

It’ll be taken over by establishment republicans who appear more populist like Ron Desantis or Ted Cruz.

[BlueOak]

Although there has been some pushback, I feel TikTok is still popular enough, it'll still be someone who can put together 5-minute soundbites that go viral. As the population raised on that media ages, it depends how they feel about that type of media. It could be sentimental, it could be still engaged with it, or feeling like they've had enough.

I do feel conspiracy is less powerful but still impactful enough to feed 30% of the population, the Republican base, but they are voting republican regardless.
Anti-immigration is more powerful than ever, which is why they tried to marry the two, but doing so in a farcical way alienates many more Americans than they needed to.

The rhetoric will be more based on housing, energy prices, global security, etc.

For the party (not for the planet who needs to shed this) It's detrimental they ran Trump because it means everyone is reminded of this phase of the republican party, with all the current involved personalities, and the Democrats can still leverage this spectacle next time around. Had it been anyone else and they'd of lost, not only could Trump walk away shining up his ego saying see I was the better choice, the people who supported him would have solidified their positions. Also anyone BUT Trump could have better played the more conservative type of conservative role, all his past wouldn't be an issue, and those 30% that love him would STILL vote Republican, it's not as if they are switching parties as people seem to claim. Sure it fires them up but it also pushes others away.

Trump is the worst person to win over independents. It's almost as if the Democrats need to lose them for the Republicans to win.

Now if and when they lose, all those pro-Trump conspiratorial personalities are going to be further invalidated.

So someone who can fire up the republican base without alienating everyone else is the ideal candidate for them.
 

Edited September 20 by BlueOak

[ici]

I don’t think you understand how this works.

Right-leaning people do not care who it is that shares their values.

Today that’s Trump. Tomorrow it’d be someone else. They’d happily support the next person that hears their voice and understands their concerns.

You focus on Trump too much and not the underlying principles, issues, ideals that people actually care about.

[El Zapato]

With luck, it would go away with him. To me, it is very similar to Texas' closest-to-the-heart dream to secede from the Union.

[Leo Gura]

They will conjure up some new fake populist lunatic.

The American right is addicted to lunacy now and they will not settle for less. 

They will find someone who's totally unqualified, some celeb type like Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan or Elon Musk or Charlie Kirk or Tim Pool.

I predict a new era of internet celeb politicians who are totally ignorant about government but popular with the mouth-breathing masses on social media.

Edited September 20 by Leo Gura

[Alex4]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

They will conjure up some new fake populist lunatic.

The American right is addicted to lunacy now and they will not settle for less. 

They will find someone who's totally unqualified, some celeb type like Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan or Elon Musk or Charlie Kirk or Tim Pool.

I predict a new era of internet celeb politicians who are totally ignorant about government but popular with the mouth-breathing masses on social media.

And then once those celebrities come to power and realize that their magical solutions don’t work or are even inapplicable, they will say, "Oh, I miss those good old days when we had professional politicians dedicated to politics." And the cycle will repeat itself. At least I hope the next wave of professional politicians will be less corrupt; that's something that can't be denied to the populists.

By the way, Leo, your prediction is already coming true. In Spain, there’s the 'Se Acabó la Fiesta' movement (translated as "The Party is Over"), led by Alvise, who gained popularity on social media and has a large Telegram channel. He created a party, and gained enough votes to enter the European Parliament in the last elections. Some of his message is valid, such as the call to end corruption, but he also adopts the typical rhetoric of the far right.

[What Am I]

6 hours ago, ici said:

I don’t think you understand how this works.

Right-leaning people do not care who it is that shares their values.

Today that’s Trump. Tomorrow it’d be someone else. They’d happily support the next person that hears their voice and understands their concerns.

You focus on Trump too much and not the underlying principles, issues, ideals that people actually care about.

A million percent. I'm glad someone else gets it. Somehow, Trump has distracted everyone from the underlying reality, and has made it appear as if the feelings of many millions (from the US and beyond) are all tied to one single man. It's no wonder the desire to make him disappear is at a fever pitch.

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

A million percent. I'm glad someone else gets it. Somehow, Trump has distracted everyone from the underlying reality, and has made it appear as if the feelings of many millions (from the US and beyond) are all tied to one single man. It's no wonder the desire to make him disappear is at a fever pitch.

That's the way political systems are weighted in the media and people's minds, around individual leaders. It's far inferior to a collective body or council in terms of conveying a practical reality. To do that we'd need a council system of at least 12 leaders sharing the spotlight, and bringing into focus more all the institutions of government, and the associated governing bodies that pass law or policy. Then to show people that the government is the people, it's hardest showing the parts of themselves they don't like or resist (often reflected in others).

Only so much of that is possible in short spans of news or the passing of information, So a council, from my perspective, is the most sensible middle ground. It would also allow for more stability than either a democratic president or an authoritarian dictator could provide.

One man or woman cannot adequately represent millions of people even in the people's own minds, they are forever trying to cultivate 'being liked' as opposed to being competent, while dictators are forever suppressing dissent instead. Aside from the practical reality of governing requiring a multitude of people which are heavily influenced by the public themselves. Then people get annoyed when they realize just how many people are involved in either a democracy or authoritarian state from what I can see, and complain about it, but that's how things function.

*NB - Why 12? Can you name 12 senators? To be fair, it'd be easier if they were the joint leaders, but you get the point.

Edited September 20 by BlueOak

[Schizophonia]

@Leo Gura What do you think of Vivek Ramaswamy ? 🤔

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

@Leo Gura What do you think of Vivek Ramaswamy ? 🤔

Makes me wanna vomit.

[Karmadhi]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Makes me wanna vomit.

Why? I saw some interviews of his regarding foreign policy and I noticed that he tended to be very blunt and not sugar coat things.

Basically he said it openly that he will do what serves the US.

Meanwhile the usual politican says "we will do what is right" and in actuality they indeed do what serves the US.

An honest person is always better than a hypocrite, even if you may disagree with his policies and philosophy.

Or did I miss something?

I got no clue about his internal affairs to be honest, just saw his position regarding Israel/Ukraine/Taiwan.

[What Am I]

37 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

That's the way political systems are weighted in the media and people's minds, around individual leaders. It's far inferior to a collective body or council in terms of conveying a practical reality. To do that we'd need a council system of at least 12 leaders sharing the spotlight, and bringing into focus more all the institutions of government, and the associated governing bodies that pass law or policy. Then to show people that the government is the people, it's hardest showing the parts of themselves they don't like or resist (often reflected in others).

Only so much of that is possible in short spans of news or the passing of information, So a council, from my perspective, is the most sensible middle ground. It would also allow for more stability than either a democratic president or an authoritarian dictator could provide.

One man or woman cannot adequately represent millions of people even in the people's own minds, they are forever trying to cultivate 'being liked' as opposed to being competent, while dictators are forever suppressing dissent instead. Aside from the practical reality of governing requiring a multitude of people which are heavily influenced by the public themselves. Then people get annoyed when they realize just how many people are involved in either a democracy or authoritarian state from what I can see, and complain about it, but that's how things function.

*NB - Why 12? Can you name 12 senators? To be fair, it'd be easier if they were the joint leaders, but you get the point.

Yeah, perhaps something like a council of top-level leaders could be a solution to the current celebrity culture. You know things have gone wrong in the US when it's being suggested Oprah or The Rock should become president lol.

[Forestluv]

Vivek Ramaswamy is not an honest broker. Look it his recent interview with Mark Cuban. 

At best he shades and bends the truth. Yet compared to Trump / Vance blatantly making shit up, Vivek might seem relatively honest. 

[Fearey]

10 hours ago, ici said:

I don’t think you understand how this works.

Right-leaning people do not care who it is that shares their values.

Today that’s Trump. Tomorrow it’d be someone else. They’d happily support the next person that hears their voice and understands their concerns.

You focus on Trump too much and not the underlying principles, issues, ideals that people actually care about.

I genuinely don't know if you're trying to make a joke or if you're being serious. Trump doesn't have any values or principles. His moral alignment is to accumulate influence and power for himself. He'd throw his family and everyone close to him under the bus if that meant he'd get his way. Without a second thought.

Edited September 20 by Fearey

[What Am I]

4 minutes ago, Fearey said:

I genuinely don't know if you're trying to make a joke or if you're being serious. Trump doesn't have any values or principles. His moral alignment is to accumulate influence and power for himself. He'd throw his family and everyone close to him under the bus if that meant he'd get his way. Without a second thought.

You literally just did it again, making Trump the sole focus of the anti-establishment movement. If I'm reading ici's post correctly, he's saying what I'm saying, which is that Trump is merely an avatar for a mass public way of thinking. His existence and leadership is almost inconsequential, beyond him being the current head of a long-time-in-the-making movement that predates his existence in politics.

You can demonize Trump all you want, call him names that illicit feelings of severe danger in the populace, or even forcefully remove him from the equation. But you're dealing with something much larger than the fate of a single man. I'm not sure why this isn't more clear to those on the left.

[r0ckyreed]

2 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

An honest person is always better than a hypocrite, even if you may disagree with his policies and philosophy.

Or did I miss something?

You miss that everyone is a hypocrite. Sometimes you have to lie to sustain the illusion. If honesty were introduced into politics, the whole system of BS would collapse. People are honest conditionally. No such thing as unconditional honesty unless you are like Socrates.

Edited September 20 by r0ckyreed

[Fearey]

@What Am I What's the difference between being anti-establishment and being an anarchist? The fact that there are people out there that don't understand basic human nature is wild to me. There always has been, and always will be a small number of people that climb to the highest levels of power. If someone is anti-establishment what they're really saying is that they're anti human.

I guess people are free to be anti what humanity has been about for the last 200 000+ years, but they're going to get nothing but ridicule from me.

Edited September 20 by Fearey