«please explain again what was so bad about Trump?»
There are two different aspects to that:
* The politics: a right-wing "nationalist one-nation tory" in the tradition of Ross Perot and Part Buchanan, therefore entirely incompatible with the right-wing "globalist individualist whig" politics of the dominant business elites.
«please explain again what was so bad about Trump?»
There are two different aspects to that:
* The politics: a right-wing "nationalist one-nation tory" in the tradition of Ross Perot and Part Buchanan, therefore entirely incompatible with the right-wing "globalist individualist whig" politics of the dominant business elites.
* The person: a "low-brow", television-infused, salesman profile, therefore entirely incompatible with "high brow" (and "middle brow"), printed-word, intellectual profile of the dominant academic and political elites (so perfectly embodied by Barack Obama).
“What did we learn from the failed TRUMP experiment? (cont) Someone in office, like a High Priest of Baal, a Patriarch, a doge, a judge, or a mafia don, must observe a certain decorum & a certain ornamental deportment. This holds even more true in a secular democracy. #Lindy”
I think much of his political persona was an act. Watch his older interviews or read any of the hundreds of testimonies from his employees going back decades and it is not the same persona. Not even close.
How is that not covered by "televisual salesman"? How is that different from most other politicians and entertainers?
«going back decades and it is not the same persona»
I would question that, as he has always been a crass cable-tv style of celebrity, and always an "America Firster" like Perot and Buchanan.
But over the decades both his politics and his personality did not cause extreme reactions of disgust and rejection, at most amused dismissal: that changed quite a lot when it became clear that his personality and politics were politically influential to the point of being about to win, and then winning, the presidency.
Trump's brand of 'low-brow' was definitely incompatible for a non-zero amount of people with perfectly 'low-brow' tastes, not just elite types. Maybe not enough to make it worth mentioning in your analysis, but I know plenty.
«Trump's brand of 'low-brow' was definitely incompatible for a non-zero amount of people with perfectly 'low-brow' tastes»
Probably you are thinking of "middle brow" tastes.
But anyhow I can imagine many "low brow" disagreeing with him or not liking his specific way of being "low brow", but the question was "what was so bad", that is why the reactions of extreme disgust as to the person and extreme rejection as to the politics.
For the extreme rejection as to the person I think it was a feeling of personal humiliation by "high brow" and "middle brow" people as to having a "low brow" "orange baboon" as their superior, because he did not get that extreme reaction when he was just a "celebrity".
No, not thinking of middle brow. He certainly got that reaction from people when he was a 'celebrity'. I know poors that swear, cuss, cheat, show up in jeans or shorts, drink slaughterhouse runoff, etc with very little respect for middle or high brow society (including the law sometimes) that were repulsed by him since his gawdy appearance in the '80s, full of himself in his gold penthouse talking to Robin Leech thinking he's some kind of genius - the irony thick enough to cut with a knife. A fair amount of people have always found him to be another big grifting dumbass trying to bloviate by on his inheritance and fake sounding last name. To be clear, none of these people had any use for Clinton either. My only point is the disgust was certainly present among lower 'brow' society, but I'm leaning on personal experience here, not polling or 'science', so I accept it may seem impossible.
«A fair amount of people have always found him to be another big grifting dumbass trying to bloviate by on his inheritance and fake sounding last name.»
Ah sure, but that is simply trying to explain why he was "bad", not "so bad". Those people despised him, but did not and still do not suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, they don't say "literally Hitler", "threat to democracy itself", and streams of character assassination and distortions of whatever he does and says, including describing him as both a childish idiot and a monstrous conspirator. Your low-brows merely “were repulsed by him since his gawdy appearance in the '80s”.
Consider this deranged example instead, of thousands and thousands:
«The one thing missing from the typical NPR talk show is truth, naked, raw, unqualified, unapologized for truth. In the discussion today, the guests were being asked to speculate on the reasons for certain of Trump’s recent statements and actions: the congratulatory call to Erdogan, the invitation to Duterte, the rather unanticipated statement that he would be “honored” to meet with Kim Jong-un. Why would Trump speak in this way about rulers who murdered their own countrymen, even their own relatives, rigged elections, oppressed opponents, threw reporters in jail?
One after another, guests speculated that Trump was trying to upend long-standing American foreign policy, or was speaking thoughtlessly, or had some hidden negotiating strategy in mind. To each of these guests, Johnson responded courteously, respectfully, clearly signaling that these were just the sorts of sober, serious, thoughtful comments he wished to encourage. Then it happened. One of the guests, I do not know whom it was, said quietly, “I think it is envy.” Johnson erupted almost before the words had been uttered. In a loud, flustered voice, he burst out, “But you cannot mean that you think he would like to do those things! But, but, but, surely you do not mean that.” Johnson went on in this way, speaking over his guest, who was trying, so far as I could hear, to say “Yes, I think that is just what he wants to do.”
It was so manifestly, obviously, undeniably true, and at the same time so nakedly partisan, that it made Johnson’s head explode. It was, in its simplicity, the truest thing I had ever heard on NPR.»
<they don't say "literally Hitler"> actually, I know very few people of any brow in real life who felt this way, unless they were hiding it from me (and there's no reason I can think of one might conceal that from me). I know a few, but largely from academics down to landscapers and weed growers, people I knew who didn't care for Trump simply thought he was a gaudy, self-centered hypocrite too dumb to pull off a Hitler. What's funny is I know as many high-brow university educated country club engineers that are outspoken Trump supporters (they will move heaven and earth to explain away Trump's abrasions, like my conservative Christian friends) as I do sunburned construction workers that love him - the whole brow distinction just isn't a strong trend in my reality, I would never make an assumption about what someone thought about Trump based on 'brow', I've found it's way more complex than that. But I accept there might be some national trend that runs strongly along these lines and my experience is an outlier.
<they don't say "literally Hitler"> it just occurs to me that indeed, in 2016 immediately after Trump won, I defo did notice a collective brick shitting that occurred, which possibly did largely fall along 'brow' lines. I definitely noticed that. But this was mostly gone within months, and by the time the Mueller investigation was winding down, the few people I knew that hadn't returned to their senses were back to themselves again. After that I think I can count the credulous pant-shitters on one hand, a tiny minority who were still talking about 'Putin's puppet'. Christ on his throne, what dipshittery.
«please explain again what was so bad about Trump?»
There are two different aspects to that:
* The politics: a right-wing "nationalist one-nation tory" in the tradition of Ross Perot and Part Buchanan, therefore entirely incompatible with the right-wing "globalist individualist whig" politics of the dominant business elites.
* The person: a "low-brow", television-infused, salesman profile, therefore entirely incompatible with "high brow" (and "middle brow"), printed-word, intellectual profile of the dominant academic and political elites (so perfectly embodied by Barack Obama).
As to the latter point:
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1351145008506798084
“What did we learn from the failed TRUMP experiment? (cont) Someone in office, like a High Priest of Baal, a Patriarch, a doge, a judge, or a mafia don, must observe a certain decorum & a certain ornamental deportment. This holds even more true in a secular democracy. #Lindy”
http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/sites/default/files/articles/WQ_VOL1_A_1976_Article_04.pdf
“Highbrow, Lowbrow, Middlebrow by Russell Lynes”
I think much of his political persona was an act. Watch his older interviews or read any of the hundreds of testimonies from his employees going back decades and it is not the same persona. Not even close.
«much of his political persona was an act»
How is that not covered by "televisual salesman"? How is that different from most other politicians and entertainers?
«going back decades and it is not the same persona»
I would question that, as he has always been a crass cable-tv style of celebrity, and always an "America Firster" like Perot and Buchanan.
But over the decades both his politics and his personality did not cause extreme reactions of disgust and rejection, at most amused dismissal: that changed quite a lot when it became clear that his personality and politics were politically influential to the point of being about to win, and then winning, the presidency.
Trump's brand of 'low-brow' was definitely incompatible for a non-zero amount of people with perfectly 'low-brow' tastes, not just elite types. Maybe not enough to make it worth mentioning in your analysis, but I know plenty.
«Trump's brand of 'low-brow' was definitely incompatible for a non-zero amount of people with perfectly 'low-brow' tastes»
Probably you are thinking of "middle brow" tastes.
But anyhow I can imagine many "low brow" disagreeing with him or not liking his specific way of being "low brow", but the question was "what was so bad", that is why the reactions of extreme disgust as to the person and extreme rejection as to the politics.
For the extreme rejection as to the person I think it was a feeling of personal humiliation by "high brow" and "middle brow" people as to having a "low brow" "orange baboon" as their superior, because he did not get that extreme reaction when he was just a "celebrity".
No, not thinking of middle brow. He certainly got that reaction from people when he was a 'celebrity'. I know poors that swear, cuss, cheat, show up in jeans or shorts, drink slaughterhouse runoff, etc with very little respect for middle or high brow society (including the law sometimes) that were repulsed by him since his gawdy appearance in the '80s, full of himself in his gold penthouse talking to Robin Leech thinking he's some kind of genius - the irony thick enough to cut with a knife. A fair amount of people have always found him to be another big grifting dumbass trying to bloviate by on his inheritance and fake sounding last name. To be clear, none of these people had any use for Clinton either. My only point is the disgust was certainly present among lower 'brow' society, but I'm leaning on personal experience here, not polling or 'science', so I accept it may seem impossible.
«A fair amount of people have always found him to be another big grifting dumbass trying to bloviate by on his inheritance and fake sounding last name.»
Ah sure, but that is simply trying to explain why he was "bad", not "so bad". Those people despised him, but did not and still do not suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, they don't say "literally Hitler", "threat to democracy itself", and streams of character assassination and distortions of whatever he does and says, including describing him as both a childish idiot and a monstrous conspirator. Your low-brows merely “were repulsed by him since his gawdy appearance in the '80s”.
Consider this deranged example instead, of thousands and thousands:
https://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2017/05/speak-truth-to-power.html
«The one thing missing from the typical NPR talk show is truth, naked, raw, unqualified, unapologized for truth. In the discussion today, the guests were being asked to speculate on the reasons for certain of Trump’s recent statements and actions: the congratulatory call to Erdogan, the invitation to Duterte, the rather unanticipated statement that he would be “honored” to meet with Kim Jong-un. Why would Trump speak in this way about rulers who murdered their own countrymen, even their own relatives, rigged elections, oppressed opponents, threw reporters in jail?
One after another, guests speculated that Trump was trying to upend long-standing American foreign policy, or was speaking thoughtlessly, or had some hidden negotiating strategy in mind. To each of these guests, Johnson responded courteously, respectfully, clearly signaling that these were just the sorts of sober, serious, thoughtful comments he wished to encourage. Then it happened. One of the guests, I do not know whom it was, said quietly, “I think it is envy.” Johnson erupted almost before the words had been uttered. In a loud, flustered voice, he burst out, “But you cannot mean that you think he would like to do those things! But, but, but, surely you do not mean that.” Johnson went on in this way, speaking over his guest, who was trying, so far as I could hear, to say “Yes, I think that is just what he wants to do.”
It was so manifestly, obviously, undeniably true, and at the same time so nakedly partisan, that it made Johnson’s head explode. It was, in its simplicity, the truest thing I had ever heard on NPR.»
<they don't say "literally Hitler"> actually, I know very few people of any brow in real life who felt this way, unless they were hiding it from me (and there's no reason I can think of one might conceal that from me). I know a few, but largely from academics down to landscapers and weed growers, people I knew who didn't care for Trump simply thought he was a gaudy, self-centered hypocrite too dumb to pull off a Hitler. What's funny is I know as many high-brow university educated country club engineers that are outspoken Trump supporters (they will move heaven and earth to explain away Trump's abrasions, like my conservative Christian friends) as I do sunburned construction workers that love him - the whole brow distinction just isn't a strong trend in my reality, I would never make an assumption about what someone thought about Trump based on 'brow', I've found it's way more complex than that. But I accept there might be some national trend that runs strongly along these lines and my experience is an outlier.
<they don't say "literally Hitler"> it just occurs to me that indeed, in 2016 immediately after Trump won, I defo did notice a collective brick shitting that occurred, which possibly did largely fall along 'brow' lines. I definitely noticed that. But this was mostly gone within months, and by the time the Mueller investigation was winding down, the few people I knew that hadn't returned to their senses were back to themselves again. After that I think I can count the credulous pant-shitters on one hand, a tiny minority who were still talking about 'Putin's puppet'. Christ on his throne, what dipshittery.