Supporters counter that Trump’s actions are either completely precedented, or
Um, I thought the selling point of Trump was precisely that the institutions of the permanent education-media-administrative state are corrupt, and that Trump is going to fight them. Claims that Trump II is business-as-usual are probably political maneuvering that should not be taken literally. (They know Trump isn’t business-as-usual, but they don’t want to say that part out loud, because making it common knowledge would disadvantage their side in the war against the institutions they’re trying to erode.)
That seemed … like it was approaching a methodology that might actually be cruxy for some Trump supporters or Trump-neutral-ers.
No? The pretense that media coverage is “neutral” rather than being the propaganda arm of the permanent education-media-administrative state is exactly what’s at issue.
These were in my model, it’s plausible I shouldn’t have posted this without putting more work into laying out the full model and trying to be fair / clear / ITT passing.
I edited the post to address a bit of this. In particular including:
[ETA] Of course, I know for many Trump supporters, the whole point is that he’s destroying a bunch of institutions that need destroying. I am actually pretty sympathetic to the idea that if you want a better government, you need to tear down the old one quickly. There might be enough differences of values here that there’s not much common ground to be had, but for me, the crux is that he seems to:
– Not merely be tearing down various bureaucracies, but, eroding norms like “there is supposed to be rule of law, generally.”
– It does not look like this is laying the way for anything good to follow, it looks like it’s just kinda making a more corrupt world.
...
> That seemed … like it was approaching a methodology that might actually be cruxy for some Trump supporters or Trump-neutral-
No? The pretense that media coverage is “neutral” rather than being the propaganda arm of the permanent education-media-administrative state is exactly what’s at issue.
I agree the examples I listed there weren’t currently a methodology Trump supporters would agree with, the point was just that it felt pointed in a direction where I was like “oh, as long as I’m doing something comprehensive in this way, it’s probably worth putting in the extra work to find something that be cruxy for others.
I do disagree about “searching for instances of conflict between executive branch and courts” being something that’s particularly prone to media bias. I think most sides would agree there was conflict, just disagree on who was right, and media would report on it regardless just with different framing. (But I agree “seems like executive overreach” would definitely have that problem)
I think “usual” is the sticking point. “Usual given the precedent of the Clinton/Bush/Obama era” and “A return to form after the historically-unusual Clinton/Bush/Obama era” are both definitions of the term that I’ve seen used in political conversations, and these definitions are exact opposites of each other.
political maneuvering that should not be taken literally.
Or perhaps it’s more like the story of the Jews reading the Stürmer because only there do they control the world: they want it not to be business-as-usual, for him to raze the institutions (“Drain the Swamp”), subdue their enemies both foreign and domestic, etc., and generally to serve as the Flail of God, but they can see it plainly ain’t happening, though it’s sometimes still fun to LARP as though it were.
Um, I thought the selling point of Trump was precisely that the institutions of the permanent education-media-administrative state are corrupt, and that Trump is going to fight them. Claims that Trump II is business-as-usual are probably political maneuvering that should not be taken literally. (They know Trump isn’t business-as-usual, but they don’t want to say that part out loud, because making it common knowledge would disadvantage their side in the war against the institutions they’re trying to erode.)
No? The pretense that media coverage is “neutral” rather than being the propaganda arm of the permanent education-media-administrative state is exactly what’s at issue.
These were in my model, it’s plausible I shouldn’t have posted this without putting more work into laying out the full model and trying to be fair / clear / ITT passing.
I edited the post to address a bit of this. In particular including:
...
I agree the examples I listed there weren’t currently a methodology Trump supporters would agree with, the point was just that it felt pointed in a direction where I was like “oh, as long as I’m doing something comprehensive in this way, it’s probably worth putting in the extra work to find something that be cruxy for others.
I do disagree about “searching for instances of conflict between executive branch and courts” being something that’s particularly prone to media bias. I think most sides would agree there was conflict, just disagree on who was right, and media would report on it regardless just with different framing. (But I agree “seems like executive overreach” would definitely have that problem)
I think “usual” is the sticking point. “Usual given the precedent of the Clinton/Bush/Obama era” and “A return to form after the historically-unusual Clinton/Bush/Obama era” are both definitions of the term that I’ve seen used in political conversations, and these definitions are exact opposites of each other.
Or perhaps it’s more like the story of the Jews reading the Stürmer because only there do they control the world: they want it not to be business-as-usual, for him to raze the institutions (“Drain the Swamp”), subdue their enemies both foreign and domestic, etc., and generally to serve as the Flail of God, but they can see it plainly ain’t happening, though it’s sometimes still fun to LARP as though it were.