You could stand to be more explicit about precisely whom Mike and Linda are metaphors for, since it affects how to interpret your analogy: it’s clear the “other woman” here is Trump/fascism, but Linda could be any of (the Democratic Party, the establishment of both parties/the Uniparty, the Democratic voters) and Mike could be (the Republican Party, the electorate at large, the Republican voters).
If Mike is the electorate at large, then the correct response is that they’re not married, and he just wants casual one-night stands (or two–four year stands), and Linda (whether she be the Democratic Party or the Uniparty) ought to follow Jenny’s advice.
If Linda and Mike are the voters of the two opposing parties, then again, Linda is deluded about them being married instead of merely acrimonious roommates who have no say in whom the other sleeps with, and she clearly ought to follow Francine’s advice.
Now, if they’re standing in for the establishments of the two parties, then, okay, you could reasonably consider there to be a “marriage” here to preserve, and they could go to couples counseling or whatever to realize they’ve both become too vulnerable to the whims of their primary bases, and agree to coördinate a return to the lauded “smoke-filled rooms” of the past to choose their candidates, as they did before the reforms of circa 1970.
Thank you. I certainly don’t want wrong interpretations to be distracting, so I’ve added to the transition from the introduction of “The Affair” to the discussion of the public discourse on Trumpism, to make the analogy more clear.
If I may, if it’s still not clear I’d ask for an attempt at an interpretation that doesn’t immediately contradict the whole argument, and if you think you’ve found it, paraphrase it and suggest how it could be more clearly presented. If you then want to rebut the argument, you’ll have something coherent to work against.
You could stand to be more explicit about precisely whom Mike and Linda are metaphors for, since it affects how to interpret your analogy: it’s clear the “other woman” here is Trump/fascism, but Linda could be any of (the Democratic Party, the establishment of both parties/the Uniparty, the Democratic voters) and Mike could be (the Republican Party, the electorate at large, the Republican voters).
If Mike is the electorate at large, then the correct response is that they’re not married, and he just wants casual one-night stands (or two–four year stands), and Linda (whether she be the Democratic Party or the Uniparty) ought to follow Jenny’s advice.
If Linda and Mike are the voters of the two opposing parties, then again, Linda is deluded about them being married instead of merely acrimonious roommates who have no say in whom the other sleeps with, and she clearly ought to follow Francine’s advice.
Now, if they’re standing in for the establishments of the two parties, then, okay, you could reasonably consider there to be a “marriage” here to preserve, and they could go to couples counseling or whatever to realize they’ve both become too vulnerable to the whims of their primary bases, and agree to coördinate a return to the lauded “smoke-filled rooms” of the past to choose their candidates, as they did before the reforms of circa 1970.
Thank you. I certainly don’t want wrong interpretations to be distracting, so I’ve added to the transition from the introduction of “The Affair” to the discussion of the public discourse on Trumpism, to make the analogy more clear.
If I may, if it’s still not clear I’d ask for an attempt at an interpretation that doesn’t immediately contradict the whole argument, and if you think you’ve found it, paraphrase it and suggest how it could be more clearly presented. If you then want to rebut the argument, you’ll have something coherent to work against.