Inconvenient Election Truths
Ten theses about Trump's reelection
Political analysis is an anachronistic practice when there’s no pressure for large swaths of people to agree upon a “correct” interpretation. Network technology has produced such a world by allowing a massive glut of content production and decentralized communication among groups. Here I offer here a bit of that anachronistic stew while trying for more of a meta-analysis.
Most of these points stem, either directly or indirectly, from the role that the internet and social media have come to play in the world. Much ineffective waste came from acting as though we were still living in the world of 1992 or even 2008. Right now, it looks like the Republicans have a real advantage in the current ecosystem, but in the next few years, their disadvantages will become apparent as well—which doesn’t make the problems facing the Democrats any less daunting for them.
No overriding narrative will emerge. The overall metanarrative. The explosion of network technology prevents competition between narratives of what the election meant. There may be consensus within smaller groupings as to why the election went the way that it did, but even that consensus will be under constant pressure from the knowledge that others don’t agree.
“News” is over. Or rather, there’s too much news for any of it to be news. More clearly than in any previous election, there was no ability for any agglomeration of national elites (media in particular) to set narrative in any firm way. People now obtain “information” from an ever-growing multitude of microtargeted sources, and there is no putting that genie back in the bottle—though many will try.
Old news is even more over. This one isn’t exactly controversial, but one particularly salient example is Jeff Bezos forcing the Washington Post not to endorse Harris, only for journalists to then beg readers not to cancel their subscriptions in protest. This is not the behavior of an empowered class.
Trump is the tip of the iceberg. Trump is the product and not the source of our present situation. He acts, as he did before, with the (sometimes grudging) support of his entire party, and much of what he does is still at their behest. Trump’s peculiar charisma has unique catalytic effects, but he remains, ultimately, a Potemkin village of a human being focused more on adoration than power.
The winners are already scared. MAGA types are already furious at Marco Rubio’s appointment, while senators get threats to make Rick Scott majority leader and the House struggles with a tiny Republican majority and pig-headed would-be mavericks. The Republicans do not have a well-oiled machine at their disposal, and “woke” MAGA types have been conditioned to expect betrayal from everywhere, especially within. A wrecking ball, certainly, but not a machine.
Politics is not top-down—even internally. The internet enables lots of outside pressure on politicians on both sides, but when Harris adviser Jen Palmieri blamed “progressive staff” for opposing Harris appearing on Joe Rogan’s show, she meant that the calls are coming from inside the house. On the Dem side at least, purity-over-praxis types have evidently filled a good chunk of Dem staffer positions. Caught between those beautiful souls and their ensconced consultant class, Dems could be out in the wilderness for a while.
Culture wars are not at the top of most people’s lists. The economy and immigration polled highest as reasons why Trump voters went for him. Culture wars are not as dominant as their foot-soldiers would (loudly) have us believe. But they’re not nothing either. The Dems’ seeming preoccupation with cultural issues made it easier to make the case that Dems were out of touch. Republicans said, “Dems are obsessed!” and Dems could not say “No, we’re not.” The fact that the end of Roe v. Wade did motivate Dem voters in 2022 proved a red herring, as that hat trick couldn’t be repeated.
Elon Musk turned lemons into lemonade. I have gone on record saying that Musk has run Twitter about as poorly as his predecessors and that I saw no feasible growth path for it. This turned out to be true, but also irrelevant. By turning it into a propaganda mill for the Trump campaign, Musk found a use for Twitter/X that didn’t require a viable business model. I’m skeptical Musk will last long alongside a president who despises sharing the spotlight, but credit where it’s due.
Trump will disappoint. It’s remarkable that Trump still holds complete sway over his following after so manifestly failing to “drain the swamp” in his first term and throwing a petulant temper-tantrum after losing in 2020, but I’ve always struggled to understand charisma-driven dynamics. Since he has few strategic resources beyond that charisma, smart money is that his administration will fail to fulfill any expectations beyond haphazard bluster, deep institutional chaos, and an ill-planned and ill-executed deportation spree. For some, that may be enough.
You are being played. Whether your donations went to pay off Trump’s legal funds or pay for Harris’s celebrity parties, you were paying for the bread and circuses being fed to you. Whether you were being told Joe Biden was cognitively superb or Trump was a grand strategist, you were being insulted. Whether you fear a fascist Trump government or a Harris one-world state, that fear is grist for you to become an online or offline foot-soldier for one side or the other. That doesn’t make the two sides equal, but it does mean that you are easy to use—and just as easy to dismiss.
A out of time world of tohu