Well, it isn’t just here. What Damon speaks of is global discontent. Britain, under Keir, teeters under civil threat. France engages in political gymnastics and dodgy lawfare to keep LePen at bay. Georgia Meloni is, largely, She Trump. Canada just quit Trudeau and a Trump look-alike probably would have replaced him if not for 51st State blather.
So, Damon - is this Trump too? Is the winter of discontent in the democratic west truly a Trump led disaster…or…has our world order run its course and the left-behinds gotten sick of being under-employed, fentanyl addicted, and mocked as racist deplorables?
You never write of this. You never point out that the entire western culture is in deep sickness and Trump is more response than cause.
Why not?
Is it just easier and more fulfilling to write of American Decline as if these organic things weren’t happening? Why do you continue to defend a failing model that half the western world (not just America) is voting out of power?
Up your game please. You are a public intellectual who is fair, thoughtful, and a great writer. But you miss the forest for the Trump trees.
Sorry, but this piece is crap. It is absolutely void of any critical thinking and contrasting considerations. If this is the quality of content we to expect from a newsletter called "Persuasion" then I suggest it change its name to "Gaslighting" or "Propaganda".
Hey, if you don't want to do the work to list all the corruption, malice, power abusing, dark money... and just about every other national health indicator that was crashing under Biden and Democrat control... just note the state of the US under all Democrat control during the pandemic.
It fine to point out the disagreement with the Trump agenda, but to do so without the acknowledgement that this is what the electorate voted for... to fix already existing problems that Democrats either caused or failed to address... well just say it is not persuasive at all.
The majority of the electorate is media illiterate or we wouldn't have Trump 2.0. I point this out once again for you, Mr. Lee, although I'm sure it will do no good given your choice of scatology for criticism. Perhaps "Persuasion" is not the site for you.
Yeah... you are part of the informed Elect, and the majority of American are just idiots that don't have your mastery of the world of information. Got it.
With an undergrad degree in journalism followed by several years of actual practice, I assure you, Mr. Lee, that media illiteracy is easy to spot. Not all media illiterates are idiots but all idiots are media illiterate. You could be one or both.
Well, that explains it. With an undergraduate degree in journalism, you have received a large dose of the fake scholarship toxic mind virus of Critical Theory and thus comply with the principle it is not that you are ignorant, you just know so much that just isn't so.
Well, given that I graduated college in 1969 and Critical Theory (whatever you mean by that term) was decades away, your theory doesn't hold up. I also got a graduate degree in 1976 from a private Christian College (TCU) and Critical Theory (Critical Race Theory?) wasn't part of their curriculum then either. So, Mr. Lee, perhaps you need to re-evaluate whether I truly understand how accurate journalism gets on the air or into print. I'm sure that whatever your career entails, you are an expert in that endeavor and I would rely on your expertise should the situation arise (I would be a fool not to). However, when it comes to media literacy, I don't demur to anyone.
Wow. You are older than me! Read the book Cynical Theories to understand what Critical Theory is. Critical Race Theory is just one subsection. You probably got some of it as it leaked into humanities during the 60s. I tend to discount people that tout their academic credentials in political debate. Now, real life experience is worth while.
Quote....."Has a major world power ever intentionally inflicted so much damage on itself in such a constricted period of time?" I’ve long made it my habit—whether the subject is Israel or some other “political” issue especially with regard to the actions of the current POTUS, —to first reply to questions/statements by simply asking, “What/who is your source/What media do you watch/read/listen to?” That usually tells me everything, as it does about this author and this article. There is much "opinion," no analysis and little in the way of facts which should surely be the basis of any article. The usual weasel words like "fascism" and pejorative language like "moronic" and "stupidity," appear which really are a switch off to any additional, critical thinking and reading further.
I find it weird that Linker starts by saying he parted ways with the right over the Iraq War. He rejected the neocon ideology. Yet Trumpism is very much against wars of choice, against being the world's policeman. The neocons hate Trump.
Thank you for bringing a thoughtful and entertaining argument to my feed. I’m the kind of Democrat who agrees with you. For instance, what would be so wrong about using the National Guard in a supportive role in cities to help patrol high-crime areas as a deterrent or moving unhoused to shelters in a human manner while the city police crack down on bad actors like red-light runners, drug dealers, or investigating homicides and burglaries?
I would note only that many latin american countries have national militarized police forces, see Brazil’s Policia Militar, and they are universally ineffective at accomplishing what you expect.
This was a brilliant and insightful piece of work. One of the most concise appraisals of our current situation that I have seen. I subscribe. Come to Sacramento and see more or less the same thing as you see in Philly. We are making slow progress, with help from the Governor. Not sure what we can do about this tRump thing. Mock him mercilesslessly? More AI-generated memes? Global day to make his head explode like in the 1981 movie "Scanners." We've got nothing else so far.
This was an enjoyable read about a heavy, depressing topic. I feel exactly the same as a moderate progressive. I feel like moderate/centrist Americans are the biggest losers; we have no representation at the moment and third party candidates tend to be the most wacko of them all.
It is true that there is discontent within liberal democracies worldwide. There is discontent in dictatorships and oligarchies, too, but those people get disappeared right fast. Trump may not have caused America's malaise, but he is pouring gas all over that fire, without any concern for where that leads as long as he and his cronies are making money. I believe the author has fairly shared the blame for the current situation among both sides. Local problems like homelessness are indeed national problems, as they are everywhere in this country, not just blue states or cities where there are simply more people. I am glad that folks on the other side are reading this blog. The corruption under the current administration dwarfs that under Biden or 8 years of Obama. One can say that some of their policies were not effective, or had unintended consequences, but there is no evidence this was due to corruption, despite what James Comer (Fudd) would have you believe. The policies of this administration will have many serious unintended consequeces, and maybe some really bad ones that were intended, and likely tons of consequences which were simply never considered in their rush to destroy America's unusually competent administrative state. We need the world, and the world needs us.
It was Krauthammer, who often used his background as a psychiatrist to make Soviet-style accusations that his opponents were mentally ill, who coined the "derangement syndrome" trope.
Frum’s quote makes for a nice sound bite, but liberal and fascist are not opposite sides of the same coin. That would be, if we must use current parlance group names, liberal and conservative. A small change, but with a world of difference in today’s debate.
While I firmly agree with the overall point of Mr. Linker's essay, I quibble on his example around urban ills: "For far too long, liberals have flinched from using state power to preserve, protect, and defend the common good that is (or should be) instantiated in our urban public spaces. This isn’t why Donald Trump exists. But it is part of why he’s enjoyed enough support to win the presidency twice and increase his showing over time rather than remaining what he should be, which is a novelty candidate who appeals exclusively to the most rabid faction of the Republican electorate."
The bulk of Trump's voters aren't urban. They only know the "urban public spaces" blighted by, in this example, homelessness through media. Trump plays on this ignorance through lying and exaggeration. Trump's jeremiads about how violent DC is, for example, are entirely out of proportion to the reality; as are Trump's "solution" of sending federal troops to fight crime.
Are homelessness and crime problems that should be taken seriously? Undoubtedly. But their presence and persistence are not why people are voting for Trump.
Trump chums the waters with any issue he can lay his hands on. When the fish bite, he throws in more of whatever they're gobbling up. If crime and homelessness were magically solved, Trump would find something else that animates his base.
"I realize this isn't how most of MAGA thinks about what the president is doing. They think he alone among politicians has his eyes firmly fixed on the reverse -- Making America Great Again. But this only demonstrates their obliviousness."
That short paragraph points to two big, underrated truths:
1. Donald Trump is actually trying to wreck America, and he's doing so from his usual bundle of personal motives: frustration, resentment, and vanity (or call it injured pride). He's always found himself surrounded by better people than himself; virtually everyone he meets. He hates them for being better, and he hates the world for recognizing their merits. He's currently trying to wreck America, but that's because America's the nearest part of the world. He'll wreck all of creation, if he can. There's no political scheme at the bottom of Trump's mind; just little Donald kicking and screaming on the floor of the nursery.
2. People who are so oblivious as to put their faith in the likes of Donald Trump shouldn't be numerous enough to elect a president. Advocates of democracy from John Locke to Thomas Jefferson assumed, or at least hoped, that the basic mental competence of the demos -- the common sense of "the common man" -- would ripen into critical reasoning and would rise to the challenge of evaluating information. They premised their faith in democracy on that. But here we are.
The story goes something like this. After India achieved independence, the government sent interviewers into the countryside to find out what had changed after the British left. The answer was that most people didn't even know the British were there.
The same could be said of the Democratic party. Move away from the coasts and most people barely know that Democrats exist and if the Democrats ever get their act together could be a viable alternative to MAGA Republicanism
Well, it isn’t just here. What Damon speaks of is global discontent. Britain, under Keir, teeters under civil threat. France engages in political gymnastics and dodgy lawfare to keep LePen at bay. Georgia Meloni is, largely, She Trump. Canada just quit Trudeau and a Trump look-alike probably would have replaced him if not for 51st State blather.
So, Damon - is this Trump too? Is the winter of discontent in the democratic west truly a Trump led disaster…or…has our world order run its course and the left-behinds gotten sick of being under-employed, fentanyl addicted, and mocked as racist deplorables?
You never write of this. You never point out that the entire western culture is in deep sickness and Trump is more response than cause.
Why not?
Is it just easier and more fulfilling to write of American Decline as if these organic things weren’t happening? Why do you continue to defend a failing model that half the western world (not just America) is voting out of power?
Up your game please. You are a public intellectual who is fair, thoughtful, and a great writer. But you miss the forest for the Trump trees.
Sorry, but this piece is crap. It is absolutely void of any critical thinking and contrasting considerations. If this is the quality of content we to expect from a newsletter called "Persuasion" then I suggest it change its name to "Gaslighting" or "Propaganda".
Hey, if you don't want to do the work to list all the corruption, malice, power abusing, dark money... and just about every other national health indicator that was crashing under Biden and Democrat control... just note the state of the US under all Democrat control during the pandemic.
It fine to point out the disagreement with the Trump agenda, but to do so without the acknowledgement that this is what the electorate voted for... to fix already existing problems that Democrats either caused or failed to address... well just say it is not persuasive at all.
The majority of the electorate is media illiterate or we wouldn't have Trump 2.0. I point this out once again for you, Mr. Lee, although I'm sure it will do no good given your choice of scatology for criticism. Perhaps "Persuasion" is not the site for you.
Yeah... you are part of the informed Elect, and the majority of American are just idiots that don't have your mastery of the world of information. Got it.
With an undergrad degree in journalism followed by several years of actual practice, I assure you, Mr. Lee, that media illiteracy is easy to spot. Not all media illiterates are idiots but all idiots are media illiterate. You could be one or both.
Well, that explains it. With an undergraduate degree in journalism, you have received a large dose of the fake scholarship toxic mind virus of Critical Theory and thus comply with the principle it is not that you are ignorant, you just know so much that just isn't so.
Well, given that I graduated college in 1969 and Critical Theory (whatever you mean by that term) was decades away, your theory doesn't hold up. I also got a graduate degree in 1976 from a private Christian College (TCU) and Critical Theory (Critical Race Theory?) wasn't part of their curriculum then either. So, Mr. Lee, perhaps you need to re-evaluate whether I truly understand how accurate journalism gets on the air or into print. I'm sure that whatever your career entails, you are an expert in that endeavor and I would rely on your expertise should the situation arise (I would be a fool not to). However, when it comes to media literacy, I don't demur to anyone.
Wow. You are older than me! Read the book Cynical Theories to understand what Critical Theory is. Critical Race Theory is just one subsection. You probably got some of it as it leaked into humanities during the 60s. I tend to discount people that tout their academic credentials in political debate. Now, real life experience is worth while.
Quote....."Has a major world power ever intentionally inflicted so much damage on itself in such a constricted period of time?" I’ve long made it my habit—whether the subject is Israel or some other “political” issue especially with regard to the actions of the current POTUS, —to first reply to questions/statements by simply asking, “What/who is your source/What media do you watch/read/listen to?” That usually tells me everything, as it does about this author and this article. There is much "opinion," no analysis and little in the way of facts which should surely be the basis of any article. The usual weasel words like "fascism" and pejorative language like "moronic" and "stupidity," appear which really are a switch off to any additional, critical thinking and reading further.
I find it weird that Linker starts by saying he parted ways with the right over the Iraq War. He rejected the neocon ideology. Yet Trumpism is very much against wars of choice, against being the world's policeman. The neocons hate Trump.
Please share with us, Nickerus, “What/who is your source/What media do you watch/read/listen to?”
Guessing he does "his own research."
Thank you for bringing a thoughtful and entertaining argument to my feed. I’m the kind of Democrat who agrees with you. For instance, what would be so wrong about using the National Guard in a supportive role in cities to help patrol high-crime areas as a deterrent or moving unhoused to shelters in a human manner while the city police crack down on bad actors like red-light runners, drug dealers, or investigating homicides and burglaries?
I would note only that many latin american countries have national militarized police forces, see Brazil’s Policia Militar, and they are universally ineffective at accomplishing what you expect.
This was a brilliant and insightful piece of work. One of the most concise appraisals of our current situation that I have seen. I subscribe. Come to Sacramento and see more or less the same thing as you see in Philly. We are making slow progress, with help from the Governor. Not sure what we can do about this tRump thing. Mock him mercilesslessly? More AI-generated memes? Global day to make his head explode like in the 1981 movie "Scanners." We've got nothing else so far.
This was an enjoyable read about a heavy, depressing topic. I feel exactly the same as a moderate progressive. I feel like moderate/centrist Americans are the biggest losers; we have no representation at the moment and third party candidates tend to be the most wacko of them all.
It is true that there is discontent within liberal democracies worldwide. There is discontent in dictatorships and oligarchies, too, but those people get disappeared right fast. Trump may not have caused America's malaise, but he is pouring gas all over that fire, without any concern for where that leads as long as he and his cronies are making money. I believe the author has fairly shared the blame for the current situation among both sides. Local problems like homelessness are indeed national problems, as they are everywhere in this country, not just blue states or cities where there are simply more people. I am glad that folks on the other side are reading this blog. The corruption under the current administration dwarfs that under Biden or 8 years of Obama. One can say that some of their policies were not effective, or had unintended consequences, but there is no evidence this was due to corruption, despite what James Comer (Fudd) would have you believe. The policies of this administration will have many serious unintended consequeces, and maybe some really bad ones that were intended, and likely tons of consequences which were simply never considered in their rush to destroy America's unusually competent administrative state. We need the world, and the world needs us.
It was Krauthammer, who often used his background as a psychiatrist to make Soviet-style accusations that his opponents were mentally ill, who coined the "derangement syndrome" trope.
Frum’s quote makes for a nice sound bite, but liberal and fascist are not opposite sides of the same coin. That would be, if we must use current parlance group names, liberal and conservative. A small change, but with a world of difference in today’s debate.
While I firmly agree with the overall point of Mr. Linker's essay, I quibble on his example around urban ills: "For far too long, liberals have flinched from using state power to preserve, protect, and defend the common good that is (or should be) instantiated in our urban public spaces. This isn’t why Donald Trump exists. But it is part of why he’s enjoyed enough support to win the presidency twice and increase his showing over time rather than remaining what he should be, which is a novelty candidate who appeals exclusively to the most rabid faction of the Republican electorate."
The bulk of Trump's voters aren't urban. They only know the "urban public spaces" blighted by, in this example, homelessness through media. Trump plays on this ignorance through lying and exaggeration. Trump's jeremiads about how violent DC is, for example, are entirely out of proportion to the reality; as are Trump's "solution" of sending federal troops to fight crime.
Are homelessness and crime problems that should be taken seriously? Undoubtedly. But their presence and persistence are not why people are voting for Trump.
Trump chums the waters with any issue he can lay his hands on. When the fish bite, he throws in more of whatever they're gobbling up. If crime and homelessness were magically solved, Trump would find something else that animates his base.
"I realize this isn't how most of MAGA thinks about what the president is doing. They think he alone among politicians has his eyes firmly fixed on the reverse -- Making America Great Again. But this only demonstrates their obliviousness."
That short paragraph points to two big, underrated truths:
1. Donald Trump is actually trying to wreck America, and he's doing so from his usual bundle of personal motives: frustration, resentment, and vanity (or call it injured pride). He's always found himself surrounded by better people than himself; virtually everyone he meets. He hates them for being better, and he hates the world for recognizing their merits. He's currently trying to wreck America, but that's because America's the nearest part of the world. He'll wreck all of creation, if he can. There's no political scheme at the bottom of Trump's mind; just little Donald kicking and screaming on the floor of the nursery.
https://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.com/2025/08/absurdly-simple.html
2. People who are so oblivious as to put their faith in the likes of Donald Trump shouldn't be numerous enough to elect a president. Advocates of democracy from John Locke to Thomas Jefferson assumed, or at least hoped, that the basic mental competence of the demos -- the common sense of "the common man" -- would ripen into critical reasoning and would rise to the challenge of evaluating information. They premised their faith in democracy on that. But here we are.
https://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-family-secret.html
The story goes something like this. After India achieved independence, the government sent interviewers into the countryside to find out what had changed after the British left. The answer was that most people didn't even know the British were there.
The same could be said of the Democratic party. Move away from the coasts and most people barely know that Democrats exist and if the Democrats ever get their act together could be a viable alternative to MAGA Republicanism