No, Trump is not abusive, he is an overt narcissist... a typical self-confident male leader.
His directness seems like abuse to the covert-vulnerable narcissists.
The difference is that we can deal with Trump's criticism because it is direct. We can come up with arguments against his criticism if we disagree. We can have confidence that he is not hiding any agenda... he just says what it on his mind and his actions generally completely match his words.
If we are going to eliminate the worst type of abuse, it would be the covert/vulnerable narcissist type. These are people that put on a fake face while hiding their real intent and agenda... which is usually one of resentment to destroy any in their way... any daring to criticism them or oppose them.
The problem with modern left-liberalism is that it has become the safe space for the covert/vulnerable narcissist. People that think they are little Gods that should rule the world, but will never admit it to your face... only work to stab you in the back until you are bloody and dead while they take your resources and position because they, of course, believe they deserve it.
I agree with you that, for Trump, cruelty is the point. But wasn't cruelty also the point of lawfare, Russiagate, the vicious and unsubstantiated attacks on Brett Kavanaugh, just to name a few examples? And when it comes to mendacity, Joe Biden and the main stream press will give Trump a run for his money any day of the week.
What you're missing here is that the unhinged manner in which the left and the media frequently responds to Trump—with lies, half-truths, norm-breaking, etc.—proves they have become the very thing they hate.
For the record, I have never voted for Trump. Or for Biden, Harris or Hillary. But respect those who did. (I did vote, by the way. For the Libertarian candidates in the last three presidential elections.)
Finally, as to gradual change, especially in the social and political sphere, Edmund Burke figured out the importance of incremental change long before Charles Darwin. You may know your Vonnegut, but you need to acquaint yourself with Burke, someone of far greater importance to the evolution of a liberal society—and here I use the term "liberal" the way John Stuart Mill did: limited government, maximum liberty, and an open and free-market economy.
While I agree with much of your article, I must respectfully differ on your characterization of January 6th. I believe there is far more to the “insurrection” than has been publicly acknowledged. I realize that expressing such a view risks being labeled a conspiracy theorist. However, given the growing body of evidence now emerging across multiple domains—evidence that directly challenges narratives once presented as apodictic—I view skepticism not as fringe, but as reasonable. When facts previously treated as unquestionable are later revised or contradicted, skepticism becomes not only justified but necessary.
Interesting article, I'm not sure if I'd agree with the characterization of Obama as this unifying figure who seemed to embody the country's different facets and contradictions. That was certainly as he presented himself when he spoke at the DNC, but when he became the candidate and then in office Democrats writ large fell into a lazy ad hominem rot of just saying any opposition to anything Obama did was racism. A lot of that was beyond Obama's control, of course, but ultimately his administration ended up being far more deliberately divisive than the gauzy rhetoric had suggested.
I don't know what specific percentage Of Obama Derangement Syndrome was directly about him being Black (But don't tell me it wasn't there. Remember the congressman who called him "uppity"?) and how much was about all the other excuses they came up with to brand him an auslander, and I really don't care.
Gradual change in terms of stagnation or declines in the standard of living is most likely to result in a vote for illiberalism. Democracy sounds hollow to those who have trouble putting food on the table. Liberal democracy must produce results to survive.
Yes, sometimes quicker action is necessary. But what happens when it's not possible? With Gaza, since there's nobody who's both willing and able to stop the massacre by force, whatever sort of pressure that could make a difference could only act more gradually than that.
My broader point was about the romanticizing of revolution in spite of all the death and suffering that usually leads to. That liberalism's policy should be, to paraphrase a Captain Kirk cliche, our missions are reformist and we only revolution when we have to.
No, Trump is not abusive, he is an overt narcissist... a typical self-confident male leader.
His directness seems like abuse to the covert-vulnerable narcissists.
The difference is that we can deal with Trump's criticism because it is direct. We can come up with arguments against his criticism if we disagree. We can have confidence that he is not hiding any agenda... he just says what it on his mind and his actions generally completely match his words.
If we are going to eliminate the worst type of abuse, it would be the covert/vulnerable narcissist type. These are people that put on a fake face while hiding their real intent and agenda... which is usually one of resentment to destroy any in their way... any daring to criticism them or oppose them.
The problem with modern left-liberalism is that it has become the safe space for the covert/vulnerable narcissist. People that think they are little Gods that should rule the world, but will never admit it to your face... only work to stab you in the back until you are bloody and dead while they take your resources and position because they, of course, believe they deserve it.
I concur.👍
I agree with you that, for Trump, cruelty is the point. But wasn't cruelty also the point of lawfare, Russiagate, the vicious and unsubstantiated attacks on Brett Kavanaugh, just to name a few examples? And when it comes to mendacity, Joe Biden and the main stream press will give Trump a run for his money any day of the week.
What you're missing here is that the unhinged manner in which the left and the media frequently responds to Trump—with lies, half-truths, norm-breaking, etc.—proves they have become the very thing they hate.
For the record, I have never voted for Trump. Or for Biden, Harris or Hillary. But respect those who did. (I did vote, by the way. For the Libertarian candidates in the last three presidential elections.)
Finally, as to gradual change, especially in the social and political sphere, Edmund Burke figured out the importance of incremental change long before Charles Darwin. You may know your Vonnegut, but you need to acquaint yourself with Burke, someone of far greater importance to the evolution of a liberal society—and here I use the term "liberal" the way John Stuart Mill did: limited government, maximum liberty, and an open and free-market economy.
Reminder: one side accepted when they lost the election and turned over power peacefully. One side did not.
While I agree with much of your article, I must respectfully differ on your characterization of January 6th. I believe there is far more to the “insurrection” than has been publicly acknowledged. I realize that expressing such a view risks being labeled a conspiracy theorist. However, given the growing body of evidence now emerging across multiple domains—evidence that directly challenges narratives once presented as apodictic—I view skepticism not as fringe, but as reasonable. When facts previously treated as unquestionable are later revised or contradicted, skepticism becomes not only justified but necessary.
Like Carl said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Interesting article, I'm not sure if I'd agree with the characterization of Obama as this unifying figure who seemed to embody the country's different facets and contradictions. That was certainly as he presented himself when he spoke at the DNC, but when he became the candidate and then in office Democrats writ large fell into a lazy ad hominem rot of just saying any opposition to anything Obama did was racism. A lot of that was beyond Obama's control, of course, but ultimately his administration ended up being far more deliberately divisive than the gauzy rhetoric had suggested.
I don't know what specific percentage Of Obama Derangement Syndrome was directly about him being Black (But don't tell me it wasn't there. Remember the congressman who called him "uppity"?) and how much was about all the other excuses they came up with to brand him an auslander, and I really don't care.
Gradual change in terms of stagnation or declines in the standard of living is most likely to result in a vote for illiberalism. Democracy sounds hollow to those who have trouble putting food on the table. Liberal democracy must produce results to survive.
Gradual change cannot stop an ongoing genocide
Yes, sometimes quicker action is necessary. But what happens when it's not possible? With Gaza, since there's nobody who's both willing and able to stop the massacre by force, whatever sort of pressure that could make a difference could only act more gradually than that.
My broader point was about the romanticizing of revolution in spite of all the death and suffering that usually leads to. That liberalism's policy should be, to paraphrase a Captain Kirk cliche, our missions are reformist and we only revolution when we have to.