Cromwell

If you look at the elements of swagger that were listed in a previous post, it becomes obvious why Reagan was so successful. He was a large, powerful, athletic man with a celebrity background, a boatload of self-confidence, and no doubts about his ideology. He met all of the tests in my post in spades. Republicans loved him, and still do.

Donald Trump–angry, amoral, and narcissistic–has a very different personality than Reagan’s, but he also meets most of the tests. With Trump, what came naturally to Reagan is an ideology of sorts; he believes that every human interaction has a winner and a loser, and the winner is the one who dominates the other. He uses his size, celebrity, dark sense of humor, and boundless self-regard to entertain his supporters and make them feel safe. In other words, his swagger is the method by which he gets rural Christians to provide unquestioning support for him even though he does not even remotely resemble them. That is the key to his success–the way he squares the circle of white Christian identity politics in the GOP.

The only test Trump fails is the athletic part. Riding a cart and playing golf is not the equivalent of riding a horse and working on a ranch. In that sense, Trump is a parody of Reagan and George W. Bush.

Ron DeSantis went to Yale and Harvard Law School, but he maintains that he didn’t inhale, and that he despises both places even though he has profited from his elite credentials and connections throughout his career. This cynical ambivalence is not a new gambit for a prominent GOP politician. George W. Bush fairly broadcast the same attitude about his days at Yale during his years in office. Donald Trump loves to bang on about evil elites even though he always wanted his nominees to have impressive Ivy League pedigrees. Richard Nixon came by his anti-elite attitudes honestly, but the most prominent member of his administration was a Harvard professor. And so on.

What does this apparent hypocrisy about elite academic institutions mean in practice? There are inevitably limits to the populism of any candidate who relies on an Ivy League degree to make his case. It is, therefore, no surprise that DeSantis talks about the evils of woke corporations, but wants them to make as much money as possible, with a minimum of government regulation and taxation, as long as they shut up. After all, many of them are run by the kind of people who were his classmates.

So what, exactly, is swagger? Here are the key elements:

1. IT’S A GUY THING: It’s very difficult for women to swagger. They just don’t project physical strength and potential violence.
2. SIZE MATTERS: A very strong physical presence is part of the package. Look at Trump during the debates, for example; he’s always trying to loom over his opponent in order to look dominant.
3. BEING ATHLETIC HELPS, TOO: You can’t really swagger if you come across as bookish or nerdy. A love of vigorous outdoor activity goes over well with the electorate; it makes you look both strong and relatable.
4. THE WILL PREVAILS OVER THE INTELLECT: Swagger is about God and guts, not brains.
5. AN AURA OF CELEBRITY AND SUCCESS IS IMPORTANT: Why should people want to follow you if you’re not a winner?
6. PROJECTING CONFIDENCE IS ESSENTIAL: Always look strong, and always be on the attack, regardless of the circumstances.

The bottom line here is that a candidate who swaggers gives the impression that he knows what he’s doing, and that sticking with him keeps you safe against your enemies, both foreign and domestic. Creating that sense of security is extremely important with GOP voters who largely believe that the world is an overwhelmingly hostile place, and that only the strong survive in such an environment. That’s why so many of them drive trucks and SUVs.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, pudding fingers blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

My polls are dropping like a stone, and now I’ve got to choose.

Reject the right or moderates; either way, I lose.

____________

I did my best to appease Trump and keep faith with the right.

I gave them everything they asked; signed every bill in sight.

But still they’re all supporting Trump; they haven’t seen the light.

I have to find an answer soon or kiss my ass good night.

________________

I’ve got the blues.

The war on wokeness blues.

I tried to fire up the base

But they don’t seem enthused.

Trump keeps taking shots at me.

He thinks that makes him strong.

I have to find an answer soon.

That way, I’ll prove him wrong.

Ronald Reagan is responsible for three apparently irrevocable changes to the GOP. First, of course, he created the bond between social conservatives and business interests that has been at the core of the party since 1980. Second, the GOP turned his tax cut into a kind of religious belief, even though he himself didn’t see it that way. Finally, he took a modest small government party that was more interested in balancing budgets than kicking ass and gave it swagger. It still has it today.

Reagan had it in spades; George W. Bush had it; and Trump has it, too, in his own inimitable way. But what does it mean? How does it apply to the current GOP candidates? And can the left swagger, as well? These questions will be answered in posts throughout the week.

Some commentators have described Biden’s approach to China as a more competent extension of Trump’s, but that is incorrect. Trump’s interest in China focused solely on the trade deficit; he had little interest in geopolitics and none in human rights. Biden, on the other hand, has created a system of flexible containment with our allies in order to prevent the Chinese from using their muscle to dominate Southeast Asia; while he maintained Trump’s ill-conceived tariffs for domestic political reasons, his priority has been preserving our advantages in tech, not reducing the trade deficit.

If Trump wins the 2024 election, will he reverse Biden’s diplomatic successes and start obsessing about the trade deficit again? Will he offer Taiwan to the Chinese as a bargaining chip for American farmers? Will he once again insist that America must go it alone, because our allies do nothing but rip us off?

There is no reason to think otherwise.

The DeSantis Super PAC posted its advice to the candidate on the web, where it was discovered and publicized all over the country. It is the latest of a series of embarrassments for the Hungarian Candidate; everything he does at the debate will be interpreted in light of that information.

The advice essentially is to maintain the usual passive-aggressive approach towards the absent Trump, go after the media (always a right-wing crowd-pleaser), and to attack the conservative bona fides of the other candidates, particularly Ramaswamy. The idea behind this presumably is to clear the non-Trump lane, avoid conflict with what figures to be a vocally pro-Trump live audience, and to deal with the man on golf cart later.

That’s the approach that most of Trump’s opponents used in 2016. It didn’t work then; why would it work better now? And does it make sense to attack the media when the debate is being hosted by Fox News?

It’s no wonder the guy is so far behind.

In a column in today’s NYT, Nate Cohn divides GOP voters into six groups: “Traditional Conservatives;” “Libertarian Conservatives;” “Right Wing;” “Newcomers;” “Moderate Establishment;” and “Blue Collar Populists.” How do Cohn’s categories correspond to the “four factions” (i.e., different ideological threads) often discussed in this blog?

Very nicely, thank you. Cohn’s “Libertarian Conservatives” are identical, even in name, to my “Conservative Libertarians.” His “Moderate Establishment” is ideologically similar to my Christian Democrat faction; the difference in names is due to the fact that I am discussing an ideology with world-wide application, and he is defining a group of Americans. “Newcomers” is not a coherent ideology, and can be ignored. “Traditional Conservatives” is another name for my Pro-Business Pragmatist faction, although Cohn insists these people have conservative views on cultural issues, while I would argue that they are relatively indifferent to them. Cohn, however, takes my Reactionary category and breaks it down into “Right Wing” and “Blue Collar Populists.” Is he right about that? Should my category boundaries be changed to reflect his thinking?

I have previously divided my Reactionaries group into “secular” and “religious” Reactionaries. I have additionally argued that the former subgroup can be further split into “racial” and “economic” Reactionaries. Cohn’s “Blue Collar Populists” clearly include both subgroups; his “Right Wing” is identical to my “religious” Reactionaries.

Put another way, the “Right Wing” voted for Ted Cruz in the 2016 primaries, while the “Blue Collar Populists” voted for Trump. Both groups support Trump today, because they agree that Trump is the only man with the guts and the willingness to use the power of the state to crush the corrupt liberal establishment and return America to its former greatness. That means both groups are reactionary, even if they have somewhat different priorities and grievances. I consequently stand by my classification boundaries; Cohn’s analysis is correct, but splitting the two groups improperly emphasizes their differences over their more fundamental similarities.

One of Trump’s defenses in the court of public opinion is that the DOJ is only prosecuting him now because he is leading in the polls. This is, in his view, a clear case of interfering in the election.

That certainly explains why the case against Hunter Biden is moving along the same track.

While the analogy would undoubtedly make them uncomfortable, there are existing models for the theocracy the right-wing Christians would like to create: Iran and Afghanistan. Iran has a few elements of democratic rule; Afghanistan does not; but both systems are based on the premise that it is the will of God, not the transient desires of men, that must prevail in government.

The pagan right, of course, thinks Christian ethics are for losers and wimps, and has no time for theocracies. What kind of political system do they want? Since they are primarily inspired by classical culture, you have to assume that their models are the ancient Greek city-states and the Roman Empire. A political system created for a small ethnically and culturally homogeneous city-state could not possibly work in an ethnically diverse country with hundreds of millions of citizens, however, and the Roman Empire permitted members of conquered tribes to become citizens (and even emperors) under some circumstances. That would be anathema to someone like Bronze Age Pervert.

The only model I can see for BAP’s political system that would “work” under current conditions is Nazi Germany. As you will recall, that one didn’t end well.

Trump has apparently promised to provide a document which includes conclusive proof that the 2020 election was stolen from him at a press conference next week. I’ll be waiting for that with bated breath. In the meantime, what does this continuing fixation with 2020 mean for 2024?

Allegations that the election was stolen in Georgia and Arizona are effectively attacks on the relatively sane Republicans that were running those states at the time. Trump is dividing his party in swing states that he desperately needs to win in 2024.

Steve Bannon always used to say that any day the Democrats talked about identity issues was a win for the GOP. Since January 6 is a wedge issue for Republicans, any day Trump spends obsessing about it is a win for the Democrats.

Right-wing pagans like Bronze Age Pervert (and, for that matter, Trump) reject both Christian metaphysics and ethics. As such, they are unlikely allies of reactionary Christians. And yet, the alliance exists; if you don’t believe it, look at the pictures of the 1/6 rioters, with QAnon supporters standing next to people with hats and signs equating Trump with Jesus. How can this be?

They have a common enemy–liberal democracy–and they want to burn it down. Trump is their instrument of choice. They’ll deal with what happens next after the great national institutional bonfire.

This won’t end well for either party to the unholy bargain. The fact is that the wannabe theocrats are ideologically closer to the liberal democrats, who at least accept Christian ethics, than to people like BAP. The sooner they come to realize it, the better.

I’m not an expert on RICO or Georgia law, so I will leave the legal analysis of this indictment to others. The political fallout, on the other hand, could include the following:

1. Some of the witnesses in this case are going to be prominent Republicans. Their testimony will tear the state party apart, to the benefit of the Democrats.
2. As we know, Trump can’t pardon himself if he’s convicted of state criminal charges. But assume the US Supreme Court holds on an imaginative reading of the US Constitution that a US president cannot be compelled to serve time on a state conviction as long as he is in office. What do you think Trump will do then? Do you really think he would step down under those circumstances just because the Constitution says he must?

So the Georgia indictment makes four

Just in case you’re compelled to keep score.

Will the base really care?

Is it even aware?

Likely not, based on what came before.

Saturday’s NYT included a Ross Douthat column entitled “Does God Control History?” I couldn’t wait to read it. How the hell does he know? Is he now a prophet instead of a pundit?

The column was a response to social media posts by a prominent pagan right-winger who calls himself Bronze Age Pervert which ironically attacked Douthat’s providential views by asking why God willed the outcome of the Thirty Years War. Douthat acknowledges that the Thirty Years War put an end to the concept of a unified Christian Europe, but argues that the history of Christianity after that is one of success, not failure, due to the spread of the religion all over the world. In his eyes, therefore, God may not necessarily be on the side of the current individual Christian institutions, but He is definitely still a Christian himself, and He works to further the cause in our material world every day.

Douthat would have been wise to go old school and rely on St. Augustine’s “The City of God,” which was written at the time of the fall of the Christian Roman Empire to pagan barbarians and which argued that the state of the world at any given time is not particularly important to God’s purposes. Alternatively, he could have gone full Book of Job on Bronze Age Pervert and asked him where he was when the world was created. Instead, he came up with a Christian providential rationalization that was pretty lame.

The debate between prominent Christian and pagan reactionaries is of considerable interest to those of us who follow the extreme right, albeit from as great a distance as possible. I will have two more posts on this subject in the coming days.