"Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys. . . ."
Went to Number One in 1978 when covered by Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson
Do GOP voters want their sons to grow up to be just like Donald Trump?
The GOP has changed out from under its voters. In a rally last week in South Carolina, Donald Trump said that MAGA "represents 96% and maybe 100% of Republicans." He said, "We’re getting rid of the Romneys of the world. We want to get Romneys and those out."
In politics squares like Romney want a balanced federal budget because they have a sense of obligation about paying for what they get. Squares have a strong sense of self-reliant rectitude, so they tend to support policies that come down hard on people who are poor or in trouble. Squares blame them for having made bad choices. That contrasts somewhat with Democrats and non-squares, who are more likely to blame "society" or "systemic" things for bad outcomes. Republican squares point to the individual and put responsibility on him. Republican squares think character matters.
That is a big deal for squares: Character.
I have had long, good relationships with people who generally vote for Republicans. As a county commissioner and in a 30-year career as a financial advisor, I worked with Republicans all the time. The kind of people who acquire wealth by accumulating it slowly over decades tend to be "squares," and about half of them were and are Republicans. They did their homework in school. They entered careers. They were prudent. They saved. And in America in the late 20th century such people often -- I would say usually -- acquired some wealth. After all, they played by the rules of middle and upper-middle class "squareness," and it worked out. I helped them accumulate and manage that money.
I like "squares."
My great wonderment is how GOP voters, and especially GOP leaders in the community, in political offices, in religious institutions, and in businesses, have so thoroughly accepted Donald Trump as the leader of their party.
Trump, center. At age 13 Donald Trump was sent to a military school -- a reform school -- by his father |
Trump is the opposite of square. He represents and carries out every element of bad character that a square dislikes. Squares work hard to teach their children not to be like Trump. "Soccer moms" and "soccer dads" watch their children flail away at kicking a soccer ball on Saturday mornings so that the children learn the rules of fair play. Teams line up to say "good game" to the other team. Kids who act out or taunt opponents are called out on the spot by the coach and forced to apologize. Kids learn to respect the line calls, the yellow cards, the red cards.
14 comments:
Is Joe Biden a "square"?
Is Nancy Pelosi a "square"?
Is Jeff Merkley a "square"?
I think in this case Peter you're underestimating the capacity for squares to wish their boring lives were different. I agree that Mitt Romney truly seems like a fully authentic square who fervently believes in all the values you laid out, but I suspect a large number of Republicans who you would consider squares are much less committed than Romney is. For people like that seeing a rule-breaker like Trump seemingly get away with all his craziness likely offers a thrill of excitement that is sorely lacking in their own lives.
Even if they personally can't or won't behave like that, through Trump they can vicariously live out their wilder side.
It also doesn't hurt that Trump is openly and proudly racist and exist, two nasty personality defects that prior to Trump had been frowned on publicly at least. If you look at polling it is an objective fact that over 80% of Republicans who call themselves MAGA hold views that can only be described as racist.
The squares and the racists teaming up to go to bat for "Honest Don"... what an absolute disgrace.
Answer: Yes, all of them are. Most successful Americans are squares, more or less. They work hard. Don't conspicuously cheat. Don't go bankrupt. Don't get crossways with the IRS or the police. Don't have sex with porn stars. Don't cheat vendors. Don't steal from their foundations. Don't lie to their banks.
Trump made a virtue out of being a rebel who fights authority figures and makes them the bad guys. It is the same spirit of rebellion that marijuana smokers had in the late 1960s: the cops are narcs and they are the bad guys. The U.S. government is the bad guy. The FBI and CIA are the bad guys. People with short hair are the bad guys. It was youthful rebellion, but most Boomers grew out of some or all of it. Now they oppose flagrant lawbreaking.
Peter Sage
“An infection -- a communicable virus -- has swept over Republican voters.”
As I’ve said before, today’s GOP is proof that insanity is contagious. Now Trump’s daughter-in-law is co-chair of the RNC. Meanwhile Trump and one of his former advisers are spreading the notion that Biden is flooding the country with illegals so they can get them registered to vote for him (I am not making this up: Cleta Mitchell, Trump push false claims of noncitizen voting : NPR).
It wouldn’t surprise me if their next step is encouraging White Supremacists to guard the polling stations. It may sound crazy, but they are. Remember, we’re talking about a much-loved maniac who thinks Hitler did a lot of good things.
I read the subheading as, "Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be Romneys". Perhaps a cover by the late Trump fan, Toby Keith? But seriously, Romney the "square" is rejected by Trump fans in favor of Trump because Trump is seen as a fighter against the Left.
Never mind how dumb, dishonest or self-defeating Trump's fighting so often is: Romney by comparison made nice and gave in, even though he was unfairly savaged in 2012 anyway (would Obama repeat today his smug debate dismissal of Romney's focus on Putin's Russia?).
Perhaps the true power of fame in our current celebrity culture is the power to transcend institutional memory--of Trump as ersatz progressive on e.g, abortion--or to survive cancel culture even when cancellation is so richly deserved on the merits.
Trump confounded "The Libs" (and many others beside) in 2016. That's the basis for his apparent immmunity. Fortunately indeed it is personal to Trump, and surely it cannot survive yet another election setback. Regardless, what a toxic coarsening he represents.
Correction:
TFG fights anyone who tries to hold him accountable.
He's a bully. His supporters are fools.
The only possible way Trump could suffer another election setback would be due to a repeat of the massive voter fraud that didn’t happen in the last one. He’s already priming his cult followers for it by claiming Democrats are registering undocumented immigrants to vote. That ought to motivate the whack jobs to haul out their AR-15s.
It’s all about winning, not principles, on both sides.
Democrats contribute money to Republican primary candidates who they think will lose in a general election; not exactly principled or ethical, but it leads to wins.
Republicans support Trump because they think he is a useful weapon against Democrats.
The Darwinian nature of politics seems to select against principles.
Darwinism is based on natural selection, in which variations on genotype that increase an organism’s chances of survival are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous variations.
Acceptance of such basic principles as truth and justice by the individuals that compose society is what enables it to function. Abandoning them would be the opposite of Darwinian for our republic. In nearby Haiti we have an example of politics without principles - not a very advantageous variation.
My point about Darwinism referred to electoral success, since that’s what is rewarded by the Darwinian selection process in our politics.
Whether or not that particular Darwinian process leads to a functional society is a different question that I was not addressing.
And my point is that voting for people without principles isn't conducive to the survival of our republic. By doing so, people are voting against their own best interests. That isn't Darwinian, it's just stupid.
Point A and Point B are different and might even both be true.
Expressing Point B as though it is in violent disagreement with Point A is a fundamental error of logic.
How many angels can dance on the head of a disagreement about the definition of Darwinian?
https://youtu.be/X7MziVYtAgY?si=-lC_yk8FCZpTEeVK
Good point, except my definition of Darwinism is from the encyclopedia. Nor was there anything violent about it - just a matter of what qualities we would like to see survive.
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?si=qun58xVjT3u9NzMV
Post a Comment