I was talking about the Democratic party. The appropriate comparison would be to the Republican party. I 100% agree Trump himself practices identity politics. That was the innovation that helped him beat establishment rivals in 2016. But I would argue even then there is a distinction. The Trump vision is an American civic identity as opposed to Democrat demographic identities. Complicating things is that American civic identity historically overlaps quite strongly with white identity which is convenient but they are still two separate things (even though some of his supporters might wish otherwise.) that's why he has done better with non-white voters than any Republican candidate for a long time.

> To another point (I’m a three time Trump voter in a solidly blue state fyi) the point of electing him in the first place was to assault “our” (i.e. your) social constructs. The MAGA critique of Trump is he is not being concerted enough.

I don't think that's true at all. That's just the button he pushes to get elected but he doesn't care even a tiny little bit about that. All he cares about is for you to vote for him and to give him what he wants: access to the levers of power, so he and his cronies get to enrich themselves at your expense.

The idea that Trump cares about voters is so hilarious that I'm not sure where exactly you got that, he doesn't care about the voters at all, just about their votes. That's a huge difference.

That you fall for this - and three times to boot - is on you, not on Trump.

Note how now that he is in power that 'civic identity' doesn't matter at all.

It's going to be a rude awakening when the bill is presented, but you are going to have to own it.

I'm somewhat with you on that one. I think a lot of the problems that mainstream Democrats are trying to address are real (climate change is real, as is racial and sexual discrimination, etc). However, they seem to try and solve all the discrimination problems using a sort of unified framework - intersectionality - that essentially seems to cast everything into "oppressed" and "oppressor" groups and make a point of applying different standards to them. This seems almost like the canonical recipe of how to escalate conflicts between groups instead of solving them. I've always found that a glaring open flank on the left, which the right of course wastes no time in exploiting.

But it's only that - exploitation. It's what Trump based his campaign on, but if you see what he is actually doing and who was supporting his campaign - like the Heritage foundation and the Project 2025 plan, lots of pro-Israel evangelicals, etc - you see that his actual plans went MUCH further.

(Ironically, he exploited the pro-Palestine voter base with the same trick, by courting pro-palestinian voters from Michigan and pretending to be the "lesser evil" vs Biden/Harris in the Gaza war. We saw how that went...)

> I was talking about the Democratic party. The appropriate comparison would be to the Republican party

The issue isn't that you're making a comparison, but rather the fallacy that indicting the Democratic party implies one should support the Republican party.

> The Trump vision is an American civic identity

It's nonsensical to talk about a civic identity based around a movement that is in fact destroying all of our institutions. Where is the pride of US universities and scientific research? Where is the pride of welcoming visitors to our country to share in what we have, our natural wonders and cities? Where is the pride in our self-declared natural rights, like protesting and carrying firearms? Where is the pride in the concept of the rule of law and a government subservient to its citizens? Where is the pride in a justice system that applies to government agents itself, from law enforcement officers on up to the President? Where is the pride of having a leader who is articulate and intelligent? Where is the pride at being the leader of the Western World that at least tries to live up to ideals like liberty and democracy?

All of these things have been othered as "woke/liberal/etc" and subsequently smashed to bits by the Trumpist movement! You yourself are trashing that last one in this very thread! So we're supposed to imagine some restored civic identity ultimately rooted in ... nothing?

At best this is a case of a movement running on fumes of what used to be, wanting to be proud for simply existing - the boomers' participation trophy applied to the decades of self-defeating politics pumped out by reactionary talk radio. But in reality, anybody who is not mesmerized by this intrinsically self-contradictory movement is extremely worried about where this demand for empty (ie false) pride goes as the things to actually be proud of continue to dwindle - because we've most certainly seen this pattern throughout history.

It never was, it was just a trial run to see whether Trump's private army is going to be obeying orders or not. So far the results are nothing to be happy about. What is fascinating is how the media still whitewashes it all. ICE detention centers -> concentration camps. They're not 'vernichtungslager' yet but who knows, we might still get there, there are enough people that have dehumanized immigrants (illegal or otherwise) to the point that I would not be surprised at all if at some point more drastic attempts for a final solution will be tabled. I don't trust that slimy asshole Miller at all. It always starts with registries, then there is detention, then deportation and finally murder. And they've already shown they are very capable of the latter, the only word still missing is 'mass'.

Or he just outsources them to some buddies of his: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Confinement_Center

> CECOT does not engage in rehabilitation. Few inmates have been released from the facility and authorities have said in media statements that there are no plans to release any other prisoners.

I want to touch on one more thing here. You said:

"Harris, which really means the bureaucratic group project that Harris would have continued"

Is that what we're voting for now? A completely interchangeable figurehead that just covers for a bureaucratic group project?

"Deep state" type conspiracy theories which would have been relegated to frothing Qanon types 20 years ago are prevalent amongst even progressive now. Perhaps this explains it. If so, nihilism is a rational response.

I tuned into the deep state concept reading Moldbug (Yarvin) in his salad days. My take away was much different way than most people's, apparently.

As I said, I'm a libertarian. I've been criticizing bureaucratic authoritarianism for decades now. But I'll be damned if idly stand by while what we take for granted is replaced with autocratic authoritarianism.

So yes when you put those two options in front of me, I am going to vote for the system that at least tries to keep the authoritarian power constrained.

> Is that what we're voting for now? A completely interchangeable figurehead that just covers for a bureaucratic group project?

I mean, yes? Technically, you're not even electing a group, let alone a person, but a party.

I know politicians themselves love to turn this into a question of "personality" (with the press amply helping), but it seems more rational to look at which administration is elected and which groups/orgs/donors/etc are backing it, than debate which candidate can simulate the best smalltalk or do the most spectacular campaign rally.