A fascinating article on conformity and collaboration.

History Will Judge the Complicit
Why have Republican leaders abandoned their principles in support of an immoral and dangerous president?

"To Americans, this kind of justification should sound very familiar; we have been hearing versions of it since 2016. The existential nature of the threat from “the left” has been spelled out many times. “Our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature,” wrote Michael Anton, in “The Flight 93 Election.” The Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham has warned that “massive demographic changes” threaten us too: “In some parts of the country it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore.” This is the Vichy logic: The nation is dead or dying—so anything you can do to restore it is justified."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/07/trumps-collaborators/612250/

At least I found it fascinating. There are way too many salient points to paste. You'll have to read the article yourselves to discover them (though I know Trump devotees will not).

I found the paragraph above of particular interest. In part, it answers a question I have long been asking myself. What justification have Trump supporters used for their continued allegiance to the Orange Insurrectionist? Now the answer seems obvious. They set up a alternate reality in which breaking with State Dept. protocols by using an unsecure server (there are many others) is reason enough to support someone who tried to install himself as the unelected leader of the country.

 

Exactly. The article examines why most Repubs became silent.

"It takes time to persuade people to abandon their existing value systems. The process usually begins slowly, with small changes."

 

The GOP sold its soul by embracing Trump, just as DNC sold its soul by throwing Bernie out, even more by throwing Tulsi out.

 

The DNC didn't throw anyone out. Tulsi gained very little popularity with voters during the early debates, and Bernie simply failed to get enough votes, again.

In fairness, Trump was such an overbearing presence in the long 2016 debate cycle, and rapidly gained popularity with those who felt disenfranchised, that the GOP really didn't have much choice but to fold themselves beneath his steamroller. It has been Trump's way, or you got primaried out in 2018.

 

That was a well written article. Time well spent. It's a great illustration of the notion that if we don't study history, we will repeat it.

"To be part of a mass movement was for many a chance to end their alienation, to feel close to the “masses,” to be united in a single community with workers and shopkeepers." -- That's just as true now as it was then.

That whole argument just a day into the Trump administration, about having a bigger inaugural crowd than Obama, despite clear evidence otherwise, was ridiculous to most, a matter for derision and laughter, but I thought it was the death knell of truth.

"Like the authoritarian leaders of other times and places, Trump effectively ordered not just his supporters but also apolitical members of the government bureaucracy to adhere to a blatantly false, manipulated reality. American politicians, like politicians everywhere, have always covered up mistakes, held back information, and made promises they could not keep. But until Trump was president, none of them induced the National Park Service to produce doctored photographs or compelled the White House press secretary to lie about the size of a crowd—or encouraged him to do so in front of a press corps that knew he knew he was lying."

Insisting we believe what everyone could clearly see was a lie defined the next four years. And too many Americans chose to believe. The right wing spewers of what they called "information" found it easy to get them to see anyone to the left of Stephen Miller as evil, and "out to destroy America."

"Whatever criticisms might be made of Trump, whatever harm he has done to democracy and the rule of law, whatever corrupt deals he might make while in the White House—all of these shrink in comparison to the horrific alternative: the liberalism, socialism, moral decadence, demographic change, and cultural degradation that would have been the inevitable result of Hillary Clinton’s presidency."

As if there were any truth to that! But Trump's supporters, especially those involved in the attempted insurrection on Jan. 6, believe that the evil left will strip them of their rights, confiscate their guns, force them to worship their god in secret, and make them conform to some hyperbolic vision of political correctness. They believed that the evil left somehow managed to steal the election from Trump ... as if the Democrats had the organization, the canniness, and the sheer gall to accomplish such a feat! Puh-leeze!

Near the end of the article, though, the author disappointed me with the following, ruining an otherwise very astute take on the psychology of authoritarianism. In discussing why Bolton would not testify during Trump's first impeachment, the author claims:

"John Bolton has his own super PAC and a lot of plans for how he wants to use it; no wonder he resisted testifying against Trump." -- Sorry, but the psychology of that was quite simple, and not about fear: Bolton was simply hawking his tell-all book. Always follow the money.

 

The Atlantic... Junk. Strained, fallacious claims in the quoted portion of OP, also junk. Worse than supermarket tabloids.

However, the Authoritarian Empire Inauguration did somewhat resemble Vichy Occupation.

Finally, Orangemanbad, ah yes, the brand that keeps on giving... or rather dementing. If the LW spent 1/10 of the time they have spent on Orangemanbad formulating workable, reasonable ADULT policy options instead of screeching endlessly at the sky about Orangeman and followers, they might not be such a joke.

 

How fitting you see the article as "orange man bad." Kinda supports the thesis.

 

From the OP:

"I found the paragraph above of particular interest. In part, it answers a question I have long been asking myself. What justification have Trump supporters used for their continued allegiance to the Orange Insurrectionist?"

Read thread much? Guess not.

 

It's not about Trump. I think Trump is stuck on your brain.

 

Yes, because just like all the usual suspects on this forum, I've made dozens and dozens of Orangemanbad or Orangemannotbad threads on this forum during the Trump Administration. See if you can count them up.

 

You're missing the point, Sanskrit. Trump is a symptom, not the disease.

 

Gabbard -yes
Bernie - no. He was on the way to winning the nomination and the Dems knew that he would not beat Trump, so they did everything they could to prop up Biden

 

The DNC threw both Bernie and Tulsi out, and Bernie was thrown out twice. Purely hypothetical, but if Bernie had run against Donald in '16 he likely would have defeated Donald.

You can pretend otherwise regarding DNC behavior, but that's your business not mine. I changed registration from GOP to Dem just to vote for Tulsi.

 

I can't tell you how pleased I am that you read the article and got something out of it.

To the author's point, how many times have we seen a Trump supporter write a post in defense of voting for Don along the lines of, "Hillary isn't president." Then go on to make up imaginary scenarios, pretending she would have been worse even as we are trying to assess the full extent of the damage he caused.

 

Do not agree. Though Bernie was more likeable than Hillary (a low bar I know). His progressive policies would have hurt him with moderate Democrats and Independents

I voted 3rd party in 2016. I was going to vote for Trump if Bernie had gotten the nomination

 

I find it hilarious you think I'm a leftist. Good stuff.

How bout some Scorpions in the original German!

 

No, they did not. And what could they do in any case? What action do you think the DNC took to fix the primaries? Sorry, but I just don't think the party is that clever or organized.

It was all over but the shouting once Clyburn gave Biden his endorsement. I live in a Super Tuesday state, and by the time we had our primary in March, the only two left on the ballot were Joe and Bernie, and since most voters are centrists, Joe won. It wasn't even close.

 

Threw them out how, exactly? I think you give the DNC far too much credit for organizational smarts.

And I disagree about Sanders v Trump in 2016. Even the left isn't ready for a lot of Bernie's policies. Most centrists would have voted third party, or voted for Trump, and he really would have won in a true landslide.

You can cling to conspiracy theories when your chosen one loses, but the facts are clear: Gabbard and Sanders sinply did not get the votes.

 

I never said fix. Votes were legit

Clyburn's endorsement, when contenders drop out as examples

The Primary process for both parties is a joke. A few states and $$$ decide the nominee with power brokers in both parties doing things to influence the result

 

That is not what happened. The polling consistently showed that Sanders was likely to win the nomination and could beat the Trump In the general election.

However, behind the scenes, beginning early in the Trump presidency, the captains of industry, commerce, and finance had soured on the Trump and had begun working to see it voted out of office. Most of the change came in the form of third party PACs who spent a lot of effort bringing to light the Trump’s failures and shortcomings. In the home stretch of the campaign, the Trump campaign ran out of money and had to scale back operations, just as the Biden campaign was rolling in the dough.

Big money, usually a close friend of Republican ideology, decided that the Trump was bad for business and had to go. Whereas the Trump was inanely destructive, Bernie Sanders posed a threat of another kind. An updated repeat of the FDR era with a little LBJ thrown in for good measure. Maybe even a little EPA era Nixon. Biden was the compromise they chose.

Just as Bernie was about to run away with the nomination, all of the other contenders suddenly dropped out of the race. We now see, in exchange for top administration jobs. They all threw their support behind Biden as the Biden campaign was flooded with money. South Carolina, a state that never votes Democratic, gave Biden a massive primary win, giving Biden the appearance of being the front runner. The so-called liberal media began to turn on Sanders. The so-called liberals on The View, Woopie Goldberg and Joy Bahar were freaking out over the prospect of a Sanders’ presidency. Revealing their true colors, preferring their tax cuts and privileged lifestyles over the social issues they pretend to care about.

And not to be forgotten, the bluing of Georgia has come about, in large part, from the efforts of those who fall more along the AOC/Warren/Sanders wing of the Party than along the Biden wing.

The DNC just wanted a win, it didn’t matter, Sanders or Biden. As a consolation prize, Sanders has landed a powerful chairmanship in the Senate. A position he seems poised to take full advantage of.

In the next election, big money is likely to get behind a more moderate Republican, like Marco Rubio.

 

Ask me after I have come back from my redeucation camp and have been deprogrammed into conformity.

 

I changed my voter registration to Democratic just so I could vote for Sanders in the primary. Twice. Even though, I did end up voting for Elizabeth Warren, after Biden had already captured an unsurmountable lead in the delegate count.

 

One could argue that continued exposure to, and consumption of, right wing media lies, the kind that lead the insurrectionists to believe "the big lie," means you have already been "educated" to conform with belief in an alternate reality.

 

The demand by the left is that those on the right need to be deprogrammed and reeducated so I'll let you know when I have been processed through the camp.