Why did some "normal" people vote for Trump?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2024

Bret and Gail opine: We were struck by what Gail Collins said midway through this week's Conversation with Bret Stephens.

As their colloquy began, the pair swapped comments regarding the horrors of Hegseth and Gaetz and  Gabbard and Bobby. Eventually, Stephens switched gears—and Collins' statement surprised us:

Avengers, Assemble

[...]

Bret: Switching gears, Gail—Joe Biden is kinda slinking out of office. With the election behind us, how would you rate his presidency?

Gail: I’m so torn on that one, Bret. In the future people may well look back on his administration’s achievements—from expanding health care access to the fight against global warming—and give him a high grade.

But at this particular, painful moment, I can’t forgive him for hanging on to his office so long that it became impossible for the Democrats to hold primary elections to find a successor.

How about you?

Collins seems to feel that Biden's refusal to step aside made it impossible for Trump to be defeated. We were surprised by what she said, less so by Stephens' assessment:

Bret (continuing directly): On a ranking of presidents, I’d have to place him alongside Franklin Pierce or John Tyler: inconsequential in a generally bad way.

[...]

Through hubris, Biden destroyed his single greatest accomplishment, which was the defeat of Donald Trump. Through diffidence, he failed to achieve what might have been the most impressive goal of his term, which would have been Russia’s battlefield defeat in Ukraine, thanks to rapid and overwhelming U.S. assistance. Through inattention, he allowed a preventable immigration crisis to unfold, along with a huge spike in inflation that was the predicted result of his reckless overspending. Through imprudence, he permitted the Justice Department to prosecute his predecessor in a way that did more to resurrect Trump’s political fortunes than it did to bury them. Through self-delusion, and the dishonesty or silence of his close confidants, he covered up the extent of his mental decline. Through political malpractice, he anointed Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee instead of encouraging a more open process that could have yielded a better candidate.

I bet you think I’m being way too harsh.

Gail: Well, um, yeah.

Bret: But don’t worry. After another four years of Trump, we’ll all look back at Biden as Abraham Lincoln II. 

Our summary: Stephens is heavily negative on Biden, thinks Trump is massively worse. 

In our view, that list of horribles Stephens presents is food for us Blues to chew on. Almost surely, lurking there are some of the factors which help explain Candidate Trump's 1.6-point win. 

Many of us in Blue America seem to have no ability to comprehend this fact. Trump voters are bigots and racists and deliberately dumb. Having offered this sweeping assessment of the Others, we achieve a full stop.

Among us humans, tribal delusion has always worked that way. It's part of the way we humans are built. It can't be anything we might have done. 

Eventually, Stephens said this:

Bret (continuing directly): Question is: Will the Democrats have learned the lessons of this election so they can win in ’28?

Gail: Well, if the lesson is to point out when a president’s too old, there’s certainly a whole new opportunity.

Bret: Touché. Although the problem with Trump isn’t senility. It’s … sinisterility.

Gail: We’ll be spending the next couple of years fighting Trump and giving points to the governors and legislators who are doing the best job of pushing back against his worst excesses.

Bret: Paging Ritchie Torres, Seth Moulton, John Fetterman, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and any other Democrat capable of understanding why normal, decent people still voted for Trump.

Say what? According to Stephens, some people who are "normal and decent" did in fact vote for Trump! Some normal people had decent reasons which led them to cast that vote.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves, but we agree with that assessment. And according to Stephens, there are at least four Democratic office holders who understand this point.

Diogenes is widely said to have looked for one honest man. In our view, we Blues should possibly make a better effort to shine some light on the reasons why some normal, decent people may have decided to vote for Trump.

In our view, the reasons go on and on and on. But so does Blue denial.

BAYOUS: Why would anyone have voted for Trump?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2024

The possible reasons go on and on: Just for the record, the madness has always been general. The madness is bred in the bone.

We actually aren't "the rational animal"—and that's even true Over Here, within our own Blue America.

Irrational conduct belongs to us too! Such conduct has been widely observed as we Blues have tried to answer this question:

Why in the world would anyone have voted for Candidate Trump?

For the record, we ourselves didn't vote for Trump. We voted for Candidate Harris. 

A whole lot of people did vote for Trump. Here's where the total currently stands, according to The Cook Political Report:

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024
Candidate Trump: 76,898,763 (49.87%)
Candidate Harris: 74,391,431 (48.25%)

Eventually, the record will show that more than 77 million people voted for Candidate Trump. 

Most likely, that will be slightly less than half the electorate. But it's still a lot of people, spread across the vast expanse of the planet's fourth largest nation

A lot of people voted for Trump—but why in the world did they do that? Here's what happened when Thom Hartmann, a good, decent person, answered a version of that question on C-Span's Washington Journal.

The moderator posted a graphic. Her question then went like this:

MODERATOR (11/17/24): I'll go back to something you mentioned earlier. You mentioned that, since the 1960s, the Democrats have been the party that supports racial minorities, according to your assessment. But also, I want to look at this chart here about the distribution of white voters in particular. 

The Democrats have not won the vote among white Americans since 1964. Overwhelmingly over the years, white voters have voted Republican, and Democrats have lost support among white voters even since Barack Obama in 2008. And what do you think that means for the future of the party and the party's dynamics?

To see this full exchange, you can click this link. After that, you should skip ahead to the eight-minute mark.

That was the moderator's question. For the record, the chart showed Candidate Obama receiving 43% of the white vote in 2008, with Candidate Biden receiving 42% of the white vote in 2020.

As the chart's fine print disclosed, those numbers were estimates, based on (imprecise) exit polls. According to this year's exit polls, Candidate Harris received 41% of the white vote—and yes, allowing for possible errors in these estimates, that's a drop from the percentage Obama received in 2008.

Indeed, according to this year's exit polls, white voters favored Candidate Trump over Candidate Harris, 57%-41%. We wouldn't call that margin "overwhelming," which may not be what the moderator meant. But that's where the numbers stand, such as the numbers are.

As the Republican candidate always does, Candidate Trump did win a clear majority of the white vote this year. For the record, he also won a fair amount of non-white votes—and more than 77 million individuals voted for him nationwide.

Again, why in the world did people do that? Hartmann gave a lengthy answer to the moderator's question. Below, you see where the answer began, and you can also see where it ended:

HARTMANN (continuing directly): Well, I think what that reflects is the deep racism that is still extant among white people in America, you know. And certainly, the Trump presidency, and even his successful campaign in 2016, frankly shocked me.

[...]

I don't have an explanation beyond for this very clear racial division which has existed since 1964, beyond just the shocking reality that at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that, is just deeply racist.

Why did people vote for Candidate Trump? As you can see, Hartmann started by talking about "white America." By the end of his statement, he was talking about "at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that."

By the end of his reply, he seemed to be talking about Trump voters in general, not just those who are white. But he seemed to have only one explanation for what happened this year:

It isn't just that Trump's many voters apparently had to be racist. This candidate's voters are deeply racist, this good, decent person now said. 

He offered no other possible reason for all those millions of votes. According to Hartmann, "at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that, is just deeply racist."

Thom Hartmann's a good, decent person. Still, we'd say that his answer to that question comes to us straight outta the illogic which has always been bred in the bone. 

Also, straight outta the tribal madness which has always dogged the earth.

It comes to us from Salem Village. It comes to us from the plains outside the towering walls of Troy.  It comes to us from the place where tribal Storyline takes control and sensible assessment ends. 

In our view, it's an amazingly unintelligent statement—and we'd say a recent statement by Michael Moore is perhaps a second cousin to what Hartmann said.

Moore's statement was made in a Substack essay. When Mediaite reported Moore's statement, their report carried this headlineMichael Moore Rages at Americans For ‘Evil Deeds’ Over Trump Victory: ‘We Are NOT a Good People.’

That's how it seemed to Mediaite. Headline included, here's how Moore's essay begins

Hey, If You Can Kill 20 Million Native Americans, Enslave 12 Million Africans, and Let Biden Fund the Slaughter of 40,000 Women, Children and Elderly...

If you stop and think about it, we’ve come up with a lot of doozies in our history. Like the genocide of 20 million Native Americans. Or the enslavement of 12 million kidnapped Africans. Or us invading Vietnam and killing 4 million Asian people for no reason at all. 

We are not a good people. We have a non-stop cavalcade, a sordid laundry list of evil deeds that led us directly to last week...

Briefly, let's be fair. If you read Moore's full essay, or if you simply look at his headline, you'll see him inferentially suggesting possible reasons for Trump's win—possible reasons which go beyond the alleged "deep racism" of "at least half of America." 

For example, some voters may have been affected by the way President Biden allegedly funded the slaughter of thousands of women and children. That might have affected somebody's vote, with "deep racism" left to the side.

At any rate:

We are not a good people, Moore declared, basing his logic on events which took place when no one who voted in this election was actually alive. We Blues! We'd call that statement a logical mess, but also a political disaster—a type of political disaster we Blues sometimes seem to enjoy. 

We'd also call it profoundly unwise. But then, what else is new?

Then again, as we noted yesterday, there was Roxane Gay in last Sunday's New York Times. From the highest platform in Blue America, this is what she said:

Enough

[...]

Mr. Trump’s voters are granted a level of care and coddling that defies credulity and that is afforded to no other voting bloc. Many of them believe the most ludicrous things: babies being aborted after birth and children going to school as one gender and returning home surgically altered as another gender even though these things simply do not happen. Time and again, we hear the wild lies these voters believe and we act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. We act as if they get to dictate the terms of political engagement on a foundation of fevered mendacity.

We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion. We must refuse to accept that the ignorance on display is a congenital condition rather than a choice. All of us should refuse to pretend that any of this is normal and that these voters are just woefully misunderstood and that if only the Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. While they are numerous, that does not make them right.

These are adults, so let us treat them like adults. Let us acknowledge that they want to believe nonsense and conjecture. They want to believe anything that affirms their worldview. They want to celebrate a leader who allows them to nurture their basest beliefs about others. The biggest challenge of our lifetime will be figuring out how to combat the American willingness to embrace flagrant misinformation and bigotry.

Roxane Gay is a good, decent person. In her world, Trump voters can't simply be wrong in their overall assessment. They can't be wrong on balance.

In her world, Trump voters have chosen to be mistaken and wrong. Inevitably, we return to Hartmann's claim:

Those 77 million Trump voters have chosen to embrace bigotry.

Major thought leaders in Blue America reason in such sweeping ways a great deal of the time. Almost surely, these familiar screeds help explain why some people voted for Trump.

Why did people vote for Candidate Trump? We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves, but the reasons which cut the other way go on and on and on and on, and then they continue from there.

Quite routinely, we Blues seem unable to grasp this fact. That says something very important about Us.

Why did people vote for Trump? Exactly as it ever was, the Others are evil—we aren't!

Tomorrow: Why might people have voted for Trump? A return to our starter list


Professional wrestlers and D-list comedians...

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2024

...and hints of Caligula's horse: It's hard to get one's head around the inanity and the moral squalor surrounding the culture today.

It's true—Greg Gutfeld is still working his primetime beat on the Fox News Channel. That said, it isn't entirely clear what century this strange man thinks he's in.

Last night, he opened his program with a series of six (6!) jokes about (imagined) sexual misconduct by—who else?—Bill Clinton. 

These priapic politicians today! There was no mention of Matt Gaetz or of Pete Hegseth. Gutfeld was entertaining the rubes with the greatest hits from the long-ago 1990s.

Question: 

Has this 60-year-old termagant ever done a joke which turns on the sexual (mis)conduct of a fellow named Donald J. Trump? We can't say that he ever has! These are the wages of human inanity, but also of the modern "journalistic" practice known as "segregation by viewpoint."

As always, Gutfeld opened with a few minutes of jokes. After that, he delivered his opening issue-based monologue. 

Last night, the handful of opening jokes was finished at 10:02. His monologue dealt with the horrific defeat the Democrats suffered this month. 

Inevitably, this was the very first statement of his issue-based discussion:

GUTFELD (11/19/24): It's been fourteen days since the Democrats had to face the truth—they stink worse than the Capitol's men's room after Jerry Nadler's lunch of curry clam soup.

AUDIENCE: Whooaaa!

The misogyny and the fat jokes never stop on this primetime "cable news" program. On many nights, body parts and bodily waste will seem to be all this little guy knows.

Largely as a matter of choice, this seems to be all this idiot has. At some point, we'll make ourselves go into more detail, but we hope you'll excuse us today.

For the record, Gutfeld's squalor-based inanity has been a very big seller on the Fox News Channel. What Trump is currently doing may turn out to be much more consequential, but it's all a part of the cultural inanity which has been gripping our failing society for the past quite a few years.

Trump may end up as a Caligula—but with the New York Times averting its gaze, people like Gutfeld have spent years showing the way.

This idiocy goes on every night. Along with everyone else in Blue America, the Times keeps averting its gaze.

Full disclosure: The Internet Archive hasn't returned to full, round-the-clock taping of "cable news" programs.  For that reason, we can't link you to last night's Gutfeld! show.

BAYOUS: Blue observers, we must heal ourselves!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2024

The disorder is also in Us: This morning, Ed Luce takes his place on the pile.

There he is, in the Financial Times, beating up on a famous madman and on the horse he rode out on. His column begins as shown:

Trump’s demolition of the US state

It is time to study Caligula. That most notorious of Roman emperors killed what was left of the republic and centralised authority in himself. Donald Trump does not need to make his horse a senator; it will be enough to keep appointing charlatans to America’s great offices of state.

Rome was not destroyed by outsiders. Its demolition was the work of barbarians from within.

The question of whether Trump consciously wants to destroy the US federal government is irrelevant. You measure a leader by his actions not by his heart. To judge from what Trump has done within a fortnight of winning the presidency, his path is destruction.

Other than a handful of moderate Republican senators, who may or may not have the guts to reject some of his nominees, there is little standing in his way.

As is often done, Luce says "senator" instead of "consul" when he discusses the horse, but the point he makes is the same. As he continues, he compares a string of Trump's recent nominees—specifically, Hegseth and Gaetz and Gabbard and Kennedy—to the Roman emperor's favorite extremely fast steed.

Along the way, he even trashes Musk and Ramaswamy, the crackpot co-heads of the new alleged strongman's Department of Government Efficiency. After that, he returns to the horse:

DOGE will be the advisory equivalent of X, Musk’s social media platform, which is algorithmically rigged to churn out disinformation.

Serious paring of US bureaucracy requires knowledge of what it is for. Musk and Ramaswamy routinely betray sweeping ignorance of their subject matter.

Americans might come to wish that Trump had nominated a horse to head the US Department of Health and Human Services. Instead, he has chosen Robert F Kennedy jnr, whose goal is to reverse the public science of the past couple of centuries.

So it goes, as an ancient Roman madman returns to the scene of the discourse.

Will the new version of President Trump turn out to be Caligula all over again? At this point, we can't necessarily tell you that, but we can't say that he won't.

Below, we'll offer praise for our own work–but first, we'll remind you of something we noted in Monday's report:

When the leading authority thumbnails Caligula, a banished word quickly appears:

Caligula

Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (31 August 12 – 24 January 41), better known by his nickname Caligula, was Roman emperor from AD 37 until his assassination in AD 41. He was the son of the Roman general Germanicus and Augustus' granddaughter Agrippina the Elder, members of the first ruling family of the Roman Empire. He was born two years before Tiberius was made emperor. Gaius accompanied his father, mother and siblings on campaign in Germania, at little more than four or five years old. He had been named after Gaius Julius Caesar, but his father's soldiers affectionately nicknamed him "Caligula" ("Little boot").

Germanicus died in Antioch in 19, and Agrippina returned with her six children to Rome, where she became entangled in a bitter feud with Emperor Tiberius, who was Germanicus' biological uncle and adoptive father. The conflict eventually led to the destruction of her family, with Caligula as the sole male survivor. In 26, Tiberius withdrew from public life to the island of Capri, and in 31, Caligula joined him there. Tiberius died in 37 and Caligula succeeded him as emperor, at the age of 24.

Of the few surviving sources about Caligula and his four-year reign, most were written by members of the nobility and senate, long after the events they purport to describe. For the early part of his reign, he is said to have been "good, generous, fair and community-spirited" but increasingly self-indulgent, cruel, sadistic, extravagant and sexually perverted thereafter; an insane, murderous tyrant who demanded and received worship as a living god, humiliated his Senate, and planned to make his horse a consul...

The horse appears in paragraph 3, but so does the banished word.

Did Caligula actually plan to make his horse a consul? As the lengthy profile continues, we're told that it's quite possible that he didn't. 

That said, we highlight the key word "insane." We're not experts on the history, but that passage, and what follows, suggests that a certain concept was already part of human discourse when the earliest pseudo-histories of Caligula appeared.

Was the emperor Caligula some version of "insane?" We can't answer your question, but we'll once again tell you this:

Under modern rules of the road, such questions can't even be asked about our flailing nation's incoming possible strongman. Within the upper-end American press, everyone except George Conway has signed on to a basic group agreement:

Issues of  medical / mental / psychological / psychiatric disorder must be disappeared in the case of our own "living God."

This agreement is widespread within our own Blue America. We offer that as a possible hint at a wider problem—a wider problem which we denizens of Blue America may not be able to see.

Is our society coming undone, as once happened with Rome? Everything is possible! To our credit, we were the first to float such a possibility—and we did it more than a decade ago, well before the Age of Trump, when we started recalling this murky prophecy by a long-forgotten star of the Blue American 1960s, the classicist Norman O. Brown:

BROWN (5/31/60): I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and expand with the progressive publication of their secret; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned...

And so there comes a time—I believe we are in such a time—when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new.

Professor Brown came to very hot in the 1960s, but what in the world was he talking about when he made that murky statement as part of this Phi Beta Kappa address?

All in all, we have no clear idea. Nor do we have any idea why that statement began to float up into our head more than a decade ago, when we started posting it as part in the work of this helpful site.

Initially, we believe we assumed that the murky statement must have come from one of the books which made Brown so hot, back when Vietnam was still raging. At the time, we read or attempted to read those books, just like everyone else. The books in question are these:

The books which made Brown hot:
Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press (1959). 
Love's Body. New York: Random House (1966).

We read those books back in the day, just like everyone did. We have no idea how that obscure formulation from that obscure Phi Beta Kappa address ever made its way into our head.

We'll guess that the gods must have placed it there! At any rate, there was Professor Brown, suggesting that our own society had begun a process which he said would have it "ending in exhaustion." 

Today, a possible modern Caligula is possibly trying to put a team of steeds in power. As he does, those of us in Blue America—the former "elf" Conway excepted—have agreed to accept a rule which forbids us from discussing the possible source of this conduct.

(Not that it would likely help if we did conduct that discussion.)

Those of us in Blue America have long been self-assured. Dating back to those same 1960s, we Blues have been certain that we're the smart and honest and principled ones, and that The Others just aren't. 

(As happenstance had it, we were physically present when this unhelpful attitude began displaying itself.)

We Blues! We've signaled this belief a thousand different ways. We've rarely noticed this behavior.

Over there, The Others have. 

We've long been sure that we're the smart / good / insightful ones, and that The Others just aren't. Half of them have been said to be deplorable, irredeemable. In October, our own tribe's sitting president almost seemed to say that all of The Others are "garbage."

(That may not be what the gentleman meant. On its face, it sounded like what he had said.)

As noted, we Blues are vaccinated against seeing such things. As an example of what we mean, we'll cite the recent portrait of The Others—that is to say, of "Mr. Trump's voters"—which appears below, one-word headline included.

This portrait was written by a good, decent person. Her lengthy essay appeared in print editions of this past Sunday's New York Times:

Enough

[...]

Mr. Trump’s voters are granted a level of care and coddling that defies credulity and that is afforded to no other voting bloc. Many of them believe the most ludicrous things: babies being aborted after birth and children going to school as one gender and returning home surgically altered as another gender even though these things simply do not happen. Time and again, we hear the wild lies these voters believe and we act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. We act as if they get to dictate the terms of political engagement on a foundation of fevered mendacity.

We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion. We must refuse to accept that the ignorance on display is a congenital condition rather than a choice. All of us should refuse to pretend that any of this is normal and that these voters are just woefully misunderstood and that if only the Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. While they are numerous, that does not make them right.

These are adults, so let us treat them like adults. Let us acknowledge that they want to believe nonsense and conjecture. They want to believe anything that affirms their worldview. They want to celebrate a leader who allows them to nurture their basest beliefs about others. The biggest challenge of our lifetime will be figuring out how to combat the American willingness to embrace flagrant misinformation and bigotry.

The Others don't "share the same reality as ours." Also, it seems that The Others are all just alike—all 76.6 million of them (and counting).

We Blues! We're very dumb about these things—and given the way our species is built, we're rarely able to see this fact about ourselves.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. Something like 77 million people voted for Candidate Trump.

There's a very long list of reasons why someone may have made that decision. The author of that essay in Blue America's leading newspaper seems to be completely unable to come to terms with that fact.

We started to list some possible reasons last week, working from a statement on Washington Week by the strongly anti-Trump Tim Alberta. In the days and weeks ahead, we'll be adding to that list.

In truth, the list goes on and on and on. After that, it goes on some more.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. But that list is actually real, and the essay in the New York times is itself a work of tribal "delusion."

According to Luce, Rome was destroyed by the work of insiders—more specifically, by the lunatic conduct of a certain mad emperor.

According to Luce, the same thing may be happening here. We can't flatly say that's wrong, but tribal delusion is bred in the bone and the syndrome can even be found Over Here. 

What the heck is in a word?

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024

Ezra sticks with "unhinged:" Ezra Klein has published a fascinating interview with Anne Applebaum. Before the actual transcript is offered, his overview starts like this:

Trump Kicks Down the Guardrails

Think back two months. Imagine it’s September. You’re reading the Substack of some resistance-era liberal. They’re ranting about the dangers of the Orange Man coming back. “Imagine what a second term is going to be like,” they write. “You’re going to have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services secretary. Tulsi Gabbard is going to lead the intelligence services. Matt Gaetz is going to be the attorney general. Maybe Donald Trump is going to make a ‘Fox & Friends’ host secretary of defense.”

I think most people reading that would have said: Oh, come on! Donald Trump might be a menace. He is a menace. But that’s a parody of what a Trump-hating liberal imagines a Trump administration is going to be. Let’s be real about this.

But here we are in the real, and that is not what a Trump-hating liberal imagines a Trump administration is going to be. This is what Donald Trump imagines a Trump administration is going to be. It is what he is trying to make it be.

One of the challenging things about covering Donald Trump is that it is hard to talk about him without sounding unhinged—and that is because he acts in ways that are by any reasonable standard unhinged.

According to Ezra, Trump "acts in ways that are by any reasonable standard unhinged." 

Why would someone act in such ways? Is there some other type of word or words a straight-talking journalist might consider employing in some discussion of what Trump seems to be like—of what his peculiar behavior may perhaps seem to suggest?

As we've noted again and again, they've all agreed not to say what they think. These are the well-educated public voices of our flailing Blue America. These are our tribunes in action.

As became obvious in an earlier column, Ezra seems to have agreed to play by a certain rule. That said: as we noted above, his lengthy interview with Applebaum is compelling and disturbing.

"Let's be real about this," his one character says. Those words strike us as words to live by, though they may quite frequently be honored in the breach.

Is it "wrong" to play by that rule? We've reported, you get to decide. 

Eyes Wide Shut keeps coming to mind!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024

Silver screen gives us the world: Is the United States on its way out?

We can't swear that it isn't! No one knows where this is going—where the apparent madness could end up.

For ourselves, we keep thinking about Kubrick's final film, Eyes Wide Shut (1999). In particular, we think about the scene in the mansion out on Long Island, where a secret society is seen to be conducting a ritualistic orgy.

For what it's worth, we recall the ritualized orgy as being built around throwback practices involving the ancient, prehistoric rights of male dominance. We haven't yet rewatched the film, but as we recall it, the secret lurking within that scene is this:

At some point, certain types of powerful people will insist on reinstating the dominance of ancient impulses and ancient practices. 

We can't help thinking that we may have reached some such time here in this country—a time when Blue America's insistence on the headlong pursuit of certain types of social change have convinced a certain assembly of powerful elements that the time has finally come to stop putting up with such arrangements.

The western world began on the plains outside Troy. Among other problems of the present age, the primitive sexual politics of that era seems to be found all through the annals of the Trump appointments.

The western world came to life in an age of unhinged kings like Agamemnon stealing young women from neighboring villages and from other warriors as they fight to get Helen back for their tribal group. This is where we humans started. In the sometimes comically awful sexual histories of the Trump nominees, it begins to seem that we may be headed back there.

The lack of discernment within our own Blue America is making it very hard to resist this onslaught. In our view, the incoming president has nominated a toy chest full of broken toys to serve him during his upcoming term. Over here in Blue America, we barely know how to describe these remarkable events, let alone how to resist them.

We Blues! As we've sometimes noted in the past, we're silly and clueless and nobody likes us! Despite that unmistakable fact, the landslide inflicted upon us last week now looks like this, CNN reporting:

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024
Candidate Trump: 76,657,498 (49.9%)
Candidate Harris: 74,064,106 (48.3%)

Thanks to the erratic behavior of the greatest president in modern history, the losing candidate didn't even know she was running until late July—and no, she didn't run "a flawless campaign," as we hear some Blue Americans saying.

Under the circumstances, that victory margin strikes us as remarkably slender. Will it be enough to bring our society down, such as it ever was?

Eyes Wide Shut and (Hitchcock's) Notorious and Gladiator oh my! We think of them as major films which seem to hint at where we actually are.

BAYOUS: Caligula named his favorite horse!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024

We Blues can be clueless too: If only apocryphally, the emperor Caligula made his favorite horse a Roman consul—possibly, even a priest.

On the rare occasion, we moderns tend to be wacky too. In what some see as a modern equivalent, Donald J. Trump has nominated Matt Gaetz to come out of retirement and serve as attorney general.

Gaetz retired at age 42—did so just last week! Some have said Gaetz is a crazy choice. In fairness to Trump, let's be fair:

In a point of departure from Caligula's horse, it isn't like Gaetz is unqualified for the high office in question. Starting at the age of 24, he enjoyed a two-year legal career—and before that, he attended law school! 

Also, he has said he'd be willing to come out of retirement to serve as attorney general. 

In our view, Gaetz doesn't quite qualify as the equal of Caligula's horse. Also, Donald Trump isn't Caligula yet—but there's no way to know where his current path is going to take the country and the world

In our view, Trump is a vastly disordered person. In our view, he has nominated a playroom full of broken toys to serve him during his new term. We've long recommended pity for the child, but we've also recommended stripping power from the disordered man.

That said, this:

Many other people disagree with our overall view. The votes are still being counted, but at least 76 million of our fellow citizens voted for Trump this year!

In our view, the incoming president has assembled a playroom full of broken toys to serve him during his tenure. Gaetz has been joined by such improbable figures as Kennedy, Gabbard and Hegseth, with Musk, Vance and Carlson also part of the mix. 

These are highly unusual figures—but then, those of us in Blue America can be less than fully insightful on the rare occasion too. Consider the attempt at discussion which broke out yesterday on the ABC program, The View.

As a framework, we return to the ancient parable about the blind men and the elephant. As we noted last week, the parable teaches us this:

Blind men and an elephant

The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the animal's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the animal based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other.  In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. 

The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.

Do we humans have a tendency to reason that way? It seems to us that we actually do—and that even seems to be true over here, in Blue America, where the adults are all above average!

Yesterday, it broke that way among the (anti-Trump) panelists on The View. Thanks to Mediaite, you can watch the videotape of their attempt at discussion simply by clicking this.

It started with (the anti-Trump) Whoopi Goldberg citing (the anti-Trump) Bill Maher. This was the start of an exchange in which a set of anti-Trumpers groped different parts of the 76 million people (or more) who voted for Candidate Trump.

At the start of the attempt at discussion, Goldberg played a heavily edited tape of something Maher had said on last Friday's Real Time. For better or worse, this is the way we the anti-Trumpers of The View kicked off their attempt at discussion:

GOLDBERG (11/18/24): Welcome back. The Wall Street Journal claims that the shift to the right in this election reveals that Americans view themselves as belonging to a particular economic class more than their race and gender. And Bill Maher said it's not the only thing Democrats got wrong. Take a look:

MAHER (videotape): Someone must tell the usual suspects on the far left that the saying is, "When you’re in a hole, stop digging." ... You just lost a crazy contest to an actual crazy person. ... What a shocker that the people who see everything through the lens of race and sex see their election loss as the result of racism and sexism. Yes, if only we weren't so irredeemably unenlightened, we would have elected a black president by now. Oh what—we [already] did? ...  Asked if racism is built into our society, white progressives agreed with that—at higher levels than black and Hispanic people! ... They don't want your pity. And black people can't afford to indulger rich white peoples' need to endlessly flagellate themselves. They just want prices to go down and good jobs and the police when you call them.

GOLDBERG: If he's right, then why didn't people vote for the former prosecutor who actually had policy plans to help the working class? I mean—

[APPLAUSE]

Sad! But that's the way the attempt at discussion began, with the audience applauding an insinuation which didn't make any obvious sense. 

As you can see if you watch the videotape, the attempt at discussion went downhill from there. In the course of the attempt at discission, two (anti-Trump) panelists, Sunny Hostin and Alyssah Farah Griffin, took turns feeling different parts of the contemporary elephant known as "the Trump voters."

Alas! As the attempt at discussion unfolded, Hostin seemed to be saying that the elephant in question was racist and sexist, full stop. In turn, Griffin seemed to be saying that the elephant in question only wanted "a good life and ability to pay for their family.”

That seemed to be what Maher had said about the elephant in question, or at least about the part of the elephant known as "black people." In fairness, Maher's lengthy monologue had been so heavily edited that we won't attempt to characterize it here.

Regarding the attempt at discussion which occurred on The View, we'll start by answering Goldberg's question. Our answer would start like this:

QUESTION: Why didn't people vote for the former prosecutor who actually had policy plans to help the working class? 

INITIAL ANSWER: At least 74 million people did! 

Moving on to Hostin and Griffin, we'd sadly offer this:

The elephant in question here—the elephant known as "Trump voters"—is actually more than 76 million different people. 

Those people aren't all the same person. If you asked them why they voted for Trump, they wouldn't all say the same thing.

Almost surely, those people voted for Trump for an array of different reasons. Almost surely, their understandings, attitudes, frameworks and outlooks simply aren't all the same.

Trump voters aren't all just the same person! On its face, it's the simplest, most obvious point in the world:

Candidate Trump's 76 million voters aren't all exactly alike!

But this blindingly obvious fact is strongly inclined to disappear when we, the admittedly brilliant denizens of Blue America, start attempting to discuss this very basic question. All in all, we humans just aren't "the rational animal," not even over here.

With that, we return to Goldberg's question. Stripped down in the following way, it's a very important question:

Why didn't (more) people vote for Candidate Harris?

Why didn't (more) people vote for Harris? Last week, we started making a list of possible reasons. 

Given decades of conduct here within our own Blue America, the list of such possible reasons goes on and on and on. But sad:

Given the way our brains are wired, we Blues are often completely unable to comprehend that fact. The woods are lovely, dark and deep—but we Blues simply aren't the kinds of creatures we keep insisting we are. 

Why didn't more people vote for Harris? Why did so many people vote for Candidate Trump?

The list of possible reasons goes on and on. Tomorrow morning, bright and early, we'll start to add to last week's list.

In our view, Donald J. Trump has come remarkably close to nominating Caligula's horse! That said:

We denizens of Blue America aren't always amazingly sharp ourselves!

Tomorrow: Why did people vote for Trump? Unfortunately, the list of possible reasons goes on and on and on.