This isn't a right or left issue, and I'm not even an American. I have no political affiliation here except seeing a country I've long admired facing a profound challenge. This is about significant portions of American voters turning away from established institutions—the scientific community, professional civil service, and constitutional checks and balances that have been foundational to American strength.
I could maybe understand why people voted for the anti-establishment candidate the first time around. Legitimate frustrations exist with a system many felt wasn't working for them. But the second time around, with clear evidence of the consequences, is not defensible and shouldn't be excused.
This is a form of reactionary populism and it's deeply dangerous for the US's power, prosperity, and political freedoms. Ask Argentinians what Peronism, as another form of anti-establishment populism, did for them. There are countless other examples to learn from too.
I am American. Most of the people I know are also American. I'm trying to tell you why lots of my fellow Americans voted this way. aaronbaugher's comment in this thread is also insightful.
I understand why many Americans voted that way, I’m just saying that they are responsible for the inevitable consequences.
Regardless of motivation, electoral choices have consequences that voters collectively own.
Again, it’s not like we haven’t seen this before in other countries that have voted in populists. It’s always the same cycle: Widespread dissatisfaction promotes populists who correctly identify legitimate problems but offer implausibly simple solutions to solve them. Voters choose the populists out of anger & frustration, only to find that they can’t solve the problems but create the kind of institutional damage that reduces the ability of any successors to solve those problems.
Trump is a populist and we’re already seeing that institutional damage merely 100 days in. There’s no indication that the outcome will be any better than all the other historical parallels.
> only to find that they can’t solve the problems but create the kind of institutional damage that reduces the ability of any successors to solve those problems.
I watch all sorts of news. Ultra-liberal Democracy Now!, CNN, ABC, NBC, podcasts on the left and right, right-leaning Fox, etc.
I can say that the right is cheering perceived win after win. From their perspective, tariffs are bringing manufacturing jobs back, what they see as corruption is being rooted out, government is being made leaner, more efficient, and more local. Law is being enforced.
The left seems to be focused on publicizing what they see as losses, assuming that the right will inevitably see the self-evident error of their ways. I don't think this is likely to happen.
I could maybe understand why people voted for the anti-establishment candidate the first time around. Legitimate frustrations exist with a system many felt wasn't working for them. But the second time around, with clear evidence of the consequences, is not defensible and shouldn't be excused.
This is a form of reactionary populism and it's deeply dangerous for the US's power, prosperity, and political freedoms. Ask Argentinians what Peronism, as another form of anti-establishment populism, did for them. There are countless other examples to learn from too.