- If Obama, I asked, is the antichrist—whose arrival is said to precede the second coming of Christ—what would that make Trump?
“The savior?” Del Signore suggested.
Not even Trump, though, can stop what’s coming, he added. “Just looking around, and putting two and two together, a little bit of business savvy, a little bit of street savvy, a little common sense, a little bit of education, you kind of deduct different things,” he told me. “I think we’re going to see the end of the world in our generation.”
Articles like this not only make me happy to be a coastal elite, they make me cheer on the opioid epidemic. Which is not a good thing. The problem is, once you've picked your side you've picked it. Once you've picked the "underdog" who claims the system is out to get him, you'll see the system out to get him every time. And once you've chosen the option that less education favors, you're going to fear anything involving education. I'm sure they're all lovely people. I asked which ones. “Border security.” But there’s no wall yet. “No fault of his,” the man said. What else? “Getting rid of Obamacare.” But he hasn’t. “Well, he’s tried to.” What else? “Defunding Planned Parenthood.” But he didn’t. “Not his fault again,” the man said. I asked for his name. “Bill K.,” he said. He wouldn’t give me his last name. “I don’t trust you,” he said. If you believe in fairies, clap your hands. Really? The only problem I have is that this fucker's vote counts more than mine.Next to Bala was a gray-haired man who told me he voted for Trump and was happy so far because “he’s kept his promises.”
I'm beginning to think that this mindset isn't actually unusual or unprecedented. We throw out any kind of reason, plan, or ideology in favor of a vague personal loyalty all the time. Moreover, is this really any different from the "I'll always support the Democrat in an election" mentality? The only difference is that now it's applied to a single person rather than a party, but I wonder if maybe that's not actually a meaningful distinction.
It isn't unusual, it happens all the time in other areas. Blind support is pretty much never a good thing. What we have here is an excellent and well-documented example of it, with a community whose voting power exceeds that of most other Americans. These people have a mountain of evidence that their town is dying, and at least a few of the people interviewed appear to know about Trump's failures on almost every policy point that he campaigned on, and they refuse to even acknowledge any possible failure on his part. Like the article says, it's less that goalposts have been moved and more that they have been eliminated altogether. If I may go beyond the article for a bit, the emergence and newfound prevalence of this aptly described "vague personal loyalty" is now combined with a disturbing rejection of former consensus sources of facts. The people interviewed in the article probably watch Fox News exclusively, listen to talk radio when they drive, and go to a church where the pastor is not above shoehorning political issues into his sermons. I understand that this is conjecture, but it accurately describes many of my friends and family who hold similar views to the people in the article. The worry here is that this complete alternate ecosystem of information is leading to a fundamental split within America where opposing views can't even come to the table, let alone reach meaningful consensus. Additionally, toxic or distracting viewpoints can be much more easily circulated within these alternate ecosystems: Schilling looked at her husband, Dave McCabe, who’s 67 and a retired high school basketball coach. She nodded at me. “Tell him,” she said to McCabe, “what you said the NFL is …” McCabe looked momentarily wary. He laughed a little. “I don’t remember saying that,” he said unconvincingly. Schilling was having none of it. “You’re the one that told me, liar,” she said. She looked at me. The NFL? “Niggers for life,” Schilling said. “For life,” McCabe added.“The thing that irritates me to no end is this NFL shit,” Schilling told me in her living room. “I’m about ready to go over the top with this shit. We do not watch no NFL now.” They’re Dallas Cowboys fans. “We banned ’em. We don’t watch it.”
Yep, I think you're right. The Republicans have dog-whistled this shit for a couple decades now, but Trump came along and brought it out in the open. He, in so many words, came out and said "it's fine to ignore facts you don't like." It's hard to process facts that contradict what you already think, and human nature is to take the path of least resistance. When someone says that you were right all along, that you don't have to worry about those pesky opposing points of view, it's very seductive. Trump and the Republicans give people a safe haven from the cultural changes they don't have the self-discipline, empathy, and/or education to embrace.
This is why I didn't bother commenting on you suggestion that outlawing gun wouldn't reduce the number of mass killings.I'm beginning to think that this mindset isn't actually unusual or unprecedented. We throw out any kind of reason, plan, or ideology in favor of a vague personal loyalty all the time. Moreover, is this really any different from the "I'll always support the Democrat in an election" mentality? The only difference is that now it's applied to a single person rather than a party, but I wonder if maybe that's not actually a meaningful distinction.
Was it that or the fact that I've never actually made that suggestion?
It doesn't automatically follow, you might need to ponder it for a split second. If you meant to suggest something other than getting rid of guns probably wouldn't reduce the chance of mass murder you were so unclear that no one should be faulted for misunderstanding you. It also goes back to a conversation from a while back where I said that gun owner that don't admit that they are a greater statistical danger of dying by a gun are hypocrites who are denying the evident reality of academic data, and that every gun owner is the safest and wisest gun owner of all time until they aren't. You're position was that you were in no way less safe because you owned a gun. I find that hypocritical. The only gun legislation I actively support is that all gun sales have go through a rigorous and timely background check. I think I'm the person who doesn't have any dog in the gun legislation fight, I don't own a gun but also believe that the 2nd amendment should allow any citizen to own a gun. I don't believe that you are dispassionate and objective in your views on the subject, I only have my perception of what you've said about it judge your position.To me this is a really shallow look at things, though. I mean yes, if we were able to magically hand-waive away all guns we'd probably have fewer mass shootings. But it doesn't automatically follow that we'd have fewer mass murders. (The prime example is that the deadliest U.S. mass murder in a school was committed with dynamite.)
I mean, I don't see the words "doesn't automatically follow" as being somehow ambiguous. The only hypocrisy I see is your saying that the academic data is unassailable while then accusing me of not being dispassionate or objective.It doesn't automatically follow, you might need to ponder it for a split second. If you meant to suggest something other than getting rid of guns probably wouldn't reduce the chance of mass murder you were so unclear that no one should be faulted for misunderstanding you.
It also goes back to a conversation from a while back where I said that gun owner that don't admit that they are a greater statistical danger of dying by a gun are hypocrites who are denying the evident reality of academic data, and that every gun owner is the safest and wisest gun owner of all time until they aren't. You're position was that you were in no way less safe because you owned a gun. I find that hypocritical.
“The savior?” Del Signore suggested. Not even Trump, though, can stop what’s coming, he added. “Just looking around, and putting two and two together, a little bit of business savvy, a little bit of street savvy, a little common sense, a little bit of education, you kind of deduct different things,” he told me. “I think we’re going to see the end of the world in our generation.” Heroin, unemployment, educational stagnation, and general antipathy towards change of any sort means that the world of Johnstown is indeed ending within Mr. Del Signore's generation. “You’re never going to get those steel mills back,” she said. “But he said he was going to,” I said. “Yeah, but how’s he going to bring them back?” “I don’t know,” I said, “but it’s what he said, last year, and people voted for him because of it.” “They always say they want to bring the steel mills back,” Frear said, “but they’re going to have to do a lot of work to bring the steel mills back.” He hasn’t built the wall yet, either. “I don’t care about his wall,” said Frear, 76. “I mean, if he gets his wall—I don’t give a shit, you know? But he has a good idea: Keep ’em out.” He also hasn’t repealed Obamacare. “That’s Congress,” she said. And the drug scourge here continues unabated. “And it’s not going to improve for a long time,” she said, “until people learn, which they won’t.” “But I like him,” Frear reiterated. “Because he does what he says.” Except when he says to "grab 'em by the pussy," unless she thinks he does that too, and doesn't care. Considering the level of cognitive dissonance and apparent memory loss that these folks are experiencing, that wouldn't surprise me.If Obama, I asked, is the antichrist—whose arrival is said to precede the second coming of Christ—what would that make Trump?
He said he was going to bring back the steel mills.