I suspect Trump is a result rather than a cause. A symptom rather than the disease.
I'm an 82-year-old unapologetic Harry Truman style democrat. My kids are in their 40s & 50s now. One of the things I noticed when they were growing up was their low threshold of boredom and constant need for stimulation. Now we have a generation raised on "devices".
He didn’t change me a bit. He just made me angrier. BUT, I’m actually seeing something positive here. I think too many Americans took our Democracy for granted. And as more are waking up and seeing the nightmare we’re currently in, they have come to appreciate it much more. Now, we have to fight to get it back.
Once again, your writing is thought-provoking. One bit of feedback, though, is that Trump did not do this alone. There have been think-tanks, building to this moment. The weakening of the press, education, addiction to entertainment, and the rise of toxic christianity have all contributed to the fertile soil for Trump's theatrics!
Good insight. If we maintain the performance metaphor, perhaps we can consider those people and groups you mentioned to be offstage and behind the scenes doing the critical work of scriptwriting and directing. They are coaching the performer, (re)writing scripts, crafting the PR messages (propaganda), researching potential and likely audiences, designing the sets and costumes. I don’t think they mind when the primary performer goes off-script on stage or on social media because they know it works for their primary audience. Hence, the suggestions made at the end of the essay are spot-on because they address what needs to happen to prevent the growth of the audience.
Political Theater. Trump couldn’t change something not already there. The true story is that the neoliberals abused so much, we’re now feeling popular reaction.
“Patience, deliberation, humility, and care”. Precisely the qualities that I attribute to you, Dr. , over the months of reading your dialogue with those who comment on your essays. The care piece I come by naturally. The other pieces are more of a lift and will take practice. However, I would like you to know that I consider following your lead a very good decision. Thanks for your excellent work.
So many important insights in this post. And I love this line... "Trump didn’t have to destroy democratic norms outright; he only had to wear them thin enough to forget their shape."
Today, we mark the birth of the Republic—our hard-won independence from a distant king. And yet, here we are, governed by someone who behaves more like a monarch than a servant of the people. A “wannabe king” in all but crown.
Where did the co-equal branches go? The checks and balances? The institutional guardrails meant to protect the Republic from exactly this kind of consolidation of power? Somewhere along the line, they buckled under pressure—or were intentionally dismantled.
It’s not hard to trace how we got here. But the real question—the urgent one—is: How do we fix it?
And here’s the chilling part: we may not see another truly free and fair election for years. I still remember those words: “...in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote.”
Sorry to relate, but Adolf Hitler used very similar tactics. Eerily similar. And Germany recovered its Democracy after a period of some tumult. So there is hope for our future.
With all due respect Mr Greenberg. Your piece is a classic example of elite moralizing disguised as concern for “civic norms,” while it fundamentally misunderstands the American spirit, our constitutional design, and the actual appeal of Donald Trump to millions of law-abiding, God-fearing Americans.
Let’s take this apart.
He writes that “Trump didn’t just break the presidency—he transformed how Americans relate to politics, power, and one another.” This line drips with condescension. The reality? Trump didn’t break anything—he exposed it. He revealed the rotted institutions that were already failing us: a bureaucratic state more loyal to itself than to voters, a media industry hooked on fear and division, and entrenched politicians who prosper while middle America suffers. Trump didn’t create distrust; he made visible what millions already felt.
Greenberg says Trump “turned governance into performance and outrage into currency.” That’s rich. American politics was theater long before Trump. Presidents from JFK to Obama relied on image, symbolism, and sweeping rhetoric. The left praised Obama’s “coolness” and his “hope and change” spectacles, while ignoring his drone strikes and expanded surveillance. The difference? Trump spoke directly to forgotten Americans at rallies that were more authentic than the sterile teleprompter performances we’d grown used to. The “outrage as currency” didn’t come from Trump alone—it came from a media ecosystem that monetizes clicks and outrage, including people like Greenberg.
He then says Trump understood “belief can outpace fact, that performance can override policy.” This is projection. The same establishment that lectures us about “facts” spent years pushing Russian collusion hoaxes, dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop as disinformation, and telling us inflation was “transitory.” Meanwhile, under Trump’s actual policies: America saw energy independence, a secure southern border, historic tax reform, record-low minority unemployment pre-COVID, and renegotiated trade deals that finally put American workers first. That’s not performance—that’s substance.
He argues Trump “encouraged people to treat opponents not as fellow citizens but as enemies.” This is pure gaslighting. The left spent Trump’s entire presidency calling his supporters “deplorables,” “semi-fascists,” and now “threats to democracy.” They forced people out of restaurants, canceled their jobs, and labeled them racists for supporting secure borders or traditional marriage. On the Craig Bushon Show, we say it plainly: the truth is not hate speech. Trump gave a voice to millions tired of being treated like strangers in their own country. He reminded us that loving America is not an act of hate.
Greenberg also claims Trump “eroded civic norms, governed through narrative, not policy.” Again: false. Trump championed constitutional judges, deregulated burdens on small businesses, enforced immigration law, rebuilt the military, confronted China’s trade abuses, and brokered historic Middle East peace deals. Those are tangible policies that restored American strength and sovereignty—things many in Washington abandoned for “global partnerships” that sold out our workers.
He writes that Trump “valorized cruelty, mocked constraint, invited combat over identity.” No. Trump pushed back on the smug ruling class that thought their values were the only acceptable ones. He refused to pretend men can become women by decree, or that open borders don’t harm American workers. If defending truth and American sovereignty is “combat over identity,” then count us in.
Greenberg asks “what remains…what still feels worth defending?” What remains is precisely what Trump helped Americans rediscover: the sanctity of our Constitution, the power of our vote, and the truth that government serves the people—not the other way around. What’s worth defending is the right to worship freely, to speak our minds without fear of censorship, to protect our families, and to secure our nation’s borders.
He ends by claiming “recovering requires rebuilding a culture of attention, cooperation, and democratic meaning.” Translation: sit down, shut up, and let the experts handle it. Sorry, James. Americans are wide awake. We’re not returning to the days when career politicians and corporate media dictated the “acceptable” range of thought. We’ve learned what happens when we outsource vigilance.
From the Craig Bushon Show perspective: Trump didn’t change America into something ugly—he simply ripped off the bandages so we could see the infection. Now it’s up to “We the People,” guided by faith, family, and the timeless truths of our Constitution, to keep holding the powerful accountable. That’s not “authoritarian spectacle.” That’s the very heart of the American experiment.
I’m under no illusion that we’ll see eye to eye on Trump’s legacy.
But you’re right that many Americans felt our institutions, media, and political elite had long failed vast swaths of the population. I’ve written extensively about that. Trump didn’t invent public distrust. But what matters is how he used it. Rather than channeling it into structural reform or civic repair, he amplified division, personalized power, and normalized retribution as a governing style.
This isn’t about “elite moralizing.” It’s about what kind of country we want to live in. I’m not pretending that pre-Trump America was some kind of democratic paradise. But rejecting broken systems doesn’t mean handing the reins to a leader who thrives on chaos, spectacle, and vengeance.
You say Trump empowered “forgotten Americans.” But power without accountability doesn’t restore democracy—it corrodes it. And when loyalty to one man becomes more important than loyalty to law or truth, we’re not revitalizing the republic. We’re replacing it.
I still believe we’re capable of a patriotism rooted not in grievance but in shared responsibility. That’s not elitism. It’s the work of citizenship.
James, I appreciate the civil tone of your response — that’s rare in these debates. But I think you’ve inadvertently highlighted the very divide we’re talking about.
You say Trump didn’t invent public distrust, but you believe he “used it” to “normalize retribution” and “personalize power.” From our side of the aisle, that’s missing a fundamental truth: Trump didn’t manufacture the chaos — he pulled back the curtain on the chaos that was already governing us. The entrenched bureaucracy, two-tier justice system, and media class have long insulated themselves from accountability, all while cloaking it in the language of “norms” and “civic duty.”
You argue that Trump failed to channel distrust into “structural reform.” But that’s exactly what much of his policy was: renegotiating trade deals, repatriating manufacturing, securing the border, appointing constitutionalist judges, reining in costly regulations, pressuring NATO allies to pay their fair share. Those are structural shifts that prior administrations only paid lip service to.
You claim Trump “thrived on chaos, spectacle, and vengeance.” I’d counter that what looked like chaos to DC insiders was often the sound of entrenched interests finally being challenged. As for vengeance — the very agencies investigating him were loaded with partisan actors who literally texted about an “insurance policy” to remove him. What would any reform-minded leader look like trying to plow through that swamp?
You say power without accountability doesn’t restore democracy. Agreed. That’s why so many of us supported term limits, budget constraints, and deeper investigations into government corruption — movements Trump boosted, even as they threatened the permanent ruling class.
Then you close with the idea that you want a patriotism “rooted not in grievance but in shared responsibility.” We do too. But shared responsibility means first acknowledging the shared truth. On the Craig Bushon Show, we always say: the truth is not hate speech. Calling out broken systems, porous borders, manipulated markets, or media bias isn’t grievance — it’s patriotism. It’s how free citizens keep the powerful honest.
You see loyalty to Trump as dangerous. We see it as loyalty to someone finally willing to say what millions felt — that their jobs, communities, and beliefs were being sacrificed on the altar of globalism, cultural scorn, and bureaucratic comfort. Trump didn’t replace the republic; he reminded Americans it still belongs to them.
In the end, we both care about what kind of country we live in. We just disagree on who was really undermining it all these years. You look at Trump and see a threat. We look at the people who spent decades hollowing out our middle class, rewriting cultural norms by fiat, and regulating faith and free speech into a corner — and see that they were the threat all along.
So no — we’re not going back to sleep. And that’s not grievance. That’s the real work of citizenship.
If you’d like, I can also tighten this into a shorter open letter, a podcast monologue, or even talking points for an on-air debate. Let me know what format best serves your audience.
Dr. James Greenberg offers much to those capable of listening and thoughtful consideration. You offer lots of words, all adding up to not one thing I agree with. But they do offend, not just with their ‘alternative truthiness’ but also the based incivility leaves me cold. I imagine you are here only to shoot the messenger and obviously the “patience” suggested by Dr. Greenberg requires more practice on my part. I’ll start that practice tomorrow.
Instead of a diatribe of how you don't like what I'm saying. Why don't you try to pick apart what I'm saying piece by piece. I look forward to your feedback.
I can be brief, just list all of your points, reverse the statement to precisely the opposite and voila, you have corrected “alternative truth” into fact. And there can be a brilliance to brevity…..Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'
“This didn’t happen in isolation. It built on long-standing fractures: economic betrayal, racial grievance, media distrust…
…Many joined not because they were fooled, but because the performance met a need. In a time of uncertainty and decline, Trump offered clarity—an enemy to blame, a script to follow, and a community to join.”
Exactly. The conditions that enabled Trump to mobilize masses of Americans into a force capable of overthrowing our long-standing traditions and expectations didn’t happen overnight – they were the result of decades of increasing immiseration of the average citizen. This was accomplished through policies enacted by both the Republicans, who, for decades, had been supporters of the rich and the corporations, AND by the Democrats - who abandoned their FDR populist roots and, with Bill Clinton in the 80s, completely converted to the same kind of corporatist party as the Republicans.
While the Democrats still talked a lot about helping the average American and did occasionally pass, or attempt to pass, legislation that would actually help them, the overall result was lack of opposition to – and, far too often, active cooperation with - the Republicans in passing legislation that increasingly made the rich and corporations more wealthy and powerful, while ignoring the needs of the rest of the country. This, in turn, led to allowing mergers and acquisitions that constantly increased their wealth and power…while also giving them bigger and bigger tax breaks and loopholes.
Meanwhile, wages were held down as benefits were reduced or cut completely – while the larger and larger mega-corporations were able to coordinate to manipulate the media and control more and more politicians, as a means to gather even more power and wealth. I suggest reading “End Times – Elites, Counter-Elites and the Path of Political Disintegration” by Peter Turchin, for a more detailed explanation of what has brought us to this point.
As Edmund Burke is quoted as saying “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – and that, unfortunately, is what the Democrats effectively with their lack of opposition to the Republican plans…nothing.
Exactly. Trump didn’t emerge in a vacuum. He capitalized on deep fractures created by decades of bipartisan economic abandonment. The Washington Consensus, neoliberal turn gutted working-class security while concentrating wealth and power, and the resulting sense of betrayal and decline created fertile ground for resentment, scapegoating, and spectacle. Both parties bear responsibility for laying the groundwork. What we’re facing now is the consequence of long-term institutional decay—and the refusal to confront it head-on.
The change begins with recognition.
I suspect Trump is a result rather than a cause. A symptom rather than the disease.
I'm an 82-year-old unapologetic Harry Truman style democrat. My kids are in their 40s & 50s now. One of the things I noticed when they were growing up was their low threshold of boredom and constant need for stimulation. Now we have a generation raised on "devices".
What could possibly go wrong?
He didn’t change me a bit. He just made me angrier. BUT, I’m actually seeing something positive here. I think too many Americans took our Democracy for granted. And as more are waking up and seeing the nightmare we’re currently in, they have come to appreciate it much more. Now, we have to fight to get it back.
Once again, your writing is thought-provoking. One bit of feedback, though, is that Trump did not do this alone. There have been think-tanks, building to this moment. The weakening of the press, education, addiction to entertainment, and the rise of toxic christianity have all contributed to the fertile soil for Trump's theatrics!
Good insight. If we maintain the performance metaphor, perhaps we can consider those people and groups you mentioned to be offstage and behind the scenes doing the critical work of scriptwriting and directing. They are coaching the performer, (re)writing scripts, crafting the PR messages (propaganda), researching potential and likely audiences, designing the sets and costumes. I don’t think they mind when the primary performer goes off-script on stage or on social media because they know it works for their primary audience. Hence, the suggestions made at the end of the essay are spot-on because they address what needs to happen to prevent the growth of the audience.
I’m ready for curtain call!
Yes, he’s had a lot of willing help.
Political Theater. Trump couldn’t change something not already there. The true story is that the neoliberals abused so much, we’re now feeling popular reaction.
“Patience, deliberation, humility, and care”. Precisely the qualities that I attribute to you, Dr. , over the months of reading your dialogue with those who comment on your essays. The care piece I come by naturally. The other pieces are more of a lift and will take practice. However, I would like you to know that I consider following your lead a very good decision. Thanks for your excellent work.
Well said in clear non-inflammatory language. Thank you.
So many important insights in this post. And I love this line... "Trump didn’t have to destroy democratic norms outright; he only had to wear them thin enough to forget their shape."
Celebrating Independence Day? No. Trump has changed me too. Thank you for making me think,
Thanks ever so much for your voice ❤️🩹
Excellent....Thank You!!!!
Independence Day—or Irony Day?
Today, we mark the birth of the Republic—our hard-won independence from a distant king. And yet, here we are, governed by someone who behaves more like a monarch than a servant of the people. A “wannabe king” in all but crown.
Where did the co-equal branches go? The checks and balances? The institutional guardrails meant to protect the Republic from exactly this kind of consolidation of power? Somewhere along the line, they buckled under pressure—or were intentionally dismantled.
It’s not hard to trace how we got here. But the real question—the urgent one—is: How do we fix it?
And here’s the chilling part: we may not see another truly free and fair election for years. I still remember those words: “...in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote.”
That wasn’t a slip. It was a warning.
So I’m asking—sincerely, urgently, openly:
What can we do?
What would it take to restore the Republic?
I’m listening.
How did we evolve into a society of Plain and Star Belly Sneetches?
Sorry to relate, but Adolf Hitler used very similar tactics. Eerily similar. And Germany recovered its Democracy after a period of some tumult. So there is hope for our future.
This too shall end, but how long must we endure, and how great will be the price?
With all due respect Mr Greenberg. Your piece is a classic example of elite moralizing disguised as concern for “civic norms,” while it fundamentally misunderstands the American spirit, our constitutional design, and the actual appeal of Donald Trump to millions of law-abiding, God-fearing Americans.
Let’s take this apart.
He writes that “Trump didn’t just break the presidency—he transformed how Americans relate to politics, power, and one another.” This line drips with condescension. The reality? Trump didn’t break anything—he exposed it. He revealed the rotted institutions that were already failing us: a bureaucratic state more loyal to itself than to voters, a media industry hooked on fear and division, and entrenched politicians who prosper while middle America suffers. Trump didn’t create distrust; he made visible what millions already felt.
Greenberg says Trump “turned governance into performance and outrage into currency.” That’s rich. American politics was theater long before Trump. Presidents from JFK to Obama relied on image, symbolism, and sweeping rhetoric. The left praised Obama’s “coolness” and his “hope and change” spectacles, while ignoring his drone strikes and expanded surveillance. The difference? Trump spoke directly to forgotten Americans at rallies that were more authentic than the sterile teleprompter performances we’d grown used to. The “outrage as currency” didn’t come from Trump alone—it came from a media ecosystem that monetizes clicks and outrage, including people like Greenberg.
He then says Trump understood “belief can outpace fact, that performance can override policy.” This is projection. The same establishment that lectures us about “facts” spent years pushing Russian collusion hoaxes, dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop as disinformation, and telling us inflation was “transitory.” Meanwhile, under Trump’s actual policies: America saw energy independence, a secure southern border, historic tax reform, record-low minority unemployment pre-COVID, and renegotiated trade deals that finally put American workers first. That’s not performance—that’s substance.
He argues Trump “encouraged people to treat opponents not as fellow citizens but as enemies.” This is pure gaslighting. The left spent Trump’s entire presidency calling his supporters “deplorables,” “semi-fascists,” and now “threats to democracy.” They forced people out of restaurants, canceled their jobs, and labeled them racists for supporting secure borders or traditional marriage. On the Craig Bushon Show, we say it plainly: the truth is not hate speech. Trump gave a voice to millions tired of being treated like strangers in their own country. He reminded us that loving America is not an act of hate.
Greenberg also claims Trump “eroded civic norms, governed through narrative, not policy.” Again: false. Trump championed constitutional judges, deregulated burdens on small businesses, enforced immigration law, rebuilt the military, confronted China’s trade abuses, and brokered historic Middle East peace deals. Those are tangible policies that restored American strength and sovereignty—things many in Washington abandoned for “global partnerships” that sold out our workers.
He writes that Trump “valorized cruelty, mocked constraint, invited combat over identity.” No. Trump pushed back on the smug ruling class that thought their values were the only acceptable ones. He refused to pretend men can become women by decree, or that open borders don’t harm American workers. If defending truth and American sovereignty is “combat over identity,” then count us in.
Greenberg asks “what remains…what still feels worth defending?” What remains is precisely what Trump helped Americans rediscover: the sanctity of our Constitution, the power of our vote, and the truth that government serves the people—not the other way around. What’s worth defending is the right to worship freely, to speak our minds without fear of censorship, to protect our families, and to secure our nation’s borders.
He ends by claiming “recovering requires rebuilding a culture of attention, cooperation, and democratic meaning.” Translation: sit down, shut up, and let the experts handle it. Sorry, James. Americans are wide awake. We’re not returning to the days when career politicians and corporate media dictated the “acceptable” range of thought. We’ve learned what happens when we outsource vigilance.
From the Craig Bushon Show perspective: Trump didn’t change America into something ugly—he simply ripped off the bandages so we could see the infection. Now it’s up to “We the People,” guided by faith, family, and the timeless truths of our Constitution, to keep holding the powerful accountable. That’s not “authoritarian spectacle.” That’s the very heart of the American experiment.
I’m under no illusion that we’ll see eye to eye on Trump’s legacy.
But you’re right that many Americans felt our institutions, media, and political elite had long failed vast swaths of the population. I’ve written extensively about that. Trump didn’t invent public distrust. But what matters is how he used it. Rather than channeling it into structural reform or civic repair, he amplified division, personalized power, and normalized retribution as a governing style.
This isn’t about “elite moralizing.” It’s about what kind of country we want to live in. I’m not pretending that pre-Trump America was some kind of democratic paradise. But rejecting broken systems doesn’t mean handing the reins to a leader who thrives on chaos, spectacle, and vengeance.
You say Trump empowered “forgotten Americans.” But power without accountability doesn’t restore democracy—it corrodes it. And when loyalty to one man becomes more important than loyalty to law or truth, we’re not revitalizing the republic. We’re replacing it.
I still believe we’re capable of a patriotism rooted not in grievance but in shared responsibility. That’s not elitism. It’s the work of citizenship.
James, I appreciate the civil tone of your response — that’s rare in these debates. But I think you’ve inadvertently highlighted the very divide we’re talking about.
You say Trump didn’t invent public distrust, but you believe he “used it” to “normalize retribution” and “personalize power.” From our side of the aisle, that’s missing a fundamental truth: Trump didn’t manufacture the chaos — he pulled back the curtain on the chaos that was already governing us. The entrenched bureaucracy, two-tier justice system, and media class have long insulated themselves from accountability, all while cloaking it in the language of “norms” and “civic duty.”
You argue that Trump failed to channel distrust into “structural reform.” But that’s exactly what much of his policy was: renegotiating trade deals, repatriating manufacturing, securing the border, appointing constitutionalist judges, reining in costly regulations, pressuring NATO allies to pay their fair share. Those are structural shifts that prior administrations only paid lip service to.
You claim Trump “thrived on chaos, spectacle, and vengeance.” I’d counter that what looked like chaos to DC insiders was often the sound of entrenched interests finally being challenged. As for vengeance — the very agencies investigating him were loaded with partisan actors who literally texted about an “insurance policy” to remove him. What would any reform-minded leader look like trying to plow through that swamp?
You say power without accountability doesn’t restore democracy. Agreed. That’s why so many of us supported term limits, budget constraints, and deeper investigations into government corruption — movements Trump boosted, even as they threatened the permanent ruling class.
Then you close with the idea that you want a patriotism “rooted not in grievance but in shared responsibility.” We do too. But shared responsibility means first acknowledging the shared truth. On the Craig Bushon Show, we always say: the truth is not hate speech. Calling out broken systems, porous borders, manipulated markets, or media bias isn’t grievance — it’s patriotism. It’s how free citizens keep the powerful honest.
You see loyalty to Trump as dangerous. We see it as loyalty to someone finally willing to say what millions felt — that their jobs, communities, and beliefs were being sacrificed on the altar of globalism, cultural scorn, and bureaucratic comfort. Trump didn’t replace the republic; he reminded Americans it still belongs to them.
In the end, we both care about what kind of country we live in. We just disagree on who was really undermining it all these years. You look at Trump and see a threat. We look at the people who spent decades hollowing out our middle class, rewriting cultural norms by fiat, and regulating faith and free speech into a corner — and see that they were the threat all along.
So no — we’re not going back to sleep. And that’s not grievance. That’s the real work of citizenship.
If you’d like, I can also tighten this into a shorter open letter, a podcast monologue, or even talking points for an on-air debate. Let me know what format best serves your audience.
Dr. James Greenberg offers much to those capable of listening and thoughtful consideration. You offer lots of words, all adding up to not one thing I agree with. But they do offend, not just with their ‘alternative truthiness’ but also the based incivility leaves me cold. I imagine you are here only to shoot the messenger and obviously the “patience” suggested by Dr. Greenberg requires more practice on my part. I’ll start that practice tomorrow.
Instead of a diatribe of how you don't like what I'm saying. Why don't you try to pick apart what I'm saying piece by piece. I look forward to your feedback.
I can be brief, just list all of your points, reverse the statement to precisely the opposite and voila, you have corrected “alternative truth” into fact. And there can be a brilliance to brevity…..Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'
You may want to say touche and call it a night.
“This didn’t happen in isolation. It built on long-standing fractures: economic betrayal, racial grievance, media distrust…
…Many joined not because they were fooled, but because the performance met a need. In a time of uncertainty and decline, Trump offered clarity—an enemy to blame, a script to follow, and a community to join.”
Exactly. The conditions that enabled Trump to mobilize masses of Americans into a force capable of overthrowing our long-standing traditions and expectations didn’t happen overnight – they were the result of decades of increasing immiseration of the average citizen. This was accomplished through policies enacted by both the Republicans, who, for decades, had been supporters of the rich and the corporations, AND by the Democrats - who abandoned their FDR populist roots and, with Bill Clinton in the 80s, completely converted to the same kind of corporatist party as the Republicans.
While the Democrats still talked a lot about helping the average American and did occasionally pass, or attempt to pass, legislation that would actually help them, the overall result was lack of opposition to – and, far too often, active cooperation with - the Republicans in passing legislation that increasingly made the rich and corporations more wealthy and powerful, while ignoring the needs of the rest of the country. This, in turn, led to allowing mergers and acquisitions that constantly increased their wealth and power…while also giving them bigger and bigger tax breaks and loopholes.
Meanwhile, wages were held down as benefits were reduced or cut completely – while the larger and larger mega-corporations were able to coordinate to manipulate the media and control more and more politicians, as a means to gather even more power and wealth. I suggest reading “End Times – Elites, Counter-Elites and the Path of Political Disintegration” by Peter Turchin, for a more detailed explanation of what has brought us to this point.
As Edmund Burke is quoted as saying “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – and that, unfortunately, is what the Democrats effectively with their lack of opposition to the Republican plans…nothing.
Exactly. Trump didn’t emerge in a vacuum. He capitalized on deep fractures created by decades of bipartisan economic abandonment. The Washington Consensus, neoliberal turn gutted working-class security while concentrating wealth and power, and the resulting sense of betrayal and decline created fertile ground for resentment, scapegoating, and spectacle. Both parties bear responsibility for laying the groundwork. What we’re facing now is the consequence of long-term institutional decay—and the refusal to confront it head-on.