How do you check someone who doesn’t just ignore the rules but incinerates them in full view of the crowd, laughing as the ashes settle? How do you discredit someone who thrives on discredit, whose every lie is a rung on the ladder of their ascent, whose every scandal is just another spotlight in the unrelenting circus of their existence…
How do you check someone who doesn’t just ignore the rules but incinerates them in full view of the crowd, laughing as the ashes settle? How do you discredit someone who thrives on discredit, whose every lie is a rung on the ladder of their ascent, whose every scandal is just another spotlight in the unrelenting circus of their existence? You don’t shame a man without shame. You don’t corner someone who sees boundaries as dares. You don’t outmaneuver someone whose only strategy is chaos itself.
Donald Trump isn’t a leader—he’s a black hole in the shape of a man, devouring norms, reason, and decency with the gravitational pull of his own ego. He’s not bound by the constraints of governance or morality because his power doesn’t derive from them—it feeds on their destruction. He’s the ultimate postmodern creation: a man whose currency is spectacle, whose weapon is outrage, and whose greatest skill is turning every defeat into fuel for his next act.
The idea that we can “check” him assumes he’s playing the same game, but he’s not. Trump doesn’t lose when he’s proven wrong; he wins by being the loudest voice in the room. He doesn’t need credit to succeed—he thrives in its absence. In fact, the very idea of discrediting him is absurd. He was never a figure of credibility to begin with, only a character, a projection of power and defiance that his followers cling to with cult-like fervor.
Our systems of accountability—laws, norms, even truth itself—are like cobwebs trying to restrain a wrecking ball. They rely on mutual consent, on the understanding that some lines won’t be crossed, some games won’t be rigged. But Trump’s entire ethos is that there are no lines. No rules. Just endless opportunities to exploit the chaos and claim victory through sheer audacity.
So how do you fight that? With facts? With decency? With carefully worded op-eds and well-intentioned condemnations? You might as well throw paper airplanes at a hurricane. Trump isn’t constrained by the systems we expect him to follow, and that’s exactly why his base loves him. Every outrage is proof of his strength. Every scandal is a badge of honor. To his followers, his very defiance of the rules is the point.
The real question isn’t about him. It’s about us. Are we prepared to acknowledge that our institutions—the courts, Congress, the media—aren’t designed to handle someone like Trump? That they crumble under the weight of a man who wields chaos as both shield and sword? Or will we keep pretending that the same playbook that worked against ordinary politicians will somehow tame the beast?
Because let’s be clear: this isn’t about governance. It never was. It’s about performance. Trump doesn’t want to run the country; he wants to run the show, and if we don’t recognize that for what it is, we’re not just playing into his hands—we’re the ones setting the stage.
Patrick my man, that’s about the most clear-eyed assessment I’ve read. “A clown with a flamethrower”, as Charlie Sykes summed him up. You have to respect the flamethrower, but STOP talking about the clown. As the children learned about Pennywise the clown in Stephen King’s IT, “IT’s” power was 100% fed by their fear and imaginations. So we best direct our actions and attention elsewhere, and don’t let political broadcast and social media keep you locked into this bread and circus insanity. Real shit needs to get done. Again, Kudos for a pitch perfect diagnosis that this is about us, and whining about and obsessing g about the incoming President accomplishes next to nothing.
The problem is these three things begin with ‘us’ and at least half of ‘us’ are no longer attached to reality, and without that half none of the three are possible.
That is a pretty good description, but the bottom line is that the truth actually doesn't matter to him or his followers, only what he says. If he said he did something, well, sure he did. When it is further amplified by an entire media ecosystem, what are the chances anyone will wake up. Even if (when) he fails, it will never be his fault. Talk, fail, shift blame, repeat. That will be the next 4+ years.
Thank you for your generous words. I'm humbled that my writing resonated with you. Your vivid imagery of inscribing those lines in "inextinguishable letters of fire" above the felon's head is both powerful and evocative Let's hope that such sentiments ignite the necessary reflection and action in our leaders and fellow citizens alike.
From this excellent comment this sums up the problem succinctly: "It’s about us. Are we prepared to acknowledge that our institutions—the courts, Congress, the media—aren’t designed to handle someone like Trump? That they crumble under the weight of a man who wields chaos as both shield and sword?"
Until 2017 we didn't realize how much the system of government that has developed in the US rests on the basic assumption that people in public service will behave honorably and will make an attempt to comply with rules, laws, and most importantly, norms. Of course not all public servants did, but the majority did. Richard Nixon, the boogeyman of my youth, honored the norms and resigned eventually. But now we are faced with a public servant who does't do any of those things, who steps around laws and rules, who uses his wealth or perceived wealth and position to bully people around, who uses the court system to avoid accountability. And this person is aided by a dedicated group of courtiers and voters. This compounded with a materialistic and indifferent group of voters leads us to this moment.
Thank you for such a thoughtful response—it captures the heart of the problem so perfectly. The assumption that public servants would uphold basic decency, even under pressure, was so foundational that its fragility went unnoticed for generations. Nixon, flawed as he was, still adhered to the norms when faced with overwhelming accountability.
But now, as you point out, we are dealing with a figure who not only rejects these principles but weaponizes their absence, wielding chaos as both shield and sword. What’s even more alarming is the infrastructure of enablers—the courtiers, voters, and indifferent bystanders—who amplify this destruction.
Fuck you really nailed it here. This is what has been frustrating me about bill for the last year. He keeps playing by 2012 rules when Trump has eaten the board. I don’t have a solution other than let them go hog wild and hope the chaos causes a backlash with the public.
The problem with such a strategy is that like you I think the problem is us so I don’t believe it has a high likelihood of succeeding.
I deeply appreciate your recognition of the labyrinthine challenges we now face. I too am grappling with the stark reality that our figures, our so-called thought leaders, stumble and fumble as they cling to outdated playbooks, engaging with Trump as if the shattered rules of yesterday can somehow still frame today’s chaos. This isn’t a four-year storm to ride out. This is a seismic shift, a fracturing of reality itself, with half the nation untethered from the truth, adrift in a sea of conspiracy and grievance.
There is no deus ex machina, no neatly tied resolution waiting in the wings. This moment is not like those that came before; it is the culmination of decades of rot, a gaping wound that won’t heal without concerted, painful, and relentless effort. To pretend otherwise—to assume this resolves itself—is to lull ourselves into apathy, an unforgivable betrayal of the future we claim to fight for.
Question for you (I have been struggling with this question for a while but given you seem to think like I do I thought I would get your thoughts): let’s say Trump goes hog wild. What is worse:
(1) Americans likes it
(2) Americans dont like it but dont care when it comes to voting.
I feel like most people would say the first. I think it’s the second.
I also think it’s the second, and I’ve come to believe it’s the more dangerous of the two. The 2024 election was a moment of profound clarity for me, revealing just how deeply apathy has sunk into the national consciousness. It’s not just that people don’t care about the harm being done—it’s that they’ve become comfortable with it, disengaged to the point where they no longer see the connection between their choices and the reality around them.
That realization changed everything for me. It’s why I’ve decided to pull my business, my assets, and my family out of this country. America has shifted from a place of opportunity to a liability—not just for those within its borders but for the planet as a whole. I can no longer justify letting this nation benefit from my efforts when its trajectory feels so inevitably destructive.
Forget “ask not what your country can do for you.” I’m asking myself what I can do for the planet to shield it from an America increasingly indifferent to whether it even deserves to exist. Apathy is the ultimate enabler, and if it goes unchecked, the downfall won’t just be inevitable—it’ll be global.
But there may yet be some answer to what to do. C Sacchi below mentioned breaking up his base. That seems to me to have some chance of working. Basically, ruin Trump's show. Find every way possible to turn his base against him, against his billionaires and against themselves. There will be many broken campaign promises, and prices won't be coming down. Trump already acknowledged that post-election. Stir up resentment and a deep sense of betrayal in his base. If possible, also find ways to get them pointing fingers at each other. He needs to be deprived of his adulation highs which do seem key to keeping him going. I am surprised he has not done any "rallies" since the election. After 2016 win, he had frequent rallies because he fed off the acclaim of the crowds. It was like his oxygen. So figure out how to take that away.
We must not lose sight of the fact that while Trump himself is busy outraging those outside his base and creating chaos, his administration will be steadily working behind the scene to make the Project 2025 agenda reality. Ultimately, that is what needs to be blocked.
Can we fight chaos with chaos? Meritless lawsuits are one of Trump's favorite tactics. Could that tactic be used against his administration's actions, just to tie it up. I think it was Sarah (this was in a different context, the fate of the Washington Post) who said that there were over 200 US billionaires, and there had to be a few public-spirited ones among them. Perhaps they could fund some Trump-show-ruining chaos and gum up the working of his administration.
Hi Marie This is an insightful comment, and I agree that disrupting Trump's "show" could yield some results if you believe Trump himself is the root of the problem. His need for adulation and the loyalty of his base is indeed his lifeblood, and depriving him of that would strike at the core of his power. However, I’d argue that adding chaos only furthers the fire.
“Fight fire with fire” sounds good on paper—drag Trump, Vance, and their ilk into court, keep them bogged down in lawsuits, and see how they like it. But this strategy doesn’t solve the problem; it feeds it. You don’t put out a fire by adding more flames. You just burn the house down faster.
Defamation lawsuits and legal theatrics are the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause. Trump and his allies weaponize the courts not because they care about winning, but because they understand that chaos and spectacle are the point. Flooding the courts with counter-lawsuits doesn’t fix the erosion of truth; it simply deepens the dysfunction. The public doesn’t see justice—they see more noise, and that noise plays right into the hands of authoritarians who thrive on confusion and exhaustion.
To me, this is not just about Trump. He’s not the problem—he’s the culmination, the end result of years of cracks in the republic that have widened into gaping chasms. This is Rome, not just in its chaos but in the inevitability of its collapse once the foundation began to crack. Trump’s rise and the Project 2025 agenda are merely tools being wielded to pry apart the remnants of the republic, and those tools will remain even if Trump’s "show" is ruined.
The real fight is against the collapse of the republic itself, and that requires clarity, not more confusion. I've taken great effort to lay out exactly where we are, how we got here, and the reality of what is needed for us/The US to be fixed. I'd love for someone to show me exactly where I am wrong, but so far, no one has been able to show me any cracks in my ideology: https://substack.com/@complexsimplicity/note/c-79872455
Trump power as a politician is a function of his support by the voters (unbelievably strong in his case). I would center the anti Trump strategy going forward on breaking up his base. Actually, in the long run Trump himself is not the problem but "Trumpism" is, so we have to fight Trumpism. His coalition is only united by him personally. Without him they do not naturally work together, quite the opposite as we have seen recently. We should figure out how to pitch them against each other rather than persuading them (something we tried very hard to do with no success whatsoever).
Perhaps the leverage point is indeed "the gravitational pull of his own ego" -- rather than argue with him perhaps we should simply (unmercifully) judge him. Not insult him (e.g., fat orange moron with no curiosity) but critique him --his ego's Kryptonite is "BORING FAILURE". To the extent that we can ignore him as boring and pity him as a failure (apart from resisting/thwarting his stupid initiatives and attacking his willing minions), we can deprive him of fuel.
It brings to mind the metabolic management of cancer wherein in addition to slash/burn/poison we try to starve a malignancy of the glucose it requires for fermentation-based energy. While we need to use all the other tools to fight the damage his administration will attempt, we need to starve the tumor in the Oval Office of anything that makes it worthwhile to get out of bed in the morning.
I concur that depriving Trump of the attention he craves can be an effective strategy. By labeling him as a "boring failure," we strike at the core of his ego, potentially diminishing his influence.
I think we should all do our best to ensure that our responses should be both conscientious and impactful. I wrote about my preferred way to fight back and the importance of deliberate action in countering our current state here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-152108087.
While I advocate for a particular approach, I recognize that everyone should/must find their own path to effect change. The key is to ensure that our actions are thoughtful and truly make a difference.
Your analogy to cancer treatment is particularly poignant. Just as starving a tumor of its energy source can impede its growth, denying Trump the attention he seeks can undermine his platform. By collectively focusing on meaningful resistance and constructive initiatives, we can work towards a more resilient society.
It is important to understand that this problem isn't Trump-specific; this problem is systemic and requires systemic change to solve. We may temporarily escape authoritarianism due to Trump's ineptness, but without systemic change that will require 30-40 years of effort, it's not if it is when a dictator pulls the reins of America.
Patrick - I agree with your analysis but not that we are the ones who set the stage. That's victim blaming. Trump isn't even bound by his oath of office. He refuses to recognize any of the structures that are part of a rules-based order or accepted human decency. That's on him. But yes, we do need to understand what we're dealing with or we become props in the clown show. Can malicious brutality be constrained by a rules-based order and human decency? It's an existential question. In the next four years, we will find the answer.
Trump's psychopathic amorality is certainly not the fault of the people who never voted for him. But he would never have gained such vast power without the cult-worship bestowed on him by millions of Americans; the choice by "conservative" influencers to package his glaring faults as singular virtues; the decisions by GOP politicians to defend and protect him for their own purposes; the calculated hedging and sanitizing done by media outlets either for profit or from a misguided effort to appear "balanced"; etc.
Trump is just one person with a severe personality disorder. Trumpism is a large set of poor judgments and cynical moral compromises made by millions of other people.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's critical to face an uncomfortable truth: we are not just bystanders in this crisis. We, as a collective, voted for this. The American people chose this path—Through decades of decisions, apathy, and misplaced priorities. To deny that is to absolve ourselves of the responsibility to fix it.
This isn’t victim-blaming; it’s accountability. Trump’s refusal to adhere to any rules or principles is abhorrent, but he didn’t emerge in a void. His rise is the culmination of a system we’ve allowed to erode over time. Yes, his malicious brutality challenges the very concept of a rules-based order and human decency. But we cannot pretend this is a "him" problem. He is a symptom of a deeper rot, that we both created and voted for, again.
The task ahead isn’t a four-year battle—it’s a generational project. At the very best, reversing this decline will take 30-40 years of effort, persistence, and systemic change. It’s a daunting timeline, but it’s the truth we need to accept if we hope to make progress.
I’ve written more about this here: https://substack.com/@complexsimplicity/note/c-79872455. We are the ones who set the stage, and we are the ones who must dismantle it and rebuild. To dismiss this reality is to risk becoming props in the very clown show we detest.
The existential question isn’t whether malicious brutality can be constrained—it’s whether we, collectively, are willing to admit the problem is us.
How do you check someone who doesn’t just ignore the rules but incinerates them in full view of the crowd, laughing as the ashes settle? How do you discredit someone who thrives on discredit, whose every lie is a rung on the ladder of their ascent, whose every scandal is just another spotlight in the unrelenting circus of their existence? You don’t shame a man without shame. You don’t corner someone who sees boundaries as dares. You don’t outmaneuver someone whose only strategy is chaos itself.
Donald Trump isn’t a leader—he’s a black hole in the shape of a man, devouring norms, reason, and decency with the gravitational pull of his own ego. He’s not bound by the constraints of governance or morality because his power doesn’t derive from them—it feeds on their destruction. He’s the ultimate postmodern creation: a man whose currency is spectacle, whose weapon is outrage, and whose greatest skill is turning every defeat into fuel for his next act.
The idea that we can “check” him assumes he’s playing the same game, but he’s not. Trump doesn’t lose when he’s proven wrong; he wins by being the loudest voice in the room. He doesn’t need credit to succeed—he thrives in its absence. In fact, the very idea of discrediting him is absurd. He was never a figure of credibility to begin with, only a character, a projection of power and defiance that his followers cling to with cult-like fervor.
Our systems of accountability—laws, norms, even truth itself—are like cobwebs trying to restrain a wrecking ball. They rely on mutual consent, on the understanding that some lines won’t be crossed, some games won’t be rigged. But Trump’s entire ethos is that there are no lines. No rules. Just endless opportunities to exploit the chaos and claim victory through sheer audacity.
So how do you fight that? With facts? With decency? With carefully worded op-eds and well-intentioned condemnations? You might as well throw paper airplanes at a hurricane. Trump isn’t constrained by the systems we expect him to follow, and that’s exactly why his base loves him. Every outrage is proof of his strength. Every scandal is a badge of honor. To his followers, his very defiance of the rules is the point.
The real question isn’t about him. It’s about us. Are we prepared to acknowledge that our institutions—the courts, Congress, the media—aren’t designed to handle someone like Trump? That they crumble under the weight of a man who wields chaos as both shield and sword? Or will we keep pretending that the same playbook that worked against ordinary politicians will somehow tame the beast?
Because let’s be clear: this isn’t about governance. It never was. It’s about performance. Trump doesn’t want to run the country; he wants to run the show, and if we don’t recognize that for what it is, we’re not just playing into his hands—we’re the ones setting the stage.
Patrick my man, that’s about the most clear-eyed assessment I’ve read. “A clown with a flamethrower”, as Charlie Sykes summed him up. You have to respect the flamethrower, but STOP talking about the clown. As the children learned about Pennywise the clown in Stephen King’s IT, “IT’s” power was 100% fed by their fear and imaginations. So we best direct our actions and attention elsewhere, and don’t let political broadcast and social media keep you locked into this bread and circus insanity. Real shit needs to get done. Again, Kudos for a pitch perfect diagnosis that this is about us, and whining about and obsessing g about the incoming President accomplishes next to nothing.
Thank you for helping to encapsulate my total frustration with things right now.
Wow this a perfect distillation of the issues regarding Trump, I love the metaphors.
But just one thing, at the end you left out the solution. 😉
The thing I’m most sure about is there are only three things needed to fix this. I’ve thought and written about this extensively here: https://substack.com/@complexsimplicity/note/c-79872455?r=2r6ysj&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
The problem is these three things begin with ‘us’ and at least half of ‘us’ are no longer attached to reality, and without that half none of the three are possible.
That is a pretty good description, but the bottom line is that the truth actually doesn't matter to him or his followers, only what he says. If he said he did something, well, sure he did. When it is further amplified by an entire media ecosystem, what are the chances anyone will wake up. Even if (when) he fails, it will never be his fault. Talk, fail, shift blame, repeat. That will be the next 4+ years.
Your second paragraph alone should be written in inextinguishable letters of fire over the head of the president-elect.
Thank you for your generous words. I'm humbled that my writing resonated with you. Your vivid imagery of inscribing those lines in "inextinguishable letters of fire" above the felon's head is both powerful and evocative Let's hope that such sentiments ignite the necessary reflection and action in our leaders and fellow citizens alike.
Amen to that!
“A black hole in the shape of a man” - chef’s kiss
Thank you for your kind words! I'm glad that phrase resonated with you. Your appreciation means a lot to me.
",,,like cobwebs trying to restrain a wrecking ball." Stellar.
Thank you for sharing your appreciation.
From this excellent comment this sums up the problem succinctly: "It’s about us. Are we prepared to acknowledge that our institutions—the courts, Congress, the media—aren’t designed to handle someone like Trump? That they crumble under the weight of a man who wields chaos as both shield and sword?"
Until 2017 we didn't realize how much the system of government that has developed in the US rests on the basic assumption that people in public service will behave honorably and will make an attempt to comply with rules, laws, and most importantly, norms. Of course not all public servants did, but the majority did. Richard Nixon, the boogeyman of my youth, honored the norms and resigned eventually. But now we are faced with a public servant who does't do any of those things, who steps around laws and rules, who uses his wealth or perceived wealth and position to bully people around, who uses the court system to avoid accountability. And this person is aided by a dedicated group of courtiers and voters. This compounded with a materialistic and indifferent group of voters leads us to this moment.
Thank you for such a thoughtful response—it captures the heart of the problem so perfectly. The assumption that public servants would uphold basic decency, even under pressure, was so foundational that its fragility went unnoticed for generations. Nixon, flawed as he was, still adhered to the norms when faced with overwhelming accountability.
But now, as you point out, we are dealing with a figure who not only rejects these principles but weaponizes their absence, wielding chaos as both shield and sword. What’s even more alarming is the infrastructure of enablers—the courtiers, voters, and indifferent bystanders—who amplify this destruction.
Well said. Our only hope is a catastrophe of such proportions that it hurts his supporters in a way that even they cannot deny.
Fuck you really nailed it here. This is what has been frustrating me about bill for the last year. He keeps playing by 2012 rules when Trump has eaten the board. I don’t have a solution other than let them go hog wild and hope the chaos causes a backlash with the public.
The problem with such a strategy is that like you I think the problem is us so I don’t believe it has a high likelihood of succeeding.
I deeply appreciate your recognition of the labyrinthine challenges we now face. I too am grappling with the stark reality that our figures, our so-called thought leaders, stumble and fumble as they cling to outdated playbooks, engaging with Trump as if the shattered rules of yesterday can somehow still frame today’s chaos. This isn’t a four-year storm to ride out. This is a seismic shift, a fracturing of reality itself, with half the nation untethered from the truth, adrift in a sea of conspiracy and grievance.
There is no deus ex machina, no neatly tied resolution waiting in the wings. This moment is not like those that came before; it is the culmination of decades of rot, a gaping wound that won’t heal without concerted, painful, and relentless effort. To pretend otherwise—to assume this resolves itself—is to lull ourselves into apathy, an unforgivable betrayal of the future we claim to fight for.
Question for you (I have been struggling with this question for a while but given you seem to think like I do I thought I would get your thoughts): let’s say Trump goes hog wild. What is worse:
(1) Americans likes it
(2) Americans dont like it but dont care when it comes to voting.
I feel like most people would say the first. I think it’s the second.
I also think it’s the second, and I’ve come to believe it’s the more dangerous of the two. The 2024 election was a moment of profound clarity for me, revealing just how deeply apathy has sunk into the national consciousness. It’s not just that people don’t care about the harm being done—it’s that they’ve become comfortable with it, disengaged to the point where they no longer see the connection between their choices and the reality around them.
That realization changed everything for me. It’s why I’ve decided to pull my business, my assets, and my family out of this country. America has shifted from a place of opportunity to a liability—not just for those within its borders but for the planet as a whole. I can no longer justify letting this nation benefit from my efforts when its trajectory feels so inevitably destructive.
Forget “ask not what your country can do for you.” I’m asking myself what I can do for the planet to shield it from an America increasingly indifferent to whether it even deserves to exist. Apathy is the ultimate enabler, and if it goes unchecked, the downfall won’t just be inevitable—it’ll be global.
On its own merits, this very well written comment could be an article entitled "What Is Donald Trump Really About?"
Agree with other replies. Great Comment.
But there may yet be some answer to what to do. C Sacchi below mentioned breaking up his base. That seems to me to have some chance of working. Basically, ruin Trump's show. Find every way possible to turn his base against him, against his billionaires and against themselves. There will be many broken campaign promises, and prices won't be coming down. Trump already acknowledged that post-election. Stir up resentment and a deep sense of betrayal in his base. If possible, also find ways to get them pointing fingers at each other. He needs to be deprived of his adulation highs which do seem key to keeping him going. I am surprised he has not done any "rallies" since the election. After 2016 win, he had frequent rallies because he fed off the acclaim of the crowds. It was like his oxygen. So figure out how to take that away.
We must not lose sight of the fact that while Trump himself is busy outraging those outside his base and creating chaos, his administration will be steadily working behind the scene to make the Project 2025 agenda reality. Ultimately, that is what needs to be blocked.
Can we fight chaos with chaos? Meritless lawsuits are one of Trump's favorite tactics. Could that tactic be used against his administration's actions, just to tie it up. I think it was Sarah (this was in a different context, the fate of the Washington Post) who said that there were over 200 US billionaires, and there had to be a few public-spirited ones among them. Perhaps they could fund some Trump-show-ruining chaos and gum up the working of his administration.
Hi Marie This is an insightful comment, and I agree that disrupting Trump's "show" could yield some results if you believe Trump himself is the root of the problem. His need for adulation and the loyalty of his base is indeed his lifeblood, and depriving him of that would strike at the core of his power. However, I’d argue that adding chaos only furthers the fire.
“Fight fire with fire” sounds good on paper—drag Trump, Vance, and their ilk into court, keep them bogged down in lawsuits, and see how they like it. But this strategy doesn’t solve the problem; it feeds it. You don’t put out a fire by adding more flames. You just burn the house down faster.
Defamation lawsuits and legal theatrics are the symptoms of a broken system, not the cause. Trump and his allies weaponize the courts not because they care about winning, but because they understand that chaos and spectacle are the point. Flooding the courts with counter-lawsuits doesn’t fix the erosion of truth; it simply deepens the dysfunction. The public doesn’t see justice—they see more noise, and that noise plays right into the hands of authoritarians who thrive on confusion and exhaustion.
To me, this is not just about Trump. He’s not the problem—he’s the culmination, the end result of years of cracks in the republic that have widened into gaping chasms. This is Rome, not just in its chaos but in the inevitability of its collapse once the foundation began to crack. Trump’s rise and the Project 2025 agenda are merely tools being wielded to pry apart the remnants of the republic, and those tools will remain even if Trump’s "show" is ruined.
The real fight is against the collapse of the republic itself, and that requires clarity, not more confusion. I've taken great effort to lay out exactly where we are, how we got here, and the reality of what is needed for us/The US to be fixed. I'd love for someone to show me exactly where I am wrong, but so far, no one has been able to show me any cracks in my ideology: https://substack.com/@complexsimplicity/note/c-79872455
The Bulwark: Perhaps the only place on the internet where the comments can outshine the content. I love this community.
All true. Great comment.
Trump power as a politician is a function of his support by the voters (unbelievably strong in his case). I would center the anti Trump strategy going forward on breaking up his base. Actually, in the long run Trump himself is not the problem but "Trumpism" is, so we have to fight Trumpism. His coalition is only united by him personally. Without him they do not naturally work together, quite the opposite as we have seen recently. We should figure out how to pitch them against each other rather than persuading them (something we tried very hard to do with no success whatsoever).
Nice writing Patrick! I think you are on target.
Perhaps the leverage point is indeed "the gravitational pull of his own ego" -- rather than argue with him perhaps we should simply (unmercifully) judge him. Not insult him (e.g., fat orange moron with no curiosity) but critique him --his ego's Kryptonite is "BORING FAILURE". To the extent that we can ignore him as boring and pity him as a failure (apart from resisting/thwarting his stupid initiatives and attacking his willing minions), we can deprive him of fuel.
It brings to mind the metabolic management of cancer wherein in addition to slash/burn/poison we try to starve a malignancy of the glucose it requires for fermentation-based energy. While we need to use all the other tools to fight the damage his administration will attempt, we need to starve the tumor in the Oval Office of anything that makes it worthwhile to get out of bed in the morning.
Trump is a loser and I am bored of his schtick.
I concur that depriving Trump of the attention he craves can be an effective strategy. By labeling him as a "boring failure," we strike at the core of his ego, potentially diminishing his influence.
I think we should all do our best to ensure that our responses should be both conscientious and impactful. I wrote about my preferred way to fight back and the importance of deliberate action in countering our current state here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-152108087.
While I advocate for a particular approach, I recognize that everyone should/must find their own path to effect change. The key is to ensure that our actions are thoughtful and truly make a difference.
Your analogy to cancer treatment is particularly poignant. Just as starving a tumor of its energy source can impede its growth, denying Trump the attention he seeks can undermine his platform. By collectively focusing on meaningful resistance and constructive initiatives, we can work towards a more resilient society.
It is important to understand that this problem isn't Trump-specific; this problem is systemic and requires systemic change to solve. We may temporarily escape authoritarianism due to Trump's ineptness, but without systemic change that will require 30-40 years of effort, it's not if it is when a dictator pulls the reins of America.
Patrick - I agree with your analysis but not that we are the ones who set the stage. That's victim blaming. Trump isn't even bound by his oath of office. He refuses to recognize any of the structures that are part of a rules-based order or accepted human decency. That's on him. But yes, we do need to understand what we're dealing with or we become props in the clown show. Can malicious brutality be constrained by a rules-based order and human decency? It's an existential question. In the next four years, we will find the answer.
Trump's psychopathic amorality is certainly not the fault of the people who never voted for him. But he would never have gained such vast power without the cult-worship bestowed on him by millions of Americans; the choice by "conservative" influencers to package his glaring faults as singular virtues; the decisions by GOP politicians to defend and protect him for their own purposes; the calculated hedging and sanitizing done by media outlets either for profit or from a misguided effort to appear "balanced"; etc.
Trump is just one person with a severe personality disorder. Trumpism is a large set of poor judgments and cynical moral compromises made by millions of other people.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's critical to face an uncomfortable truth: we are not just bystanders in this crisis. We, as a collective, voted for this. The American people chose this path—Through decades of decisions, apathy, and misplaced priorities. To deny that is to absolve ourselves of the responsibility to fix it.
This isn’t victim-blaming; it’s accountability. Trump’s refusal to adhere to any rules or principles is abhorrent, but he didn’t emerge in a void. His rise is the culmination of a system we’ve allowed to erode over time. Yes, his malicious brutality challenges the very concept of a rules-based order and human decency. But we cannot pretend this is a "him" problem. He is a symptom of a deeper rot, that we both created and voted for, again.
The task ahead isn’t a four-year battle—it’s a generational project. At the very best, reversing this decline will take 30-40 years of effort, persistence, and systemic change. It’s a daunting timeline, but it’s the truth we need to accept if we hope to make progress.
I’ve written more about this here: https://substack.com/@complexsimplicity/note/c-79872455. We are the ones who set the stage, and we are the ones who must dismantle it and rebuild. To dismiss this reality is to risk becoming props in the very clown show we detest.
The existential question isn’t whether malicious brutality can be constrained—it’s whether we, collectively, are willing to admit the problem is us.
"The American people chose this path—Through decades of decisions, apathy, and misplaced priorities."
Well said.