Regarding JVL's theory of the Republican embrace of vice, I don't disagree that they like, even extol, vice and violence in their champions, but I think it's far simpler than believing that, because they are guilty of crimes, they will not hesitate to hurt their opponents. It's tribal dynamics, but not at some superficial level, it is ab…
Regarding JVL's theory of the Republican embrace of vice, I don't disagree that they like, even extol, vice and violence in their champions, but I think it's far simpler than believing that, because they are guilty of crimes, they will not hesitate to hurt their opponents. It's tribal dynamics, but not at some superficial level, it is about accessing the core of supporter's identity as an active, valued member of the tribe.
As frightening as it sounds, Republican's embrace of anti-qualified candidates can be explained through the pro wrestling practice of the new "kayfabe," a willing suspension of disbelief in which performers, promoters and (most important for this discussion) the audience all "keep kayfabe," i.e., they become participants in the performance. In original kayfabe, the fans were merely spectators and pro wrestlers were never out of character. The "Faces" (AKA Baby faces - good guys) are always good guys and the "Heels" are always bad guys, in and out of the ring and anywhere, anytime in public. This has not changed much with new kayfabe in that anyone aligned with your guy, Face or Heel, is automatically his ally and therefore you root for them, no matter what and you believe in their worth (if not virtue) because they are on your guy's team. Thus play actors such as Hegseth, Gabbard, Patel and RFK Jr. become heroes, merely because they are on your guy's side. Likewise, alliances in pro wrestling can switch at any time, thus John Kelly, Jim Mattis, Bill Barr, Mike Pence, etc. can go from being heroic allies to traitorous enemies in an instant without a second thought.
In new kayfabe, the audience is a part of the spectacle, they are active players in the performance. Another feature is the "smart fans" vs. the "marks," i.e., those who understand it is all a performance vs. those dupes who believe it is all real. Most fans think they are smart and it is the others who are the marks, allowing them to feel superior while still cheering on their hero. They see the tactics behind the performance but this invests them even further into the spectacle because they are now an insider with the knowledge that it's all part of a greater strategy (despite the obvious grift), but now they are on the team. Interestingly, in the realm of political kayfabe, pundits also play a crucial role. They focus not on the substance, practicality, costs and harms of positions taken by a candidate (e.g., mass deportation, tariffs, prosecuting political opponents, leaving NATO, invading Greenland), but on the strategic messaging they are sending, the "message within the message.". These messages become projective tests upon which disparate parts of the politician's base can find the message they want to find (saving American jobs for Americans, vs. support for White supremacy and xenophobia). Further, pundits don't ask how politicians will keep their promises (lowering prices, eliminating the debt while cutting taxes, cutting programs without any pain, deporting tens of millions of people, etc.), instead they try to expose the "true meaning" behind the (not serious) position. This framing certainly explains much about the failure of professional pundits to take Trump seriously, to the endless frustration of his opponents.
The "moat" certainly is a helpful metaphor for the safety shield around Trump's nominees, but it is a part of the larger fiction, the political kayfabe, of the era of Trump. Except that folding chair we're being hit with is real.
Regarding JVL's theory of the Republican embrace of vice, I don't disagree that they like, even extol, vice and violence in their champions, but I think it's far simpler than believing that, because they are guilty of crimes, they will not hesitate to hurt their opponents. It's tribal dynamics, but not at some superficial level, it is about accessing the core of supporter's identity as an active, valued member of the tribe.
As frightening as it sounds, Republican's embrace of anti-qualified candidates can be explained through the pro wrestling practice of the new "kayfabe," a willing suspension of disbelief in which performers, promoters and (most important for this discussion) the audience all "keep kayfabe," i.e., they become participants in the performance. In original kayfabe, the fans were merely spectators and pro wrestlers were never out of character. The "Faces" (AKA Baby faces - good guys) are always good guys and the "Heels" are always bad guys, in and out of the ring and anywhere, anytime in public. This has not changed much with new kayfabe in that anyone aligned with your guy, Face or Heel, is automatically his ally and therefore you root for them, no matter what and you believe in their worth (if not virtue) because they are on your guy's team. Thus play actors such as Hegseth, Gabbard, Patel and RFK Jr. become heroes, merely because they are on your guy's side. Likewise, alliances in pro wrestling can switch at any time, thus John Kelly, Jim Mattis, Bill Barr, Mike Pence, etc. can go from being heroic allies to traitorous enemies in an instant without a second thought.
In new kayfabe, the audience is a part of the spectacle, they are active players in the performance. Another feature is the "smart fans" vs. the "marks," i.e., those who understand it is all a performance vs. those dupes who believe it is all real. Most fans think they are smart and it is the others who are the marks, allowing them to feel superior while still cheering on their hero. They see the tactics behind the performance but this invests them even further into the spectacle because they are now an insider with the knowledge that it's all part of a greater strategy (despite the obvious grift), but now they are on the team. Interestingly, in the realm of political kayfabe, pundits also play a crucial role. They focus not on the substance, practicality, costs and harms of positions taken by a candidate (e.g., mass deportation, tariffs, prosecuting political opponents, leaving NATO, invading Greenland), but on the strategic messaging they are sending, the "message within the message.". These messages become projective tests upon which disparate parts of the politician's base can find the message they want to find (saving American jobs for Americans, vs. support for White supremacy and xenophobia). Further, pundits don't ask how politicians will keep their promises (lowering prices, eliminating the debt while cutting taxes, cutting programs without any pain, deporting tens of millions of people, etc.), instead they try to expose the "true meaning" behind the (not serious) position. This framing certainly explains much about the failure of professional pundits to take Trump seriously, to the endless frustration of his opponents.
The "moat" certainly is a helpful metaphor for the safety shield around Trump's nominees, but it is a part of the larger fiction, the political kayfabe, of the era of Trump. Except that folding chair we're being hit with is real.
(1) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1478929920963827