I get the appeal of the "chaos for the sake of chaos/change" idea, but it seems really inappropriate for our situation. In my opinion the two largest problems are protecting the environment and the middle/lower class.
Trump would just exacerbate environmental issues as a proud short-sighted capitalist. Which wouldn't raise awareness because those problems build slowly, over decades.
But maybe if he screws the lower class hard enough, people will get upset? ...I think people are already upset enough about the economy, I don't see how shafting it further is supposed to help.
Because small incremental changes to address these issues (especially when explicitly focused on reducing the rate at which specific types of damage are accumulating, and not actually solving the root causes of damage or fixing damage already done) are not, and likely never will be, enough to match and reverse the rate at which these problems are increasing in gravity.
And if I've learned anything about political culture in my adult life, it's that the vast majority of people will not be motivated to directly address a problem until it is literally kicking in their door. Trump would be more likely than anyone to make sure those problems are kicking in everyone's door. Which means people would be motivated to address them sooner, than they would be if allowed to continue worsening at a steady pace as they have been, where by the time people are motivated the problems will be much, much worse.
For comparison, people like to point out environmental issues from the past that were actually addressed strictly enough to result in real improvement (instead of "hey we slowed down the destruction a little bit"). And those problems were 'kicking in your door' type problems, such as the Cuyahoga River fires. Problems that were sensational. They created a spectacle that was easy to create interest over, and that no one could argue the problematic nature of. Today's problems are so remote-seeming to most people that they don't generate interest. They're so very much worse in scale, but the symptoms are hidden away from the awareness of the average voter. This is not my own little homebrew political theory. I have spoken with many, many people who believe the environment is no longer a concern, because they can link to past environmental issues like the Cuyahoga River fires and say "The environment used to be so bad that RIVERS CAUGHT ON FIRE. You don't see crazy shit like that anymore, so why should I believe that things are worse now?!"
The environment can recover pretty easily from singular, localized fuck-ups that create a short-term spectacle, and that is Trump's core nature. It can't recover from the type of damage that accumulates and grows over time on a global scale, but is regulated away from having direct impact on anyone with enough political voice to be a concern.
We are really in a desperate place right now, and we absolutely can not afford another generation of things continuing as they have been. And I'm not saying that putting Trump in power for these reasons is necessarily a good idea, so don't fucking dogpile me. I'm just explaining why people would entertain the idea. It's more than "I'm not happy, so let's make some chaos and see what happens".
Author
Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée (Read 1586429 times)