You touch on this, but I would go further and say that many people are easily swayed by emotion-driven arguments, regardless of the merits of the argument. And if you're going to just flit from one emotional flashpoint to the next, there's no way you can be ideologically consistent.
It's impossible for me track every bill, every appointment hearing, every budget resolution, or whatever it is that politicians do. At the end of the day, knowing that they are a serious person who broadly shares my values matters a lot more than specific policies do. I shit you not, in 2024 I was evaluating candidates on whether or not they understood what a "deficit" was and whether or not they agreed human shit stinks.
I think a lot of people take a similar minimalist tac. What the few items are vary. For tech heads, in 2024, it was "Feels like they want to do stuff and will get the naggers off my back." A cruddy calculus, but the same shape as "understand basic words and a sense of smell" or "holds these 3 most important moral values" or "wants to give me a job and money."
There's a tendency to always think in terms of progress towards an end state. Evolution: some creatures are more evolved than others. Morality: there is an "arc of history". Politics: the coming revolution. Etc.
This makes sense if you're a religious person who believes in an interventionist god, but if you're a deist, or secular, than this is a truly weird position to take. This often comes up in discussions around things like the Holocaust (I bring it up because today is Yom HaShoah), the idea that "it couldn't happen here" (although that is happening less now that people are looking to point a figure and say it is happening in Israel, a truly vile and historically illiterate claim). There were some truly evil people in Nazi Germany, but the majority of people were ordinarily evil, just your standard, everyday antisemites. It could "happen here", and if you were around then you probably wouldn't have been a righteous among the nations (and anyone who is sure they would have been, I'm more likely to think they would have been one of the Nazis).
Liberal democracy is not a stable point, nor was it thought to be by your founding fathers when they established America. "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". This is an acknowledgement that illiberalism is a constant force that will always threaten to destabilise liberalism. (who is the patriot and who is the tyrant is an exercise left to the reader).
Anyways, my point is, things just happen. There's no "intelligent designer" for anything on a macro scale, not for evolution, not for politics, not for morality.
One side note here is that the coalitions that have defeated right-wing authoritarian populism in Europe have been centered around right-wing political figures and parties who have basically run on "we can get you order and stability without the crazy" and then actually deliver rather than returning to business as usual.
And the thing is, this has worked. Denmark's establishment coalition, for example, got in ahead of the game and has managed to keep its RW populist parties fairly under control (compare to Germany and Sweden, whose RW populist parties have each gotten the second-largest number of votes in their most recent parliamentary elections) while the center of Poland's current governing coalition is a right-wing party.
As you heavily imply, Democrats and establishment Republicans should take note.
The theory had more to do with those in the left wanting to believe something other than open borders immigration being extremely unpopular in Europe (which which is what led to both Brext and the increase in support in right wing parties in Europe). US in 2016 was a mix of Hilary being a terrible candidate, the democrats shifting their party base from the lower class to the educated under Obama leaving fertile ground for someone to scoop up the lower class voters the way Trump has done (he was not there yet in 2016, but won anyways because Hilary was such a bad candidate), and then people conflated the 2 things even though they had completely different causes into one theory. That of course led to the Democrats in the US making the exact same mistake that many places on the left in Europe continue to make (although some have fixed) about immigration, which is why Trump won in 2024 more than anything else.
The continual shift to the right in other places in Europe that have not dealt with the immigration issue (cough UK cough) is a strong indication of how the rightward shift in Europe is pretty much about a single issue, and when that issue is no longer relevant, the rightward shift disappears. This is not the same situation as the US, the US has a more general rightward shift, and while the immigration issue is the largest thing behind this, there are several other cultural things that are also moving to the right (the Biden administration reinterpreting Title IX to cover gender instead of only sex right as the backlash against trans overreach was starting was a masterstroke of bad timing as an example). Hollywood and TV media being pretty well dominated by those on the far left, so most TV shows and movies all got infected by groupthink and were pushing positions that most people don't agree with (and frankly, most people rightfully care about their entertainment more than about politics, and since sports is the king of entertainment as a whole, pushing transwomen in sports what the biggest overreach that they did, but mist really politically active people on the left are not into sports, so they never realized how bad of an idea this was to try and push. I still see people who are not all that into sports not understand why it is that big of a deal, which my though is those people don't get why sports is a big deal in the first place, so their attempts to inject things into sports is like the layperson with no education trying to add their own design ideas to a building, then looking in confusion at the engineer who tells them that you can't build a skyscraper using only wood, and instead of accepting that they know nothing about the topic, keep trying to push it and say it is not a big deal.
"most people rightfully care about their entertainment more than about politics."
Depends on what you mean by "rightly." Expectedly, sure. Reasonably, only insofar as we spend more time doing entertainment than having input into politics. But we have to be capable of caring more about politics than entertainment some of the time in the same manner that I have to be capable of caring about my plumbing some of the time despite usually ignoring it.
The social media turn, if not the predicted populist "turn," weaponizes the sometimes-rational care about entertainment to encourage people to act like politics are always a subset of entertainment rather than a superceding if rarer concern.
Pretty hard for centrist parties to ‘get with the times’ if ever saying no to any migrant gets you called an authoritarian.
What was illiberal or authoritarian about Brexit? Well, the EU professional class didn’t like it: and that’s their basis for calling anything authoritarian
And the reason Brexit seems to have failed is that the British segment of the professional class that did not like it also did nothing to try to enforce Brexit even though their voters asked for it--just stuck their fingers in their ears and went nah-nah-nah.
The thing with most predictions that take a wave election and extrapolate growth forward is that political trends are very hard to discern and normally the big wave election is the result of a missed trend (or an obvious one that gets ignored for partisan wishful thinking) hitting its crest and not a new one just starting to surge.
I can’t resist a few words from Orwell (Looking Back on the Spanish War, 1942), which, if you modify some of the 1930s-class-struggle language, still reads very well:
“One feature of the Nazi conquest of France was the astonishing defections among the intelligentsia, including some of the left-wing political intelligentsia. The intelligentsia are the people who squeal loudest against Fascism, and yet a respectable proportion of them collapse into defeatism when the pinch comes. They are far-sighted enough to see the odds against them, and moreoever they can be bribed – for it is evident that the Nazis think it worth while to bribe intellectuals. With the working class it is the other way about. Too ignorant to see through the trick that is being played on them, they easily swallow the promises of Fascism, yet sooner or later they always take up the struggle again. They must do so, because in their own bodies they always discover that the promises of Fascism cannot be fulfilled. To win over the working class permanently, the Fascists would have to raise the general standard of living, which they are unable and probably unwilling to do. The struggle of the working class is like the growth of a plant. The plant is blind and stupid, but it knows enough to keep pushing upwards towards the light, and it will do this in the face of endless discouragements. What are the workers struggling for? Simply for the decent life which they are more and more aware is now technically possible. Their consciousness of this aim ebbs and flows.”
Completely irrelevant rant, but maybe someone here has an answer: Why is it "ouster" and not "ousting"? I know we got it from French and that's how they conjugate it or whatever. But English is like 65% French and we don't do that for any other word. Seems odd
I stipulate that immigration may be a more concrete problem for Europe than for the US. That being said, in the US, the rise in anti-immigrant sentiment is surely driven by the democratization of info. distribution more than concrete impact. Yes, southern border towns had some wild years, but most people don't live in them. Most places, the most visible impact of immigrants has been their visibility rather than negative economic or cultural impacts.
I agree that anti-immigrant sentiment is more durable than a broader populist turn. But I think, in the US, that's an accident. Immigration dissatisfaction is up mostly because the most prominent man in US politics hates immigrants and because it's an easy explain-everything pitch. It could have been something else.
I think it a delusion on the left that the pushback against immigration is only about Nativist sentiment. Trump might qualify as a nativist and European supremacist.
But the average American is both pro immigration and anti illegal immigration, and much of the wind that fills Trump's sails is that people want respect for rule of law and that the US gets to decide who is allowed in as opposed to the happenstance of whomever slips by the border or uses the asylum end run.
A poll clearly shows that the pushback against Biden's immigration polices, is not Nativism. What this Center Square poll showed ( https://www.eurasiareview.com/04092025-vast-majority-of-americans-think-legal-immigration-is-necessary/ ) that It found that 74% of voters say that legal immigration is good for the United States but that illegal immigration is bad. The minority was split between the all immigration bad (8%) and all immigration good, legal and illegal (16%).
Trump did not invent this even as he exploited it. Americans feel immigrants should obey the law and only come through legal processes. I share that view and am very pro immigrant but also very pro democracy, and the people should get to decide who and how many enter the country. I would argue for a healthy migration stream, but illegality shouldn't define the number.
Now my view of the current situation is that the USA is like a guy who just won the hotdog eating competition and is struggling with a serious temptation to celebrate by having dinner at a buffet. The healthiness of what he ate is questionable and regardless he should *definitely* take some time to let it digest before he eats more. Even if he survives this round, regularly overeating is unhealthy in general and will lead him to an early grave.
The analogy does break down in that a human body needs food of some kind, whereas a country does not necessarily need immigration... at all. If politicians continue to offer a choice between "too much to assimilate" and "less than that" I expect voters to opt for the second one. Increasingly they will opt for the second one even if it turns out to be rounding-error levels of immigration.
I suspect that Americans writ large would be pleased with a heavily revised asylum system (and not in Trump's manner of white people from South Africa only). I don't know if that would poll or campaign well, but the end result would, I think, make a lot of people happy. It'd be much closer to Obama's strategy of a high number of deportations of people who just arrived.
Sentiment to immigrants is actually warmer than ever.
It’s just that the new paradigms enabled people to vote on it. Trump broke the monopoly of the boys club when he won the primary and gave people a chance to vote on it.
The immigration waves in the 19th and 20th century weren’t grass roots operations and weren’t popular: the elites just did them anyways
That is certainly a viewpoint. I would stipulate that "immigration may be a more concrete problem for Europe than for the US" is a bit like saying "the fire is hotter than the frying pan", and that cities like Chicago, NYC, and even Dallas and San Francisco are not "southern border towns".
I won't delve too much into the analogy, but I don't have any argument with the fire being hot. I don't know much about Europe. I contend that the pan isn't; people are told that it is, and in a few places in America it has been, but largely, again, the main thing that changed is visibility, not a rise in negative impact on people's lives. This is why I don't factor Chicago or San Francisco into the calculus except as data points on visibility. I contend that their problems aren't caused by immigrants.
I said it could have been "something else." The poor. The unemployed. Druggies. Heck, pick an ethnic community that is and already has been here. People could have blamed one of these or anything else for what they see as the problems of the US, but instead we got "they're emptying their prisons and insane asylums to rape our girls." Maybe something else wouldn't have been as effective rhetorically, but it's not because something else would've been more or less true.
The state/health of liberal democracy and any fundamental change in the psyche of voters seem to me very separate things (though I think fallacy of that psychic shift is very noteworthy and well treated in the post). Authoritarians either need keep the popular will on their side by some combination of getting things right (mostly economically) or some rallying cry (usually toward a mostly fabricated enemy) or, when the hearts of popular will can't be won, then fear/intimidation/force/corruption. Europe seems to be scoring some great points in response to poor economic effects, but it ain't over until it's over, and on this side of the pond team authoritarian is still swinging. I think the economics will continue to be a liability for them but if there's some fluke and they find a way to change that or are somehow able make that a secondary issue (doubtful but possible), then they'll have a chance to maintain control and continue to remove democratic guardrails ... and to support the enemies of democracy around the globe (it's just so wild to write that about a US government, but I don't know how to see it any other way). Just because they haven't always executed well doesn't mean they don't learn from their mistakes. The story of authoritarians is to win enough popular will to get power and then do their best to set things up so that they don't necessarily need the popular will to stay in power. I don't give them very strong odds at this point, which is encouraging, but this game seems far from over. And politics is so much like college basketball ... however big the leads get, it seems like the 90% of games have a 2 point margin with 2 minutes to go. They're gonna tighten this up.
Has anyone listened to the Substack podcast "Letters from an American" today? It's dated April 13 but it's release a day later). Heather Cox Richardson lays out the "rich white dudes take control, crash economy" we've been going through since the 1850's.
But listen to the computer voice that comes with her written version (she does a printed and audio version simultaneously).
She makes Jeff look really lazy lol. That way you can avoid her Elizabeth Warren like scolding history teacher voice.
She's well worth a free listen.
She's also a terrible businessman person like Jeff.
You have a very reasonable analysis of how political change often sweeps through populations. It's a shame you just cancelled yourself by pinning Trump's comeback on the trans community. It's too bad really, but I don't make the rules 🤷🏼♂️. Sorry
You touch on this, but I would go further and say that many people are easily swayed by emotion-driven arguments, regardless of the merits of the argument. And if you're going to just flit from one emotional flashpoint to the next, there's no way you can be ideologically consistent.
Good point. And social media probably makes this a bigger factor than it used to be.
It's impossible for me track every bill, every appointment hearing, every budget resolution, or whatever it is that politicians do. At the end of the day, knowing that they are a serious person who broadly shares my values matters a lot more than specific policies do. I shit you not, in 2024 I was evaluating candidates on whether or not they understood what a "deficit" was and whether or not they agreed human shit stinks.
I think a lot of people take a similar minimalist tac. What the few items are vary. For tech heads, in 2024, it was "Feels like they want to do stuff and will get the naggers off my back." A cruddy calculus, but the same shape as "understand basic words and a sense of smell" or "holds these 3 most important moral values" or "wants to give me a job and money."
There's a tendency to always think in terms of progress towards an end state. Evolution: some creatures are more evolved than others. Morality: there is an "arc of history". Politics: the coming revolution. Etc.
This makes sense if you're a religious person who believes in an interventionist god, but if you're a deist, or secular, than this is a truly weird position to take. This often comes up in discussions around things like the Holocaust (I bring it up because today is Yom HaShoah), the idea that "it couldn't happen here" (although that is happening less now that people are looking to point a figure and say it is happening in Israel, a truly vile and historically illiterate claim). There were some truly evil people in Nazi Germany, but the majority of people were ordinarily evil, just your standard, everyday antisemites. It could "happen here", and if you were around then you probably wouldn't have been a righteous among the nations (and anyone who is sure they would have been, I'm more likely to think they would have been one of the Nazis).
Liberal democracy is not a stable point, nor was it thought to be by your founding fathers when they established America. "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". This is an acknowledgement that illiberalism is a constant force that will always threaten to destabilise liberalism. (who is the patriot and who is the tyrant is an exercise left to the reader).
Anyways, my point is, things just happen. There's no "intelligent designer" for anything on a macro scale, not for evolution, not for politics, not for morality.
Yeah, "muddling along" is probably a pretty good descriptor for most of humanity most of the time.
One side note here is that the coalitions that have defeated right-wing authoritarian populism in Europe have been centered around right-wing political figures and parties who have basically run on "we can get you order and stability without the crazy" and then actually deliver rather than returning to business as usual.
And the thing is, this has worked. Denmark's establishment coalition, for example, got in ahead of the game and has managed to keep its RW populist parties fairly under control (compare to Germany and Sweden, whose RW populist parties have each gotten the second-largest number of votes in their most recent parliamentary elections) while the center of Poland's current governing coalition is a right-wing party.
As you heavily imply, Democrats and establishment Republicans should take note.
Yep, "We can get you order and stability without the crazy" sounds like a probable winner in any language.
Love that for them. Wish it were on offer in the USA.
The theory had more to do with those in the left wanting to believe something other than open borders immigration being extremely unpopular in Europe (which which is what led to both Brext and the increase in support in right wing parties in Europe). US in 2016 was a mix of Hilary being a terrible candidate, the democrats shifting their party base from the lower class to the educated under Obama leaving fertile ground for someone to scoop up the lower class voters the way Trump has done (he was not there yet in 2016, but won anyways because Hilary was such a bad candidate), and then people conflated the 2 things even though they had completely different causes into one theory. That of course led to the Democrats in the US making the exact same mistake that many places on the left in Europe continue to make (although some have fixed) about immigration, which is why Trump won in 2024 more than anything else.
The continual shift to the right in other places in Europe that have not dealt with the immigration issue (cough UK cough) is a strong indication of how the rightward shift in Europe is pretty much about a single issue, and when that issue is no longer relevant, the rightward shift disappears. This is not the same situation as the US, the US has a more general rightward shift, and while the immigration issue is the largest thing behind this, there are several other cultural things that are also moving to the right (the Biden administration reinterpreting Title IX to cover gender instead of only sex right as the backlash against trans overreach was starting was a masterstroke of bad timing as an example). Hollywood and TV media being pretty well dominated by those on the far left, so most TV shows and movies all got infected by groupthink and were pushing positions that most people don't agree with (and frankly, most people rightfully care about their entertainment more than about politics, and since sports is the king of entertainment as a whole, pushing transwomen in sports what the biggest overreach that they did, but mist really politically active people on the left are not into sports, so they never realized how bad of an idea this was to try and push. I still see people who are not all that into sports not understand why it is that big of a deal, which my though is those people don't get why sports is a big deal in the first place, so their attempts to inject things into sports is like the layperson with no education trying to add their own design ideas to a building, then looking in confusion at the engineer who tells them that you can't build a skyscraper using only wood, and instead of accepting that they know nothing about the topic, keep trying to push it and say it is not a big deal.
"most people rightfully care about their entertainment more than about politics."
Depends on what you mean by "rightly." Expectedly, sure. Reasonably, only insofar as we spend more time doing entertainment than having input into politics. But we have to be capable of caring more about politics than entertainment some of the time in the same manner that I have to be capable of caring about my plumbing some of the time despite usually ignoring it.
The social media turn, if not the predicted populist "turn," weaponizes the sometimes-rational care about entertainment to encourage people to act like politics are always a subset of entertainment rather than a superceding if rarer concern.
Pretty hard for centrist parties to ‘get with the times’ if ever saying no to any migrant gets you called an authoritarian.
What was illiberal or authoritarian about Brexit? Well, the EU professional class didn’t like it: and that’s their basis for calling anything authoritarian
And the reason Brexit seems to have failed is that the British segment of the professional class that did not like it also did nothing to try to enforce Brexit even though their voters asked for it--just stuck their fingers in their ears and went nah-nah-nah.
The thing with most predictions that take a wave election and extrapolate growth forward is that political trends are very hard to discern and normally the big wave election is the result of a missed trend (or an obvious one that gets ignored for partisan wishful thinking) hitting its crest and not a new one just starting to surge.
I can’t resist a few words from Orwell (Looking Back on the Spanish War, 1942), which, if you modify some of the 1930s-class-struggle language, still reads very well:
“One feature of the Nazi conquest of France was the astonishing defections among the intelligentsia, including some of the left-wing political intelligentsia. The intelligentsia are the people who squeal loudest against Fascism, and yet a respectable proportion of them collapse into defeatism when the pinch comes. They are far-sighted enough to see the odds against them, and moreoever they can be bribed – for it is evident that the Nazis think it worth while to bribe intellectuals. With the working class it is the other way about. Too ignorant to see through the trick that is being played on them, they easily swallow the promises of Fascism, yet sooner or later they always take up the struggle again. They must do so, because in their own bodies they always discover that the promises of Fascism cannot be fulfilled. To win over the working class permanently, the Fascists would have to raise the general standard of living, which they are unable and probably unwilling to do. The struggle of the working class is like the growth of a plant. The plant is blind and stupid, but it knows enough to keep pushing upwards towards the light, and it will do this in the face of endless discouragements. What are the workers struggling for? Simply for the decent life which they are more and more aware is now technically possible. Their consciousness of this aim ebbs and flows.”
Completely irrelevant rant, but maybe someone here has an answer: Why is it "ouster" and not "ousting"? I know we got it from French and that's how they conjugate it or whatever. But English is like 65% French and we don't do that for any other word. Seems odd
I stipulate that immigration may be a more concrete problem for Europe than for the US. That being said, in the US, the rise in anti-immigrant sentiment is surely driven by the democratization of info. distribution more than concrete impact. Yes, southern border towns had some wild years, but most people don't live in them. Most places, the most visible impact of immigrants has been their visibility rather than negative economic or cultural impacts.
I agree that anti-immigrant sentiment is more durable than a broader populist turn. But I think, in the US, that's an accident. Immigration dissatisfaction is up mostly because the most prominent man in US politics hates immigrants and because it's an easy explain-everything pitch. It could have been something else.
I think it a delusion on the left that the pushback against immigration is only about Nativist sentiment. Trump might qualify as a nativist and European supremacist.
But the average American is both pro immigration and anti illegal immigration, and much of the wind that fills Trump's sails is that people want respect for rule of law and that the US gets to decide who is allowed in as opposed to the happenstance of whomever slips by the border or uses the asylum end run.
A poll clearly shows that the pushback against Biden's immigration polices, is not Nativism. What this Center Square poll showed ( https://www.eurasiareview.com/04092025-vast-majority-of-americans-think-legal-immigration-is-necessary/ ) that It found that 74% of voters say that legal immigration is good for the United States but that illegal immigration is bad. The minority was split between the all immigration bad (8%) and all immigration good, legal and illegal (16%).
Trump did not invent this even as he exploited it. Americans feel immigrants should obey the law and only come through legal processes. I share that view and am very pro immigrant but also very pro democracy, and the people should get to decide who and how many enter the country. I would argue for a healthy migration stream, but illegality shouldn't define the number.
I used to be in that camp.
Now my view of the current situation is that the USA is like a guy who just won the hotdog eating competition and is struggling with a serious temptation to celebrate by having dinner at a buffet. The healthiness of what he ate is questionable and regardless he should *definitely* take some time to let it digest before he eats more. Even if he survives this round, regularly overeating is unhealthy in general and will lead him to an early grave.
The analogy does break down in that a human body needs food of some kind, whereas a country does not necessarily need immigration... at all. If politicians continue to offer a choice between "too much to assimilate" and "less than that" I expect voters to opt for the second one. Increasingly they will opt for the second one even if it turns out to be rounding-error levels of immigration.
I suspect that Americans writ large would be pleased with a heavily revised asylum system (and not in Trump's manner of white people from South Africa only). I don't know if that would poll or campaign well, but the end result would, I think, make a lot of people happy. It'd be much closer to Obama's strategy of a high number of deportations of people who just arrived.
Sentiment to immigrants is actually warmer than ever.
It’s just that the new paradigms enabled people to vote on it. Trump broke the monopoly of the boys club when he won the primary and gave people a chance to vote on it.
The immigration waves in the 19th and 20th century weren’t grass roots operations and weren’t popular: the elites just did them anyways
That is certainly a viewpoint. I would stipulate that "immigration may be a more concrete problem for Europe than for the US" is a bit like saying "the fire is hotter than the frying pan", and that cities like Chicago, NYC, and even Dallas and San Francisco are not "southern border towns".
I won't delve too much into the analogy, but I don't have any argument with the fire being hot. I don't know much about Europe. I contend that the pan isn't; people are told that it is, and in a few places in America it has been, but largely, again, the main thing that changed is visibility, not a rise in negative impact on people's lives. This is why I don't factor Chicago or San Francisco into the calculus except as data points on visibility. I contend that their problems aren't caused by immigrants.
I said it could have been "something else." The poor. The unemployed. Druggies. Heck, pick an ethnic community that is and already has been here. People could have blamed one of these or anything else for what they see as the problems of the US, but instead we got "they're emptying their prisons and insane asylums to rape our girls." Maybe something else wouldn't have been as effective rhetorically, but it's not because something else would've been more or less true.
The state/health of liberal democracy and any fundamental change in the psyche of voters seem to me very separate things (though I think fallacy of that psychic shift is very noteworthy and well treated in the post). Authoritarians either need keep the popular will on their side by some combination of getting things right (mostly economically) or some rallying cry (usually toward a mostly fabricated enemy) or, when the hearts of popular will can't be won, then fear/intimidation/force/corruption. Europe seems to be scoring some great points in response to poor economic effects, but it ain't over until it's over, and on this side of the pond team authoritarian is still swinging. I think the economics will continue to be a liability for them but if there's some fluke and they find a way to change that or are somehow able make that a secondary issue (doubtful but possible), then they'll have a chance to maintain control and continue to remove democratic guardrails ... and to support the enemies of democracy around the globe (it's just so wild to write that about a US government, but I don't know how to see it any other way). Just because they haven't always executed well doesn't mean they don't learn from their mistakes. The story of authoritarians is to win enough popular will to get power and then do their best to set things up so that they don't necessarily need the popular will to stay in power. I don't give them very strong odds at this point, which is encouraging, but this game seems far from over. And politics is so much like college basketball ... however big the leads get, it seems like the 90% of games have a 2 point margin with 2 minutes to go. They're gonna tighten this up.
Has anyone listened to the Substack podcast "Letters from an American" today? It's dated April 13 but it's release a day later). Heather Cox Richardson lays out the "rich white dudes take control, crash economy" we've been going through since the 1850's.
But listen to the computer voice that comes with her written version (she does a printed and audio version simultaneously).
She makes Jeff look really lazy lol. That way you can avoid her Elizabeth Warren like scolding history teacher voice.
She's well worth a free listen.
She's also a terrible businessman person like Jeff.
Enjoy!
I dunno, is getting dumber a big ideological shift?
You have a very reasonable analysis of how political change often sweeps through populations. It's a shame you just cancelled yourself by pinning Trump's comeback on the trans community. It's too bad really, but I don't make the rules 🤷🏼♂️. Sorry