The article’s implicit assumption that some sort of "normal sanity" governed human affairs before Trump oversimplifies history, downplays the recurring cycles of ideological bias, and overlooks the perennial allure of comforting delusions over inconvenient truths. The belief in a clear boundary between “normal” and “abnormal” political forces rests on a form of self-flattering nostalgia—a yearning for an era when rationality and consensus allegedly reigned. But if history has taught us anything, it’s that every era carries its own bs biases, with prevailing narratives shaped less by a commitment to approach unvarnished truths and more by what is palatable to the cultural majority.
The article implies that Trump represents a rupture with a saner past, yet throughout history, biases toward authority, ideological echo chambers, and appealing lies have often outweighed rigorous, ideology-free inquiry. Every culture has its blind spots, its rhetorical reflexes, and its tendency to elevate arguments from authority, "common sense," or tradition over challenging truths. Even in times that might appear more “rational,” comfort-driven conformity has played a substantial role in cultural self-definition. Instead of treating Trump’s rise as a stark break from some bygone rationalism, a more useful critique would acknowledge that he embodies a longstanding tendency; the genuine status quo. Trump's appeal taps into this historical penchant for emotionally fueled simplifications and authority-driven validation, rather than defying it. If his presidency serves as a mirror, it reflects the biases that have shaped not only the U.S. but countless societies—a collective tendency to prefer narratives that soothe and validate over those that demand critical reflection. The more pertinent question is whether society can - at least sometimes - counterbalance this trend by fostering environments where scientific inquiry and genuine self-reflection are prioritized, not obstructed by ideological agendas. This approach would focus on reducing the influence of “appealing lies” and creating conditions that encourage resilience against authoritarian reflexes and self-affirming delusions. Without such efforts, Trumpism—or something like it—will likely remain a recurring fixture, part of a long pattern of cultures leaning into narratives that prioritize emotional comfort over substantive critique. On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 1:28:22 PM UTC+1 John Clark wrote: > Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for > free without a subscription. > > Stop Pretending Trump Is Not Who We Are > > If we haven’t learned our lesson now, when will we learn it? > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/opinion/trump-wins-harris-loses.html?unlocked_article_code=1.X04.UuhN.7i7ig43sa-VO&smid=em-share > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b3a9fdfc-68a4-4c46-8b0e-16cc0737e5dfn%40googlegroups.com.
