
And away we go…
Sylvia C: If Trump wasn’t around to fill the role of cult leader and autocrat, do you think another autocratic leader might have emerged to fulfill the goals of Project 2025? I understand that Trump has been at it for forty years or so, but did we just get very unlucky with this criminal in chief, or might another have been anointed by the extreme right wing?
SK: We didn’t get unlucky, exactly: intelligent career criminals installed a skilled demagogue frontman after decades of planning and institutional complicity. (For those who doubt this claim, see Hiding in Plain Sight.) But the question of whether there can be a Trump successor is very interesting. The GOP tried with DeSantis and Haley and failed. They tried with JD Vance, and he alienated two Popes, one who would rather literally die than spend one more minute with him. Trump is unique because of his deep connections in business, “business” (organized crime), entertainment, media, and politics. He also had an enormous amount of leverage through blackmail, threats, and bribes, and is a skilled propagandist. It’s hard to replicate that.
In 1990, when the New York tabloids thought Trump was “over”, they wrote of their relief. In 2020, when Trump lost the election, Americans partied in the streets the way countries do when a dictator is toppled. Trump has a cult of personality that doesn’t seem possible to replicate, which is to the advantage of free-thinking people. The key is to never conflate Trump with systemic problems. He is their culmination, not their origin, and those problems will need to be tackled urgently when he goes.
Laura H: Do you see us surviving this regime? Other than protesting, what can those of us trapped in red states do to help us survive?
SK: I will quote red state philosophical luminary Dalton from Road House, the greatest movie set in Missouri: “Never underestimate your opponent. Expect the unexpected. Take it outside. And be nice…until it’s time to not be nice.”
I’m serious: this is the best “surviving a red state” advice around. And since Dalton was a NYC-to-Missouri transplant cooler, his wisdom applies nationwide. Dalton sagely noted that no one ever wins a fight. This is a call for people to live less in reaction to hostile elements and instead be proactive in building a road house of their own — a road house of the soul, if you will. Or else a real-estate developer tied to organized crime may take advantage of you! And that’s when it’s time to not be nice.
Kas: There seems to be a kind of debate brewing among leftists/progressives between those who consistently point out the most dire outcomes as increasingly likely and those who accuse them of fearmongering and discouraging folks from acting. The likelihood that some version of martial law is or is not staring us down would be an example of this. Personally, I don’t think there’s a conflict between being realistic about the extremism of the moment and continuing to act where and when we can to hold whatever ground is left, but I’d love to hear your take.
SK: Those deriding realists as “doomers” are abetting authoritarianism, whether they realize it or not. Many do realize it and collect checks to spread this sort of rhetoric. The ideal situation for Trump’s return was an unprepared population who believed his reinstallation could not happen and that his arrest was imminent — and that’s what podcasters and “legal experts” bleated for years in a manner very similar to QAnon. Those pundits should be regarded as a liberal counterpart to QAnon. Like QAnon, they caused material harm by creating a culture of conformity so rigid it led to anyone with a different view getting threatened with violence for not “trusting the plan”.
People should be realistic about Trump. That means looking at his network, its history, and what institutions have done in reaction to it. One cannot unilaterally stave off something like martial law, but your odds of surviving or combatting it increase when you discuss the topic with like-minded folks instead of being silenced by people who chide you for bringing it up. I encourage people to examine the track records of commentators and see how their past predictions panned out. Did they falsely promise “rule of law” and browbeat anyone who pointed to hard evidence of institutional corruption? Then they may be working for nefarious forces. This is more likely to be true if they have a record of fraud and/or are living in a foreign country and don’t have their life on the line here in the USA.
Norm C: Is it my imagination or are some pundits that were reluctant or afraid to suggest what your well researched and written books have been calling out for years, are now “jumping on the bandwagon”. They sell subscriptions, speaking engagements, merchandise etc. to help us resist and “fight back”. I often enjoy reading their free commentaries but wonder if I’m just being manipulated by a skillful communicator. Is the movement being “monetized”? Any suggestions on navigating among and selecting good sources of information and commentary.