Liberal disdain for context enables Trump

Ignoring context is timeless recipe for losing, an analysis of the 2016 and 2024 elections.

The title uses the term “enables Trump,” where it more generally could say “enables fascism”. I want to address #StopTrump liberals, and free them of their neverending immaterial fixations.

There are two classes of things that can move a mass of people.

• First and foremost, things that are material to them: “Peace, Land, and Bread”. Or contemporarily, healthcare, public education, vacation time, and a living wage. Both of the electoral parties in the USA have given up on “material struggles.” The country’s history shows material concessions only happen during times of unrest and upheaval anyway.

• And matters of principle. Things that compel the populace on the basis of religious or nationalist values, to act in defense of something they see as being “taken” from them. Like their democracy, freedom, or rights. This category underscores every argument of “lesser evil.”

If electoral politics is to be forever defined in terms of principals that are under attack, we need to demand contextualization. A framing on the defense of principals devoid of context is maximally inert.

Historical Context

The “journal” in “journalism” is about a chronological record. The account you’re providing exists in a historical context. You need to weigh what you’re covering with the events of the past. “This was a good meal” said every day has no descriptive value, and it means something different when coming from someone who just got out of prison than when said by a Michelin Inspector. The utility of the statement demands accounting for who said (frequency) and their history (credibility and past).

To provide historical context you need only ask: “Has this event happened before? If so, what’s different?”

Let’s address both of Trump’s victories in 2016 and 2024: I will make the case that in both elections Democrats were encouraged to cling onto narratives that were inherently immaterial and devoid of historical context. I bring this not only as a foundation to critique journalists and propaganda in the future, but also to show that a narrative lacking context is detrimental — even if targeting a common enemy — and should be challenged if only because it’s likely to fall short of impactful.

---

Russiagate: the 2016 obsession of linking Trump to Russia

During 2016 we were told that there was a link between Russia and Donald Trump. Here is the thing about Russiagate: it’s true that Russian interests did attempt to interfere with the US election. There was a link. In a vacuum, the core assertion is true — though whether or not it was governmental, or industry remains a question we’ll always be ignorant to. We have a smoking gun that the Ruskis were up to no good,

Facebook announced Wednesday that a Russian propaganda organization used the social media platform to purchase $100,000 of political advertising.

However, the DNC narrative was that a vote for Donald Trump would be a vote for Russia and Putin. It was an attempt to mobilize around the shared principle of democracy. At the core of this assertion was that we must vote for Hillary because if not our government would be run by Putin. This was insanity. Worse those challenging this narrative were attacked even if they weren’t politically aligned with the GOP.

Contextualizing Russiagate

Now let’s bring The Link into historical context.

• Has this event happened before? If so, what’s different?

Let’s try a couple of transformations of this contextualization,

• Event being “foreign entities contributed to a campaign”

  Have foreign entities contributed to a campaign? If so, what’s different?

• Event being “non-citizens contributing to a campaign”

  Have non-citizens contributed to a campaign? If so, what’s different?

• Event being “an election like the 2016 election”

  Has an election like 2016 happened before? If so, what’s different?

And what do we have?

The 2016 election cost 6.5 billion dollars and it follows the trend of all prior elections with each election costing more. The “dirty money” at $100,000 was %0.001538 of the election¹. Foreign interests routinely contribute to domestic politicians and campaigns, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. But even aside from foreign interests, the majority of that — 4 billion — is PAC contributions from corporations and oligarchs (even if domestic); and, neither corporations² nor oligarchs are assumed by the majority to have common interests with the country. Moreover, the United States similarly impacts the elections of other nations by picking winners and losers (or more egregiously outright coups). This argument can’t be principled. It can only ever be naked one-sided exceptionalism.³

Putting that into context, the anti-Trump resistance was dwelling on finding fault with %0.001538 of the funds in Election 2016 that are otherwise — as far as I see — typical of any election.

---

The Don 2024: Felon Trump and Coup-ster

In 2024, the DNC was pushing the simple framing of Donald Trump as a criminal: they were eager to ride to victory on the frame of “Good Cop vs Criminal." This pursuit was well under way prior to a conviction. In fact, for a long while it seemed as if Trump may skirt a conviction all together. Or, at least skirt any conviction prior to the election. From the get go this was a horrible strategy. But at last, Democrats scored their conviction. Trump was convicted with 34 felony counts of the same charge: falsifying business records. This conviction on 34 felony counts, was compounded with an earlier finding by a civil court that Trump had committed “sexual abuse” (though for pedantic reasons it was not “rape”).

One thing about this “felon Trump” frame is that there was potential for a much more virulent criminal finding: he had a case in Florida about classified documents, and the most significant case was the election interference and fake elector case. I am of the mind that a finding in the fake electors case may have ended the Trump campaign; and, if not for prosecutorial incompetence, it may have gone to trial. However, I guess no one ever told the DNC “not to count their eggs before they hatch” and they proceeded with their talking heads to engage in a concerted attempt to gloss-over the charge he was convicted of, and blur the different unadjudicated cases against him.

Democrats would maintain their “Good Cop vs Criminal” framing which was historically accurate: in a vacuum Donald Trump was uniquely both the Republican nominee and a felon. The principal here was “law and order”. This is probably the worst principle to pull in a disaffected Democratic base, but I’ll save that for another day.

Contextualizing Felon Trump

Like before, let’s bring the 34 felonious criminal convictions into historical context by following our earlier path of inquiry: “Has this event happened before? If so, what’s different?”

• Event being “a presidential campaign that falsified business records”?

  Has any other campaign falsified business records? If so, what’s different?

• Event being “a conviction?

  Have any prior cases resulted in a felony conviction? If so, what’s different?

• Event being “playing dirty with campaign funds?

  Have other campaigns used funds in ways they would want to conceal. If so, what’s different?

And what do we have?

President Trump’s campaign isn’t the only campaign that has misfiled with the intent to conceal: Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 committed a similar act in their pursuit of Russiagate above. The HRC 2016 campaign misfiled their payment for the Steele Dossier, as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting” rather than “opposition research”. Worse, Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta would straight up denied funding the dossier — and to Congress at that. The DNC and the Clinton campaign were both subsequently fined for a combined total of $113,000 for this.

• The FEC sought a settlement in the Clinton campaign case, and the New York DA chose not to bring state charges.

• In Trump’s case the FEC was split and closed the inquiry, however the New York DA — under Democrat Alvin Brigg — chose to bring state charges. They got a historically unique felony conviction.

While never tried, I believe the Steele Dossier funded by the Clinton campaign was libelous. As a matter of fact, it was largely false, and scandalously so with an unevidenced claim of a “pee tape” with Russian prostitutes in an FSB-tapped room. The combination of the misfiling and the libelous nature of the “research” would have put the HRC campaign on equal footing.

When it comes to “sexual assault,” the charge was simply not criminal. It wasn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt” it was a “preponderance of the evidence”. This is a different standard of guilt entirely. Whether or not I think this should hold weight aside, I don’t believe it was core to the DNC framing of “law and order.” But even here the Democrats failed to sell it: Trump increased his support with women from 41% in 2016, to 45% in 2024.

Truth be told, I don’t care for the “rule of law” principle. The Democrats were probably not even targeting me with the “34 felony conviction” pitch. But, I can’t see anyone so attached to the itemization of campaign expenses that they were going to change their vote.

---

Concluding

If we can’t properly contextualize and prioritize the threats we’re facing, we’ll confuse an irate house cat with an irate house tiger. This will make it appear our response is irrational.

The lack of context contributed to both the 2016 and 2024 Democratic defeats.

• In 2016, they thought they could resist Trump on the basis of Russian interference, and that gave Trump the distraction needed to secure a victory. Could Russian interference ever have resulted in a massive movement against Trump? Certainly, but the narrative lacked sufficient justification. The threat wasn’t contextualized: it was only ever — even in vacuum — an iota of truth.

• In 2024, they fared no better. Trump was framed as a career felon. The data didn’t substantiate the narrative. All the more so when you’re being told to weigh felonious campaign filings more than a veritable charge of genocide: something that all but the most tribal democrats must concede is insane.

The Blame

The defeat in 2024 was exceptional. Neither the Electoral College nor the Supreme Court was to blame. For the first time in 20 years, Democrats are a minoritarian party again. Is it the media? Is it the dorks running DNC strategy? Is it the party which propped up a confused geriatric fool? It doesn’t matter. Some combination of all of the above: the blame is on liberals, and Democrats. Not just are they incapable of making a campaign around material change, but their rehashing of the same droll “lesser evil” and voter-shaming is ever more ridiculous and contextually absurd with every subsequent election.

The Solution

It’s our job to perpetually point fingers at Democrats, the liberal media (as in subsequent), and the DNC and provide critique both when they’re in power, and when they’re out of power. We must give them a proportional dose of scorn untampered by Trump. There is no carrot without a stick. Your criticism must communicate a lack of support. Only then can you provide the incentive to move the party and body politic. If we don’t have the prerequisite backbone, they won’t even bother looking at us like carrots. They’ll just assume we’re in the bag. And, let’s be honest, that means we lose. They will literally look to Manchin and Sinema. We either make demands of them, or the center-right will.

Our recipe isn’t complex. Ask yourself is this a reasonable point for Democrats to make, given their history? If it’s not, do your part to center the discussion around things you’re convinced will move people. Or demand a concrete change of course and position from Democrats — maybe even a mea culpa when they venture into Trump’s playbook.

Under Hakeem “Good Billionaires” Jeffries you’re either going to watch Democrats address this from the lens of an affluent NYU lawyer running a marketing department obsessed with the purported exceptional threat Trump plays to democracy and our rights. Or, we can demand the ejection of Jeffries and a real agenda that enshrines rights and values and provides consequences for those that tread on them. Or all together better — address our material conditions.

I’ll be the first to say it. I didn’t vote for Trump, nor will I. But I will never entrust a party to protect my rights that can’t take a unified stance on the Palestinian genocide. If Democrats want to rock with Hakeem Jeffries and another center-right geriatric with more money than I can reasonably amass: have at it. When it comes to electoral politics, I’ll watch the second and third terms of Trump as he helms this ship into the iceberg. And, with maximal indifference. Lest anyone critique me for being a single-issue voter. That’s not enough either. It’s just one precondition.

Dear liberals, you better join me sooner than later. I’m principled enough to watch Trump and Vance sell out your Medicare for a downpayment on the F-47. You got a precondition above. Get on it.

1. Napkin math: 100E3 / 6.5E9 * 100

2. Corporations do to not have justify their existence. They serve their shareholders and not the greater good.

3. USAID at the very time claimed to both “secure democracy” and “protect U.S. national interests.”