Trumpism will expand its base of believers and practitioners if it is not strenuously opposed, just like Nazism, Communism, Capitalism, Liberalism, and every other -ism. Trumpism is an idea. Ideas can only be defeated through the greater popularity of a competing, alternative idea.
Ideas have currency because of the moral values which underlie their motive, reasoning, logic, and their intent. Ideas can also sometimes have currency due to the experienced reality of the outcomes of actions based on them, but that comes later (it takes time) and is frequently overlooked through selective perception and/or other cognitive biases.
Still, there are concrete steps which can be taken and are not token echo chamber participation.
Continue reading What to do…
To be absolutely clear, the climate is changing, humans are the cause (primarily through the mass combustion of fossil fuels), and human civilization is responsible for the eventual outcome.
See: Global CO2 Summary — The Keeling Curve, Seasonal CO2 Cycles, and Global CO2 Distribution
Those who don’t believe that climate change is real (or think it is manageable) think the gamble is in the other direction. Switching the entire planet over to “clean” energy would cost about 20% of global wealth (to emphasize: wealth, not income!) — around £30 trillion. It would cost the United States about $5 trillion just for itself.
Furthermore, the beneficiaries of such infrastructure and investment would not exactly be the same companies which make up the current energy infrastructure. The existing companies (and countries, since many fossil fuel companies are state-owned) would face losses of up to:
- $85 trillion in proven petroleum reserves
- $31 trillion in proven coal reserves
- $468 billion in proven gas reserves
- > $5.5 trillion in annual industry revenue
- trillions of dollars in capital, obsolete physical infrastructure, market capitalization, and equity
Yeah, we’ll still need some non-energy petroleum products, and if old-energy companies invested in the clean energy sector then they wouldn’t lose their entire market value. But people have a very hard time agreeing to claims that they (and millions of other people) should lose everything.
If Trump quits campaigning for president (because his campaign is insolvent/broke or for any other reason) weeks or months ahead of the election date in November, then what would that mean – for the country and for the presidency? Would it be like the later state primaries where voters could still tick a box for Rubio even though he wasn’t running anymore? What would it mean for the two-party system for one of the parties/choices to essentially have been seized and then squandered/demolished? Could Clinton even claim a proper victory/mandate if on election day she functionally/practically runs unopposed?
The billionaire’s political operation is running a record $45 million deficit.
however. He owes nearly all of it to himself.
Source: Will Trump’s Campaign Drown in Debt?
Does giving up expectations of control necessitate giving up expectations of agency? Is a loss of control equivalent to a loss of agency?