[sseagull]

> but is anyone actually willing to do anything about it?

They did. They elected Trump.

> no major populist uprising against the dismantling of the institution of the presidency

Some people view the president as the only directly-elected person powerful enough to fight for them in dismantling the rest of a government that isn't working (or even actively working against them). So they implicitly want a strong president.

This only goes as far as the president agrees with them of course.

[jrowen]

> They did. They elected Trump.

I would say that speaks more to apathy than activism.

> Some people view the president as the only directly-elected person powerful enough to fight for them in dismantling the rest of a government that isn't working

I think consciously verbalizing a position even that nuanced and esoteric is niche, but there is certainly something to be said for peoples' susceptibility to a type of "strong" cult leader.

[everdrive]

>I would say that speaks more to apathy than activism.

Whatever else you'd want to say about Trump supporters, I wouldn't call them apathetic. Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong, but I can't see how anyone could characterize Trump's base as "apathetic."

[jrowen]

I tried to be clever and succinct and it backfired.

I was more referring to "everyone else" as apathetic. Generally, I don't think voting is itself considered an act of activism. Somebody will always win the election regardless of overall levels of activism and apathy. January 6 could be considered activism, however (the bad kind that's closer to a riot). "Get out the vote" grassroots efforts are activism.

I think there is currently a general lack of enthusiasm for the political system and process in the US, and a lack of faith in the government. Trump has tapped into that, and riled people up. Tapping into fear and aggression and anger does not inspire what I would consider to be traditional political and civic activism which IMO is more rooted in "let's work together to make things better for our people."

As opposed to, "let's say MAGA but actually start foreign and domestic conflicts and squander resources on pointless personal ego projects." It is disturbing to me that people continue to support that but I'm still calling it more apathetic than activist.

[everdrive]

Thanks for the clarification. The interesting thing about the 2024 election was that Trump's turnout was higher than 2016, and in addition, according to the polling and analysis I saw, this was one of the first times in a long time where if _more_ people had voted, he would have had _more_ votes. This is in pretty stark contrast to presidential voting trends for the last 30-40 years. So although I think you could paint 2016 as an "apathy" election (I would still argue that 2016 was more about two deeply unpopular candidates than anything else) I'm not sure that same analysis really applies to 2024. I'm basing a lot of this on this very interesting interview here -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx0J7dIlL7c -- so to the extent that I'm wrong or you disagree, this at least gives some context to my claims.

[jrowen]

I did look that up and took out a line about voter turnout because of it. He definitely has rallied people. He does tap into an energy that the DNC has been blind to. But if you look at the tenor of it, it really does seem to be about anger and dissatisfaction and combativeness -- destructive rather than constructive. MAGA talking points and initiatives aren't about building up communities, schools, infrastructure...they're about all the bogeymans.

I do see the failure of either party to produce a truly constructively inspiring candidate as something seriously wrong with the system. Thanks for the link, it does seem interesting.

[everdrive]

Agreed wholeheartedly, thanks for the response.

[phil21]

> I would say that speaks more to apathy than activism

And I would say that speaks more to your disconnect with most of US society. Very few folks actually trust activists for good reason.

Trump is like the most mild form of what is to come. The fact he got elected when he did is remarkable to me.

It only gets worse from here if things don’t change. At some point someone like him who is actually serious will be elected and then it’s basically game over.

Trump 2016 was a warning shot most folks in the chosen classes chose to ignore. Trump 2024 is something you ignore at your own peril at this point. I would be thanking the gods at the relative apathy so far if I believed that narrative.

If Trump was remotely competent we would be having entirely different conversations. There would be no option of “weathering the storm” to wait him out if so.

[Hikikomori]

We're already there. Project 2025/federalist society is using Trump as they have some goals in common, but they are the real drive behind ICE, DOGE, foreign policy like Venezuela, and general destruction of the federal government.

[jrowen]

> And I would say that speaks more to your disconnect with most of US society. Very few folks actually trust activists for good reason.

I don't follow. What I said is in alignment with the idea that activism is out of vogue. The comment I replied to implied that electing Trump was an act of activism (or "doing something about it").

Anyway, we already had Hitler. Sadly too often, these guys pop up at the right time and wreak havoc but I would say they're outliers (and in general the world is globalizing and trending away from them).