I might suggest that T only cares about one TV network and that’s Fox. I refuse to call them a news station. Not sure the others exist in his shallow mind - except to sue and bully.
Although TV seems to have its limits it is important to recognize that its main limit is that it only promotes 4 primary things*:
anger
action
violence
conflict
Tranquility, nature, peace, etc. only work with 2 second quick shifting "action" in the imagery.
Unfortunately we've all been fed this "limit" and it has been internalized. Now we see the rise of actual conflict, conflict entrepreneurs, violence...anger...
*Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television -by Gerry Mander
Trump is neither a dictator or fascist….he is a childlike bully, who craves attention even negative attention….keep me in the spotlight is his motto. He is not curious or empathetic . He is
only interested in benefiting himself. He is a divider who lacks discipline and he overcompensates for his deficiencies like a spoiled brat, building ballrooms and is pathetic enough to accept a Nobel prize given to someone else.
He was given millions as a young adult and because a good percentage of our country admire wealth and false bravado, rather than principle and character, he was able to win two elections.
We do not celebrate intellect, we like the strongman approach….….his mouthiness is not leadership. He is extraordinarily mean and jealous and petty
. He is a womanizer and misogynist. Watching him “ party” with young women, especially with Epstein would make any normal person cringe and in fact it made my skin crawl.
It’s a damn good thing he does listen to Fox News, as he is truly unfit for the office. As awful as they are, they can at least lead and offer some cogent advice.
The far right have been planning this type of governance and policy for a long time and Trump is their patsy.
Our country will survive this only because we have the foundation to survive fools and those petty false prophets.
Oh, that’s a relief. Here I was thinking that Trump is a bad guy - not just an amoral, unprincipled fantasist who doesn’t know what to do until he sees it on TV , or hears it whispered in his ear.
I think the Greenland affair marks a turning point in my thinking about Trump. This may sound like it’s coming from left field, but bear with me for a minute.
Before the Davos conference, I heard several anti-Trump commentators breathing heavily about what a Greenland invasion would do to America’s trade, diplomacy, and even its domestic commerce. It was gloom and doom all around. Yet, Trump had sparked IR crises before, and the system had always contained him, to the point of preventing him from carrying out a strike against any power strong enough to offer anything close to proportionate retaliation. It was predictable that Davos would likewise pass with a Trump backtrack on Greenland.
Today’s newsletter explores a similar pattern on the level of domestic politics. Trump’s domestic opponents may liken his career to the progress of fascism. And they are hardly discouraged by the ever-expanding demands for control of state affairs that come out of this White House, and the deadly results of its recent law enforcement decisions. But his allies don’t really want the consequences of a march toward fascism any more than his enemies do, largely because the incidents that look like steps on that march also look like a breakdown of their personal power. As noisy as Trump can get, he’s also under terrific pressure on the inside to withdraw after he does anything TOO stupid.
The general result, similar to Gabe’s formulation on Trump’s motivation, is that Trump can be seen as both less and more dangerous than his enemies represent. On one hand, he’s actually unlikely to follow all the way through on any one of the harebrained schemes he speaks about in rallies and press conferences. On the other hand, why should we ever have left that to chance? And aren’t Trump’s missteps bad enough even if he takes them half-heartedly?
I think the real issue is that the Republicans in Congress and the Republican Party leadership have committed "crime by negligence". Miller et.al. have been unrestrained. Trump appears as you state, but, in my opinion the USA can stop the S#@t show, however it takes Republicans to get brains, hearts and guts.
That a politician watches the news or is swayed by public opinion and events is not novel. That Trump is apparently toning down rhetoric on MN, working with local officials finally, and making changes accordingly are hopefully initial progress in a terrible situation. That congress may actually be doing something other than posturing before the midterms needs to be proven with laws and budget bills, not just investigations, press meetings, and shutdowns.
Just a question from an old hermit, why do you call Trump and his MEGA crowd "conservative?" Trump doesn't believe in a balance budget, he is neither pro-choice or pro- life (He is which ever will get him the most votes), his foreign policy is all over the place. his tax policy is a joke, as are his economic policies. Don't mean to upset anyone, just asking.
Pretti's death may be the case of truly a bridge too far, for the President and his Party. If Holman unofficially takes over DHS, its a win, and the bleeding stops.
As you correctly point out T is overly sensitive to his public image and what his legacy will be. When will one of his sycophants point out that in recent history dictators who plastered their image everywhere and build monuments to themselves did not fair so well? Hitler, Hussein, Gaddafi, Mussolini, Amin to name a few are almost universally vilified.
Brilliant breakdown of TV as themoderaitng force. I've noticed this pattern in real-time watching coverage, when the vibes shift on screen policy tends to follow within hours. It's kinda wild how that feedback loop creates a ceiling on extremism that nobody planned for but everyone relies on.
Trump responded to the critics of his policies in Minneapolis by removing Noem, promising a full investigation, etc, but your response is that he only did it because of Fox News? I'm not defending Trump, but I think a truly unbiased political analysis would be based on more than just assumptions and conjecture. Every president has been cognizant of public opinion and media coverage. Trump isn't unique in that regard. And if he believes his message isn't getting out or he's lost the narrative, wouldn't you expect (and want) him to change course. I get it. A lot of people don't like Trump and they think he's a fascist, dictator, Nazi, etc. But is that going to be the standard upon which we base every analysis of every issue facing the country? A detailed analysis of how we got to this point (eg immigration), what the alternatives are, etc, would be refreshing.
Related to #7(Congress), I was pleased to learn that T has withdrawn, based on Senate feedback, ~50 sub-cabinet nominations. My understanding is that this is an abnormally large number. (Yuval Levin, Ezra Klein podcast, 1/16/26)
I might suggest that T only cares about one TV network and that’s Fox. I refuse to call them a news station. Not sure the others exist in his shallow mind - except to sue and bully.
Although TV seems to have its limits it is important to recognize that its main limit is that it only promotes 4 primary things*:
anger
action
violence
conflict
Tranquility, nature, peace, etc. only work with 2 second quick shifting "action" in the imagery.
Unfortunately we've all been fed this "limit" and it has been internalized. Now we see the rise of actual conflict, conflict entrepreneurs, violence...anger...
*Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television -by Gerry Mander
Terrifically clear post. Thank you.
Trump is neither a dictator or fascist….he is a childlike bully, who craves attention even negative attention….keep me in the spotlight is his motto. He is not curious or empathetic . He is
only interested in benefiting himself. He is a divider who lacks discipline and he overcompensates for his deficiencies like a spoiled brat, building ballrooms and is pathetic enough to accept a Nobel prize given to someone else.
He was given millions as a young adult and because a good percentage of our country admire wealth and false bravado, rather than principle and character, he was able to win two elections.
We do not celebrate intellect, we like the strongman approach….….his mouthiness is not leadership. He is extraordinarily mean and jealous and petty
. He is a womanizer and misogynist. Watching him “ party” with young women, especially with Epstein would make any normal person cringe and in fact it made my skin crawl.
It’s a damn good thing he does listen to Fox News, as he is truly unfit for the office. As awful as they are, they can at least lead and offer some cogent advice.
The far right have been planning this type of governance and policy for a long time and Trump is their patsy.
Our country will survive this only because we have the foundation to survive fools and those petty false prophets.
Oh, that’s a relief. Here I was thinking that Trump is a bad guy - not just an amoral, unprincipled fantasist who doesn’t know what to do until he sees it on TV , or hears it whispered in his ear.
I think the Greenland affair marks a turning point in my thinking about Trump. This may sound like it’s coming from left field, but bear with me for a minute.
Before the Davos conference, I heard several anti-Trump commentators breathing heavily about what a Greenland invasion would do to America’s trade, diplomacy, and even its domestic commerce. It was gloom and doom all around. Yet, Trump had sparked IR crises before, and the system had always contained him, to the point of preventing him from carrying out a strike against any power strong enough to offer anything close to proportionate retaliation. It was predictable that Davos would likewise pass with a Trump backtrack on Greenland.
Today’s newsletter explores a similar pattern on the level of domestic politics. Trump’s domestic opponents may liken his career to the progress of fascism. And they are hardly discouraged by the ever-expanding demands for control of state affairs that come out of this White House, and the deadly results of its recent law enforcement decisions. But his allies don’t really want the consequences of a march toward fascism any more than his enemies do, largely because the incidents that look like steps on that march also look like a breakdown of their personal power. As noisy as Trump can get, he’s also under terrific pressure on the inside to withdraw after he does anything TOO stupid.
The general result, similar to Gabe’s formulation on Trump’s motivation, is that Trump can be seen as both less and more dangerous than his enemies represent. On one hand, he’s actually unlikely to follow all the way through on any one of the harebrained schemes he speaks about in rallies and press conferences. On the other hand, why should we ever have left that to chance? And aren’t Trump’s missteps bad enough even if he takes them half-heartedly?
Well said.
I think the real issue is that the Republicans in Congress and the Republican Party leadership have committed "crime by negligence". Miller et.al. have been unrestrained. Trump appears as you state, but, in my opinion the USA can stop the S#@t show, however it takes Republicans to get brains, hearts and guts.
That a politician watches the news or is swayed by public opinion and events is not novel. That Trump is apparently toning down rhetoric on MN, working with local officials finally, and making changes accordingly are hopefully initial progress in a terrible situation. That congress may actually be doing something other than posturing before the midterms needs to be proven with laws and budget bills, not just investigations, press meetings, and shutdowns.
Just a question from an old hermit, why do you call Trump and his MEGA crowd "conservative?" Trump doesn't believe in a balance budget, he is neither pro-choice or pro- life (He is which ever will get him the most votes), his foreign policy is all over the place. his tax policy is a joke, as are his economic policies. Don't mean to upset anyone, just asking.
Great, level analysis Gabe 👍🏼 Trump’s pattern of attack truly is predictable in a lot of ways. It’s interesting how you break it down here.
Pretti's death may be the case of truly a bridge too far, for the President and his Party. If Holman unofficially takes over DHS, its a win, and the bleeding stops.
As you correctly point out T is overly sensitive to his public image and what his legacy will be. When will one of his sycophants point out that in recent history dictators who plastered their image everywhere and build monuments to themselves did not fair so well? Hitler, Hussein, Gaddafi, Mussolini, Amin to name a few are almost universally vilified.
Brilliant breakdown of TV as themoderaitng force. I've noticed this pattern in real-time watching coverage, when the vibes shift on screen policy tends to follow within hours. It's kinda wild how that feedback loop creates a ceiling on extremism that nobody planned for but everyone relies on.
Trump responded to the critics of his policies in Minneapolis by removing Noem, promising a full investigation, etc, but your response is that he only did it because of Fox News? I'm not defending Trump, but I think a truly unbiased political analysis would be based on more than just assumptions and conjecture. Every president has been cognizant of public opinion and media coverage. Trump isn't unique in that regard. And if he believes his message isn't getting out or he's lost the narrative, wouldn't you expect (and want) him to change course. I get it. A lot of people don't like Trump and they think he's a fascist, dictator, Nazi, etc. But is that going to be the standard upon which we base every analysis of every issue facing the country? A detailed analysis of how we got to this point (eg immigration), what the alternatives are, etc, would be refreshing.
Related to #7(Congress), I was pleased to learn that T has withdrawn, based on Senate feedback, ~50 sub-cabinet nominations. My understanding is that this is an abnormally large number. (Yuval Levin, Ezra Klein podcast, 1/16/26)
Not to toot my own horn, but Levin actually got that stat from WUTP! His previous column on that cited my piece in October where I first ran those numbers: https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/trump-has-withdrawn-a-record-number
Good analysis, Gabe, appreciate it.
Many graphic designers are available for graphics you might need. The use of them would, I think, be better than using an AI graphic.
You are so right, Bill. I suspect that Gabe used AI here quite intentionally because of how freely and gleefully Trump uses AI-generated images.