The Inverted Morality of MAGA
Trumpism represents an alternative value system.
The people I regard as upright and admirable MAGA regards as morally disgraceful.
David Brooks is a card-carrying conservative.
I rarely agree with anything he says.
This is worth thinking about.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I admire Mitt Romney. He is, by all accounts, an outstanding husband and father. He built a successful investment firm by supporting successful young businesses like Staples. He served the public as head of the 2002 Winter Olympics and as a governor. As a senator, he had the courage to vote to convict Donald Trump twice, in the two separate impeachment trials, when few other Republicans did.
But as Noah Millman writes on Substack, people in the MAGA movement take a different view of Romney. In private life, Romney compliantly conformed to the bourgeois norms of those around him. In business he contributed to the bloating of the finance and consulting sector. As a politician he bent himself to the needs of the moment, moving from moderate Republican to "extreme conservative." As a senator, he sought the approval of the Washington establishment.
Millman's underlying point is it's not sufficient to say that Trump is leading a band of morally challenged people to power. It's that Trumpism represents an alternative value system. The people I regard as upright and admirable MAGA regards as morally disgraceful, and the people I regard as corrupt and selfish MAGA regards as heroic.
The crucial distinction is that some of us have an institutional mind-set while the MAGA mind-set is anti-institutional.
In the former view, we are born into a world of institutions — families, schools, professions, the structures of our government. We are formed by these institutions. People develop good character as they live up to the standards of excellence passed down in their institutions — by displaying the civic virtues required by our Constitution, by living up to what it means to be a good teacher or nurse or, if they are Christians, by imitating the self-emptying love of Christ. Over the course of our lives, we inherit institutions, steward them and try to pass them along in better shape to the next generation. We know our institutions have flaws and need reform, but we regard them as fundamentally legitimate.
MAGA morality is likely to regard people like me as lemmings. We climbed our way up through the meritocracy by shape shifting ourselves into whatever teachers, bosses and the system wanted us to be. Worse, we serve and preserve systems that are fundamentally corrupt and illegitimate — the financial institutions that created the financial crisis, the health authorities who closed schools during Covid, the mainstream media and federal bureaucracy that has led the nation to ruin.
What does heroism look like according the MAGA morality? It looks like the sort of people whom Trump has picked to be in his cabinet. The virtuous man in this morality is self-assertive, combative, transgressive and vengeful. He’s not afraid to break the rules and come to his own conclusions. He has contempt for institutions and is happy to be a battering force to bring them down. He is unbothered by elite scorn but, in fact, revels in it and goes out of his way to generate it.
In this mind-set, if the establishment regards you as a sleazeball, you must be doing something right. If the legal system indicts you, you must be a virtuous man.
In this morality, the fact that a presidential nominee is accused of sexual assault is a feature, not a bug. It’s a sign that this nominee is a manly man. Manly men go after what they want. They assert themselves and smash propriety — including grabbing women “by the pussy” if they feel like it.
In this worldview, a nominee enshrouded in scandal is more trustworthy than a person who has lived an honest life. The scandal-shrouded nominee is cast out from polite society. He’s not going to run to a New York publisher and write a tell-all memoir bashing the administration in which he served. Such a person is not going to care if he is scorned by the civil servants in the agency he has been hired to dismantle.
The corrupt person owes total fealty to Donald Trump. There is no other realm in which he can achieve power and success except within the MAGA universe. Autocrats have often preferred to surround themselves with corrupt people because such people are easier to control and, if necessary, destroy.
In other words, MAGA represents a fundamental challenge not only to conventional politics but also to conventional morality. In his own Substack essay, Damon Linker gets to the point: “Trumpism is seeking to advance a revolutionary transvaluation of values by inverting the morality that undergirds both traditional conservatism and liberal institutionalism. In this inversion, norms and rules that counsel and enforce propriety, restraint and deference to institutional authority become vices, while flouting them become virtues.”
I suspect that over the next couple of years we will see a series of running conflicts between institutionalists and anti-institutionalists — not only a power struggle over the Justice Department, the intelligence agencies, the schools and the institutions of democracy itself but also a values struggle over what sort of person we should admire, what values should govern our society. The battle is on for the hearts and souls of the coming generations.
The anti-institutionalists have advantages. It’s much easier to degrade and destroy than to preserve and reform. We live amid a multidecade crisis of legitimacy, during which strong voices ranging from Oliver Stone’s on the left to Tucker Carlson’s on the right have sent the message that everything is rotten.
But character is destiny. An administration of narcissists will be a snake pit, in which strife and self-destructive scandal will snuff out effective action. Running things is hard, and changing things is harder, and it’s rarely done well by solipsistic outsiders.
Those of us in the institutionalist camp will have to learn the lessons taught by George C. Marshall. Marshall, who served as chief of staff of the Army during World War II, and was an institutionalist through and through. He was formed by Army manners. The very core of his ethic was this: I will never put my own ambitions above the needs of the Army or the nation.
Yet Marshall was no standpatter. He didn’t respond to threats from outside by clinging fiercely to the status quo. He was a comprehensive reformer. When he was asked to lead the Infantry School at Fort Benning, for example, he revolutionized the curriculum. He sent units out on maneuvers without maps because in real war you always have insufficient information. He shifted military training toward mechanized warfare and nearly doubled the number of hours of instruction devoted to tactics. He spent his career pushing against the stifling traditionalism that could stultify his institution.
Today it really is true that the Pentagon is administratively a mess. It really is true the meritocracy needs to be fundamentally rethought. It really is true that Congress is dysfunctional and the immigration system is broken. But positive change will come from people who have developed a loving devotion to those institutions over years of experience, not people who despise them — the modern-day George Marshalls rather than the Pete Hegseths, Tulsi Gabbards and Robert F. Kennedy Jrs.
What kind of person do we want our children to become — reformers who honor their commitments to serve and change the institutions they love or performative arsonists who vow to burn it all down?
Read the seed before Commenting.
Comment on the content of the seed.
Tags
Who is online
503 visitors
[deleted]
NewsTalkers is a microcosm.
Well, as much as a few here would like to believe it sure as shit isn’t a Macrocosm.
Oh yes it is.
Read my post again …..
Ooops, my apologies. As I've said a few times now my sight is waning and new glasses aren't the answer, which is why I increase the font to 14pt so I can read what I wrote. It is much appreciated when others increase the font when they are replying to me, but I have been using a magnifying glass.
No worries
How is this, Buzz?
Perfect, Kavika. It's 14pt, which is what I'm using myself. It's just one step up from the standard 12pt font.
Thank you for your thoughtful link.
The MAGA phenomenon has revealed how easily even the modern USA can fall victim to a demagogue and find admirable qualities that normally would have been rejected at the onset.
I would have never believed it possible had I not witnessed it.
Nota for Mods: Participants are requested to
If you "wreck" the system but have nothing to replace it with, you have the recipe for chaos.
Human beings are "fallen" creatures. That is the lesson from the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. God made the world, the mountains, the oceans, the deserts, the amoebic life forms, the reptiles, dinosaurs, cats and dogs and horses and birds. And last came man, and that is how it is described in Genesis. And then to maximize the potential of "man" God made them self-conscious, able to understand things about themselves and the world that animals can't. But self-consciousness was a "fall" from a purer state, as described by Eve biting the forbidden fruit.
All morality comes from human beings being able to recognize right from wrong, animals cant do that.
Things in America will get worse before they get better.
Donald Trump is objectively a bad , bad man. If we choose him to be our leader, what are we?
Spot on.
Scary. Better pack your bags!
Trump, and the reaction to him, has demonstrated the modern progressive simply projects their own faults upon Trump. Their corruption and dishonesty has destroyed the institutions they pretend to revere. Clinton committed felonies in office and Democrats justified it by pointing to his approval ratings. Harry Reid told brazen lies about Romney from the Senate Floor and then laughed about it because "we won". The 2004 election was stolen because Diebold cheated and manipulated voting machines in Ohio. I could go on and on...
Trump is playing by Democrats rules, and they hate it.
Trump demonstrably and objectively has abysmal character. Denying this fact, spinning this fact, is an act of futility.
Now connect that to the "character doesn't matter" successful defense Democrats waged on behalf of Clinton.....
Another pointless deflection.
You can point to other failures and excuses of character throughout history but that does not change the fact that Trump, the demagogue underlying MAGA, has to an extreme degree, abysmal character. And that character, in contrast to your excuses, is not mere projection but the reality of Trump himself.
Lol. Pay attention. It's directly on topic.
And that character, in contrast to your excuses, is not mere projection but the reality of Trump himself
Get that strawman!
[✘]
He wasn't, nor isn't and can't run for president. How about we talk about the current president elect for a change? No one cares about Clinton, you're just deflecting.
That's exactly my point. So many democrats have no principles other than whatever is necessary at that minute. So they wake up every morning unburdened by yesterday's stated beliefs. But not everyone is a goldfish.
It's not.
There is no such thing as credibly hypocritical.
And before someone has an episode about reading the seed, it says:
You know my disdain for Trump, and you and I share a recognition that his most ardent supporters frequently do not understand the basics of things like economics or immigration policy.
But that subset of Democrats who practice blind and ridiculous hypocrisy undermine the party as a whole.
If sexual assault matters, it matters every time.
If we're supposed to believe E Jean Carroll, we're supposed to believe Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick.
That's just one topic of dozens where we're all supposed to ignore the actions of liberals or Democrats simply because they're liberals or Democrats. People have had enough, and they're so fed up they're willing to vote for a reprehensible asshole simply because nobody else will even admit there is a problem.
A strawman. Trump objectively has abysmal character. The fact that others have character flaws does not change that fact.
Partisans, especially blind partisans, are routinely hypocritical. This has been going on for as long as I have observed politics and likely is a historical truth. And the problem of hypocrisy by the Ds has been overshadowed by that of the Rs so why you care to point out the obvious about the Ds while ignoring the spectacular hypocrisy of the Rs under Trump is curious.
Of course. And if sexual assault happens, it is inappropriate to deflect to other examples of sexual assault so as to lessen the severity of the current instance.
Supposed to? How about just looking at each case on its merits and forming an informed opinion? Your entire post is phrased from a partisan perspective. It is of the form 'if they do, we can do it' or 'but, what about them?'. The E Jean Carroll case has been adjudicated. That gives the public some rather hard evidence of what Trump likely did. Clinton was a horn-dog and it is consistent with his character that he pushed himself on women. The Jones case was settled so we do not have a verdict, but the publicly known evidence is pretty damning for Clinton. Objectively. Forget about party affiliations.
Again, this is a common phenomenon of group-think. Surely you do not believe that the Ds and the Rs are any different in the notion that party loyalists will (right or wrong) root for their 'team' and (right or wrong) criticize the 'other team'. Surely you understand that this is human nature and is not a function of one party.
There are countless examples of partisans engaging in truly brain-dead apologetics and fantastic attacks. Why you think this is even noteworthy is curious.
In this case, the abysmal character of Trump is obvious. Since he is the soul of the MAGA movement, it should be no surprise that MAGA is the personification of Trump's profoundly flawed character.
Observing MAGA defend Trump no matter what he does (e.g. even to the point of defending Trump's incitement of supporters who then violently attacked our Capitol while Trump refused to stop them) reflects its inverted morality.
I'm sure you'd like to think so.
The fact that only Trump's objectively abysmal character seems to matter is the point.
Clearly it hasn't. Unless you're suggesting Trump was elected on policy.
No more curious than you doing the opposite.
We have a point of agreement.
He does not have a monopoly on that condition, despite the prevailing sentiment.
You fundamentally misunderstand that movement. The surfboard doesn't cause the wave.
Seems like every time Trump is criticized, faithful supporters deflect to other examples of poor behavior. So the actual content is not discussed and criticized, but rather we see simplistic deflection.
Except I am not doing that.
Again, this is obvious. Instead of engaging on the actual topic you yet again leap to 'but what about the other guys?'.
You then fundamentally misunderstand how demagoguery works. A demagogue typically taps into the worst instincts of its base. Just like a cult-leader taps into the weaknesses of its followers. I have (repeatedly) criticized the US electorate for their inexplicable support of this scoundrel. If they were not inclined as they are, Trump would be irrelevant — a point I have made repeatedly. But that does not change the fact that it is Trump who is the agent channeling these flaws in the electorate. That it is Trump who is coalescing and nurturing this 'inverted morality' that seems to characterize MAGA.
The fact that you don't see the same thing happening in reverse is exactly the point.
Is it? You never seem to notice.
Because you cannot discuss events intelligently if you only consider them in a vacuum. There is no such thing as credibly hypocritical.
*eyeroll*
I am capable of understanding the mindset of people who think differently without erroneously presuming they are either intellectually or morally inferior (or both).
Well if they don't agree with you, they must be flawed, right?
They must not understand what Trump is. They must be "misled". They must be terrible people. They must not be smart enough to understand the world in the same way an enlightened person like you does.
You are not reading very carefully:
All you seem to have anymore is invented claims ... mostly personal. Likely a consequence of having your weak arguments countered.
Deflecting to "what about them" is not discussing events intelligently. It is deflection in lieu of an actual argument.
You tried (yet again) to excuse Trump by pointing to his supporters. And while I fully agree that it is his supporters who have enabled him and I assert (again) that he would be irrelevant if not for their worst instincts and weaknesses, that does not excuse Trump. Trump is a demagogue, a con-man, a cult-leader who is exploiting the flaws of his supporters. He is absolutely a key part of the problem; and that does NOT excuse his supporters.
Again, all you ever seem to have nowadays is personal crap. There are plenty of people who can only do that. We are lacking individuals who can put forth an objective argument. Those who used to demonstrate that ability seem to have now joined the crowd of cheap online antagonists.
MAGA, as per this seed, does indeed seem to personify the abysmal character of Trump. I have never seen so much support for such bad behavior from a PotUS. It appears cultish. This is not good for this nation yet Trump supporters continue to defend Trump no matter what he does. This, IMO, is a level of socio-political sickness in our nation that in the past I would have never considered possible.
But this is your guy?
You have to go back years to find your examples , 20 or 30 years consistently. We have to go back days. The idea that ANYONE in American history is as despicable as a presidential candidate from a major party, let alone the winner is gaslighting of the highest degree.
Yet we see it ALL THE TIME. That is why the future looks so grim.
The idea that Trump will lead America to some sort of renaissance aka making America great again is a bad joke on our people. Trumpism wants to cancel the 21st century. Who actually thinks that is going to work?
Because a major political party claiming the "President's character doesn't matter" or "the election was stolen" have repercussions that last for decades.
History didn't start in 2016. Trump is the result of the war on institutions,character and reality democrats have been waging for decades.
Congrats! You won! You made Trump possible.
You ascribe 98% of the blame for "Trump" to the Democrats and 2% , if that, to Trump and the Republicans. It is a thoroughly dishonest analysis.
Please, people...
Read the seed!
Comment on the fucking seed!
David Brook's institutions have failed the United States. The institutions of the United States no longer serve the people. The great socialist revolution desired by the left and feared by the right can never happen because our means of production have been moved offshore. The United States doesn't even possess the capacity to be a third rate Soviet Union. Hillary Clinton sold our uranium reserves to Russia anyway. That's what our liberal institutionalists did to the United States.
Our institutions have become a perversion of the 'Leave to Beaver' mythologized America. Our institutions only function for their own benefit. Our institutions will reward those who do not question, challenge, or dissent with their rather obvious self serving, elitist proclivities. People like David Brooks.
Somehow a group of 'peaceful protesters' can directly attack the public, burn cities, vandalize businesses and homes, disrupt daily life, and our institutions yawn and equivocate. But attack the government, just once, and our institutional infrastructure will mobilize every resource at its disposal -- to protect itself. And people like David Brooks will point whichever way the institutional wind blows. David Brooks has spilled more ink and spent more talking-head time on video lambasting one protest against the government while completely ignoring the dozens of violent protests in dozens of cities over a number of years. Is David Brooks institutionally blind to the real world?
A Palestinian terrorist has more influence on our elite college campuses than does a homeless Vietnam veteran. That's the institutional mindset that David Brooks refuses to question, challenge, or disavow.
We had one Presidential candidate who promised to normalize sexual mutilation of adolescents. We had another candidate who promised to close the border to illegal immigrants and impose tariffs. And David Brooks is outraged by closing the border and imposing tariffs? Really? The moral imperatives of our institutions are protecting the rich?
Is David Brooks really a voice of conservative America? Or is Brooks just another parasite exploiting the public for his own benefit. Does David Brooks really believe in any institution other than the dollar? The dollar that our institutions use as a geopolitical weapon? The dollar that our institutions use to manipulate and control the people of the US? The dollar that institutions use to rig elections, science, justice, and morality? The dollar that our institutions are devaluing every day? David Brooks is speaking the best truth money can buy. You can bet your bottom dollar on that. But that truth, like the dollar, won't be worth as much tomorrow as it was yesterday. Thank our institutions for that.
Good question... because I really don't know what a "conservative" is, in America today. Brooks thinks Romney is a good example... but Romney has been more or less chased from the "Republican big tent"... which isn't THAT big.
I wonder if we're at a breaking point. "Conservatism" used to be class warfare with a whiff of racism. I wonder if it hasn't completely exploded that paradigm. It's just "POWER" now.
The Republican tent is big enough to elect a President despised by institutionalists of all stripes. And that appears to frighten conservatives like Brooks far more than the specter of socialism.
(Even an institutional conservative, like Romney, could become richer in a socialist economy. Oligarchs and kleptocrats depend upon institutional authority. The Federal Reserve is above oversight and the law, after all.)
Catch the theme? David Brooks is defending an institutional conservatism whose emphasis centers on extremely liberal economic manipulation and control over society. Mitt Romney (and David Brooks) are on the same liberal end of the spectrum as Karl Marx. The only difference is that institutional conservatives advocate socialism for the rich.
Bernie Sanders and Mitt Romney have more in common with each other than with Donald Trump. That's what worries both Democrats and Republicans attempting to defend liberal institutions (and protect their spot at the public trough).
Conservative is not an apt title for Trump. The definition of conservative implies resistance to change. The Republican party used to be the party of conservatism, both social and economic. It is now the wholly bought and paid for party of Trump/MAGA and nepotism, and as such has become not averse to change but reactionary (going backwards) in both social and economic terms. The fact that he wants to change government to reflect his ideas of crony capitalism shows this. His desire to root out the "Deep State" when it doesn't even exist is further evidence of his Fascist tendencies. He needs foils to rail against, and as long as people are buying his particular brand of bullshit, those foils are:
There are more, but I am tired of typing things that the electorate should have paid attention to before the election. As far as Power goes, I would tend to agree with you. If he can make himself king or a reasonable facsimile thereof, I am sure that he will try. It will be interesting seeing how far down the shitter in regards to human rights and rights granted by the Constitution he will take the nation. Also interesting to see how hard his economic "improvements" will hit the classes below the people making less than $100K per year.
It seems to work a lot like "what a "liberal" is", in that people who view themselves as being one will cite all the positive things about it and ignore all of the negative.
They'll grow much richer under Trump's economy.
Interesting take. It really seems the reight has mastered the art of doublespeak.
Brooks is not a "card carrying conservative" he is an Establishment whore. That is who he always has been and always will be.
His hero is Romney. When he forgets that Romney desperately wanted to be Trump's SoS. He even went to NY to bend a knee to get the job. If Trump were an Establishment politician he would have made Romney SoS no matter how much the two hated each other. Because that is what Establishment whores do. Romney is an Establishment whore; and never forgave Trump for the slight. He voted with the other Establishment whores to impeach Trump twice; because in Romney's world the Establishment matters more than morals, ethics, or following House rules. The Establishment holds grudges.
Brooks tries to talk around the Establishment by calling them "institutions". When "institutions" of government become corrupt and perverted they must be changed or abolished.
Brooks tries to us Marshall as an example of Establishment fixing itself. Marshall would never be tolerated in today's military Establishment. His standards are too high to accept lowering them for females and transgenders; and his pronoun usage alone would have gotten kicked out come the first Democrat president he served under.
Brooks is willing to put up with the Establishment cesspool of corruption and dysfunction because that is all he knows. Change is far too scary for him to be ever carried out.
Best description of Trump and his gang I have heard today.
Seems you missed the entire part that it was about the Obama/Biden administrations; and toady Establishment Republicans that don't care about the country- so long as they get their piece of the corruption pie in the form of campaign contributions, money going back to their states, and insider trading kick backs/jobs for themselves, family, and friends.
I can't stand Trump. But I trust him to close the border; stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs entering this country; force NATO to pay their fair share for their own defense; appoint strict Constitutionalist Supreme Court judges; crack down on the FBI, CIA, IRS, and DOJ so they are no longer tools of the Democrat party; bring back US energy independence; and force Canada, Mexico, and China to adhere to the deals they signed during his first administration.
Democrats still don't get why they lost. Doubt they will learn their lessons over the next 4 years. Establishment Republicans had better learn theirs. Putting up Establishment candidates like Romney, McConnell, etal is a sure fire way to make sure Democrats time out of power will be short.
Reading that comment. . . spells out the reasons some conservatives voted for Trumpism. It is inconceivable to 'stand' Trumpism without the man who is Trumpism personified. So. . . .
You're free to leave if you don't like it. To characterize the government in such a way is telling. What it shows is that the corrosiveness of Trump's lying diatribes is fully digestible to a certain section of the population.
A distinction without meaning.
Anger management works wonders on some people, I hear.
Leave? Why should I leave?
The morons that perverted our government institutions need to be held accountable. Part of the reason Trump was elected was to do that.
If the voters had wanted 4 mores years of Democrat BS they had their opportunity to vote for it. But Republicans retook the White House, Republicans expanded their lead in the House, and took control of the Senate.
Pretty resounding defeat for Democrats.
Sorry if leftists don't like that.
Your commentary stretches credulity at the best of times. Like:
I am sorry, but no one has perverted our government institutions. I believe that Trump will try to pervert our institutions, or at least hamstring their efficiency to do what they are supposed to, and they will be bent towards retribution and pursuit of other ends.
A miniscule part. Maybe even as much as his margin of victory, or less than 2.5 million votes out of almost 154 million votes cast for President. Slightly more than half of the voters chose someone else besides Trump. So he just squeaked in and he has no clear mandate (Well, there is always Musk. He seems to be Trump's "man-date" most times now.) to affect sweeping changes across the board.
As I am writing this they have a 6 seat lead. Again, no sweeping mandate.
They have 53 seats in the Senate. Again, not a sweeping mandate, and yet you say:
We live in a deeply polarized country and I would say that politicians and money, both Republican and Democrat, are largely and probably mostly to blame for this state of affairs. Add in the legacy media and the proliferation of cable and online sites that purport to be "news" and we have a fractured society that the politicians can prey and play on. So, if we want to start fixing government, we have to control the money. We have a good way of determining fact from fiction that exists with the legacy media. They must be accountable, certainly, as any credible news agency. Trump and his "alternate facts" are just straight-up lies.
In other words, Trump is taking 'back' the country for men and powerbrokers of his ilk. In the process, "others" will be stuffed forcefully back into their old 'digs' —if they don't deliver force themselves appropriately.
I was just sitting here (earlier) listening to the news and thinking once Trump gets done trashing the government. . . it will be a brave undertaking to start the process over again to renew it! (I feel pretty sure (and democrats had better pull their heads 'out' and see the contest ahead of them) that Trump and his 'bros' and 'sistahs' will try to stitch permanence into his acts and actions leaving 'us' stuck on the outside).
So better get the best lawyers and billionaires willing to fight political fire with equal/more political fire. . . as the years ahead will all A SINGULAR NOBLE UNDERTAKING.
Time to understand that Trump is following a playbook partly from thinktanks and partly from his 'friends' in autocratic leadership demonstrating and practicing strongmen/women with singular focuses (add Musk's power/capital/ability to bring technology 'shock' and awe' as 'additive') and he looks every bit the essence of a 'man's man' —across racial and ethnicity lines.
And to be fair, that is okay.
The problem/s will reveal themselves when the pressure is applied to groups of people who can not exist in the world of 'robber-barons' (a throwback to the start of this country) as once again this country will be required/made/forced to reckon with its original model as flawed in one major sense. .. the country really does need a cooperative, interrelated, and reasonable CENTRAL government to formulate its direction. That is, states (as independent parts of the whole) will not be able to control the whole of the nation (as differences in political thought and actions demonstrate presently). . . we will need federal leadership in 'vital' areas to be kept in place in order to be nimble in moments of national crises and other national emergencies.
That said, we are about to see theory/ideology 'reinvent' the rationales for why practical politics have brought us to the place we are today. Addendum: Trump leadership is about MIGHT MAKES RIGHT: Not Rule of Law.
(And we are 'bout' to see if it can take hold or not in our country!)