David Brooks: What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?

[RDKirk]

The article shows a picture of income inequality.

But who has driven income inequality in Congress and state houses? Which party continually pushes tax cuts for the risk while busting unions, opposing fair wages, trying to end Social Security, trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act at least 40 times? Who is against student loan forgiveness? Who opposes free community college? Universal pre-K which would give poor children a step up in kindergarten?

You know the answer. Who in Congress keeps bringing up that CEO salaries might have been perhaps ten times as high as the average employee's salary and is now hundreds of times as high?

BTW, most Ivy League graduates have little interest in entering government service as they race down to Wall Street to become hedge fund managers...

Is the Democratic party the party of the ordinary union worker these days? What are their actual pro-union planks?

 

[Fantine]

I read that the infrastructure projects must be awarded to companies hiring union employees.
Yes, it's not as cheap, but paying living wages and recognizing the dignity of workers should be a moral imperative.
I have heard Biden mention union infrastructure projects in his tour speeches.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I read that the infrastructure projects must be awarded to companies hiring union employees.
Yes, it's not as cheap, but paying living wages and recognizing the dignity of workers should be a moral imperative.
I have heard Biden mention union infrastructure projects in his tour speeches.

...but if not structured correctly, that can go off the rails creating some bad incentive structures.

For instance, in San Francisco, they have stipulations set up that dictate that if a project (including regulatory fees, taxes & permits) is over a certain dollar amount, then it has to be awarded to a unionized construction outfit.

What that amounts to is an incentive structure where union delegates and officials push in favor of higher regulatory fees and red tape because there's an incentive to want as many projects as possible to come in over that specified dollar amount (because it guarantees they won't have to compete against non-unionized outfits)

One of the stories that highlighted that was the one where a proposal for a 150 sq ft public bathroom facility came in at a projected cost of over a million dollars.

And even Slate (a typically left leaning publication) did an article about it explaining how some of these incentive structures had maybe gone off the rails. Citing what I mentioned above, in addition to rules like "you're not allowed to use red-state suppliers", fees in excess of over $10,000 just to be able to submit your plan for review, and the legal labyrinth that is the California Environmental Quality review.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Is the Democratic party the party of the ordinary union worker these days? What are their actual pro-union planks?

Honestly, I don't think either party (speaking here about leadership) is particularly pro-union these days, but the Ds do at least make vague handwavy motions in that direction from time to time, which, in our two-party system, makes them the closest thing to "the party of the ordinary worker".

However, when looking at voters, Democratic voters are very pro-union: Majorities of Americans say unions have a positive effect on U.S. and that decline in union membership is bad

 

[mark46]

I very sincerely doubt it. At least 30 US states/territories have significantly more relaxed abortion restrictions that that. It seems that they want to keep it that way too.

Alaska, New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington state and Vermont have no gestational limit on abortions.

California, Virginia, Wyoming, Montana, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington DC all use 'viability' as the standard. That's generally seen at 23-24 weeks, but can be higher or lower depending on the circumstances.

A number of other states have abortion bans that are later than 15 weeks:

Utah - 18 weeks
Iowa, South Carolina, Kansas - 22 weeks
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Nevada, Pennsylvania, - 24 weeks


When it comes to voting, getting people to role back their access to reproductive healthcare/declare they have no constitutional right to an abortion has been a non starter. I think all eight ballot measures in the past two years have been defeated.

Seven US states have recently either passed laws to protect existing abortion access or moved to amend their Constitutions to include rights to access reproductive healthcare. Another eight have seen recent judicial ruling that have recognised a right to abortions/ruled abortion bans unconstitutional.

Take the case of Ohio. The state tried to enact a 6 week abortion ban in 2022. This was pretty unpopular, and the courts halted it but didn't . Ohioans propsed a vote to add abortion protections to the state constitution to put the issue to rest. This has annoyed Republicans so much, they are trying to do an end run around Ohio's direct representation rules and change the proportion that a ballot measure needs to pass from 50% to 60%.

Similar shenanigans have been tried in Arkansas, South Dakota and Mississippi. Elsewhere - Missouri for instance - Republicans are using procedural motions to stop votes, or prevent ballot measures being tabled.

OK, point well taken. I agree that there are states that have bans greater than 25 weeks. I guess that I am trying to point out that the Reublican position of 6 weeks or even a total ban is very, very unpopular when put to a vote.

Also, I'm suggesting that viability is a moving target and 23 and 24 weeks are outdated, or soon to be outdated.

So, OK, let me REVISE my suggestion. I believe that the voters of most states (and the Congress) would vote for a ban after viability without a court order.

THERE WILL BE A CONTINUING DEBATE about the best date after which to ban. Can we agree that the vast majority would support ban after viability? Could we agree that the vast majority would support a ban after 24 weeks?
================
LET"S NOT NITPICK
A small minority wants a total ban or a ban after 6 weeks.
A small minority wants no ban at all.
The (vast?) majority supports a ban after 15 to 24 weeks (or after the moving target of viability).

DO YOU AGREE?
===================
AN ASIDE
I agree than the ban cannot before a woman is likely to know that she is pregnant. 15 weeks should be enough to remove that issue. BTW, I'm not even sure that the majority would allow exceptions for rape and incest after the ban date.

 

[RDKirk]

Honestly, I don't think either party (speaking here about leadership) is particularly pro-union these days, but the Ds do at least make vague handwavy motions in that direction from time to time, which, in our two-party system, makes them the closest thing to "the party of the ordinary worker".

However, when looking at voters, Democratic voters are very pro-union: Majorities of Americans say unions have a positive effect on U.S. and that decline in union membership is bad

But Democrats speak ill of the majority of people who belong to unions...except for public service unions.

Democrats speak most ill of the members of unions who directly confront capitalism...which is ironic. Even if they don't have an ideological plank against "unionism" as a concept, they speak ill of union members.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But Democrats speak ill of the majority of people who belong to unions...except for public service unions.

Democrats speak most ill of the members of unions who directly confront capitalism...which is ironic. Even if they don't have an ideological plank against "unionism" as a concept, they speak ill of union members.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

 

[9Rock9]

Really? So their plan was to pick increasingly watered down republicans 3 election cycles in a row, and then throw in a wild card out of nowhere?

Or could it be that the elitists Brooks was referring portrayed Bush voters as terrible, so then they went with McCain, and when people still called them terrible, they went with a guy like Romney (who's about as edgy and controversial as bran flakes), and when they were still called terrible "clingers", they eventually said "you know what, screw you guys, we're punching back".

It sort of resembles that dynamic of the older sibling who mercilessly taunts and harasses the younger sibling and calls them names until they finally haul off and hit them, and then they run crying to mom and dad about it acting like they had nothing to do with it.

Also, I don't think it's limited to just the media and the Democrats. There are a lot of establishment Republicans who look down on their base and hold them in contempt, and I think Trump was partially a response to that.

The party leaders spent 40 years paying lip service to a conservative platform, but failed to actually conserve anything, so primary voters chose Trump in order to voice their dissatisfaction with the party leaders. Despite this, the GOP establishment joined in with the "deplorables" rhetoric and the Republican voters felt like the people they voted for threw them under the bus instead of standing up for them.

I don't think MAGA/Trumpism was ever about particular ideology or policies: just a bunch of people who were (and still are) fed up with the status quo.

I think that's why you get moderate Republicans like Youngkin, Kemp and Haley who can still appeal to the Trumpian wing of the party, even if they aren't MAGA themselves: it's because they respect the base.

It's one thing to attack Trump, it's a completely different thing to demonize the people who voted for him. It's why he has such enthusiastic support: his supporters see attacks on Trump as an attack on them as people.

Despite what the media might lead you to think, I doubt Trump supporters cared either way about Trump's wall. They just wanted a secure border. They didn't care how it was done as long as the border crisis was finally solved.

 

[mark46]

During the 2016 campaign, surveys among military personnel...who we can presume is a relatively classically conservative group (that is, devoted to maintaining the status quo) candidate preference was almost evenly split between Trump and Sanders...the two extremes.

Poll: Trump, Sanders Lead Among U.S. Armed Forces - Roll Call

International Business Times reports that “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is American troops’ preferred pick for commander in chief, according to a poll published Monday. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was also a top choice for president among active military personnel.” “Trump...

rollcall.com

this was early in the campaigns

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

Me neither

NEWS: In Letter to Teamsters, 28 Senate Democrats Commit to Not Intervene in Case of UPS Workers Strike​

[That is, they would not intervene to stop the strike by force of law.]

 

[perplexed]

I can understand the perspective that Trump was a hero that looked after the forgotten people and stood up to the loony left.
It would have been great if there was more discussion like this years ago.
But it is not really relevant now, What has Trump done lately other than show random people attack plans and make the false claims that he won the election.

 

[mark46]

How many Trump cases will be going on in 2024?

In addition to the federal cases, there will be state cases. Of course, the state cases cannot be disappeared if a Republican is elected.

The Republicans need to decide whether they want to run foursquare against the courts, the FBI, and the DOJ. They lost over 60 cases regarding the 2020 election almost all decisions made by trump appointed judges. They need to decide whether they run against the US system of deciding federal elections (by wanting to move much more control to the state legislatures).

I'm NOT saying that this isn't the approach most likely to win the White House for the Republicans.
================
THREE OPTIONS
1) Run against the courts and win. This will solidify the Trump Republican Party, its ideas and methods, for at least a decade.
2) Run against the courts and lose. This will guarantee chaos for the next couple of cycles with the parties ever more polarized.
3) Run on previous Republican principles involving the economy, the debt, social programs, reducing the power of the federal government., and strong support for the military. Given that Trump will likely run a 3rd party candidate or at very least have his people stay home, the Republicans will probably lose. However, this new republican Party would likely have very little trouble beating the very left-leaning Democratic party for at least 2028 and 2032. Moderates will no longer control the Democratic Party, at least not for at least a decade.

Of course, the Republicans could surpise themselves. After going back to Republican principles, they just might run a fine campaign and win. After all, Scott or Hailey might be the turning of the page wanted by the American voter. The Republicans have many winning issues. They simply must refrain their extremists.

 

[USincognito]

But Democrats speak ill of the majority of people who belong to unions...except for public service unions.

Democrats speak most ill of the members of unions who directly confront capitalism...which is ironic. Even if they don't have an ideological plank against "unionism" as a concept, they speak ill of union members.

President Biden visits Philly shipyard as he courts organized labor and pushes green jobs

President Joe Biden has paid a visit to Philadelphia's shipyard to make a pitch that unions will be building America’s renewable energy future

abcnews.go.com

>>“A lot of my friends in organized labor know, when I think climate, I think jobs,” the president said. “Union workers are the best in the world.” <<

‘I just think you’re wrong’: Democrats, Schultz tangle in Starbucks union-busting hearing

Senators on Wednesday grilled former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz over widespread allegations of illegal union-busting tactics at the coffee chain under his leadership. Democrats on the Senat…

thehill.com

>> Democrats blasted Schultz for Starbucks’ decision to withhold recently announced benefits from nonunion stores, which the NLRB has alleged is an illegal union-busting tactic. <<

Biden takes a victory lap in Wisconsin to highlight ‘good union jobs’ from his first two years - Wisconsin Examiner

Laborers Union members, Democratic officeholders and party loyalists cheered the president as he focused his message on jobs and the economy.

wisconsinexaminer.com

>> Biden takes a victory lap in Wisconsin to highlight ‘good union jobs’ from his first two years

President Joe Biden visited a union training school north of Madison Wednesday where he recapped his State of the Union speech in a massive shed normally used to teach apprentice laborers how to lay pipelines. <<

 

[USincognito]

Me neither

NEWS: In Letter to Teamsters, 28 Senate Democrats Commit to Not Intervene in Case of UPS Workers Strike​

[That is, they would not intervene to stop the strike by force of law.]

View attachment 334295

But those are liberal coastal elites! Not real union workers.

 

[Gene2memE]

OK, point well taken. I agree that there are states that have bans greater than 25 weeks. I guess that I am trying to point out that the Reublican position of 6 weeks or even a total ban is very, very unpopular when put to a vote.

Also, I'm suggesting that viability is a moving target and 23 and 24 weeks are outdated, or soon to be outdated

Viability is a moving target, because medicine continues to advance. However, it's unlikely to drop below about 20 weeks in all bar a tiny minority of cases.

THERE WILL BE A CONTINUING DEBATE about the best date after which to ban. Can we agree that the vast majority would support ban after viability? Could we agree that the vast majority would support a ban after 24 weeks?

I'm not sure the vast majority would. Depending on survey and time period, those in favour of abortion without any legal restrictions generally outnumber those who favour making it illegal all circumstances by about two or three to one.

Generally speaking, anywhere between 20% and 45% of the US population think abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Most recent surveys (post 2018) have this number between 30 and 40%. Around 75-85% are in favour of abortion being legal at least in some circumstances. About 50-60% of the US population would be willing to call themselves 'pro Choice'.

In contrast, about 10-20% of the population think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. More recent surveys are generally between 10-15%.

Similarly, if you look at this from a personhood/right to life standpoint, about 2/3rds of the US population doesn't ascribe to the 'personhood/life/rights begins at conception' argument. The number that think there is personhood/right to life from conception is only about 10-20%.

When you drill down into the numbers, they are generally pretty consistent between survey organisations (Harris, Pew, Gallup, NORC and the like) and the same trends show up across the pollsters. This indicates the data is pretty good.

LET"S NOT NITPICK
A small minority wants a total ban or a ban after 6 weeks.
A small minority wants no ban at all.
The (vast?) majority supports a ban after 15 to 24 weeks (or after the moving target of viability).

DO YOU AGREE?

I don't think I do. I don't think there's enough data for a definitive answer about whether a vast majority would support a ban on abortion after X amount of time.

What I do know is that when US states, even highly conservative/right leaning states, got to the ballots to pass abortion bans or restrictions that are really tight (6-12 weeks), these measures have been resoundingly defeated. Generally about 60:40.

When constitutional changes restricting/enshrining reproductive rights are proposed, those votes are closer (usually 53:47 or similar), but have universally fallen in favour of the pro Choice side since about 2020.

From what I can see from polling and elections, I suspect that only a minority would support a "ban after 15 to 24 weeks (or after the moving target of viability)". I'd need more specific info to make any definitive judgement though.

AN ASIDE
I agree than the ban cannot before a woman is likely to know that she is pregnant. 15 weeks should be enough to remove that issue. BTW, I'm not even sure that the majority would allow exceptions for rape and incest after the ban date.

The majority would definitely allow exceptions for rape and incest, even beyond a ban date.
Surveys of Republicans in heavily right leaning states show overwhelming support for exceptions in those cases, typically in the 65% to 90% range. That pretty much bares through, with support barely dropping even past the point of fetal viability.

 

[KCfromNC]

You're really ruining the "Enlightened Centrist" vibe here. How am I suppose to blame both sides when the seesaw is so heavily weighted down by the right? (Insert bad diets joke here.)

All I'm sure of from this thread (and the many others like it) is that Democrats must be to blame for you not being able to blame them.

 

[stevil]

I think he does a good job explaining some things here and perhaps lays out some uncomfortable truths with regards to analyzing why some people on the right have hitched their wagon to Trump, as well as gives some perspectives that don't conform to the standard "People who support him are either stupid, bigoted, resistant to change, or all 3" kinds of talking points.

I can't understand why anyone would like D Trump as the USA president.
I do think D Trump would make for a high ratings Shock Jock radio show host as he says stuff that would be considered as flaming and goading. He makes people either love him or hate him.

I find it really strange how evangelical Christians have flocked to him, especially considering that he is an atheist, his top priority seems to be to accumulate wealth and power for himself. He doesn't seem to behave with any grace or empathy for others. He doesn't seem to have any dignity or integrity.

The argument about D Trump standing up to wealthy elites, to the establishment, to corruption and standing up for the common people is really bizarre, given that D Trump was born into an ultra wealthy family, was a multi millionaire at the age of 8, and perhaps a billionaire later in life. He has certainly lived a life of luxury and opulence, he surrounds himself with gold and luxury items and obviously puts a very high value on showing off his wealth. He uses a team of lawyers to use the system to crush people that are less wealthy than he. He uses his connections with other wealthy elites to control and subjugate the rest of the people in his life. e.g. the catch and kill arrangement with the National Enquirer. He has also used his connections with wealthy elites to destroy the careers of people.

How Trump silenced the people who could expose his business failures

How did Donald Trump convince the world that he is a financial genius?

www.nzherald.co.nz

How did Donald Trump, a self-serving promoter who lost billions of dollars for his investors, convince the world that he is a financial genius? It wasn't just by fabricating tales of his success. It was also by bullying and silencing people who could have stopped those deceits - particularly reporters and Wall Street analysts - forcing all but a very few into a conspiracy of silence.

Journalists told me how he'd tried to block their reporting on his empire - by making up ethical scandals about them, furnishing fake documents and in one case threatening to expose the private life of a closeted media executive. Wall Street analysts witnessed a campaign of intimidation that began when Trump got one of them fired for (correctly) doubting his casinos' ability to pay off their debts.

Trump's bullying was even more brazen - and the consequences even more dire. In March 1990, Marvin Roffman, one of the nation's leading casino industry stock analysts, told Wall Street Journal reporter Neil Barsky that Trump might not be able to gross the $1.3 million per day he needed to keep the Taj Mahal going. Trump retaliated. He called Roffman's boss at Janney Montgomery Scott and threatened to sue unless the firm fired Roffman or printed a letter from him saying, in Roffman's telling, "that sonofabitch reporter Barsky misquoted" him and that "the Taj Mahal was going to be the greatest success ever." Roffman, a 17-year veteran analyst, resisted and was fired the next day.

It "sent a message to others in our business. . . . 'Keep your mouth shut or you'll never work in this industry again.' After that I could not get a job as an analyst." He sums up that period this way: "Telling the truth about Trump was dangerous to your career." It was also a perilous time for investors, who, over the next 14 years, would lose more than $1.5 billion on Trump's stocks and bonds as the public casino company went bankrupt twice.

The above is just a few snippets from the article, but it clearly shows how Trump used his wealth and power and connections to corruptly control others less wealthy than himself. So isn't D Trump himself the epitome of this wealthy elite and corruption that Trump's followers believe he is standing up against?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I can't understand why anyone would like D Trump as the USA president.
I do think D Trump would make for a high ratings Shock Jock radio show host as he says stuff that would be considered as flaming and goading. He makes people either love him or hate him.

I find it really strange how evangelical Christians have flocked to him, especially considering that he is an atheist, his top priority seems to be to accumulate wealth and power for himself. He doesn't seem to behave with any grace or empathy for others. He doesn't seem to have any dignity or integrity.

The argument about D Trump standing up to wealthy elites, to the establishment, to corruption and standing up for the common people is really bizarre, given that D Trump was born into an ultra wealthy family, was a multi millionaire at the age of 8, and perhaps a billionaire later in life. He has certainly lived a life of luxury and opulence, he surrounds himself with gold and luxury items and obviously puts a very high value on showing off his wealth. He uses a team of lawyers to use the system to crush people that are less wealthy than he. He uses his connections with other wealthy elites to control and subjugate the rest of the people in his life. e.g. the catch and kill arrangement with the National Enquirer. He has also used his connections with wealthy elites to destroy the careers of people.

How Trump silenced the people who could expose his business failures

How did Donald Trump convince the world that he is a financial genius?

www.nzherald.co.nz

How did Donald Trump, a self-serving promoter who lost billions of dollars for his investors, convince the world that he is a financial genius? It wasn't just by fabricating tales of his success. It was also by bullying and silencing people who could have stopped those deceits - particularly reporters and Wall Street analysts - forcing all but a very few into a conspiracy of silence.

Journalists told me how he'd tried to block their reporting on his empire - by making up ethical scandals about them, furnishing fake documents and in one case threatening to expose the private life of a closeted media executive. Wall Street analysts witnessed a campaign of intimidation that began when Trump got one of them fired for (correctly) doubting his casinos' ability to pay off their debts.

Trump's bullying was even more brazen - and the consequences even more dire. In March 1990, Marvin Roffman, one of the nation's leading casino industry stock analysts, told Wall Street Journal reporter Neil Barsky that Trump might not be able to gross the $1.3 million per day he needed to keep the Taj Mahal going. Trump retaliated. He called Roffman's boss at Janney Montgomery Scott and threatened to sue unless the firm fired Roffman or printed a letter from him saying, in Roffman's telling, "that sonofabitch reporter Barsky misquoted" him and that "the Taj Mahal was going to be the greatest success ever." Roffman, a 17-year veteran analyst, resisted and was fired the next day.

It "sent a message to others in our business. . . . 'Keep your mouth shut or you'll never work in this industry again.' After that I could not get a job as an analyst." He sums up that period this way: "Telling the truth about Trump was dangerous to your career." It was also a perilous time for investors, who, over the next 14 years, would lose more than $1.5 billion on Trump's stocks and bonds as the public casino company went bankrupt twice.

The above is just a few snippets from the article, but it clearly shows how Trump used his wealth and power and connections to corruptly control others less wealthy than himself. So isn't D Trump himself the epitome of this wealthy elite and corruption that Trump's followers believe he is standing up against?

As I touched on a little bit before, I think people who are putting a lot of the emphasis on the economic aspects and his private/business life behaviors are missing the real reasons people were actually voting for him.

For them, Trump was "the guy who isn't going to tell me I have to radically change my opinions, and the guy who leave me the hell alone and let me do things my way"

I also made reference to the fact that a lot of Trump supporters liked Bernie. (there was a large number of people who supported Sanders in the primary, but once he didn't get the nod, switched and voted for Trump). I think that's in large part to Bernie not really getting into the weeds on the social issues. He focuses on working class issues, and had a message in that regard that a lot of the were receptive too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/10/early-w-va-numbers-show-4-in-10-sanders-backers-prefer-trump-over-clinton-and-trump-over-sanders/

They're not opposed to all Democratic party principles. A lot of them could be "gettable" votes if there were a democrat who said "we want to tax the rich more and uses the proceeds to do XYZ for the middle class", and didn't try to force them to flip their opinions on abortion and LGBT issues.

They just saw the current iteration of democrats (specifically the democrats who were being portrayed as the new "rising stars of the party"), and they saw the kinds of people democrats had started pandering to (millennial idealistic types who wanted safe spaces and to dictate what others could and couldn't say) and people who would gaslight them constantly by attaching "life saving care" descriptors to the things they know they weren't fans of as a means of making them look like bad people.

And they said "I don't want them leading the country, I'll vote for whoever will be the biggest bulwark against that, and who will let me do my thing"

Some could see that approach as right or wrong...but it is what it is.

I personally see it as a bad voting strategy...I oppose a lot of the stuff about the excesses of the left they oppose, but let cooler heads prevail and voted for Biden merely as a means to get Trump out of there as I saw the writing on the wall and had serious concerns about how desperate Trump was to stay in power.

But I'm probably not in the exact same mindset as they are. Some of their resistance to the excesses of the left are rooted in their religious principles. I don't have a religion so my convictions on some of those things probably aren't as deep (for instance, while I oppose the concept of entities being forced to give lip service to certain progressive ideologies, but I don't believe in any heaven vs. hell implications...so I don't take it as seriously as they do), so figured I could tolerate 4 years of it and hope better options would come along for the next time around. (little did I know, we'd be getting a re-run of a senile guy vs. angry egomaniac...this time with both of those attributes being even worse than they were in 2020)

If by some miracle in Nov. 2024 Biden is upright and fit for office, and Trump isn't in jail and those are our options again, I'll likely stay home and order a pizza (or go back to voting for the libertarian party like I used to)

 

[stevil]

As I touched on a little bit before, I think people who are putting a lot of the emphasis on the economic aspects and his private/business life behaviors are missing the real reasons people were actually voting for him.

For them, Trump was "the guy who isn't going to tell me I have to radically change my opinions, and the guy who leave me the hell alone and let me do things my way"

Trump is telling people how to think.
Currently he is anti abortion, anti choice.
He is anti Muslim, anti Mexican.

He is calling anyone on the USA political left "looney left, socialists, Communists, Marxists.
He is calling any Republican that doesn't tow his loyalty line, Republicans in Name Only, or never Trumpers.
He is supporting the Russians and against the traditional USA allies.

And as we have seen, his supporters have completely changed their opinions away from the traditional Republican conservative views to be lock step with Trump's. Most of the Republicans supporters, especially most of the MAGA Republican supporters now seem to support Russia, seem to like Putin and Kim Jong un, but now focus their ire on China and Democrats.

The MAGA Republicans now seem to have to have opinions that:
masks are bad
Covid vaccine is bad
Lockdowns are bad
Ivermectine is good
HCQ is good
any gun restrictions are bad
Trans therapy is bad
Main Stream Media is leftist
Big Tech is leftist
FBI is leftist
DOJ is leftist
Courts are leftist
Elections are rigged
Left are socialists, communists and marxists

If people don't have the above then they are deemed never Trumpers and Republican in Name Only.
As you can see, all the above is culture war nonsense, and none of it is political policy, neither liberal nor conservative.

The things that the Democrat government are being accused of, aren't actually happening.
There is no deep state, not left conspiracy to control Media, Big Tech, FBI, DOJ or courts. No leftist conspiracy to rig elections. The vast majority of leftists in USA are capitalists, not socialists.

I also made reference to the fact that a lot of Trump supporters liked Bernie. (there was a large number of people who supported Sanders in the primary, but once he didn't get the nod, switched and voted for Trump). I think that's in large part to Bernie not really getting into the weeds on the social issues.

If this is true, I find it very bizzare that Bernie supporters would vote for Trump.
Bernie promotes social policies including single payer health, promotes progressive taxes, supports unions. I don't know how you go from that to supporting Trump's wall, reduction in tax for the rich, support banning Muslims.

They're not opposed to all Democratic party principles. A lot of them could be "gettable" votes if there were a democrat who said "we want to tax the rich more and uses the proceeds to do XYZ for the middle class", and didn't try to force them to flip their opinions on abortion and LGBT issues.

This is a Fox News Opinion show talking point, but not something the Democratic government is actually doing. It is a strawman.
This is a culture war issue and these aren't political policies.
Medical professions do what they do, largely without government intervention. Movie industry and Disney do what they do, without government intervention, social media owners do what they do largely without government intervention.
What the Democrats are being blamed for is not actually any of the Democrats doing, certainly not those in congress or in the white house.

People are allowed to not have abortions, people are allowed to not be LGBT, Govt isn't forcing this on anyone.

They just saw the current iteration of democrats (specifically the democrats who were being portrayed as the new "rising stars of the party"), and they saw the kinds of people democrats had started pandering to (millennial idealistic types who wanted safe spaces and to dictate what others could and couldn't say)

It's funny because I see "Left" and "Progressives" as being pragmatists and the opposite of "idealists" and I see the USA right as being idealists. e.g. saying how dare government mandate I wear a mask or mandate I get vaccinated. What about my 1st amendment right? Or how dare they impose any restrictions on guns, what about my 2nd amendment right?

I see the left as pragmatists, because, although they support Capitalism, they also want social benefits such as schools, hospitals, prisons, health care, living support etc.

I personally see it as a bad voting strategy...I oppose a lot of the stuff about the excesses of the left they oppose, but let cooler heads prevail and voted for Biden merely as a means to get Trump out of there as I saw the writing on the wall and had serious concerns about how desperate Trump was to stay in power.

Unfortunately it seems that many people in USA are being taken in by the propaganda of Right wing opinion shows. Are buying into the culture war, are believing the nonsense about Government and schools forcing CRT on kids (They are not) etc.

But I'm probably not in the exact same mindset as they are. Some of their resistance to the excesses of the left are rooted in their religious principles.

Donald Trump isn't a Christian. He is an atheist. He is pandering to the USA Christians because he is running on the Republican ticket.
Any Republican president will pander to Christian ideals.

I don't have a religion so my convictions on some of those things probably aren't as deep (for instance, while I oppose the concept of entities being forced to give lip service to certain progressive ideologies, but I don't believe in any heaven vs. hell implications...so I don't take it as seriously as they do),

Could you provide an example here. I don't understand what you mean about "forced to give lip service to certain progressive ideologies"
Like, what ideology, and how is it that govt are forcing this on entities?

 

[RDKirk]

Trump is telling people how to think.

If there is one thing Trump is not doing, it's telling people how to think.

That is, perhaps, the greatest distinction between him and the Democratic Party, for which "re-education" is a primary agenda item.

Trump would allow people to keep their prejudices, whatever those prejudices may be. Democrats want to re-educate people out of their prejudices.