The inherent flaw in the "Trump will bring on the progressive revolution!" argument: [View all]
The argument that Trump winning is a good thing because it will only serve to inspire true liberals to rally and bring about a progressive revolution--basically what is being championed by people like Susan Sarandon--is an ultimately flawed one. Even if it is well-intentioned, I don't see it succeeding.
Why is it so flawed? Because of who Donald Trump is. The reasons that Donald Trump is so loathsome and so offensive and so odious is not merely a matter of partisan politics or ideology. Rather, it's the inherent nature of the man--his narcissism, his megalomania, his vindictiveness, his impulsive anger, and yet his paradoxical incompetence or outright refusal to delve in deeper to various issues in order to come up with solutions on his own. All of these attributes are not merely the markings of a bad conservative or a bad Republican. Instead, they're simply markings of a bad human being and leader, period. Democrats would be just as ill served to have Donald Trump as their leader just as much as Republicans.
Donald Trump is such a horrifically flawed leader and human being that he pretty much makes anyone else a more attractive alternative.
Anybody.
Right now, America and even Democrats would be willing to suffer through four years of President Mike Pence if it means Donald Trump implodes in flames and crashes and burns.
Right now, George W. Bush--a man who lead the country into an unnecessary and destabilizing war and who oversaw an economic collapse--is viewed as a more palatable alternative than Donald Trump. George W. Bush. Yes, really. George W. Bush. That's astonishing yet sadly the truth, that George W. Bush, who merely eight years ago we all thought was the true bottom of the barrel when it came to US Presidents, is no longer the standard bearer for terrible leadership. And yet, it's pretty much a sad reality. Even as terrible as George W. Bush was, Donald Trump is indeed worse and a greater threat to our long-term stability as a country.
So if the overall effect of the Trump Presidency is to grab America by the neck and hold it there until it cries "Uncle!", whatever follows next--sparing possibly a President George Zimmerman--would be viewed by the public as a better option. And it wouldn't necessarily be Bernie Sanders who comes to our rescue. Or even Hillary Clinton. It could be someone like Mike Pence, who could still impose a lot of long term damage to the country minus the inherently dangerous Mutually Assured Destruction element that Donald Trump has brought us.
Those on the hard, hard left--as admirably principled as they may be--fail to see the forest through the trees in the situation. Not everyone shares their worldview, even if maybe they ought to. Not everyone will be rushing to have Donald Trump replaced by a progressive, ideologically pure icon of the left. There are a lot of people who will settle for anything to avoid the seemingly certain death Donald Trump will bring to this country.
That is why it was a foolish, short-sighted mistake to think that we'd rather deliver the country to the clutches of Donald Trump then have another four years of moderate, left of center leadership in the form of Hillary Clinton. Yes, the entire country will soon be screaming to be saved from Donald Trump. We're already starting to get that sense already. But not everyone will be calling for a true-blue progressive revolution, even if they ought to be doing so. So while there's a chance that type of revolution would come around, I wouldn't necessarily keep your hopes up that it will.
= new reply since forum marked as read