32 Comments
User's avatar
Brent Naseath's avatar

What a great article! Well done!

Expand full comment
Dave pearen's avatar

Great essay.

Expand full comment
arrotsevni's avatar

Good observations. It is the old Yankees vs Dodgers rivalry. It is a desire to claim you belong to something you believe to be 'good'. Eric Hoffer's, 1951 "The True Believer" spelled this out simply. These folks don't even have to see a favorable outcome in their lifetime as fans of the Mets proved with their endless "this year is the year". The belief in saviors is legend. Some will always act like a cult blind to any interpretation different to their own. Just as we exited one cult, we have gained another. This is why there is always a need for critical thinking to right the ship of state. In politics as anything else, those who can see around corners of cult-behavior are the most valued ballast.

Expand full comment
Zork (the) Hun's avatar

Perfectly said. I am in Awe!

I also find it eerie how we are thinking on parallel paths.

I started a post just an hour ago titled "the fear and reverence of the absolute",

reflecting on a comment to my last post, about the same desire for certainty that creates the hero worship.

It's nothing personal, we are just in tune with our times.

Expand full comment
Scott Staelgraeve's avatar

Is the education of the electorate sufficient to yield anything other than a cult of personality? Your article made me think of that wonderful artifact known as the ballot initiative. The process by which people vote to enshrine law into state constitutions when they’ve likely never read anything about the initiative other than a one paragraph summary provided by those either for or against the initiative. Get the right personalities behind the initiative and folks will vote their rights away and proudly don their I voted sticker.

Expand full comment
Leon Brown, Jr.'s avatar

Brilliant, Lily. The nightmare is upon us, and we may not awaken from it.......

"And as we trudge further along this path, mistaking mediocrity for magnificence, we're not merely veering off course; we're descending into madness, witnessing the once-proud American experiment devolve into a national farce with no clear direction and no one to end the nightmare."

Expand full comment
Paul Holme's avatar

Your rhetoric, Lily, is, as usual, compelling :) . Is the picture really as bleak as you paint it? Trump is better than just a circus showman, it seems to me. He is unquestionably a patriot, and has a passionate vision of a better America manifested in the torrent of directives from the White House that show how frighteningly far the USA has strayed from what a significant proportion of her population consider its core values. Charisma is an essential component of successful leadership in a changing world, where mere legalism, or traditionalism alone are frankly inadequate. Adulation is an ineradicable element of the tribalism we are wedded to. The chief danger, in my view, is that it will go to Trump's head.

Expand full comment
Tsubion's avatar

Thanks. You said everything that I was about to mention and saved me the effort. You probably said it better too which is a bonus.

Expand full comment
Paul Holme's avatar

Thank you too, Tsubion. I'm a considerable fan of Lily, btw, but you're very welcome!

Expand full comment
Daryl Poe's avatar

Thanks for your perspective. Btw...fuck Vogue.

Expand full comment
Fox's avatar

My goodness, you couldn’t scream your nihilistic antipathy harder if you wanted to. Your entire effort was given away from the outset when you proceeded to do exactly what you so scathingly accused conservatives of perpetuating. A lack of substantive critique followed by a dirge of depressed decrying over a historically significant epoch in American History. I can only assume the obtuse view towards the importance of how this administration has chosen to address the very problem that is the root of your discontent and fatalistic neo liberalism, is in fact purposeful because I wouldn’t do you the disservice of thinking you so stupid. The Gordian Knot of govt accountability requires a blade to severe it, in the age of AI and the global panopticon of social media, who better to be the face of the new era than a former reality television star and businessman ? Grow up smell the napalm and enjoy the fruits of Meta Capitalism.

Expand full comment
Magdalene's avatar

We do not pay for it. Taxpayer dollars have never been used to dress the Presidents or their families. Political donations, yes, as image is a crucial aspect of every political campaign. But "We, the People" absolutely DO NOT pay for Melania's wardrobe or styling, nor for anyone else in the First Family. And after the way that entire family has been treated by the so-called "mainstream" of our culture, this post-Libertarian can hardly blame normie conservatives for relishing an opportunity to look down their own noses at disgusting elitist trash who have held themselves up as flyover country's far betters, even through degeneracy upon degeneracy. Their time is over, & anyone still simping for them in any way, shape or form are swimming against the current & soon to be wandering alone in the wilderness, wondering how much longer their ever-shrinking safe-space bubble can possibly lasts before it finally bursts. I bet some of these bubbles are gonna leave a nasty & embarrassing mess behind when they do burst- just look at Blake Lively & Ryan Reynolds' big nasty bubble, currently bursting all over the place!

Expand full comment
Magdalene's avatar

Three sources to confirm that the taxpayer DOES NOT PAY for the wardrobe, or styling consultant fees, for the President or his family members, including the First Lady.

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/02/who-pays-for-the-first-ladys-clothes.html

https://www.rd.com/list/things-u-s-presidents-have-to-pay-for-on-their-own/

Melania Trump paid stylist behind inauguration look an unbelievable fee - Irish Star https://search.app/dWqStKkYcXSZDabV7

Expand full comment
Michael Ginsburg's avatar

A Confederate Constitutional Republic fixes this.

Expand full comment
Tsubion's avatar

Yeah... but a charismatic leader would rise up anyway. They always do. It's part of the human experiment. In general, most people need a figurehead to rally around. When you see a flock of birds, a swarm of bees, a pod of whales there's more than likely a "leader" or lead units that take turns at the helm. Without this leadership everything would fly apart and none would survive. Humans are only a little more advanced than that but only a little. Without leadership nothing would get done.

Expand full comment
Michael Ginsburg's avatar

You make a good point but the example I'd present as counter is a swarm of fish. Everyone and no one is the "leader" at the same time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15B8qN9dre4

Also, a Confederate Constitutional Republic is not about having "no leader" (that's anarchy which is a different system) but rather the leader being severely and permanently kneecapped BY DESIGN.

Whether he/she are charismatic or not is irrelevant. The PERMANENT handicap remains.

Expand full comment
Joy Potter's avatar

Not my favorite read.

Expand full comment
Andrew N's avatar

Just came across this from Jung, i think it ties in well with your post

The gift of reason and critical reflection is not one of man’s outstanding peculiarities, and even where it exists, it proves to be wavering and inconsistent, the more so, as a rule, the bigger the political groups are.

The mass crushes out the insight and reflection that are still possible with the individual, and this necessarily leads to doctrinaire and authoritarian tyranny.

Expand full comment
Ernest N. Curtis's avatar

All true. But the solution will not come with better leadership. Rather it will only come with the absence of leadership. Most people associate anarchy with chaos. But anarchy does not mean no rules---just no rulers. I don't know if it is still true but it used to said that the average citizen in Switzerland couldn't name the President of the country. That was because the President had no coercive powers over the citizenry and thus was of little importance. The individual cantons had some political structures but they had to compete with one another and this served as a check on the natural progression of central power much like the US Confederation did before the adoption of the Constitution.

Expand full comment
Tsubion's avatar

Nice idea but has it ever been implemented in a meaningful way other than Kibbutz style weekend retreats and hermits that live in a log cabin in the woods?

Switzerland is a fairly tightly run operation from what I've heard. Not anarchy at all. Someone somewhere is making sure the trains run on time and the trash gets disposed of. Even if they do so quietly without making too much of a fuss about it.

Expand full comment
Ernest N. Curtis's avatar

Perhaps a better term is the voluntary society which avoids some of the negative images attached to the term anarchy. Early settlement in the western US was probably the best example. The settlers and miners developed a workable system of property rights and means of adjudicating disputes without an overriding government structure. The stories of the "wild west" were mostly fictional. It was actually fairly peaceful and orderly. Switzerland was not given as an example of anarchy but merely a more modern example of how decentralization minimizes the importance and celebrity of politicians. It was railroad owners who developed the time zones across the country that enabled them to run on a scheduled basis. Government had nothing to do with it.

Expand full comment
Nick Kryptr's avatar

Kayfabe. Faces and Heels. Panem et Circenses.

Expand full comment