Is it actually prompting any soul searching, though? To be sure, those who were already inclined toward supporting The Squad™ are now getting more vocal about it, but we’re also seeing a huge amount of people actively cheering the government on for rounding people up and putting them into cages and sending people to prison camps without due process. (I can’t find the source, I’m sorry, but) I saw something recently that said well above 60% of USians support government policies that help the poor, but that drops to about 30% if you call the same policies “welfare”. [Edit: found the source here.]
I think Zizek’s qualified support for Trump’s first term was a gamble that the US would then look at the consequences and then resolve to have to grow up and start taking politics more seriously. And I think that gamble was silly, both because of how the US currently is, and because of how often that hasn’t worked in the past 100 years. And that, amongst other reasons, is why I generally take what Zizek has to say with a pinch of salt.
A lot of people not just Zizek recognise that voters want to do away with neoliberalism. Zizek though was hoping that encouraging Trump to take office will make Americans mobilise and be more politically active for grassroots change, which Americans used to be good at. We are kinda seeing it now with No Kings protest and Mamdani getting Democratic primary. But on the one hand, I do admit that Zizek’s European background probably influences his narrative, because much of Europe has proportional representative government and ranked choice voting. He is kinda speaking from a high horse since his country could afford voting for third parties without practical repercussions.
Nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter if America has PR and ranked choice voting, Zizek’s point is to make Americans take more grassroots approach which they used to be good at doing. Over one hundred years ago, third parties do get substantial votes and get into house of representatives to influence the government, because people were more politically active and engaged. Reining in monopolies during the Gilded Age was successful because of people banding together and supporting candidates who support them.
Is it actually prompting any soul searching, though? To be sure, those who were already inclined toward supporting The Squad™ are now getting more vocal about it, but we’re also seeing a huge amount of people actively cheering the government on for rounding people up and putting them into cages and sending people to prison camps without due process. (I can’t find the source, I’m sorry, but) I saw something recently that said well above 60% of USians support government policies that help the poor, but that drops to about 30% if you call the same policies “welfare”. [Edit: found the source here.]
I think Zizek’s qualified support for Trump’s first term was a gamble that the US would then look at the consequences and then resolve to have to grow up and start taking politics more seriously. And I think that gamble was silly, both because of how the US currently is, and because of how often that hasn’t worked in the past 100 years. And that, amongst other reasons, is why I generally take what Zizek has to say with a pinch of salt.
A lot of people not just Zizek recognise that voters want to do away with neoliberalism. Zizek though was hoping that encouraging Trump to take office will make Americans mobilise and be more politically active for grassroots change, which Americans used to be good at. We are kinda seeing it now with No Kings protest and Mamdani getting Democratic primary. But on the one hand, I do admit that Zizek’s European background probably influences his narrative, because much of Europe has proportional representative government and ranked choice voting. He is kinda speaking from a high horse since his country could afford voting for third parties without practical repercussions.
Nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter if America has PR and ranked choice voting, Zizek’s point is to make Americans take more grassroots approach which they used to be good at doing. Over one hundred years ago, third parties do get substantial votes and get into house of representatives to influence the government, because people were more politically active and engaged. Reining in monopolies during the Gilded Age was successful because of people banding together and supporting candidates who support them.