One under-appreciated reason to learn about the world is to increase the aptness of your metaphors. “Trump is Hitler” is less interesting than “Trump is Julius Caesar” but even that is less interesting than “Trump is Gracchus.” (Tiberius, one assumes.) Unfortunately you do have to rely on the existence of a sufficient number of people who can recognize your references, which is why all my weird tree metaphors have never taken off.
What's funny is that Trump is not even close to any of those historical figures, and, even if he were, our circumstances and political context is so incomparably different that it wouldn't matter anyway. It is kind of interesting to observe the otherwise "blank slate" leftists make these kind of arguments from historical analogy as they implicitly rely on what was once considered the basic structure of the conservative worldview, which is that human nature is inborn and consequentially timeless verities of the human condition are perpetually recurring, the same destructive vices tempt and social failure modes are always threatening and must be diligently and continuously guarded against, and that therefore there is much to learn from the past and the the ways, idea, traditions, and institutions of our predecessors are entitled to presumptive respect and deference.
But this is exactly the kind of implicit model upon which is based the psychology of "The Brown Scare Is Always On" - "Trump is literally Hitler" / "A large number of Americans are barely-closeted white supremacist authoritarians who will 'go Nazi' at the first opportunity and happily vote in literal fascism and cheer for imposition of dictatorship, and this threat ALWAYS exists, never gets better, is now worse than ever ... "
Talk about your paranoid style in American politics!
Well, specifically in the context of American political polarization — reading the populist Right as the populares and the center-left establishment as the optimates. But of course no metaphor is perfect!
Not just ahistorical, but even those with historical knowledge tend to focus on the western tradition with which they are more familiar and be mostly ignorant of late Byzantine or Oriental or even Soviet histories. That's unfortunate specifically because the kind of degenerative trends related to both despotic overcentralization and runaway dysfunctional bureaucracy and regulation probably have more apt analogies in the times and places that tend to not to get much emphasis in basic education in history in most American schools. Just like when students first learn about the thought of the ancient Greeks they are often amazed with how 'modern' much of it seems, and thus much of what they imagine to be 'modern' may not be all that recent at all, likewise when one starts going into, say, Soviet history, one starts to get slight pangs of dread when descriptions start to get familiar and too close for comfort. There's a point where the humor of Yes, Minister starts to darken into a bleaker Da, Comrade.
Insightful and well delivered. I do want to respond from a couple angles I think you will find relevant.
The first is to steelman her argument via reframing your questions, which does justice to your general premise, but less to the dismissal. However, it is most important that I first point out the larger, more apt metaphor at play than "Trump as Hitler," and that's the boy who cried wolf with a dash of spiderman pointing memes.
1. Re: "If Trump wins, will Congress pass an "enabling act" abdicating its Constitutional role and making him a dictator?" - No, and Counter question: has Congress' lack of action already constituted a form of enabling abdication of meaningful restraints? One need not respond with a resounding "YES" to at least give a deep shoulder shrug and sigh.
2. Re: "Will Trump arrange to have his rivals killed?" - No, and Counter question: Is Trump willing to wield both explicit threats of reputational damages, if not directly implying the indirect threat of violence from his more colorful supporters, hesitates to explicitly condemn or preempt acts, and whose general "hedging" of condemning violence always more broadly than the request is reasonably eye-brow raising as to whether this is "dog whistling?" Again, a shrug and a sigh is significant given the context of POTUS.
3. Re: "Will Trump deprive an ethnic group of its rights?" - No, and Counter question: Will Trump amplify those voices who most loudly seek to dampen opposing voices? To be fair, "Yes and" so too do the loudest of his critics.
Trump is more a wolf in wolves' clothing. There isn't really some deep mystery surrounding him. The aggressive tendencies of "Leftist Partisans" to "round up" the errors (for example, rounding to "hate" from acts of intolerance) and the history of "every Rightist Partisan is basically Hitler" has had the effect of making everyone, including Trump, look sheepish. Dueling Symptoms who can at least agree on the spiderman equation: With greater-than-one Spidermans comes great pointing.
For the sake of (nominal) "brevity" and clarity, I will respond to this with the second angle.
I think you are dangerously underestimating Trump's derangement. He has already demonstrated his total contempt for free elections and the constitution. To me, there is no question that he is capable of doing all of the things you list above under the right conditions. There are no moral constraints on his self-obsession or his vanity. The question will be whether our institutions are strong enough to prevent these actions. The Supreme Court is completely corrupted. That leaves the military. I don't think our military would knuckle under to Trump the way the Wehrmacht did to Hitler, but I could be wrong. All you need to do is take a look at the 2025 project.
"He has already demonstrated his total contempt for free elections and the constitution."
Whenever I see a person using words like "total", I ask "is that realistic? really that extreme?" If I decide it isn't, I don't take the person seriously.
I listen to a person who says, "there is a danger." I don't listen to a person who says, "we're all going to die."
Well, if there is a free election and you lose and then your orchestrate a violent insurrection to overthrow it, then that seems to reflect contempt as total as is possible.
In an insurrection, there is a plan. There is "taking over the radio stations", military action, arresting the old leaders. This was not an insurrection. This was Trump being childish, improvising without a plan. Thinking that, hey, I really did win and they're not taking my criticisms seriously. It wasn't a "free and fair" election with honest counting.
Politicians are often surrounded by people who tell them what they want to fear. The danger is in believing your own propaganda.
I really liked "what they want to fear." You are right that it was poorly planned, but it was planned. I think it was totally geared to intimidate Pence into not certifying the election.
Your claim that Trump uniquely among major politicians - or even the last 3 presidents - shows contempt for the constitution is spurious and either purely hyperpartisan, evidence of severe TDS, or both.
After initially saying publicly he lacked the constitutional authority to change immigration law unilaterally, Obama implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program through executive action in 2012.
Biden’s student loan forgiveness, eviction moratorium extension, vaccine mandates for large employers rule all ignored the constitutional limits on executive authority. To say nothing of his policy of welcoming millions of illegal immigrants into the country.
All presidents have taken executive orders, if I am not mistaken but none has encouraged his sycophants to overthrow an election and trash the Capitol Building. Not even Al Gore, after an arbitrary and politically biased Supreme Court decision.
Your points are well-taken. However, do note that my response was meant to steel-man BOTH positions, and in doing so, I thought it only fair to calibrate it to the lower bound. It is also meant to highlight the mutuality of responsibility that underpins whatever reaction to Trump, his supporters, and his voters, all of which constitute very different groups from one another, and hold a great deal more diversity within-group than they get to express because of the shared symptoms of our condition.
To me, the gravity of the situation bears not on churning out some voting differential, but preparing for the inevitability that one of two unwanted conditions is about to transpire, and that despite the very real stakes, none are greater than that we recover from the condition EVEN IF Trump is reelected.
The second angle is to rebut the premise of the Caplan test in a way that highlights the missing piece from the conversation writ large.
Think of a metaphor as communicating two elements: that which is attended and that which is disattended. The simplest form is that the "cost" of the metaphor is that which is disattended, presumably discarded according to lack of fit, and the value of the attended "analog" would then constitute the "benefit."
However, if we generalize this kind of tradeoff and think in terms of two distinct but related "marketplaces of rationalization" or "signaling" (channeling Dan Williams and others), the dynamics shift, and the bug can become the feature.
For (a somewhat hyperbolic and perhaps insensitive) example of an inverted market, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder could be framed such that the obsession (a deeply unwanted attending) is tragically only disattended by means of a compulsion (a less deeply unwanted behavior), and can therefore be said (though I stress, not dismissively) as "afforded" on that compulsive behavior.
Scale this to a societal level, and "Trump as Hitler" can be thought of as being "bought and sold" on markets that follow the rules of "the attention economy" and "the inattention economy." About the latter, I will be writing a "proof of conception" piece, but I also want to prompt others to address it as soon as possible, importantly noting that it is an entire space, not just a shelf bookended by "hidden fees, forgotten subscriptions, labyrinthine cancellation methods, rebates, etc." and "rational inattention."
The important element is that what is "disattended and discarded" in the simple case is "disattended yet signaled" in the complex. Citing Dan again, think of the elaborate displays ritualized endurances of pain and disfiguring that can be understood as means of tribal acceptance. Less elaborately, we readily signal "the bullets we are willing to bite" to afford public or private rationalizations. Most salient in my mind is Richard Dawkins' conception of the "Selfish Gene," presented as a kind of "hard truth" on which to afford notoriety, but itself afforded, in part, on handwaving toward "Memes" as if to say "you can keep your culture!" as a counterbalance. Selfish genes are still a reified metaphor in the public arena, for better or worse.
As to the Caplan test, I would argue that "betting" as a test of "sincerity" is closer to the inverse than the truth. Not only should the money being bet be discounted according to its marginal utility to the bettor, but it must also be discounted by both the general social signaling (often "look how much money I have to spend!"), and by the group benefits on offer (Bayesian club perhaps), AND by the escapism on offer (yikes my priorities aren't quite as optimized as my Bayesian priors... but I know just the fix... retail therapy! by which I mean more betting!!).
The idea that money counts as "skin in the game" is betrayed by the actual metaphor of "skin in the game." In most cases, it's more like... an extra pair of gloves. And their hands are getting sweaty.
Actually, the more I think about it, we do not argue in metaphor at all! But we often use metaphors in our arguments. "Trump is like Hitler" is a simile using "Hitler" as a metaphor for a lying, power-hungry wanabee dictator. Nearly everyone knows who Hitler is so the metaphor works, at least for the most part. And it is a lot easier to say "Hitler" than say "lying, power-hungry wanabee dictator who started WWII, etc."
Metaphor is just a short-cut way to say something more involved with very few words based on a common understanding of past events. Therefore "Hitler" and "September 11" are useful metaphors. But there is no definitive right or wrong regarding metaphors. Some people may think Hitler was a great leader, in which case the simile "Trump is like Hitler" would not work for its intended purpose. Typically, metaphor is useful in arguments, and other types of communication, but no argument can be made through use of metaphor alone.
“Trump is Hitler” is ad hominem. Margaret Thatcher said when she heard people attacking her personally (I think she too was Hitler for some) she would think “good” that means they have no arguments to make about policy. We do live in times where there are few actual intelligent, informed arguments, just accusations flung at any who disagree. And a popular term has emerged for the collective that disagrees with the bien pensants - the Far Right.
The most powerful metaphor is the father. God is a loving Heavenly Father. We are his children. We are united in his body. We are sisters and brothers. United in conscience. Like a father, he is the ultimate judge.
He knows me personally. He completely understands me. It is through him that I feel empowered. His forgiveness shows that he understands me and loves me. He chastens me and disciplines me like a loving father. He wants what’s best for me in the longterm.
Milton Friedman is the father of the modern libertarian movement. His smile is loving and warm like an ideal father. He is persuasive, but not forceful. I can disagree with him. I have agency. He is patient, allowing me to figure things out for myself in my own time.
Arnold Kling is the father of The Three Languages of Politics. He guides us to be charitable, to see truth in progressive and conservative perspectives. Like a good father he is a role model and mentor.
We can ask questions about the father metaphor. Why is this metaphor important? Why is it powerful? From where does it originate? Why is the Bible filled with father metaphors, but not mother metaphors? How is this metaphor connected to our tribal identity?
Do progressives respect the father metaphor? In what ways is Trump like a father? In what ways do we need to be our own father?
Yep, good point. Trump is like a child and a father. He is like a father in that he is a savior from an even worse situation - war. He’s a warrior leading the charge against our tribal enemy. At the same time, he is childish. We know better. We are embarrassed by him. Some are willing to put up with his childishness because he is a father-like figure, chosen collectively, whether we like it or not, to deal with our situation. To fight with fist pumping and blood dripping. Simultaneously, he is a child of our culture. We birthed him. Some will disagree with this metaphor as Trump the father. But if not Trump, then who else? And why Trump and not someone else? I would say the emergence of Trump is because there are too few good fathers in this country.
"Much of the power and interest of many a good metaphor derives from how massively and conspicuously different its two subject matters are, to the point where metaphor is sometimes defined by those with no pretensions to originality as “a comparison of two unlike things.” The interpretation of a metaphor often turns not on properties the secondary subject actually has or even on ones it is believed to have but instead on ones we habitually pretend it to have: think of what happens when we call someone a gorilla."
I'd say even more than arguing about the aptness of metaphors or the properties of the subjects we wind up arguing about how we are supposed to react to the comparison itself.
The Democrats are like the Nazis-without Hitler. The Dems hate Trump supporters like the Nazis hated Jews, and support collective guilt, race based justice, and unequal legal treatment based on identity.
A great article to get the little grey cells working. Some of the “metaphors” - like Trump is Hitler - aren’t they conclusions presented without any evidence in support, which we are obliged to accept as an article of faith otherwise we are evil, heretic, anathema?
“ Actually, I think [Sumner] would prefer to use market expectations of future growth in nominal GDP. This is a somewhat less circular but still not satisfying to me.”
Curious what *is* more satisfying to you [in the context of how best the country should keep inflation in check].
Simile (similar but not quite the same) is a much better word to use for describing world events than metaphor. I just watched news footage of Israel taking down a large building in Lebanon and was tempted to think that it was September 11 all over again. But of course circumstances are different. On the other hand, there are similarities between this event in Lebanon and September 11, and I wonder why there is such horror regarding the World Trade Center coming down but if it happens in Lebanon it's apparently no big deal (at least in the opinion of most Americans). With regard to Apartheid, obviously circumstances in Israel are not identical to South Africa of the past, but their are similarities. And Trump is obviously not Hitler, but there are enough similarities to make me a bit apprehensive about what Trump may do. I don't think people who voted for Hitler really thought he would assume dictatorial powers the way he did. Who knows what Trump will do?
Simile may be effective in convincing some people of a point of view, and may decrease support for Trump or Israel if used well, but is certainly not going to convince everyone to stop supporting Trump or Israel.
One bit of information toward answering that question is what he did during the four years he was president before. I don't remember "dictatorial powers."
Ah, but maybe Agenda 2025 will magically go into effect and Trump will seize dictatorial powers this time.
I am a little confused by this statement. You don't remember your WWII history where Hitler was actually elected before assuming dictatorial powers? I guess the metaphor of "Hitler" remains a bit uncertain. The point is, if Trump is like Hitler, and Hitler assumed dictatorial powers after being elected, then Trump may do likewise. Just because Trump did not assume dictatorial powers during his first term does not mean he would not try if he gets a second. Trump tried, and failed, to stay in power in spite of losing the 2020 election. He would be better prepared to remain in power in spite of all opposition if he gets another chance.
The January 6th “coup” was the most curious thing. The plotters, insurrectionists forgot to bring their tanks, RPGs, machine guns, etc. If that is indicative of Trumps Hitleresque dictatorial powers, and managerial skills, I don’t think the US has anything to worry about. Hitler didn’t assume dictatorial powers, his Party was given cabinet positions in Government by negotiation with coalition partners. Germany was in a state with weak, incompetent political leadership. He manoeuvred his way to the top and those that could have stopped him didn’t. I suppose we could say similar to those who could have stopped a senile, dementia victim holding the most powerful and dangerous position in the World - but didn’t out of their own interests.
I don't remember "dictatorial powers" by Trump during the four years he was president. Thus, one bit of evidence that he won't seize dictatorial powers if he is elected this time.
The "he didn't do it before" line of evidence is not very persuasive regarding Trump and dictatorial powers. He has made it clear that he wants very loyal people in his cabinet this time, so the likelihood of a Jeff Sessions, Bill Bar, or Mark Milley standing in the way of his worst ambitions is significantly reduced. The point remains, who knows what Trump will do?
The difference between Israeli strikes on buildings and 9/11 is Israel gives advance warning so people can evacuate the building and vicinity and is targeting those killing Israeli citizens - the terrorises gave no warning in 9/11, nor were those in the Twin Towers belligerents. It is a very important realisation because then 9/11 cannot be metaphor, simile or any comparison.
The original point of the article is that we argue in metaphor. My main point is that we don't argue in metaphor, we use metaphor as a communication tool in all sorts of ways, including within arguments. "Hitler" and "9/11" are both useful metaphors since most people know what someone else is talking about when they use them. But there seems to be a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is, and how it can/should be used.
The effectiveness of simile using metaphor is the more interesting discussion. I find statements like "Trump is like Hitler" and "Israel bombing in Lebanon is like 9/11" somewhat effective, but of course I do not speak for all people. Obviously you view things differently, at least with regard to current Israeli actions.
Speaking for myself only, I find Israeli actions over the last year quite upsetting, supposed advanced warning notwithstanding. If Israel gives warnings every time they blow something up, why do any people die at all? Wouldn't all the targets abandon the location, and the blowing up would be just symbolic? No, Israelis intend to kill people, and seem to be fine with a high amount of collateral damage.
I did not feel this way a year ago, but I have come to the conclusion that Israel does not have a "right to exist." Israel has devolved into a terrorist state (that is a hugely loaded word, "terrorist", but it is one I chose to use here). It is about time the US supplies anti-aircraft capabilities to Lebanon, or threatens to shoot down Israeli jets bombing Lebanon, in order to quell Israel's terrorist tendencies.
Seems like you are recommending trading metaphorical thinking for literal thinking, since you can't settle bets on further metaphors. But we can also trade in for literal thinking back at the first step. We can say things like: "Leaders who try to deceitfully and dangerously attempt to hang onto power don't deserve the same power in the future. Trump was one such leader."
I doubt the physics examples are metaphorical in anything like the same way as *some* social ones, like comparisons to Hitler. How can equations be metaphors, for instance? In the sciences, notions like more and less accuracy or better and worse approximations to the truth seem, well, closer to the truth than generalizations like "Everything is metaphor".
In China, metaphors take the form of Cheng-yu...four character idioms, very often with hard to discern meanings....allowing hard statements to be reinterpreted or deflected should a conversation go sideways into troublesome or unapproved topics. It's not a bad way to navigate language.
The current attempts at forcing uni-thought in topics is very interesting. It doesn't work the way popular media narratives here describe it.
I agree that "nominal GDP" is a poor measure of money. A far better measure is "Nominal Disposable Personal Income" because it reflects future spending that will drive both GDP and Inflation. If economists had been paying attention to this number in 2020, they would have known that serious inflation was inevitable. https://charles72f.substack.com/p/aint-nothin-but-a-party
One under-appreciated reason to learn about the world is to increase the aptness of your metaphors. “Trump is Hitler” is less interesting than “Trump is Julius Caesar” but even that is less interesting than “Trump is Gracchus.” (Tiberius, one assumes.) Unfortunately you do have to rely on the existence of a sufficient number of people who can recognize your references, which is why all my weird tree metaphors have never taken off.
What's funny is that Trump is not even close to any of those historical figures, and, even if he were, our circumstances and political context is so incomparably different that it wouldn't matter anyway. It is kind of interesting to observe the otherwise "blank slate" leftists make these kind of arguments from historical analogy as they implicitly rely on what was once considered the basic structure of the conservative worldview, which is that human nature is inborn and consequentially timeless verities of the human condition are perpetually recurring, the same destructive vices tempt and social failure modes are always threatening and must be diligently and continuously guarded against, and that therefore there is much to learn from the past and the the ways, idea, traditions, and institutions of our predecessors are entitled to presumptive respect and deference.
But this is exactly the kind of implicit model upon which is based the psychology of "The Brown Scare Is Always On" - "Trump is literally Hitler" / "A large number of Americans are barely-closeted white supremacist authoritarians who will 'go Nazi' at the first opportunity and happily vote in literal fascism and cheer for imposition of dictatorship, and this threat ALWAYS exists, never gets better, is now worse than ever ... "
Talk about your paranoid style in American politics!
I hear the Rome analogies from the right!
Trump is more of a Cleon, if you ask me, but I know Greek history better than Roman, so maybe that's just my background talking.
Well, specifically in the context of American political polarization — reading the populist Right as the populares and the center-left establishment as the optimates. But of course no metaphor is perfect!
Yes, so they tell me.
Love that. We are ahistorical so we don’t have enough nuance or historical examples to calibrate what we are saying.
Not just ahistorical, but even those with historical knowledge tend to focus on the western tradition with which they are more familiar and be mostly ignorant of late Byzantine or Oriental or even Soviet histories. That's unfortunate specifically because the kind of degenerative trends related to both despotic overcentralization and runaway dysfunctional bureaucracy and regulation probably have more apt analogies in the times and places that tend to not to get much emphasis in basic education in history in most American schools. Just like when students first learn about the thought of the ancient Greeks they are often amazed with how 'modern' much of it seems, and thus much of what they imagine to be 'modern' may not be all that recent at all, likewise when one starts going into, say, Soviet history, one starts to get slight pangs of dread when descriptions start to get familiar and too close for comfort. There's a point where the humor of Yes, Minister starts to darken into a bleaker Da, Comrade.
Let's not give up: "Trump is like Hitler" is not a metaphor, it's an idiotic simile. It's elevatio ad Hitlerum.
Insightful and well delivered. I do want to respond from a couple angles I think you will find relevant.
The first is to steelman her argument via reframing your questions, which does justice to your general premise, but less to the dismissal. However, it is most important that I first point out the larger, more apt metaphor at play than "Trump as Hitler," and that's the boy who cried wolf with a dash of spiderman pointing memes.
1. Re: "If Trump wins, will Congress pass an "enabling act" abdicating its Constitutional role and making him a dictator?" - No, and Counter question: has Congress' lack of action already constituted a form of enabling abdication of meaningful restraints? One need not respond with a resounding "YES" to at least give a deep shoulder shrug and sigh.
2. Re: "Will Trump arrange to have his rivals killed?" - No, and Counter question: Is Trump willing to wield both explicit threats of reputational damages, if not directly implying the indirect threat of violence from his more colorful supporters, hesitates to explicitly condemn or preempt acts, and whose general "hedging" of condemning violence always more broadly than the request is reasonably eye-brow raising as to whether this is "dog whistling?" Again, a shrug and a sigh is significant given the context of POTUS.
3. Re: "Will Trump deprive an ethnic group of its rights?" - No, and Counter question: Will Trump amplify those voices who most loudly seek to dampen opposing voices? To be fair, "Yes and" so too do the loudest of his critics.
Trump is more a wolf in wolves' clothing. There isn't really some deep mystery surrounding him. The aggressive tendencies of "Leftist Partisans" to "round up" the errors (for example, rounding to "hate" from acts of intolerance) and the history of "every Rightist Partisan is basically Hitler" has had the effect of making everyone, including Trump, look sheepish. Dueling Symptoms who can at least agree on the spiderman equation: With greater-than-one Spidermans comes great pointing.
For the sake of (nominal) "brevity" and clarity, I will respond to this with the second angle.
I think you are dangerously underestimating Trump's derangement. He has already demonstrated his total contempt for free elections and the constitution. To me, there is no question that he is capable of doing all of the things you list above under the right conditions. There are no moral constraints on his self-obsession or his vanity. The question will be whether our institutions are strong enough to prevent these actions. The Supreme Court is completely corrupted. That leaves the military. I don't think our military would knuckle under to Trump the way the Wehrmacht did to Hitler, but I could be wrong. All you need to do is take a look at the 2025 project.
"He has already demonstrated his total contempt for free elections and the constitution."
Whenever I see a person using words like "total", I ask "is that realistic? really that extreme?" If I decide it isn't, I don't take the person seriously.
I listen to a person who says, "there is a danger." I don't listen to a person who says, "we're all going to die."
Well, if there is a free election and you lose and then your orchestrate a violent insurrection to overthrow it, then that seems to reflect contempt as total as is possible.
In an insurrection, there is a plan. There is "taking over the radio stations", military action, arresting the old leaders. This was not an insurrection. This was Trump being childish, improvising without a plan. Thinking that, hey, I really did win and they're not taking my criticisms seriously. It wasn't a "free and fair" election with honest counting.
Politicians are often surrounded by people who tell them what they want to fear. The danger is in believing your own propaganda.
" ... what they want to HEAR."
I really liked "what they want to fear." You are right that it was poorly planned, but it was planned. I think it was totally geared to intimidate Pence into not certifying the election.
I won’t bother with the rest.
Your claim that Trump uniquely among major politicians - or even the last 3 presidents - shows contempt for the constitution is spurious and either purely hyperpartisan, evidence of severe TDS, or both.
After initially saying publicly he lacked the constitutional authority to change immigration law unilaterally, Obama implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program through executive action in 2012.
Biden’s student loan forgiveness, eviction moratorium extension, vaccine mandates for large employers rule all ignored the constitutional limits on executive authority. To say nothing of his policy of welcoming millions of illegal immigrants into the country.
All presidents have taken executive orders, if I am not mistaken but none has encouraged his sycophants to overthrow an election and trash the Capitol Building. Not even Al Gore, after an arbitrary and politically biased Supreme Court decision.
I disagree with you profoundly on the magnitude of Jan 6th and Trump’s role in that, but you are surely entitled to your own opinion on that topic.
But your claims about lack of adherence to the constitution of Trump relative to his successor and predecessor simply lack merit.
P.S. how is “trashing the Capitol Building” - even if Trump were 100% guilty as charged on that - in any way showing contempt for the constitution?!?
We'll have to agree to disagree, but at least we exchanged ideas. As Karl Popper said, that's how you get closer to the truth.
Your points are well-taken. However, do note that my response was meant to steel-man BOTH positions, and in doing so, I thought it only fair to calibrate it to the lower bound. It is also meant to highlight the mutuality of responsibility that underpins whatever reaction to Trump, his supporters, and his voters, all of which constitute very different groups from one another, and hold a great deal more diversity within-group than they get to express because of the shared symptoms of our condition.
To me, the gravity of the situation bears not on churning out some voting differential, but preparing for the inevitability that one of two unwanted conditions is about to transpire, and that despite the very real stakes, none are greater than that we recover from the condition EVEN IF Trump is reelected.
Thanks for further explaining your comment. I think I may have misread your comment. Now that I understand it better I think I agree.
The second angle is to rebut the premise of the Caplan test in a way that highlights the missing piece from the conversation writ large.
Think of a metaphor as communicating two elements: that which is attended and that which is disattended. The simplest form is that the "cost" of the metaphor is that which is disattended, presumably discarded according to lack of fit, and the value of the attended "analog" would then constitute the "benefit."
However, if we generalize this kind of tradeoff and think in terms of two distinct but related "marketplaces of rationalization" or "signaling" (channeling Dan Williams and others), the dynamics shift, and the bug can become the feature.
For (a somewhat hyperbolic and perhaps insensitive) example of an inverted market, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder could be framed such that the obsession (a deeply unwanted attending) is tragically only disattended by means of a compulsion (a less deeply unwanted behavior), and can therefore be said (though I stress, not dismissively) as "afforded" on that compulsive behavior.
Scale this to a societal level, and "Trump as Hitler" can be thought of as being "bought and sold" on markets that follow the rules of "the attention economy" and "the inattention economy." About the latter, I will be writing a "proof of conception" piece, but I also want to prompt others to address it as soon as possible, importantly noting that it is an entire space, not just a shelf bookended by "hidden fees, forgotten subscriptions, labyrinthine cancellation methods, rebates, etc." and "rational inattention."
The important element is that what is "disattended and discarded" in the simple case is "disattended yet signaled" in the complex. Citing Dan again, think of the elaborate displays ritualized endurances of pain and disfiguring that can be understood as means of tribal acceptance. Less elaborately, we readily signal "the bullets we are willing to bite" to afford public or private rationalizations. Most salient in my mind is Richard Dawkins' conception of the "Selfish Gene," presented as a kind of "hard truth" on which to afford notoriety, but itself afforded, in part, on handwaving toward "Memes" as if to say "you can keep your culture!" as a counterbalance. Selfish genes are still a reified metaphor in the public arena, for better or worse.
As to the Caplan test, I would argue that "betting" as a test of "sincerity" is closer to the inverse than the truth. Not only should the money being bet be discounted according to its marginal utility to the bettor, but it must also be discounted by both the general social signaling (often "look how much money I have to spend!"), and by the group benefits on offer (Bayesian club perhaps), AND by the escapism on offer (yikes my priorities aren't quite as optimized as my Bayesian priors... but I know just the fix... retail therapy! by which I mean more betting!!).
The idea that money counts as "skin in the game" is betrayed by the actual metaphor of "skin in the game." In most cases, it's more like... an extra pair of gloves. And their hands are getting sweaty.
Actually, the more I think about it, we do not argue in metaphor at all! But we often use metaphors in our arguments. "Trump is like Hitler" is a simile using "Hitler" as a metaphor for a lying, power-hungry wanabee dictator. Nearly everyone knows who Hitler is so the metaphor works, at least for the most part. And it is a lot easier to say "Hitler" than say "lying, power-hungry wanabee dictator who started WWII, etc."
Metaphor is just a short-cut way to say something more involved with very few words based on a common understanding of past events. Therefore "Hitler" and "September 11" are useful metaphors. But there is no definitive right or wrong regarding metaphors. Some people may think Hitler was a great leader, in which case the simile "Trump is like Hitler" would not work for its intended purpose. Typically, metaphor is useful in arguments, and other types of communication, but no argument can be made through use of metaphor alone.
“Trump is Hitler” is ad hominem. Margaret Thatcher said when she heard people attacking her personally (I think she too was Hitler for some) she would think “good” that means they have no arguments to make about policy. We do live in times where there are few actual intelligent, informed arguments, just accusations flung at any who disagree. And a popular term has emerged for the collective that disagrees with the bien pensants - the Far Right.
The most powerful metaphor is the father. God is a loving Heavenly Father. We are his children. We are united in his body. We are sisters and brothers. United in conscience. Like a father, he is the ultimate judge.
He knows me personally. He completely understands me. It is through him that I feel empowered. His forgiveness shows that he understands me and loves me. He chastens me and disciplines me like a loving father. He wants what’s best for me in the longterm.
Milton Friedman is the father of the modern libertarian movement. His smile is loving and warm like an ideal father. He is persuasive, but not forceful. I can disagree with him. I have agency. He is patient, allowing me to figure things out for myself in my own time.
Arnold Kling is the father of The Three Languages of Politics. He guides us to be charitable, to see truth in progressive and conservative perspectives. Like a good father he is a role model and mentor.
We can ask questions about the father metaphor. Why is this metaphor important? Why is it powerful? From where does it originate? Why is the Bible filled with father metaphors, but not mother metaphors? How is this metaphor connected to our tribal identity?
Do progressives respect the father metaphor? In what ways is Trump like a father? In what ways do we need to be our own father?
I respect Trump voters and their opinions.
But I don't think even his more ardent supporters are blind to his childishness.
Yep, good point. Trump is like a child and a father. He is like a father in that he is a savior from an even worse situation - war. He’s a warrior leading the charge against our tribal enemy. At the same time, he is childish. We know better. We are embarrassed by him. Some are willing to put up with his childishness because he is a father-like figure, chosen collectively, whether we like it or not, to deal with our situation. To fight with fist pumping and blood dripping. Simultaneously, he is a child of our culture. We birthed him. Some will disagree with this metaphor as Trump the father. But if not Trump, then who else? And why Trump and not someone else? I would say the emergence of Trump is because there are too few good fathers in this country.
"Much of the power and interest of many a good metaphor derives from how massively and conspicuously different its two subject matters are, to the point where metaphor is sometimes defined by those with no pretensions to originality as “a comparison of two unlike things.” The interpretation of a metaphor often turns not on properties the secondary subject actually has or even on ones it is believed to have but instead on ones we habitually pretend it to have: think of what happens when we call someone a gorilla."
-https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/
I'd say even more than arguing about the aptness of metaphors or the properties of the subjects we wind up arguing about how we are supposed to react to the comparison itself.
The Democrats are like the Nazis-without Hitler. The Dems hate Trump supporters like the Nazis hated Jews, and support collective guilt, race based justice, and unequal legal treatment based on identity.
A great article to get the little grey cells working. Some of the “metaphors” - like Trump is Hitler - aren’t they conclusions presented without any evidence in support, which we are obliged to accept as an article of faith otherwise we are evil, heretic, anathema?
“ Actually, I think [Sumner] would prefer to use market expectations of future growth in nominal GDP. This is a somewhat less circular but still not satisfying to me.”
Curious what *is* more satisfying to you [in the context of how best the country should keep inflation in check].
Great piece, BTW.
Please see “Metaphors We Live By”, by George Lakoff.
Simile (similar but not quite the same) is a much better word to use for describing world events than metaphor. I just watched news footage of Israel taking down a large building in Lebanon and was tempted to think that it was September 11 all over again. But of course circumstances are different. On the other hand, there are similarities between this event in Lebanon and September 11, and I wonder why there is such horror regarding the World Trade Center coming down but if it happens in Lebanon it's apparently no big deal (at least in the opinion of most Americans). With regard to Apartheid, obviously circumstances in Israel are not identical to South Africa of the past, but their are similarities. And Trump is obviously not Hitler, but there are enough similarities to make me a bit apprehensive about what Trump may do. I don't think people who voted for Hitler really thought he would assume dictatorial powers the way he did. Who knows what Trump will do?
Simile may be effective in convincing some people of a point of view, and may decrease support for Trump or Israel if used well, but is certainly not going to convince everyone to stop supporting Trump or Israel.
"Who knows what Trump will do?"
One bit of information toward answering that question is what he did during the four years he was president before. I don't remember "dictatorial powers."
Ah, but maybe Agenda 2025 will magically go into effect and Trump will seize dictatorial powers this time.
"I don't remember 'dictatorial powers."
I am a little confused by this statement. You don't remember your WWII history where Hitler was actually elected before assuming dictatorial powers? I guess the metaphor of "Hitler" remains a bit uncertain. The point is, if Trump is like Hitler, and Hitler assumed dictatorial powers after being elected, then Trump may do likewise. Just because Trump did not assume dictatorial powers during his first term does not mean he would not try if he gets a second. Trump tried, and failed, to stay in power in spite of losing the 2020 election. He would be better prepared to remain in power in spite of all opposition if he gets another chance.
The January 6th “coup” was the most curious thing. The plotters, insurrectionists forgot to bring their tanks, RPGs, machine guns, etc. If that is indicative of Trumps Hitleresque dictatorial powers, and managerial skills, I don’t think the US has anything to worry about. Hitler didn’t assume dictatorial powers, his Party was given cabinet positions in Government by negotiation with coalition partners. Germany was in a state with weak, incompetent political leadership. He manoeuvred his way to the top and those that could have stopped him didn’t. I suppose we could say similar to those who could have stopped a senile, dementia victim holding the most powerful and dangerous position in the World - but didn’t out of their own interests.
I don't remember "dictatorial powers" by Trump during the four years he was president. Thus, one bit of evidence that he won't seize dictatorial powers if he is elected this time.
The "he didn't do it before" line of evidence is not very persuasive regarding Trump and dictatorial powers. He has made it clear that he wants very loyal people in his cabinet this time, so the likelihood of a Jeff Sessions, Bill Bar, or Mark Milley standing in the way of his worst ambitions is significantly reduced. The point remains, who knows what Trump will do?
"He has made it clear that he wants very loyal people in his cabinet this time"
Unlike every other president in history.
The difference between Israeli strikes on buildings and 9/11 is Israel gives advance warning so people can evacuate the building and vicinity and is targeting those killing Israeli citizens - the terrorises gave no warning in 9/11, nor were those in the Twin Towers belligerents. It is a very important realisation because then 9/11 cannot be metaphor, simile or any comparison.
The original point of the article is that we argue in metaphor. My main point is that we don't argue in metaphor, we use metaphor as a communication tool in all sorts of ways, including within arguments. "Hitler" and "9/11" are both useful metaphors since most people know what someone else is talking about when they use them. But there seems to be a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is, and how it can/should be used.
The effectiveness of simile using metaphor is the more interesting discussion. I find statements like "Trump is like Hitler" and "Israel bombing in Lebanon is like 9/11" somewhat effective, but of course I do not speak for all people. Obviously you view things differently, at least with regard to current Israeli actions.
Speaking for myself only, I find Israeli actions over the last year quite upsetting, supposed advanced warning notwithstanding. If Israel gives warnings every time they blow something up, why do any people die at all? Wouldn't all the targets abandon the location, and the blowing up would be just symbolic? No, Israelis intend to kill people, and seem to be fine with a high amount of collateral damage.
I did not feel this way a year ago, but I have come to the conclusion that Israel does not have a "right to exist." Israel has devolved into a terrorist state (that is a hugely loaded word, "terrorist", but it is one I chose to use here). It is about time the US supplies anti-aircraft capabilities to Lebanon, or threatens to shoot down Israeli jets bombing Lebanon, in order to quell Israel's terrorist tendencies.
Seems like you are recommending trading metaphorical thinking for literal thinking, since you can't settle bets on further metaphors. But we can also trade in for literal thinking back at the first step. We can say things like: "Leaders who try to deceitfully and dangerously attempt to hang onto power don't deserve the same power in the future. Trump was one such leader."
I doubt the physics examples are metaphorical in anything like the same way as *some* social ones, like comparisons to Hitler. How can equations be metaphors, for instance? In the sciences, notions like more and less accuracy or better and worse approximations to the truth seem, well, closer to the truth than generalizations like "Everything is metaphor".
The fog comes
on little cat feet.
It sits looking
over harbor and city
on silent haunches
and then moves on.
Carl Sandburg, The Fog
In China, metaphors take the form of Cheng-yu...four character idioms, very often with hard to discern meanings....allowing hard statements to be reinterpreted or deflected should a conversation go sideways into troublesome or unapproved topics. It's not a bad way to navigate language.
The current attempts at forcing uni-thought in topics is very interesting. It doesn't work the way popular media narratives here describe it.
I think the proper adage is, "Reality is one thing. Perception is everything."
I agree that "nominal GDP" is a poor measure of money. A far better measure is "Nominal Disposable Personal Income" because it reflects future spending that will drive both GDP and Inflation. If economists had been paying attention to this number in 2020, they would have known that serious inflation was inevitable. https://charles72f.substack.com/p/aint-nothin-but-a-party