I decided to download Tucker Carlson’s interview with
and listen to it as I exercised at the gym. It’s a great discussion. There’s a quote towards the end of their talk that I wanted to discuss. I think that Matt hit on the answer to his own question, in a sense, earlier in the discussion. I also think that it relates to the Drama Triangle.At 1:59:20
asks, “What's the angle on this?” and says, “There's got to be some end game that they're going for. And the only way to make sense of this is to give that up, I think. Because there's something darker going on....”Tucker agrees saying, “Yes”
Matt continues “...in the culture of the people who run this country. It's inaccessible if you're trying to assign motives to it.”
Tucker agrees again, “Right”
Matt goes on, “They could easily... like just stick to the problem of Donald Trump. They could easily defeat Donald Trump as a political entity if they just-- if they were thinking as political consultants did in the 90s or 80s, right? Like, make some subtle adjustments. They would throw a bone to working people and they would put forward a candidate who isn't, you know, physically dead and they would win, right? But, no. For them, I think it's kind of a principle that a certain kind of voter not have a say in things."
Around 49:00 Tucker talks about how most US citizens would think that there would be different standards of dealing with our own citizens than with foreigners. This is in response to the US citizens Obama killed without giving them due process.
The Drama Triangle consists of three roles, victim, persecutor, and savior. If you can label someone as a “persecutor” in your mind, then you feel emboldened to retaliate. You feel like you can do anything to that person without it being immoral because you feel as if they deserve it.
I don’t know the moment it happened. But I think around that time frame there was a switch in seeing citizens as the people the government was supposed to protect and, instead, seeing some US citizens as enemies or “persecutors” of that government.
My theory is that politicians started to view themselves as the government or law, rather than working for the people. So the president (perhaps starting with Obama, but feel free to comment with your opinions), may have started to identify as the government rather than as an elected official serving the people. Identifying as the government can make you feel like you are the “savior” or above others instead of seeing them as equals.
Even if we think he was working for his donors and not the United States citizens, he was still out there playing “savior” for someone. And if you see other US citizens, even if they’re actual terrorists, as “persecutors,” you can get a sense, in that position, that they don’t deserve due process. If you can scapegoat and say that no matter if someone is a US citizen, if they’re involved in terror, then you can, erroneously, believe that they don’t deserve due process. That sort of thinking can lead you to also include US citizens who haven’t done anything actually terroristic at all if you just label having thoughts or “wrong opinions” as terror.
Jade Helm
Many right-wing “truthers” were upset about the Jade Helm exercises in 2015 and 2016 which were towards the end of Obama’s last term. They noted that some of the exercise materials listed mostly red states as “hostile” in the exercise. They thought the US military forces were training to fight hypothetical Republicans in their own states. They knew it was a training exercise and not an actual fight or takeover about to happen. However, they really felt this major shift into viewing US citizens as enemies and that thought scared them.
Just like with every “conspiracy theory” the “fact-checkers” pick the most fringe (if not made-up) beliefs to knock down using the strawman fallacy. These people who were upset had a feeling that the government now viewed them as “enemies” of that same government simply because held different political beliefs. They felt as if the President, Commander in Chief, viewed them as terrorists for disagreeing with his policies.
And, yes, some were afraid they’d be thrown into FEMA camps, just as Rachel Maddow was recently concerned about. But, the Republicans, during Jade Helm, who were concerned had files showing that the government was treating their (mostly red) states as “hostile” in that exercise. At least they had some sort of “proof” for their concerns.
“Our Democracy”
We’ve all noted that the democrats talk about “our Democracy” a lot while wanting to end the freedoms that this Constitutional Republic was built upon, like the freedom of speech, freedom to assembly (COVID lockdown mandates), freedom to bear arms, etc. At some point, I think the democratic party got it into their heads that their party is the government and anyone in the republican party is an actual enemy of “democracy,” meaning an enemy of their party and their country as a whole. They don’t view Republicans as citizens of their country in that sense.
In September of 2022, Biden made a speech about how Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans “represent an extremism,” and are a threat to the republic/democracy (he used both terms). About half of the country voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 election and many of them felt as if Biden called them all a threat. He tried to clarify that he simply meant election deniers, but that’s still a large portion of US Citizens.
I got the feeling while watching the speech that President Biden didn’t think of me as a real citizen but rather an extremist threat to Democracy. I’m sure many other people felt the same way. To all of you listening or reading this, did you feel that way as well?
When they talk about “Our Democracy,” especially Biden in that speech, I get the feeling that they see themselves as one country and don’t view me or others (anyone not a Democrat basically) as actual members or citizens of their country.
I felt like Biden was not my President while listening to it because he was giving this speech, talking to people who didn’t “deny the election results” and he called anyone who did an extremist. It didn’t sound like he was trying to talk to the so-called “extremists” to try to find our common beliefs and try to come together as a nation. He didn’t want to listen to or talk with “those sorts” of people.
I’m not someone who would yell, “Not my president” to someone because I thought he was not really elected by the people. I accepted that he was sworn in. However, his speech made it seem like he was really not trying to be the president of all of the people in the United States. Most presidents like to try to talk to the whole nation and hit on the points they all agree on to unify. He never gave that impression. In all of his time as President, I’ve never felt like wanted to be my president. I’ve only seen him as divisive.
If there is another civil war, I think they’ll trace the beginning back to the Democrat presidents who viewed their citizens as terrorists or extremists simply for opposing political viewpoints.
Why Won’t They Let Go of the Bone?
Now, I’ll go back to that quote of Matt’s from the beginning.
They would throw a bone to working people and they would put forward a candidate who isn't, you know, physically dead and they would win, right? But, no. For them, I think it's kind of a principle that a certain kind of voter not have a say in things."
Another term both Matt and Tucker use in the discussion is “messianic,” which, of course, is another way to view the “Savior” role in the drama triangle. When the Democrats view themselves as a “Savior,” view and characterize their political opponents as “persecutors,” and identify as the government, they perceive their political opponents as being able to destroy their identity with an election win.
If you take on the role of “Savior,” you’re doing that because you’re attempting to get some emotional need met through a roundabout way. “Saviors” will have an identity crisis if they can’t view themselves as saviors any longer because they don’t know how to get that emotional need met in another form.
An Existential Threat
If you identify with the “Savior” role and identify with the Government (such as denying MAGA Republicans are even citizens if they’re really extremists), and then a MAGA Republican wins the presidency, then that certain kind of voter that you don’t want to have a say will have a say and the government as you believe it is, will change so drastically that your version of the government will cease to exist. And then your identity ceases to exist.
That is an existential threat. It can terrify them. And when you are afraid or pissed your logical thinking goes out the window. That’s why they’re not thinking logically like political consultants did in the 80s and 90s. In the 80s and 90s, they were not this afraid of losing their power or as pissed at their opposition as they seem to be now. And back then they still believed their political rivals were US Citizens worthy of having their votes matter.
Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks for listening and/or reading.
BONUS EDIT: Here’s a clip from Tucker Carlson about the recent Jun 27th debate and how we don’t live in a democracy as the Democrats like to claim when the Democrats immediately decided Biden shouldn’t be the nominee (regardless if he got all those votes from citizens to be their pick) after his poor performance.
BTC Donation Address: bc1q4s6h8rhyqawqlz46ppc3zc5v43duycp8m57h9p
Why Won't Democrats Drop the Bone?