Reality Part III: Disruption in Theory and Practice

If you blow things up, watch out for falling debris

Photo by Donald Giannatti on Unsplash

Years ago, I had a political cartoon on my office door depicting the capitol dome. On the left side of the dome were quotes in a text bubble representing constituents yelling, “Do something!” On the right side were more voices shouting, “Not that!”

I think that summarizes where we find ourselves with Trump as a disruption agent.

People made it clear in the last election that they are frustrated and angry about our direction as a country. They are looking for things to change, perhaps fundamentally. Many reached the point where they are ready to let a chaos agent light the fuse.

But what exactly did they vote to blow up?

Certainly not things that lend stability to their lives. Not programs they depend on like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or veterans benefits. Not the rights they take for granted like freedom of speech and assembly. Not the basic underpinnings of the economy. Not the global coalitions that have worked to keep the world far more stable than it otherwise might have been since World War II.

Such is the difference between disruption in theory and practice. When people are unhappy, they understandably want to find a place to direct their displeasure. It follows that some will be drawn to a candidate whose defiance of a system they’re angry at mirrors their own. But do they really know what’s going to be disrupted or know what that disruption will mean for their lives?

---

One way to look at the coalition that helped get Trump over the finish line is through the lens of the disaffected. To be sure, in an anti-incumbent year, some voters simply had a preference for the party out of power regardless of the nominee. But among these voters you are likely to find some number who were drawn to Trump’s contrary ways. These are the voters who elected to disrupt.

However, in registering their protest they joined with a MAGA base that intends to go further. Far from just disrupting, Trump’s base wants to tear down whatever stands in the way of guaranteeing the superiority of the groups to which they belong. These are the voters who want to deport people who don’t look like them and curtail the rights of those who oppose them. They intend to do damage to a system that protects an increasingly diverse population.

And all these voters are on board, whether they recognize it or not, with the Elon Musks of the world—the oligarchs who plan to take aim at the welfare state for their personal benefit, who want to privatize everything of value and take a machete to entitlements. This group wants to do more than disrupt or damage. They want to destroy.

There’s more than a hint of irony here if you view the concentration of extreme wealth made possible by the neoliberal economic policies of the past 40-odd years as a primary reason for the system failures that are angering voters who just empowered those with extreme wealth. It would not be the first time people voted against their self-interest.

But there is also the potential for a backlash if those who checked the box for disruption end up with damage and destruction—especially if things they depend on or care about are hurt in the process.

This has the potential to play out in a variety of ways and to varying degrees with different voters, depending on the information diet of the individual, their values, how they are affected by Trump’s policies, and their tolerance level. Disinformation techniques may help Trump deflect the effects of some of his actions, and regardless of what happens some voters will stay on the ride forever—but not all, and the defectors are likely to have varying thresholds for deciding when to get off the train.

Some will have enough if Trump successfully follows through with widespread, forcible deportations, because even though he said he was going to do it they didn’t take him seriously.

Others may look the other way until friends or relatives are involved. Still others may find themselves caught up in Trump’s efforts to limit dissent, not previously believing that censorship could happen in this country.

For some it could be attempts at a national abortion ban that Trump sort of said he wouldn’t support, or restrictions on the drugs used in medicated abortions, which he may be able to impose on his own. Or attempts to push items on the culture war wish-list, like outlawing birth control. Or no-fault divorce. Or the social safety net. Or other elements of Project 2025 that poll worse than head lice.

The closer we come to destruction, the greater the potential for intense pushback. But regardless of how far Trump manages to go, disruption has its costs because it can’t be directed or controlled. The idea that you can destabilize government without upending people’s lives is a fantasy—an attractive one for those looking for a remedy to a situation they dislike, but one likely to play out differently in the real world than what they may have imagined during the campaign.

Put another way, if voters believed before the election that in the name of shaking things up, Trump intended to curtail the rights they take for granted, strip away benefits they depend on, undermine the economy, and upend global alliances that mitigate the risk of nuclear war, it’s possible that some might have reconsidered their vote. Not all, but some. Maybe enough to make a difference.

Empowering a chaos agent is a dangerous game, and the damage will not be limited to those who thrive on disruption. We will need to be prepared for all levels of fallout, from disruption to damage to destruction, and be ready when reality intervenes and those who thought they would be sheltered from the explosions inevitably turn to us to rebuild, as they always have in the past.