Smells like victory: Part I
Apocalypse Now explains The Reign of Trump and our collective moral dilemma
Establishmentarians Are Dead
The duality of human nature in Apocalypse Now—exemplified by the clash between civilization and savagery—can offer profound insights into the experience of Trump voters after a decade of his influence. This Two-Part comparison explores the moral conflicts, identity crises, and the confrontation of personal and societal values faced by those who supported Trump.
Hello and Happy Sunday my fellow pirates. Compass Star Wordsmith is adding travelers longing for a safe space for unsafe subjects. We depend on readers to support our efforts to post this publication every week. Jump on board to receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Leave a comment to add your voice.
Lots of people are lamenting the overload of politics. I get it. Losing, like winning, is hard. Both offer valuable lessons, and how we engage with the results say much about the participants. Each reveal the character evident prior to the outcome. Scoreboards merely expose truth, not intention. Prep is laid bare.
Framing the game is the color analyst’s job. Scoring the game is, well, the Scorekeepers. After The Youngest outgrew my coaching ability, I joined the “Nerd Herd” as her softball team affectionately called parents keeping the book. Playing through college, her journey taught me much about winning and losing. Consequences of preparation, or lack thereof, are most clear in war and sport. And politics. Now is no different than a shit-fit in the parking lot after a loss.
Victory, indeed, smells good to the winner. But the aroma is not so pleasant to the loser. Gen-X is probably the cohort least familiar with victory, by and large, as any other generation. My Substack CSW is littered with Gen-X diatribes about growing up with skills that became obsolete by adulthood. It feels, eerily, like a subterfuge win from behind. Hope + Change finally came true. The demon rests.
What happened? Ask Jeb or Mitch. (they still don’t know) The stranglehold the Establishment wing of the Republican Party had not just lost its grip, it’s arms were cut off. And then used to beat the hell of the losers. I’m wondering if John Thune is feeling like Charlie? Time to go surfing? Charlie don’t surf.
I love when the WSJ claims that some of the Cabinet picks need “obvious managerial assistance” if their nominations are confirmed. Or when the WaPo labels them as lacking the “essential experiences” necessary for success in role.
Oh, the worry. The wringing. The wailing. So delicious and devilish. Google searches are just for fun now. Every expert was wrong about everything. Maybe that’s an overstatement on fact, but certainly not on feeling. Citizens are fed up. And they blew up. Naturally, the losers are bewildered and angry, but even the winners are nervous and scared. Who is this tribe, they ponder publicly. Scary.
Although completely historical in nature and scope, and perhaps significance, this election was based in age-old human nature. The quest for freedom rejects party dogma in search of real-life solutions. Nobody cares WHO makes gas and eggs and rent lower, as this realization sinks in. Feeling safe IS an actionable issue. Terminating a fetus not so much. Expression of thought became normalized, not weaponized. Declaring sovereignty and patriotism accepted.
This rage against the machine is neither new nor unknown. America was born of this protest, giving The Tea Party movement not only inspiration, but its moniker. The popular reaction to The Tea Party is one of ridicule for many, and for a long time, active intolerance by the GOP power structure. Oh how the pendulum swung. Now, populism is a pop-word, generating clicks and backlash.
Wait, are the repubs the only political renegades? Has the donkey ever kicked back? Well, of course. As if freedom is limited to one color on the spectrum. Let’s take a look at the last Democratic intramural uprising, way back in time. What was it over again? Oh yeah. Fuck the Establishment. Sound familiar?
Have you ever wondered just how, exactly, Bill Clinton got elected President? I did, and discovered that it was, well, let the founder of the DLC describe it in a great post in The Free Press.
“We were an entrepreneurial, insurgent operation,” From recalled. Marshall, his partner at the DLC, put it this way, “The Democratic establishment was not happy about the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council. And the premise on which it was based was that in some way the party establishment was failing.”
Fast forward forty years, into this century, and the Repubs were just as demoralized as the Dems had been after Carter. Their target was Obama ostensibly, but the road to his downfall, infuriatingly, went through the Establishmentarians of the GOP. And the old guard deferred. So, like the other side of the Uni-Party, a rebellion fomented to toss out party leadership.
They have formed Super PACs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates.
The diffuse collection of groups and individuals who made up the Tea Party movement was unique in the history of American populism, as it seemed to draw strength from its ability to “stick apart
One of its defining characteristics is vociferous anger at Congress and the White House. Mistrust of politicians, government and the media runs deep.
Although many members hold deeply conservative social beliefs, the Tea Party is expressly and steadfastly economic, not social, in its outlook.
"They may be socially conservative personally on issues like abortion or gay marriage, but they think the Republican Party stopped being the party of fiscal conservatism when it became so obsessed with social conservatism," says New York Times journalist Kate Zernike, author of Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America.
The Tea Partiers are as disillusioned with George W Bush's big-spending Republicans as they are with Barack Obama's Democrats.
They naturally align with Republicans, but they are displeased with the party: many think it has deserted them.
"It's one of the common misperceptions that the Tea Party and the Republican Party go hand in hand," Ms Zernike told the BBC via e-mail. "In fact, they're fighting hand to hand in many parts of the country."
That was just a decade into the 21st Century. Jetsons and Terminators never materialized. We were on our own, many thought. The government was not here to help. It was here to control. Both sides saw it and fought back against it. Jesse damn Jackson hated the DLC and considered it a major threat to his power as much as McConnell did the Tea Party.
So how did the Dems lose this one? Are the voters really to blame for supporting a threat to democracy? How on earth could normal people ever vote for a megalomaniac like The Bad Orange? All of a sudden, millions of formerly acceptable voters became toxic. Why would they cross that moral boundary?
Apocalypse Now provides a roadmap if we care to scratch the surface and face some uncomfortable truths about our very nature. CSW explores the inner realms of our psyche, where we battle our demons away from the light of day and the gaze of others. Where we question our very nature as human beings, and how that impels or compels us to action. We talk about it. Out in the open. Then move on.
But their explanations demonstrate striking elitism and lack of self-awareness and accountability. For example, Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), likely the next Congressional Progressive Caucus chair, chalked up Latino voter erosion to right-wing “misinformation.” Joe Scarborough, co-host of Morning Joe, blamed “misogyny” and racism from Latino men.
Several pundits, such as CNN’s Jim Acosta, claimed Hispanics voted against their “self-interest.” And MSNBC’s Joy Reid accused Hispanics of voting against their race: “Y’all voted with … David Duke and against your …wives, sisters, and abuelas.” This kind of race essentialism – believing that Hispanics should vote solely based on their race – is the real racism, not the perceived slights the media obsesses over.
Surf or Fight
The duality of moral and societal costs to voters who supported Trump, particularly former Democrats, can be understood as a tension between the benefits they perceived in their decision and the ethical or societal compromises they may have made. I mean, voting against your grandma!
The quote above speaks to the Hispanic experience, but any POC that voted for Trump has done so at extreme risk - to their identity, their standing, their livelihood in some cases. Their very being was questioned and ridiculed. Had they merely voted for somebody else, ANYBODY else, they would have been spared the shame and shunning. Especially by their own friends and family.
This mirrors Apocalypse Now’s exploration of human duality, where choices driven by survival or pragmatism reveal the darker side of human nature. As the DLC and The Tea Party illustrate, dissatisfaction runs deep in Americans, and distrust is the sidekick riding shotgun.
I watched Apocalypse Now last night. For the first time in probably over 40 years. It still kicks ass. It’s still relevant. But I saw it in a different light after the last decade, and realized how now it is. Comparing Apocalypse Now to the "Reign of Trump" involves an exploration of themes of chaos, leadership, and existential confrontation:
Chaos and Leadership:
Apocalypse Now depicts the breakdown of traditional military structures under the command of rogue leaders, paralleling critiques of the Trump administration as a period where political norms and institutional roles often seemed disregarded or upended.
Kurtz in the film represents a descent into a moral and operational vacuum, which can mirror criticisms of Trump’s unconventional leadership and governance style. Both figures are seen as wielding power in ways that disrupt order.
Media Representation:
The film, often interpreted as a critique of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, explores how narratives of heroism mask deep systemic flaws. Similarly, Trump’s presidency saw an intense focus on media narratives—some defending his unconventional style as transformative, others condemning it as reckless.
Cultural Polarization:
The surreal atmosphere in Apocalypse Now—where moral clarity becomes impossible amidst the fog of war—can resemble the polarized American socio-political landscape during Trump's tenure. Each side claimed the moral high ground, creating a chaotic environment where truth was contested.
Existential Themes:
Both explore existential crises: the film in the form of war’s dehumanizing effects and Trump’s presidency through national identity, justice, and democracy debates. The characters and citizens face a reckoning with deeper societal values.
Even the post-election “autopsy” (perfect word choice - examination of a body after death to determine the cause of death or the character and extent of changes produced by disease), by the same experts, uncoincidentally, that predicted the end of times, completely misses the mark. The Reign of Trump is filled with symbolism, and both sides engage in propaganda wars.
The river in Apocalypse Now is a powerful symbol, representing the journey into the depths of the human psyche and the duality of human nature. This symbolism resonates with the exploration of behavior under extreme circumstances, both in the film and in the context of Trump's presidency.
Symbolism of the River
Journey of Discovery:
In Apocalypse Now, the river is a metaphorical path into the unknown, where Captain Willard confronts the primal aspects of humanity within himself and others. Each stop along the river represents a step further from civilization and deeper into chaos and savagery.
During Trump’s tenure, one could argue that the American political and social landscape mirrored such a descent. The journey represented a broader unraveling, forcing institutions and individuals to confront uncomfortable truths about values, identity, and priorities.
Moral and Existential Fluidity:
The river's constant motion symbolizes the fluidity of morality and human behavior. Just as Willard moves further into darkness, political decisions during Trump's reign often revealed the capacity for both pragmatic and extreme actions in times of perceived crisis (e.g., immigration policies, handling of protests, pandemic response).
Both contexts highlight that under the right pressures, individuals or societies may forsake idealistic or moral paths for survival or dominance. The existentialism of democracy pales in comparison to the immediacy of need.
Duality of Human Nature
Civilization vs. Savagery:
The duality in Apocalypse Now is embodied in the contrast between Kurtz’s descent into barbarism and the military's claim to operate within a structured, moral framework. Kurtz’s environment shows that savagery is a latent aspect of all humanity, triggered by extreme circumstances.
Trump’s era surfaced societal dualities: democracy and authoritarian tendencies, inclusivity and exclusivity, truth and misinformation. Actions like separating families at the border reflected this struggle, where governance sometimes shifted into territory critics likened to savagery.
Willard and Kurtz as Mirrors:
Willard’s gradual understanding of Kurtz reflects his realization of his own darker tendencies, a theme echoed in broader societal actions under pressure. Similarly, supporters and opponents of Trump sometimes mirrored one another in tactics, showing how ideological fervor can bring out both humanity’s nobility and brutality.
Circumstances Forcing Savagery
War and Survival:
The Vietnam War in the film creates a context where moral codes are abandoned for survival. Actions deemed savage—whether in battle or by Kurtz—become necessities or reflections of the distorted world around them.
In Trump’s America, moments like the January 6 Capitol riot highlighted how extreme beliefs and pressures could lead people to abandon societal norms. For many, these actions were justified as necessary responses to perceived threats to democracy or justice.
Inevitable Descent:
The river ensures that Willard must face Kurtz, just as historical and political momentum forced America to confront its ideological divides during Trump’s presidency. In both cases, the journey and its challenges reveal that under duress, the line between civility and savagery is thinner than presumed.
The Duality of Human Nature in Apocalypse Now
Willard and Kurtz as Mirrors:
Willard’s journey upriver is both a physical and psychological exploration, confronting the savagery embodied by Kurtz and the realization that he himself possesses the same potential for brutality.
Kurtz’s descent into chaos reflects the shedding of societal norms, embracing raw power and instinct. Yet, his actions are justified in his mind as a response to the moral ambiguities and hypocrisies of the war itself.
Themes of Rationalization:
Both Willard and Kurtz grapple with the tension between their ideals and the pragmatic or brutal actions demanded by their circumstances. The film shows that even the most principled individuals are capable of darkness when pushed.
Trump Voters: A Decade Later
Idealism vs. Pragmatism:
Many Trump voters initially supported him out of frustration with the political establishment, viewing him as an agent of change. This decision often required reconciling his controversial behavior with the hope of achieving greater societal or personal goals.
Over a decade, this support has forced some voters to confront whether their initial choices align with their deeper values or whether they were driven by a pragmatic desire for disruption.
Internal Conflict:
Like Willard’s growing unease as he gets closer to Kurtz, some voters may feel ambivalence about the consequences of Trump’s policies or rhetoric. They might question whether the outcomes justify the means, particularly when witnessing societal polarization or erosion of norms.
Others may have embraced the "Kurtzian" perspective, doubling down on Trump as a figure who breaks from the hypocrisy of traditional politics, even if it means aligning with actions they might once have considered extreme.
Rationalization of Actions:
Just as Kurtz rationalizes his brutality as a necessary response to the horrors of war, many Trump voters have defended their choice by highlighting broader systemic failures or perceived threats, such as economic stagnation, globalization, or cultural shifts.
This rationalization reflects the duality of human nature: the ability to hold conflicting moral beliefs and justify actions that challenge prior convictions.
A Decade of Reflection
Confronting Demons:
After a decade, Trump voters must reconcile the outcomes of their choice with their initial motivations. For some, this may mean grappling with the societal divides exacerbated by Trump’s leadership, while for others, it may mean reaffirming their belief in his vision despite controversy.
This reflection echoes Willard’s realization that Kurtz’s methods, while abhorrent, stemmed from the same forces of human nature that operate within himself.
Identity and Change:
Just as Willard’s journey irrevocably changes him, so too has the Trump era left its mark on his supporters. For some, it has solidified a rejection of traditional political norms. For others, it has sparked doubts about whether their values were compromised in pursuit of short-term goals.
Shared Conclusion: The Thin Line Between Ideals and Instincts
Apocalypse Now reminds us of the fragility of morality under pressure. It suggests that, given the right circumstances, people can rationalize actions they once thought unthinkable.
For Trump voters, the past decade serves as a similar test of character and belief. The duality of human nature—ideals versus instincts, civilization versus savagery—plays out in the ongoing evaluation of what Trump’s leadership means for them personally and for the broader society.
Next week, I’ll conclude this two-parter by delving deeper into the issues raised in the parallels between Apocalypse Now and the Trump era. My goal is to provide a richer understanding of the dynamics at play. I will expand on key characters and themes, exploring their real-world implications and deeper connections to societal and political trends.
Until then, busy yourself with some musical distractions. Read the lyrics to The End - maybe there is a comparative analysis to made there as well!
As always, love others as much as you love yourself,
Ric
I've never seen Apocalypse Now...yes, I know...how did that happen? That makes me pretty worthless to comment on your comparison. But I have heard from the chattering class that misinformation, misogyny (by both Black and Hispanic men) were developing into their bugaboo reasons why Trump won. I also think your question if whether or not people wanted a disruptor but that this conflicts with their discomfort of his behavior and morals is true, certainly for women. We will see whether or not he can be effective. Nicely done.
Nice.