Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Martin Gurri has written what I think is an interesting article in City Journal, Donald Trump's Allure. I don't know anything about Gurri, but he mentions his original aversion to Trump (who he once referred to as a "carnival barker" and a "master of disaster"), a mindset from which he has since recovered, the reasons for such recovery he explains in this essay.
He's very on point about Trump's physical courage, as demonstrated in Butler, PA last July, and I think he's also right when he says, "[Trump] may be the only American politician who currently displays, and knows how to convey, a visceral affection for voters." That was apparent to me in Trump's exchanges at the drive-through, while he was "working" at McDonald's last fall. Sure, the "customers" were selected and vetted beforehand, but the exchange between the Indian gentleman with his family who said "Thank you for making it possible for ordinary people to meet you," and Trump's response, without a moment's pause for calculation of, "You're not ordinary," was nothing but genuine. As are his interactions with the mothers of American hostages, or the families of those killed in battle, or of those murdered by illegal aliens. Or even his heartfelt discussion with Theo Von about the horrors of drug addiction.
Feel free to compare any of these examples with Nancy Pelosi and her luxury ice cream stash, Elizabeth Warren and her "beer," or John Kerry and his "huntin' license." And then tell me who's the genuine article. (I exempt Tim Walz from the forgoing catalog because the list of his aberrations, and those of his wife [who opened the windows to inhale the scent of burning tires during the George Floyd riots, and who kept them open as long as she could because she felt it was "just such a touchstone of what was happening"], are so ludicrous and offensive as to leave even me at a loss for--all that many--words.)
What really made me chuckle, though, was the rest of Gurri's explanation for his volte-face, in which he describes the "Trump effect" as something essentially out-of-this-world, one which defies the laws of space and time, and all the other laws of physics itself.
"For those too squeamish or skeptical to invoke the deity" (in relation to Trump's uncanny ability to triumph over circumstances so adverse that they would poleaxe any normal human being), Gurri says:
I can produce a mathematical explanation: Trump is a “strange attractor,” an incarnation of coincidences so incredible that they would be rejected out of hand in the most preposterous Hollywood script. When he enters the room, the laws of probability that rule dynamic systems go haywire.
When I read that, I realized there's been one other such in my life (and, on further reflection, that he, too, meets the standard in terms of physical courage and deep affection for the common man), and I commented on the Gurri article to that effect.
I often said about my father, "Things don't happen to Dad. Dad happens to things."
I think the same can be said of Donald Trump.
Gurri concludes his article thus:
The odds are massively against Trump replacing the existing system with one of his own—though, of course, there’s always that strange attractor force at work. But there will be no going back to some artificial version of the long-gone twentieth century; no reactionary fantasy world imposed by the analog mentality; no online censorship, no debankings, no politicized bureaucracy. We have crossed a boundary into the new, and we’ll have to deal with the consequences, fair and foul. The old is gone, not with the wind but with Joe Biden, the perfect symbol of senile government.
The causes of this epic collapse are partly structural and partly a matter of random luck. But much of the responsibility—credit or blame, depending on where you stand—falls on human agency, in the person of Donald J. Trump.
I think he is correct. And so I'm going to sit back and watch the next three-and-a-half years, always with fascination, sometimes with horror, sometimes with delight, and hope for the best. Donald Trump is the president, and a lifetime of experience tells me that wasting any portion of my life ranting about something he's done or not done, wishing things were different, or even just the same as they used to be, and barking at the moon day in and day out, isn't something a rational person of my age finds an enticing prospect.
Life's too short. Or at least, what remains of it. (There's gardening, and grandmothering, to be done!)
PS: The thought that I would hang any aspect of any post I ever wrote on any sort of mathematical theory (in this case, the strange attractor) is something that anyone who's ever known me would find the height of preposterousness. However, I've read the first three paragraphs of the linked reference, and--since we live in a world where Gayle King, Lauren Sanchez, and Katy Perry pretend to the title "astronaut" and consider themselves "inspirational" because of their recent little ride up in the sky in their fancy designer suits--I think that, as a result of my strenuous effort in support of this post, I'm fully entitled to award myself a PhD in the field.
Discussion (78)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Yes, the strange attractor theory I can go with because I was never really attracted to what our government has been delivering. I am enjoying watching the process of attempts to change that. I get some reaction to that position.
@EJHill 1:22 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 29, 2025
Are you? I hear a lot of Trump supporters talking about Trump’s value as entertainment. Putting the ChiComs on our northern border is hilarious, right? My 401K crash keeps me rolling in the aisles. It’s only money and survival, so why not enjoy the show?
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Maybe two, if you want. Thanks for the interesting read. I zeroed in on this line about the position of a strange attractor and its effects.
The spelling error belongs to the scholars. Regardless, the "chaotic behavior" in Trump's wake causes unease with those who believe or believed the system was secure and comfortable. I've previously mentioned this, but what you've done here is much better.
Donald Trump wrecks a certain type of person's sense of security. This is not a bad person, but he or she will likely have a poor reaction to the perception of chaos. What is it? It's viewing security as lack of change, or stillness. For my parents, security was 9-5 with one company for decades until retirement. This is what they wished for their children. That model was gone and even Dad was caught in the shift before I started a career. Even with Dad's experience, it took more than a decade for them to admit things changed.
Security is navigating the chaos, not defying or denying it.
That's what my wife and I think, anyway, and that's why we started a small business. Some in our families think we're doing acrobatics without a net. They all, by the way, dislike Trump. Their occupations match(ed) the model of security above. Any break from the stillness is a threat.
The wave is here. You can ride it or (try to) hide from it.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Excellent post, "She". And superb essay. Thanks for sharing it.
At a couple of points while reading it, the following Eric Hoffer quote came to mind (boldings mine):
"In a time of drastic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists." --- Reflections on the Human Condition, 1973
The author's journey of self-reflection, allowing him to free himself of the comfort of long-held preconceptions, is one that not many people have the character to embark upon, and even fewer have the courage to publicize. He's a Learning Man.
This passage from Mr. Gurri's piece hits an important note, I think:
"[T]here will be no going back to some artificial version of the long-gone twentieth century; no reactionary fantasy world imposed by the analog mentality ... We have crossed a boundary into the new ...".
Yup. Trump and "Trumpism" (whose short-lived predecessors, IMO, were the Tea Party movement (snuffed out by the Republican establishment) and the Occupy Movement (snuffed out by the Democrat establishment)) have sown the seeds of a new type of politics in our country, and there will indeed be no going back. Salena Zito, among a small number of others (e.g. Scott Adams) sensed it early, and wrote about it in her (and her co-author's, Brad Todd) 2018 book, The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
My grandmother was like that. Somehow she didn't have a problem with my brother the MD having his own practice, but me doing consulting/contract work in computers, somehow didn't count in her world. In her world, you're not "working" unless you're working for someone else.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
You're seeing five of 78 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.