『The Chris Abraham Show』のカバーアート

The Chris Abraham Show

The Chris Abraham Show

著者: Chris Abraham
無料で聴く

このコンテンツについて

tl:dr: Just a 55-year-old cisgender white male mansplaining his own self-importance. But good. Full Summary: The musings of Chris Abraham as he aspires to know the world and himself while getting healthy, losing weight, becoming fit, and running his small business while living in South Arlington, Virginia. Walk with him a while and see what's up.Chris Abraham
エピソード
  • The Eighty Percent Awakens
    2025/08/15

    When the small, elite definition of “democracy” stopped being the country’s default — and the silent majority decided not to play along anymore.

    For decades, a narrow, elite version of American “democracy” was exported abroad like a finished product — shiny, packaged, market-tested. At home, it trickled into schools, universities, media, and HR manuals without much pushback, because for 80 to 95 percent of Americans, it didn’t touch the parts of life they cared about most: their homes, churches, towns, and kids’ classrooms. It was the elephant tethered to a sapling — capable of walking away, but never testing the rope.

    This wasn’t resentment. It was indifference. The cultural “rules” for the spectacled, bullied elite — the LGBTQIA+, the activist academic, the blue-haired urbanite — were tolerated as long as they stayed in their own cities, campuses, and subcultures. Live how you want, say what you want, but don’t try to make it mandatory for everyone. America’s main culture absorbed pieces it liked, iceberg-slow, over generations.

    Then came the acceleration — COVID mandates, diversity pledges in kindergarten, social justice scripts in corporate HR, the idea that America was not only unequal but must be forcibly “equitable.” That meant a rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me hierarchy, with protected classes at the top and dissent treated as sin. Integration had flipped into a taxpayer-funded revolution against the very culture it had asked to join.

    And the rope snapped. The 80–95 percent saw no reason to keep nodding along. The reversion came fast — faster than the cultural revolution that sparked it. Advertisers, politicians, and institutions that had embraced the etiquette class suddenly reversed course. Sexy ads came back. Slurs once thought gone forever resurfaced in entertainment. Not because of malice, but because the market stopped rewarding restraint.

    It wasn’t a neat partisan shift. It was a coalition — the “MAGA coalition” in its broadest sense — pulling in traditional Republicans, disaffected Democrats, the working class, farmers, populists, and the culturally exhausted middle. The only ones left holding the elite definition of democracy were a small cluster of technocrats, academics, and the extremely poor who don’t vote. Everyone else formed a kind of hostile-takeover defense, like the ’80s movie plot where the employees band together to keep their company from being chopped up and sold.

    Once you realize you’ve been tethered to a sapling your whole life, you don’t just wander a little farther. You walk until you can’t see it anymore. And you don’t go back.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    33 分
  • The Eighty Percent Awakens [VIDEO]
    2025/08/15

    The provided text, "The Eighty Percent Awakens: How the Export Model of Democracy Collapsed at Home," explores the growing cultural divide in America, positing that a small, elite faction attempted to impose an "export model" of democracy, initially designed for foreign nations, onto the domestic population. This forced cultural shift, characterized by an "opt-out" rather than "opt-in" approach, led to widespread resistance among the majority of Americans who felt their traditional norms were under attack. The essay argues that the COVID-19 pandemic served as a breaking point, as perceived hypocrisy and selective enforcement of rules galvanized a diverse "MAGA" coalition. This coalition, described not as a unified ideology but a "defensive pact," represents a rejection of what it views as a "hostile takeover" of American civic and cultural life, culminating in a swift dismantling of previously established policies after a shift in power.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
  • Trump's DC Cleanup Coup
    2025/08/13

    TL;DR: When Gavin Newsom sweeps San Francisco’s streets for an international summit, the press frames it as pragmatic urban stewardship. When Donald Trump orders a similar crackdown in Washington, D.C., it’s cast as an authoritarian takeover. The cleanup looks the same; the narrative is worlds apart.

    In November 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom admitted plainly that San Francisco’s sudden transformation—tent encampments gone, streets power-washed, graffiti scrubbed—was tied directly to hosting President Xi Jinping for the APEC summit. He likened it to tidying your home before guests arrive. Media coverage largely accepted the explanation: yes, the effort was timed for a diplomatic photo-op, but it was also evidence that the city could, when it wanted, restore order and civility.

    Fast-forward to 2025. President Trump, in his second term, orders a sweeping public safety operation in Washington, D.C. Federal agencies, the National Guard, and a temporarily federalized Metropolitan Police are deployed. The stated goals: end smash-and-grab retail crime, stop carjackings, dismantle open-air drug markets, break up illegal ATV takeovers, and make the capital safe for residents, tourists, and investors.

    The optics are similar: encampments cleared, streets quieter, police presence visible, sidewalks usable. But the coverage is very different. Newsom’s cleanup is framed as a civic refresh; Trump’s is depicted as a “coup,” a militarized occupation meant to “crush Black culture” and erase the city’s character.

    Here’s the double standard: The underlying actions—removing encampments, dispersing disorder, and signaling control—are nearly identical. The difference lies in the political framing. Newsom operates inside a media environment inclined to see him as a well-intentioned progressive trying to solve an intractable problem. Trump, by contrast, is cast as an existential threat; his motives are presumed malicious regardless of stated policy goals.

    This asymmetry mirrors the immigration debate. When Trump says he’ll deport all 20 million undocumented immigrants, critics recast it as targeting only the most violent offenders—implying dishonesty or cruelty either way. In truth, violent offenders go to prison; it’s the clean-record undocumented population that deportation actually affects. But reframing the policy into a moral litmus test changes public perception.

    The D.C. sweep fits the same mold. Supporters see it as long-overdue law-and-order; detractors see it as cultural suppression. To those inside the media’s dominant narrative, Trump can never be normalized, and any exercise of executive authority is suspect—no matter how closely it resembles what a Democratic leader might do without controversy.

    The stakes go beyond partisan grievance. If public disorder is tolerated until an ally’s event, but condemned as tyranny when an opponent acts, then public space becomes a proxy battlefield in America’s endless political war. The broom is the same. The hands holding it determine the headline.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    21 分
まだレビューはありません