“Trump is Horrible. Prove Me Wrong.”
It’s a prompt being debated all over “LibTok”. But have you ever paused to ask: what does “horrible” mean here? Is it a factual observation, a moral judgment, or something else entirely? And what if “horrible” could be interpreted differently — not as a definitive condemnation, but as a lens through which some people articulate what they see as a misunderstood necessity?
To unpack this, we must first separate the descriptive from the normative.
- Descriptive: A factual claim about Trump’s actions, policies, or behavior. For example, “Trump enacted policy X, which had Y consequences,” or “Trump’s rhetoric was divisive.”
- Normative: A value judgment layered onto the descriptive, declaring, “This is bad, undesirable, or morally wrong,” followed by prescriptive actions like, “He should not return to power,” or “We must oppose him.”
So far, so familiar. But there’s a meta point worth exploring: some people may view “horrible” differently. What if, like a hurricane during a drought, the chaos Trump represents is painful but, in their view, necessary?
The Hubris of Missing the Message
Trump’s re-election in 2024 was a shock to many in the establishment. For years, Democrats and traditional political actors dismissed his appeal as a dangerous aberration, a momentary lapse in judgment by voters. They anointed Kamala Harris as their candidate, assuming that stability and representation would be enough to counter populist sentiment. But they failed to acknowledge a deeper undercurrent of pain and disillusionment among large swaths of the population — an undercurrent Trump tapped into with his disruptive, chaotic energy.
To many, Trump’s “horribleness” represents a rejection of the status quo. His critics — especially within the establishment — misread this as a simple moral failing on the part of his supporters. But for those who re-elected him, the message was clear: the perceived hubris of a political elite that refused to listen or change was worse than Trump’s flaws. The Democratic platform, steeped in technocratic solutions and identity politics, failed to resonate with voters looking for bold, populist answers to systemic problems.
A Persuasive Path Forward
If Democrats are to win back the trust and energy of the people, they must embrace a disruptor of their own. Someone who can articulate the pain of disillusioned voters, tap into their hunger for transformation, and challenge the calcified structures of power that have failed them. Someone who isn’t afraid to disrupt the system for the sake of renewal.
That person is already here. Marianne Williamson briefly captured the national imagination during the 2020 primary cycle, speaking directly to the pain, disconnection, and longing that so many feel. Her rhetoric, though ignored and ridiculed by the establishment, resonated deeply. The most effective Democratic talking points since — about love, hope, and moral clarity — trace their roots back to the seeds she planted, often without acknowledgment.
Williamson embodies the potential for constructive disruption. Her vision transcends technocratic fixes and superficial representation, offering instead a transformational populism grounded in empathy and bold ideas. While Trump’s disruption exposes the system’s flaws, Williamson’s disruption offers a pathway to renewal.
The Role of Disruption in Growth
In nature, disruption is often the prelude to renewal. A wildfire devastates a forest but clears the way for new growth. A hurricane brings destruction but also essential rainfall to parched landscapes. Chaos, Nietzsche argued, is a precondition for the birth of a dancing star.
For Democrats, the lesson is clear: disruption can no longer be feared or dismissed. Trump’s re-election underscores that voters are willing to embrace chaos if the alternative is stagnation. By ignoring Williamson, the Democratic establishment risks repeating the mistakes that led to Trump’s rise and his return.
Choosing What Comes Next
The storm of Trump’s second term is raging. But as with any storm, it forces us to confront difficult truths about our vulnerabilities and priorities. The question is: will Democrats meet this moment with complacency or courage? Will they cling to the old playbook, or will they embrace a disruptor of their own?
Marianne Williamson has already shown she can inspire and galvanize. What remains is for the establishment to listen, amplify her vision, and recognize the necessity of bold, empathetic disruption. Only then can they plant the seeds for a future that thrives beyond the storm.
A New Lens for “Horrible”
“Trump is horrible” may remain true. But the conversation shouldn’t end there. By exploring how others interpret chaos as a catalyst and by embracing a disruptor like Williamson, Democrats can move beyond reactive condemnation to proactive transformation. The storm continues, but its lessons are already emerging. The question is: will we use them, or will we repeat the mistakes that led us here?
