As a free-speech "absolutist," by which I mean that I believe political speech should not be fettered except in the case of libel with malice, I think it is a mistake to look at speech as a cause. Speech is rarely the cause of political action; rather, it is the spark that lights the fuse.

Would we have Trump if Congress had a higher approval rating than 20% in 2016? If there were no swamp, why would anyone think Trump could drain it? But there was a swamp, a dysfunctional government that I blame on the Republicans’ abuse of the filibuster, but that's really a detail here. We earned Trump by not minding the store, by allowing gerrymandering and allowing a 60-vote Senate.

If we want to get rid of Trumpism, we need more speech, not less. What we need are better people winning elections, which requires happier people voting. When all is said and done, the "bad speech" that is "working" reflects not gullibility but confirmation bias. The audience already knows it's pissed off. Now it just needs a reason. Absent the alienation, the message would fall flat.