Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Relax, A Trump Comeback In 2024 Is Not Going To Happen
PoliticoFor now, Trump dominates conversations about both present and future. His outlandish claims that he won the election except for comprehensive fraud have helped raise more than $200 million since Election Day. Many of his partisans share his dream of recapturing the presidency in 2024. For those who despise him, to paraphrase a famous Democratic speech, it seems clear the work goes on, the cause endures, the fear still lives, and the nightmare shall never die.
Except it will die — most likely with more speed and force than looks possible today.
There are three primary reasons to be deeply skeptical that Trump’s moment of dominating his party and public consciousness will continue long after Jan. 20.
Most important are the abundant precedents suggesting Trump does not have another important act in national politics. The perception that Trump will remain relevant hinges on the possibility that he is a unique historical figure. Trump, however, is singular in one sense only: No politician of his stripe has ever achieved the presidency. In multiple other ways, he is a familiar American type, anticipated by such diverse figures as Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace, and Ross Perot.
Except it will die — most likely with more speed and force than looks possible today.
There are three primary reasons to be deeply skeptical that Trump’s moment of dominating his party and public consciousness will continue long after Jan. 20.
Most important are the abundant precedents suggesting Trump does not have another important act in national politics. The perception that Trump will remain relevant hinges on the possibility that he is a unique historical figure. Trump, however, is singular in one sense only: No politician of his stripe has ever achieved the presidency. In multiple other ways, he is a familiar American type, anticipated by such diverse figures as Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace, and Ross Perot.
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
The other two don't really stand up historically.
Point One:
No politician of his stripe has ever achieved the presidency.
This is true of almost every authoritarian regime that has taken root since the early 20th century. They are always novel for their time. This is why they arouse the difficult-to-understand devotion they do. (For explanations and examples, see Ruth Ben-Ghiat's new book Strongmen)
Point Two:
He has largely abandoned any pretense that he thinks about anything other than his personal resentments, or that he is trying to harness his movement to big ideas that will improve the lives of citizens.
If people are bothered by this, it might be important. It didn't stop people from supporting Mussolini, who was preoccupied only with gratifying his personal needs. I think that's true of of Berlusconi as well, and perhaps many others (I hate to mix Communist regimes with Western examples, but there are some to think about here). These movements are about saying no to and attacking everything, they are never about a vision for the future. They always concentrate on a life-and-death struggle in the present that is imaginary. But it is a good point.
Point Three:
Politics never stands still, but Trump largely does.
Fascist time, as Timothy Snyder calls it, is flat and independent of factual reality, and it is nihilistic in the sense that it doesn't worry itself about "future". Authoritarians remain in power by animating nostalgia for a past that didn't happen, and a false future, or no future at all, and just making the present about a fabricated life-or-death conflict between his supporters and the vague need to survive against some "enemies." That game can run on a long time. You'll notice, for example, when you look around the world at current authoritarians, that they never speak about Global Warming unless it is to declare it a hoax and part of a larger conspiracy against the autonomy of the state. It's "muslims," 'immigrants", conspiracies by Western Democracies, anti-Christians, etc...
There are some real epiphanies in the book The Death of Democracy by Benjamin Carter Hett, and also Ruth Ben-Ghiat's new book Strongmen. Ben-Ghiat takes us across a timespan of 100 years explaining how people like Trump gain, keep and (hopefully) lose power.
I, frankly, hope to Christ this Politico analysis is correct. It just feels out of touch with history.
Stronger arguments against a Trump run might focus on his physical and mental decline; those two factors have brought down regimes, especially since "virility" is one of the factors that makes an authoritarian charismatic in the eyes of his fanatics.
Kick and Rec
