How Trump Changed Politics: The Enduring Scar of Right-Wing Populism in America
By reinventing the way his supporters view politics, Trump started a genuine populist movement that has already impacted and will continue to impact the nation well past his presidency
Donald Trump changed politics in America. By tapping into the underlying predispositions of varied segments throughout the country, Trump exacerbated these feelings and attached his name to them to make a legitimate political movement. This is the birth of populism in contemporary America. Hopefully this does not sound trite, there is no denying populism’s buzzword status in 2020, but as much as it is overused it still remains misunderstood. Much of this confusion stems from a tendency to discern populism through conventional American political terminology. Pressing to make it fit somewhere on a political compass with properly associated policy positions and predictable political action from participants within government. This is an incorrect way to understand populism. Much the same can be said of Trump’s presidency. The near constant reminders of abnormalities and defying conventions are case in point. There is more going on.
Rather, I will argue that populism at its core is a rejection of conventional politics. Instead it serves a separate political ontological purpose by providing a belief system from which citizens come to comprehend their political community, the political infrastructure around them including the institutions that manage that infrastructure, and their place as participants within that political community. To put in other words, conventional political ideologies serve a descriptive purpose that allow us to assess the likelihood of individuals supporting particular policy or types of policies, whereas populism serves a prescriptive purpose in that it dictates the way that people make sense of and come to understand politics and government at large.
With Trump now set to leave office much of current discussion centers around an optimistic return to politics as normal. This is a choice to see the Trump presidency, and Trump himself, as a blip in time; an anomaly we will simply move on from. Doing so fails to grasp the real impact of his presidency and the changes it has imposed on how many Americans view politics. Populism is here to stay, and it will continue to impact our nation’s politics well past 2020. This piece will attempt to make this case through recent events that are already shaping the immediate future of U.S. Politics. In doing so I will faithfully reference key ideas developed in the book “What is Populism?” by Jan-Werner Mueller. In doing so I hope to bring further context to populism, and bridge these ideas to current events.
Political Polarization vs. Populist “Othering”
Political polarization is among the most studied areas in American political science. For almost a decade Pew Research Center has tracked the increase in polarization, and in fact found 2020 to be the most divided year on record. To give a definition, Brookings Institute describes polarization as, “... a sorting of political convictions by either the mass public or ruling elites, or both, into roughly two distinct camps: persons inclined to support the Democratic or the Republican parties’ policies and candidates for elective office.” Polarization is the drifting away from agreement between two parties. Heightened polarization causes failure to find compromise through irreconcilable party differences.
I certainly am not arguing that there isn’t polarization in 2020, nor that populism doesn’t add to polarization. Instead, I contend that populism is not the result of polarization, but rather populism as an ideology assumes irreconcilable differences as a starting point. Populism requires an “othering” of those that disagree, and that populists as the representatives of “real Americans” stand in existential opposition to this enemy “other” that oppresses their livelihoods.
In this way populism is deeply ingrained with self- espousing moral virtue; a bulwark against wrongdoers. As Mueller puts it, “Populists pit the pure, innocent, always hardworking people against the corrupt elite who do not really work.” which leads to “...the core claim of populism: only some of the people are really the people.” Those in opposition to populists are not simply opponents, but outsiders that pose a threat to the “real people.”
Trump is a paragon case. For four years and two grueling campaigns Americans were fed narratives of “the corrupt evil radical global deep state leftists hell bent to destroy you, your way of life, family, and the American Dream itself.” In doing so Trump has defined his supporters as “Real Americans.” He has not been shy in defining the “other”, but perhaps has been most clear in his “Red State/Blue State” distinction. While this shouldn’t sound foreign to anyone, the past month has shown this mentality manifest when in defeat. Those who have voted in defense of their livelihoods now must directly face this perceived threat.
Last week Rush Limbaugh stated this plainly, 'Can we win the culture, can we dominate the culture.' I actually think — and I’ve referenced this, I’ve alluded to this a couple of times because I’ve seen others allude to this — I actually think that we’re trending toward secession," Actual secession talk hasn’t made it much further then edgy Parler chains, outsider online commentators, and half-hearted state congressmen. Threats of secession do not have to be convincing to remain indicative of an underlying sentiment. Polarization remains paramount to today’s politics, but it is through populism that Americans have come to find their neighbors, statesmen, and co-nationals as an enemy.
Anti-Establishment and Republican Friendly Fire
While the others remain the enemy of the “real people” a distaste and distrust of established institutions further define populist ideology. Corrupted institutions stand in the way of the desire of the “real people.” Populists run, nominally, against a corrupt establishment that would suppress the “popular will.” As populist leaders claim to represent the will of the people, legitimate losses are inconceivable, “...the problem is never the the populist’s imperfect capacity to represent the people’s will; rather, it's always the institutions that somehow produce the wrong outcomes.”
Right leaning Americans continue to distrust the 2020 election. Polls immediately following the election had shown widespread belief in fraud, and after weeks of continually rejected court cases the sentiment has not waned. A study by Northeastern in early December has shown 64% of Republicans lack confidence in election results, and with a sizable 41% believing Trump to be the legitimate winner of this year's election. Those who suggest otherwise are guaranteed to be thrown in among the enemy. Of course this includes the likely suspects: media, corrupt blue states, urban poll workers, the USPS, etc. However, as the institutions continued their function, others soon were lobbed into the mix: Fox News, the judicial system, republican state representatives, Republican Governors, and even the GOP itself.
Events at the Million MAGA Rally Demonstrated just that. In a speech delivered to a crowd of Trump supporters and proud boys alike, white nationalist Nick Fuentes declared, “In the first million MAGA March we promised that if the GOP did not do everything in their power to keep Trump in office then we would destroy the GOP. And as we gather here in Washington DC at a second Million MAGA March we are done making promises. We are going to Destroy the GOP.” To which chants of “Destroy the GOP” immediately parroted. Distrust of institutions has gone well past the opposite political aisle. And while these views represent an extreme to which supporters go, there is no denying how commonplace anti-establishment and anti-institutional distrust has come to be.
Under Trump’s Thumb
At the core of this phenomenon it's crucial to understand Trump’s unique position of dominance in American politics. If we are to understand a conventional president as rising from the bottom-up as momentary head of the party, a populist leader is a top down selection that evokes the “will of the people” to conform the party below him. Populist leaders run as the only true representatives of the will of “the people” as Mueller puts it, “The leader correctly discerns what we correctly think and sometimes he might just think the correct thing a little bit before we do.” Through this type of leadership Donald Trump has come to assert himself at the top the party, and subordinated fellow Republicans below him.
His presidency has epitomized this sort of behavior. Trump takes all the oxygen out of the room. He has framed the party around his own persona. He firmly dictates its direction, and from his esteemed position awards loyalty and punishes dissent. His popularity grants him prestige, and has left republicans as beholden to him as to their own constituents. Post election has shown little difference.
It should not go without saying that Trump received the largest number of votes of any Republican candidate. He is the single most popular republican politician and it's hard to name who is in second. Early polling after the election has shown Trump in a dominant position for the 2024 Republican nomination sharing 56% support, and his notable competitors coming from his immediate circle with Mike Pence at 12% and Trump Jr. at 8%. Last week 126 members endorsed the Texas Election lawsuit that may as well have been dead on arrival. MAGA hats are still worn by the most politically active conservatives be it at anti-lockdown protests, MAGA marches in DC, or Georgia runoff rallies. When the president took the stump for Republican candidates down in Georgia a little over a week ago he spent more time sharing his own election day aggrievement then firm endorsements of the candidates themselves. But Trump more importantly showed his retribution had no bounds. In denouncing Republican Governor Kemp in front of his home for certifying election results he signaled guaranteed condemnation to any Republican who may deviate from his will. Former Republican Representative Paul Mitchell just made headlines announcing his departure from both the party and government over Trump's action and republican support. Though there are very few among him. Instead Republicans continue to toe the line, and do not forget they are doing so for a one term president in a lame duck session on his way out the door. This indicate nothing much will change in the months to come, Trump will be the de facto Republican president from beyond the oval office.
What is Done is Done
A Biden lead return to normal is both optimistic and reductionary. Trump’s time in office is more than anomaly. His impact was felt everyday by the absurd headlines he created. Whether most would care to admit it or not, Trump changed American Politics. Populism was made real. If we are to understand where the country goes from here we must account for what has already happened. He has changed the way many Americans think about politics. Through the constant vilification of those that oppose him, his supporters have come to find the threat of enemies where there once were only disagreeable political opponents. His assault on political institutions have exacerbated distrust among Americans, and by attacking Dems and Republicans alike has indicated trust runs through him. His position atop the Republican party, with few likely challengers, cements that it will stay this way for some time to come. Populism has scarred America and this is a scar that runs deep.
Thanks For Reading. This one took a little while to come up with. Wrote and Rewrote it a couple times. I hope it provides a somewhat novel way of thinking about Trump’s impact on Politics. But Lemme know what you think. If you thinks there’s something worthwhile please feel free to share. And if this is the type of content you’re interested in please do subscribe for more!