On Trump

How Did We Get Here?

Howdy,

Ok. I should start writing about something other than myself (sorry, Mom). I teased in the second post that I would lay out my theory on Trump, specifically how he emerged or instead descended down those elevators so many moons ago. I’m a man of my word, so here goes my foray into political analysis (gulp).

First, I’m not going to argue for or against Trump. I write for The Bulwark, so I’m sure you can guess where I stand on that argument. Instead, I’m much more interested in how he emerged.

Second, Trump isn’t a total aberration. He’s simply Pat Buchanan but more entertaining, funnier, and politically adept. In essence, he’s a paleoconservative: a man from the pre-WWII GOP, which was more isolationist, restrictive on trade and immigration, and “America First.” As you probably know, he did not develop that little tagline. Charles Lindberg made it popular, but as he always does, Trump stole it and made it his own.

Lastly, dismissing Trump’s appeal is fraught with peril. It’s easy to ignore Trump’s supporters as rubes who’ve been conned. While that’s certainly true for many among the uber MAGA base, that doesn’t provide an analytical framework to explain his popularity. Trump, in essence, is a symptom of a broader problem: distrust of American institutions.

So, how did the GOP come under the firm grasp of an illiberal strand of conservatism?

There are three overarching reasons: Iraq, the Great Recession, and the explosion of Social Media.

When I was growing up (yawn), the GOP were the grown-ups. It was the party of Reagan and Daddy Bush. The successful end of the Cold and Gulf Wars underscored their credibility on foreign policy. However, that all ended with Iraq.

Whatever your thoughts on invading Iraq, I think it’s safe to say that it didn’t go according to plan. While the Iraq War became unpopular, most Americans did not have skin in the game. Who did? Those who fought and their families. Where do most combat arms servicemembers come from? The South and Midwest, which are overwhelmingly white and culturally conservative. The Iraq War — and now add our retreat from Afghanistan — fueled a sense of distrust for “they.”

Who are they? The elites who got us into that war without risking their own kids’ lives. The foreign policy blob who thought they could democratize Iraq by the barrel of a gun. The VA was asleep at the wheel while thousands lined up for much-deserved benefits. Now, these are overly simplified explanations, but I’ve heard them constantly from Iraq combat veterans and their families.

Many Trump supporters couldn’t explain NATO or Article 5 (and so can’t most Americans), but they don’t understand why their family members got sent overseas to fight a war based on a “lie.” Iraq provided fertile grounds for Trump’s non-interventionist instincts. Why the hell are we still in ______? What is it doing for us?

And, to be honest, Trump has a minor point. Champions of the liberal international order have done a horrible job of explaining its benefits to those with skin in the game. More often, they ridicule those who don’t understand why Americans are still stationed in South Korea, considering our Korean allies are a powerful regional player.

Another major blow to pre-Trump conservatives was the Great Recession. Now, I’m not an economist —- you don’t say?—but I think it’s safe to say that the economic meltdown didn’t engender many to the wonderful benefits of capitalism (who loves capitalism—this guy right here). Fair or not, it cemented a perception that the game was rigged. Some of this is overblown hyperbole (see: Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren). Yet, this observation has some truth (see Enron, Madoff, etc.)

President Obama’s bailout of numerous businesses—too big to fail, baby—pushed more disgruntled working-class whites into Trump’s camp. Democrats care about “the working man,” but bail out the fat cats? I’ll pass. Populism thrives on this type of hyperbolic nonsense. Obama made many mistakes — hello, Iraq and Afghanistan — but his handling of the recession wasn’t even close to the top 10. One could argue with the size of the bailouts or the DOJ’s reluctance to prosecute bad actors, but it was a relatively responsible handling of a sizeable economic problem.

So we have white working-class people who lost their manufacturing jobs while their sons and daughters were sent overseas to fight and die in a poorly constructed foreign misadventure. Now, let’s add the accelerant: Social Media.

The most important book published in the last decade is Martin Gurri’s The Revolt of the Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium. Buy it right now. Gurri, a former CIA analyst, predicted the rise of Trump (but not before Neil Postman did in the 80s with Amusing Ourselves to Death). Gurri shows how the advent of social media tipped the balance of power from the government to the public. Elite institutions and the government no longer control information. The public has wrestled that from them and exposed many charades (see Iraq, Obamacare, Katrina, etc).

There is a war going on inside the US. On one side, there are “elites” and those with the traditional levers of epistemological power and the public who is “Google” smart. In short, the American public can access all the same data that some wonk with a Ph.D. can. And while many don’t understand the context behind this information, they can use it to tear down the system.

What is Trump without social media? Or entertainment? He’s a bankrupt, failed businessman. But Trump’s genius is his ability to flood the zone with shit. He can spew out thousands of messages, which confuses elites playing a traditional game of refuting erroneous claims. The Taliban did the same thing to us in Afghanistan. By the time we refuted such nonsense, they were onto the next claim.

The access to information combined with instantaneous global communication methods hyper-informed the masses with erroneous nonsense. Nevertheless, the power in our cell phones can help tear down institutions, though it can never rebuild them.

And that’s really what Steven Bannon and Donald Trump are all about: tearing down our institutions because the game is rigged (see: Great Recession and Iraq). Who can help “rebuild it”? Someone who knows how “they” operate because Trump was a member of the elite.

Trump is nothing if not an opportunist. He waited to run when the conditions for his brand of Jacksonian populist fury were at its apex. He tapped into a long-time American tradition of eschewing the world and the other. He might not be an intellectual, but he’s not a moron.

The Trump phenomenon will not last forever. And the key to understanding his rise is also the key to defeating him.

What’s the answer? Telling the truth about our institutions, warts and all. More on that in another post.

Until next time.