It is evident that few
Americans have studied our Founding documents, and know in depth our American
political history. My knowledge of the Founding documents is greater than my
knowledge of American history. For example, it was not until I read an article
recently that I recognized the similarities between the Trump movement and the
Jacksonians of the early 19th century. That Trump is within the traditions of
American nationalism and populism was evident. In both the Jacksonian and
Trumpian movements, there is a very strong sense that the national leaders, the
(new) Federal government, has become elitist and distanced from the people they
are supposed to serve. And there is a strong desire to smash or limit the
political powers that be by a decisive, charismatic figure who is able to get
results, to “win victories,” to “make deals.”
Leaving aside the
comparison with the Jacksonian movement, just looking at Trump’s movement
awakens some sense of surprise. Part of the irony for the Trumpians is that
Trump himself does not rail against big government, but most Trumpians would;
Trump is not a conservative, whereas most of his supporters are; Trump himself
is part of the business-political elites, whereas his followers are not; Trump
says nothing about states’ rights or returning to constitutional Federalism, but
many of his supporters would. Ideologically, most Trumpians are probably closer
to Cruz or even to Rubio than to Trump. On the other hand, Senator Cruz is
well-within the genuine conservative political traditions of this country, and
he is both brilliant and learned. But Trump provides something that neither
Senator Cruz nor Senator Rubio presents: a strangely charismatic political
figure who is in some senses larger than usual life. Rubio’s charge pronounced
yesterday, that Trump is a “con man,” is not altogether false, and Trumpians
probably know this. Nor is the previous charge that he is a “clown,”
“flamboyant,” or even “ego-maniacal,” as we hear charged. There is truth in all
of these labels. (Note: who but an ego-maniac would present himself or herself
as the best candidate for President? Maybe the elder Bush, but then, he felt
“entitled” to hold power, did he not?)
There is a mass movement
stirring under Trump. He has been carried on it, and he stirs it up, and feeds
on it. A sizable part of the American electorate, turned off by all
politicians, has been longing for a powerful figure to smash much of the
American political mess. Along comes Trump. The smashing effort will
probably not work well, because party machines and bureaucracies, once
solidified in power as ours are, do not change much at all from external
forces. Trump could effect some political changes, and surely he would set out
to undo some of the worst damage inflicted by Obama, and even by
Clinton-Bush-Obama. He will try. Again, political realities do not change
easily or wholly. How could anyone undo the enormous political and social
damage inflicted by recent American regimes, especially by Bush and Obama, on
the Middle East? Especially with Russia and Iran unleashed there, how does
America even carve out a sphere for responsible and prudent action? The task
has been made incredibly difficult by what our two recent administrations have
done. I cite this as an example of the enormous task of changing political
realities, especially once destruction has been wrought. Unleashing forces of
destruction is much easier than bringing back order. No one can accomplish very
much in this area, although Trump intends to try. He has promised to smash ISIS
quickly, and to seek to broker peace between Israel and its neighbors—admitting
that the task would be the most challenging of his life. He is a realist, but
has a noble goal towards working for peace in the Middle East. Chances for
success at this time do not seem high, given the millennial history of hatred
between Israelis and Palestinians, and more recently, between millions of
Muslims and the state of Israel.
I shall offer more on the
Trumpian movement later. In sum, suffice it to note that it combines at least
two major elements: an attitude of rebellion against the powers that be, and
especially against the two political parties and their failures to govern well
from Washington; and a desire for genuine leadership that can accomplish good
political results, such as protecting the body politic from Islamist terrorism,
and from intellectual terrorism by the American quasi-Marxist Left, summed up in
the phrase, “political correctness.” It is the reaction to these forces that
feeds the pro-Trump movement. Trump garnered leadership in this movement by his
independence from both party establishments; by his history of “getting deals
done,” hence showing leadership; and by his utter disdain for politically
correct language, time and again. Whether one likes these positions or dislikes
them is irrelevant to a political scientist who is trying to understand
political reality in its complexities.
An electoral note: Because
Trump is not an ideologue nor even a genuine conservative, but a populist and a
pro-American nationalist, his appeal crosses party lines. He will draw on
support from Republicans, Democrats, independents. That is the primary reason
why he can and beat Clinton in the general election. Her appeal is narrowly to
loyal Democrats and to ideologically fixed Progressives; and she may be able to
draw in some forces aligned with the Republican Establishment, which detests
Trump precisely because he threatens and undermines their monopoly of power in
the Republican Party. Two of the best states in which to test the thesis of
Trump’s appeal would be Pennsylvania and Michigan, states which Democrats have
carried fairly handily for decades in Presidential elections. One should also
test the appeal of Clinton versus Trump in Florida, such a decisive state; a
Republican must carry Florida to win the White House. Pay attention to voter
turnout in Michigan and Florida, and see how Clinton compares to Trump for the
upcoming general election this November.
Primary note: The
Republican machine utterly failed to stop Trump with their chosen tool, Jeb!
Bush. Once this Bush got resoundingly defeated and withdrew from the primaries
after South Carolina, the Party machine and huge big money backers quickly moved
into the camp of Senator Rubio, who had already attracted some very wealthy
backers and PAC money. (Republican power brokers hate Senator Cruz, who is no
Party puppet, but an independent thinker and voice, something considered
dangerous to established power.) Most of what happens in politics happens
behind closed doors, so we do not know, but my guess is that clever minds like
Karl Rove and other George-Jeb Bush handlers are now advising Rubio. Hence, he
has come out swinging hard and low against Trump (who knows how to kick below
the belt, too). What I know is that the usual Republican Party intellectual
voices we hear in mass media, such as Rove, G Will, Krauthammer, Bill Kristol,
and others, utterly detest Trump. Their main problem with Trump they do not
admit in public, and perhaps not to themselves: they and the Party machine
cannot control Trump—neither his actions nor his mouth. They controlled the
Bushes, and now they control Rubio. Big money and power are at work. Trump has
plenty of money of his own, and the power of the Trumpian movement behind him,
to give him independence from the Republican Establishment.
—Wm. Paul McKane
27 Feb 2016
