After yet another conversation in which I was assured that Trump was near invincible because he was expertly manipulating people, I have a few thoughts on this idea of Trump as a political “genius”. Brace yourselves, we’re gonna wade into Trump-Hitler-comparison territory./1
What I find interesting is that such claims mostly originate not from his base, but from the center (left/right, it makes no matter), from (mostly white) liberals and lefties. It’s what’s underlying the “Trump can do no wrong” type coverage in mainstream media as well./2
It's important to reiterate that there’s very little empirical evidence for such claims. During the 2016 campaign, his scandals, “gaffes,” whatever you want to call them, did in fact hurt his poll numbers every time, which goes directly against the “Teflon Trump” perception./3
Yes, he did win the election. But he also underperformed the “fundamentals”. We’ve all heard the joke that a life-size Reagan cardboard figure would have done much better than Trump – and it’s very likely true!/4
Lest we forget, there was actually an election in 2018, and Trump did employ his “genius” strategy of stoking fears and being super racist – and Democrats won in a historic landslide. There’s no evidence his campaigning helped his party anywhere./5
Finally, the man has been president for a while now, and his approval rating has been consistently terrible, which is unprecedented considering the overall economic situation./6
Let’s leave aside for a minute how strange it is to insist that Trump’s white supremacist actions are somehow part of a calculated master-strategy. The evidence that Trump is a racist goes back at least to the 70s, same as the evidence that the man has absolutely no filter./7
There’s really no need for any sort of “political genius” – the simplest answer is that he’s a racist and a narcissist who’s saying and doing racist things. If that “plays well” with the conservative base, that’s saying a lot about the base, not so much about Trump’s “genius”./8
Which is why it’s so interesting that so many people insist on this idea. Some of it can surely be explained by people being shocked by his 2016 win, by liberals and lefties, in particular, being – rightfully! – scared that something similar might happen in 2020./9
But I think there’s more, and this is where the comparison to how Hitler has at some points been portrayed in post-war Germany might be instructive. One of the most successful depictions of the dictator was journalist/historian Joachim Fest’s 1973 book “Hitler. A Biography”/10
It sold hundreds of thousands of copies, catapulted Fest to stardom, and there’s also a film version, a 1977 documentary based on Fest’s book, that was immensely popular when it was released (here’s a trailer to the English language version)/11
Fest’s work is highly controversial. In my opinion – and in that of many people who know much more about National Socialism than I do – Fest should be seen as one of the most successful, and dangerous, apologists for the German people and their role during the Third Reich./12
Fest’s depiction of Hitler was heavily influenced by his extensive conversations with Albert Speer, Hitler’s favorite architect and Minister of Armaments and War Production – one of the leading figures of the regime and one of the major Nazi war criminals./13
Fest/Speer presented Hitler as a brilliant demagogue. He was evil, yes, as was his clique (Goebbels, Göring, Himmler, the usual suspects – but not Speer, of course!). But he was a genius. Not a brilliant intellect, per se, and certainly not a well-educated man./14
But Fest focuses on the speeches, the enthralling stage performances, the mesmerizing spectacle, the seductive charisma that supposedly proved irresistible. And so we are meant to realize: How could we possibly blame anyone for following this man?/15
How could anyone blame Speer, who fell under this monster’s spell; or the German people – deceived and seduced, all of them. This interpretation is, of course, bogus, and has been proven wrong by generations of actual empirical research (of which Fest did very, very little…)/16
And yet it is not difficult to see the allure of this type of portrayal: It basically excused the German people of any type of serious wrongdoing. They may have been fools, they may have been naïve; but mostly, they were unlucky to have encountered this brilliant demagogue./17
And this brings us back to Trump and this pervasive idea that this man somehow, against all evidence, must be some sort of “genius”. There are, I think, obvious parallels to how Fest has depicted Hitler. And I don’t think they’re coincidental./18
If Trump is a genius demagogue, then how could you blame anyone for following him? How could you blame the American people for making him president? The Trumpists might be fools, they might be naïve; but mostly, they were unlucky to have encountered this brilliant demagogue./19
It’s most revealing that this type of exculpatory, apologist tale is being told by people who did not vote for Trump themselves, who might actually abhor him. Mind you, Fest himself was never a Nazi, growing up in a family that actually kept its distance from the regime./20
But the desire to self-exculpate went well beyond those who had actively supported Hitler; just as the myth of white innocence is shared not only by those who (openly) desire white supremacy./21
The idea of Trump as a genius demagogue, it seems to me, is yet another indication of how pervasive the myth of white innocence truly is, how foundational to America’s history and present, and how much it still shapes the current political discourse./end
