The idea of Trump as a political genius has been very popular since at least 2015. It has strongly exculpatory implications: Who could blame those poor souls who keep falling for the brilliant demagogue? A few thoughts, from a historical perspective. 1/
The fact that the President has been hogging the media’s attention with his bizarre press conferences and is now putting his name on the stimulus checks has people once again pointing to his supposedly brilliant political instincts and his masterful manipulation of the public. 2/
While the President’s conduct might also be described as obviously irrational, impulsive, and narcissistic, many pundits and analysts insist that everything Trump does is strategic in nature and part of a deviously brilliant plan. 3/
Remember when Trump berated four Democratic Congresswomen of color last July? Former chief strategist for Barack Obama David Axelrod had this to say about it: 4/
The man in the White House had once again shown his ability to “flip the script” whenever he wanted, as NBC News put it, and got everyone talking about what he wanted them to talk about 5/ nbcnews.com/politics/polit…
And Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II (MO) mused that the President was “playing us like a stradivarius.” 6/
Trump, we are often led to believe, is fully in command of public opinion, “a master at media manipulation,” as Jill Abramson put it. 7/ washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-…
High time to accept, as Damon Linker argued in The Week shortly after the 2016 election, “that Trump is undeniably one of the greatest intuitive political geniuses in history.” 8/ theweek.com/articles/66322…
It's important to reiterate that there’s very little empirical evidence for such claims, as @jbouie rightfully points out 9/
During the 2016 campaign, his scandals, “gaffes,” whatever you want to call them, did in fact significantly hurt his poll numbers, which goes directly against the “Teflon Trump” perception. 10/ politico.com/story/2017/09/…
He did win the election. But he also underperformed in terms of his popular vote share, at least according to models that focus on “fundamentals” such as the state of the economy, President Obama’s approval rating, and the fact that Democrats were seeking a third term. 11/
As a matter of fact, the GOP likely paid what @ezraklein has called “the Trump tax.” 12/ vox.com/midterm-electi…
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. 13/
Finally, the man has been president for a while now, and his approval rating has been consistently terrible, which is unprecedentedly terrible considering the generally favorable economic conditions until Corona hit. 14/
It is imperative, therefore, to inquire why so many people are drawn to the idea that Donald Trump is an exceptionally forceful political talent? This is where a historical perspective is helpful. 15/
Since 2016, historians have been asked to reflect on what we can learn from past experiences with demagogues. And the comparison to Adolf Hitler, or to be more precise: to the ways in which Hitler has been remembered in post-war Germany is indeed instructive. 16/
For over seventy years professional historians have wrestled with the question of how much their interpretations of the Third Reich should focus on Hitler as opposed to more structural political, social, cultural, and economic aspects. 17/
The broader German public, however, has always gravitated towards accounts in which the Fuehrer took center stage. One of the most successful depictions of the dictator was journalist Joachim Fest’s 1973 biography, the English version of which was simply titled Hitler. 18/
It sold hundreds of thousands of copies and immediately catapulted Fest to international stardom. In 1977, Fest was also responsible for a film documentary based on his book. “Hitler – A Career” was a massive box office success. 19/
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. 20/
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. 21/
The journalist presented Hitler as a revolutionary political force. Not a brilliant intellect, per se, and certainly not a well-educated man. And yes, he was evil. But the documentary, in particular, emphasizes the “genius of the great demagogue.” 22/
Fest focuses on the speeches, the enthralling stage performances, the mesmerizing spectacle, the energy radiating from the stage, the seductive charisma and magnetic personality. It’s all about the cult-like fascination of the German people with their chosen leader. 23/
Frequently morphing into mass hysteria, the spectacle, in this interpretation, was always masterfully orchestrated by Hitler himself. One cannot help thinking: How could we possibly blame anyone for following this man, for falling under his spell? 24/
It is not difficult to see the allure of this type of portrayal, as it basically excused Germans of any serious wrongdoing. They may have been fools; but mostly, they were unlucky to have encountered this brilliant demagogue. 25/
While this kind of perspective on Nazism has been refuted by generations of empirical research, it is still very much prevalent in the broader public imagination of the Third Reich. 26/
A case in point: When RTL, Germany’s largest private network channel, decided to delve into the Nazi past in 2005, just like everyone else was 60 years after the end of WW II, they produced a documentary called “Hitler – Seducer of the People” (Verführer des Volkes). 27/
Focusing on the “Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler,” as was the title of a 2012 BBC documentary, is obviously not an exclusively German obsession. 28/ bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01…
Then again, the British production was very popular in Germany, where it was fittingly called “Hitler – Seducer of the Masses” (Verführer der Massen) 29/
And this brings us back to Donald Trump. There are obvious parallels between such popular depictions of Hitler and current notions of the President as a brilliant politician. Both are portrayed as charismatic and manipulative leaders. 30/
The agency lies firmly with these powerful agitators, they are in control, while the people and their political opponents are left to react to their every move. They are forces of nature, overwhelming the systems upon which they are released. 31/
This is an immensely influential framework for how both the stories of Hitler and Trump are often told: In times of economic anxiety, these dangerous demagogues are able to strike due to their talent and cunning. That is the formula. 32/
Consciously or not, that is the implication when former mayor of Charlottesville Michael Signer argues that “millions of Americans felt left behind by our politics” and are therefore “ripe for a demagogue” 33/ washingtonpost.com/outlook/yes-tr…
Or when Nicholas Kristof explains that “plenty of well-meaning people were frustrated enough that they took a gamble on a silver-tongued provocateur.” 34/ nytimes.com/2017/02/23/opi…
It’s easy to see the appeal of this particular narrative: If Trump is indeed a political genius, then how could we blame the American people for making him president? The Trumpists might be fools; but mostly, they were unlucky to have encountered such a brilliant demagogue. 35/
It is revealing that this type of apologist tale is readily believed by people who did not vote for Trump. Joachim Fest was certainly not a Nazi either: He grew up in a family that actually kept its distance from the regime. 36/
But the desire to self-exculpate was felt not only by those who had actively supported Hitler, but also by those who had failed to prevent his rise. 37/
That may be why (mostly white) Americans from a broad political spectrum - including “Never Trump” conservatives as much as liberal Democrats – are buying into the narrative of Trump’s political genius, as it helps to justify their impotence. 38/
Of course, the idea of Trump as a singularly effective demagogue is not merely an import from overseas. It is but the latest iteration of a well-established theme in American history. 39/
Whenever people rode waves of racial resentment to political prominence, they have been described in similar terms. Whether it was George Wallace’s surprisingly successful presidential run in 1968 or David Duke’s near-victory in the 1990 senate election in Louisiana: 40/
Their supporters, political pundits were quick to explain, had to be suffering from crippling economic anxiety, which in turn made them vulnerable to the advances of such capable agitators. 41/
Much of the attractiveness from the “Trump the genius” narrative stems from the fact that it can draw on the pervasive myth of white innocence that has been so foundational throughout America’s history. 42/
Historically speaking, the success of right-wing demagogues tells us a lot more about their supporters and the societies in which they were able to succeed than about any kind of political “genius.” 43/
Empirically, the idea that millions of people have simply been overwhelmed by the seductive powers of Donald Trump is not persuasive. As long as it continues to be propagated, however, it has serious consequences. 44/
It is true that in this narrative, Trump’s supporters are not stamped as “deplorables.” But they are imagined as mere children following the Pied Piper. 45/
Finally, this narrative exceptionalizes Trump to a historical anomaly, a near-singular occurrence, thereby reducing him to an unfortunate accident. As such, it impedes a more serious analysis, a more honest, but much-needed soul-searching. 46/
The future of democracy in America might depend on whether or not the nation succeeds in moving past such ideas of the “genius demagogue” and the underlying myth of white innocence on which it is based. /end
