Been asked so many times: “What do you think will happen?”
We will know a lot more soon. But I do think it’s helpful to clarify expectations. The baseline, for me: Being lawless does not make Trump omnipotent. Yet the situation is significantly more dangerous than in 2017.
🧵1/
We must resist the temptation to perpetuate Trump’s constant attempts to assert dominance by reflexively despairing over our supposedly hopeless situation. MAGA desires to project power and strength – something we should subvert rather than confirm. 2/
Being lawless does not make Trump omnipotent, and obscuring that distinction is an act of defeatism that only serves the regime. There is a vast gulf between Trump’s authoritarian aspirations on the one hand and the realities of a complex modern state and society on the other. 3/
Conversely, clinging to the idea that the Trumpists are simply too incompetent to cause any real damage, a clown show not worth taking seriously, won’t cut it either. And I find the notion that the second Trump presidency will mostly be a rerun of the first mostly misleading. 4/
Will the Trump regime’s malevolence yet again be tempered by its rank incompetence? Trump is still erratic and lazy. Many of his nominees are unqualified. But they are also willing executioners of MAGA extremism and will have more competence and preparation around them. 5/
The regime won’t simply be able to implement everything in Project 2025. Then again, the fact that the rightwing machinery of think tanks, lobbying groups, and reactionary intellectuals had years to fully mobilize does make the situation markedly different from Trump One. 6/
The existence of elaborate plans doesn’t mean there won’t be unforced errors or chaos. But that is not the same as moderation. Chaos can also accelerate the harm. And in authoritarian movements, frustration and chaos are at least as likely to lead to further radicalization. 7/
If the recent trajectory of the Right is any indication, every crisis situation only heightens the sense of being under siege, legitimizing calls to hit harder, more aggressively. There’s always permission to escalate, hardly ever to pull back. 8/
Trump himself and the rightwing forces around him have radicalized over the past fifteen years. He wants revenge, they desire a comprehensive “counter-revolution” – all are convinced they were far too timid the first time around. A “mistake” they are unlikely to make again. 9/
Most importantly, the circumstances have changed. Many of the factors that inhibited the Right during the first Trump presidency are no longer present; guardrails that kept the more extreme factions in check after 2017 have been vastly weakened or destroyed entirely. 10/
One: Trump can now count on a hard-right 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court. A game changer. And we have never even seen this Court operate with a Republican trifecta - nor a Trumpist regime under conditions of guaranteed immunity. 11/
Two: Trump was also hampered by resistance from within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. But dissenters have largely been ostracized. The Trumpist regime will be able to count on a fully Trumpified party and rightwing machinery of think tanks and activists. 12/
Three: All forms of resistance, regardless of where it emanates or what form it might take, will encounter an unprecedented threat of political violence - condoned and endorsed by all strands of the Right from Trump on down, intended to intimidate anyone who dares to dissent. 13/
Finally, I’d be more optimistic if the nominal opposition party and the institutions ostensibly tasked with defending democracy hadn’t so clearly signaled since the election that they’re not in the mood / not able to oppose - instead opting for accommodation and acquiescence. 14/
It’s self-defeating to assume the Trumpists will implement everything they have planned or desire to do exactly as they wish. Politics isn’t over.
But they will be operating under conditions that are vastly more favorable to their authoritarian cause.
Sunday reading: Three questions to help us engage Trump’s dangerous outlandishness.
We need to resist the temptation to constantly rage against Trump’s latest antics – while making sure the buffoonery of Trumpism doesn’t obscure how dangerous the situation is (link in bio):
Let’s avoid self-defeating approaches to dealing with Trump. Not much separates raging at his every word from despairing over our supposedly hopeless situation. MAGA desires to project strength – something we should subvert rather than confirm. Let’s not indulge the false bravado
Being lawless does not make Trump omnipotent – and obscuring that distinction is an act of defeatism that only serves the regime. There is a vast gulf between Trump’s authoritarian aspirations on the one hand and the realities of a complex modern state and society on the other.
Navigating the Nonsense and Propaganda of Clownish Authoritarianism
Ignoring what Trump says won’t work. Constant outrage is not a viable strategy either. I suggest we ask three questions that can help us engage Trump’s dangerous outlandishness.
New piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about a key challenge of life under clownish authoritarianism: Resisting the temptation to constantly rage against Trump’s latest antics – while making sure the silliness and buffoonery of Trumpism doesn’t obscure how extreme and dangerous the situation is. 2/
Is the “savvy” thing to just ignore his outlandish ramblings? It’s not so easy. The president’s words have power. Let’s not pretend we can neatly separate the “distractions” from “real” politics, as our political reality that has been shaped by Trumpian extremism. 3/
Navigating the Nonsense and Propaganda of Clownish Authoritarianism
Ignoring what Trump says won’t work. Constant outrage is not a viable strategy either. We must find a more productive way to engage Trump’s dangerous outlandishness.
New piece (link in bio):
As we are all facing life under a clownish wannabe-authoritarian, it is worth grappling with the question of how we should calibrate our reactions to Trump. I take his latest press conference and his imperialist threats towards Greenland, Canada, and Panama as an example.
The first question to ask: Whose lives are affected by Trump’s announcements? Unfortunately, because he is the undisputed leader of the Right and the soon-to-be president, there is a high chance his words do have real-world consequences. They are speech acts, fueled by power.
Sunday Reading: The Modern Conservative Tradition and the Origins of Trumpism
Today’s Trumpist radicals are not (small-c) conservatives – but they stand in the continuity of Modern Conservatism’s defining political project.
This week’s piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I focus on some of Modern Conservatism’s intellectual leaders in the 1950s/60s - Buckley and Bozell, Whittaker Chambers’ diagnosis of liberalism, and Frank Meyer’s view of the civil rights movement - to investigate the origins of a radicalizing dynamic that led to Trumpism. 2/
Crucially, today’s self-identifying “counter-revolutionaries” on the Right do not think they represent a departure – in fact, they claim to be fighting in the name of the *real* essence that defined Modern Conservatism, which in their mind now very much requires radicalism. 3/
The Modern Conservative Tradition and the Origins of Trumpism
Today’s Trumpist radicals are not (small-c) conservatives – but they stand in the continuity of Modern Conservatism’s defining political project.
Some thoughts from my new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
This was a beast to write – an attempt to synthesize my thoughts on a question that has shaped the political and historical research on the Right since at least 2016: How did Trumpism come to dominate and define the Right’s politics and identity so quickly and easily? 2/
I focus on some of Modern Conservatism’s intellectual leaders in the 1950s/60s - Buckley and Bozell, Whittaker Chambers’ diagnosis of liberalism, and Frank Meyer’s view of the civil rights movement - to investigate the origins of a radicalizing dynamic that led to Trumpism. 3/
The Modern Conservative Tradition and the Origins of Trumpism
Today’s Trumpist radicals are not (small-c) conservatives – but they stand in the continuity of Modern Conservatism’s defining political project.
New piece (link in bio):
What should we call the pro-Trump forces that are dominating the American Right today? Conservatives? Reactionaries? Something else? The terminology really matters because it reflects and shapes how we think about the nature of Trumpism and how to situate it in U.S. history.
We need to distinguish between colloquial or abstract philosophical notions of what it means to be (small-c) “conservative” - and the political project that referred to itself (and was widely referred to) as the Conservative Movement in post-1950s America.