First of all, sorry that this is late. Was called away this morning ...
I think we ought NOT to think that the core of Trumpism is “authoritarianism” so much as it is rightwing nationalist populism. The
Atlantic article is a bit misleading in this sense, but it is clearly talking about “nationalist authoritarian populists” who all over the world are being ELECTED:
“Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world: Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, my home country. These people win elections but subvert democratic norms ... Orbán proudly uses the phrase
illiberal democracy [my emphasis] to describe the populism practiced by these men; Trump has many similarities to them, both rhetorically and policy-wise.”
This article says that Trump FAILED to become a successful populist authoritarian like those above because of his incompetence in governing, because he demonized, frightened and infuriated unnecessarily too many otherwise potential supporters. It speaks mostly of VOTERS in the recent election.
Behind the election game and two-party “democracy” there have
always been other factors at play. Everyone knows Trump ran against and was hated by mainstream liberal media (whom he “played” to perfection). A key point not often discussed, however, is that over three years — despite throwing valuable economic benefits their way — Trump personally alienated key players on Wall Street and powerful private capitalist networks (e.g. the Koch brothers) which otherwise agreed with his policies and were willing to give him a chance to “grow into the presidency.” There were others at the high summits of the “Security State” who became convinced he was simply unstable, incompetent and irresponsible — a “moron” at actually running the complex world empire our system depends upon. A rightwing “patriotic” demagogue more competent at uniting the nation and governing it would have been able to win much greater
support from the MIC and “Security State,” just as Trump won support from most cops. Few people, liberal or conservative, really appreciate this fact.
I’m not interested in arguing here with
martybegan for
flacaltenn or others who are convinced everything wrong in America is the fault of Democrats, or that their being asked to wear masks or flush toilets or give up their 60 watt incandescent bulbs is an intolerable sacrifice imposed by authoritarian communists. I am no defender of Biden either, though I confess I resentfully voted for him. I am just arguing that Republicans, with their crackpot minority intact, with Trump’s self-same nationalist policies, will probably sweep back into power sooner rather than later.
I agree with Republicans that
“left” populist authoritarianism is often obnoxious. Under certain conditions and in other countries it can be a serious problem. But as a
social movement, as an
electoral bloc, it has and can have very little traction in this country. What remains of the U.S. “working class” mostly supported Trump, or is atomized, its unions broken. Many “progressive” liberal millennials will grow out of their Harry Potter dream worlds, like most hippies did. I believe real conditions in the U.S. will continue to deteriorate for those without a stock portfolio regardless of which party is in power, and this will help demagogic Republicans sweep back into power. Democrats (if they should miraculously win the Senate in 2022) may slightly cushion the economic blow, but I think this unlikely, and very unlikely to last. Clearly the Democratic version of gender, race and other identity politics cannot “trump” demagogic “Americanism” domestically. Even the conman Trump ALMOST won re-election, and probably would have, had Covid not arrived. Invoking the Flag, Guns, the Bible, and the Wall, attacking “socialist” Democrats — this remains the likely way forward for Republicans.
The last serious and lasting “progressive” or “left” re-formulation of national American politics (not counting the Civil Rights Movement which was initially bi-partisan) was the New Deal. The likelihood that another liberal capitalist like FDR can arise and lead another transformational reform movement addressing “bread and butter” and structural economic issues ... is very small. The necessary domestic conditions simply do not exist. The likelihood that such a movement could be led by a real authoritarian leftist ... is far, far smaller.
Early on, even before the COVID pandemic hit the U.S. and while Trump was still playing footsie with XiJinping, I predicted Trump would use the “China issue” to beat up on Democrats. This issue is not going away. Nor can corporate “globalism” be replaced by national autarchy. Trade with India or South America, competition from Japan, Korea, even old Europe, these all have already tended to devastate wages for working people in the U.S.A. The rise of the Amazon / Walmart / high tech economy will continue to bifurcate wealth. Democrats may also play tough with China, but the Wall Street & Federal Reserve American Empire, like U.S. military dominance all over the world, is riddled with (not always obvious) weaknesses. Protectionism, U.S. sanctions against competitors (easily redefined as “enemies”) and refusal to abandon our existing world supremacy, will almost certainly lead the U.S. into conflicts with China and other powers, and all the old nationalist madness will return. It will smooth the way for an elected, popular, rightwing authoritarian to take power.
