I credit Trump with a third initial insight: the political parties are mostly powerless concoctions of chicken wire and chewing gum, easily ignored and/or overcome. No amount of establishment disapproval could ever do him in, and all the times in 2016 that you'd hear people say that Republicans would stop him, or that he'd gone too far this time, were about a misunderstanding of where the power lies. (The other party is also made of chewing gum and chicken wire.)
This is an interesting take and it has certainly changed over time. In the past, the conventional wisdom in social science was "The Party Decides" theory, which has taken a beating after things have become less controllable in a top down fashion. If you'd like to read more, here's a book about it: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo5921600.html
I'm familiar with that and ime it really only matched reality in the past if we define 'party' to mean party and a whole lot of other, associated people.
The landscape is littered with early front-runners -- favorites of the party establishment -- who got knocked out by the force of a challenger's campaign. There was no reason to think in 1991 that it was going to be Bill Clinton (or in 1971 that it was going to be George McGovern) or in 2007 that it would be Barack Obama.
What Trump showed, conclusively, I think, is that if you had independent sources of support (free media especially) and a message that resonated with the party base, then all the elites horses etc wasn't going to matter.
Congrats on getting started here! This is a brilliant narrative of the psychology and empirical evidence on authoritarians. The past few years read like an Orwellian script
Thank you, Paul! And yes, I didn't think that I would end up having much expertise applicable to US politics when I long ago started on my PhD studying authoritarian regimes and the breakdown of democracy, but here we are...
Excellent article. Murdoch has already publicly pulled support from Trump. But I know what you were saying. Many people don't understand the power he wields and how incredibly dangerous he will be until either (a) he is in jail or (b) passed away. I feel like both the public and the media continue, over and over again, to underestimate him. Which is dangerous as well.
Thank you, Cindy - yes, I think there's going to be a battle within the GOP, with the elites trying to corral the base toward someone who is less destructive. But there is a huge chunk of the base that will not be swayed. It's certainly plausible that Trump finally fades into the background, but he's a narcissist, so I can't see him going willingly, and his base will fight to keep him center stage, which is just where he likes to be.
I totally agree with you. His need for attention will continue to spur him to do things to stay in the limelight, no matter what the repercussions are. He has no conscious. That's why I don't think the danger will pass until he's gone. I said prison or death. But, to be honest, I think death will be the only way. While in prison, there is still a great deal he could do. And it doesn't look like he is going to prison.
I think there are two issues here. One is whether he can command majority support of the GOP. That’s the most dangerous option. The other is that he maintains command over an increasingly deranged, extremist core of MAGA diehards, which still number in the tens of millions. For winning power, you need command of the GOP. But to wreak havoc, having a loyal following of millions would be sufficient.
I have no doubt he can remain control and continue to be supported by the extremists. And it's odd to me that everyone forgets to keep mentioning his assistance from Russia. I've long known that Russia has provided Trump with tons of support for a while. In many different ways. That's partly why I say we may not get rid of the danger until Trump passes away. Unless Russia can find another GOP to manipulate to doing whatever they want. I suspect Trump isn't the only GOP that Russia tries to control and use.
I think one thing that Trump did well, unlike any other US politician before him, was his ability to control his narrative, shape his story and use easily understood slogans to amplify his messages and build his cult. He’s a genius (according to him). He backs this up (he went to Wharton). But from a marketing standpoint, I think he may be right?
I think he is a genius at appealing to our lizard brains -- the bits of us that are easily swayed by simple narratives, us/them logic, and some of our basest impulses. I think he would be far more effective if he were disciplined, but his narcissism usually undercuts that.
I mean effective in terms of outcomes. Maintaining a political base that's part of a cult of personality is easy once you've developed it. Getting actual legislation passed to build a wall is harder than getting people to chant "Build the Wall."
Congratulations, Brian! Wishing you a smooth sailing ahead.
Thank you! Well-written and thoughtful piece. Someday I hope to upgrade to PAID. You deserve it!
Great piece here! My Republican husband applauds your work!!
I credit Trump with a third initial insight: the political parties are mostly powerless concoctions of chicken wire and chewing gum, easily ignored and/or overcome. No amount of establishment disapproval could ever do him in, and all the times in 2016 that you'd hear people say that Republicans would stop him, or that he'd gone too far this time, were about a misunderstanding of where the power lies. (The other party is also made of chewing gum and chicken wire.)
This is an interesting take and it has certainly changed over time. In the past, the conventional wisdom in social science was "The Party Decides" theory, which has taken a beating after things have become less controllable in a top down fashion. If you'd like to read more, here's a book about it: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo5921600.html
I'm familiar with that and ime it really only matched reality in the past if we define 'party' to mean party and a whole lot of other, associated people.
The landscape is littered with early front-runners -- favorites of the party establishment -- who got knocked out by the force of a challenger's campaign. There was no reason to think in 1991 that it was going to be Bill Clinton (or in 1971 that it was going to be George McGovern) or in 2007 that it would be Barack Obama.
What Trump showed, conclusively, I think, is that if you had independent sources of support (free media especially) and a message that resonated with the party base, then all the elites horses etc wasn't going to matter.
Welcome to Substack!
Congrats on getting started here! This is a brilliant narrative of the psychology and empirical evidence on authoritarians. The past few years read like an Orwellian script
Thank you, Paul! And yes, I didn't think that I would end up having much expertise applicable to US politics when I long ago started on my PhD studying authoritarian regimes and the breakdown of democracy, but here we are...
Excellent article. Murdoch has already publicly pulled support from Trump. But I know what you were saying. Many people don't understand the power he wields and how incredibly dangerous he will be until either (a) he is in jail or (b) passed away. I feel like both the public and the media continue, over and over again, to underestimate him. Which is dangerous as well.
Thank you, Cindy - yes, I think there's going to be a battle within the GOP, with the elites trying to corral the base toward someone who is less destructive. But there is a huge chunk of the base that will not be swayed. It's certainly plausible that Trump finally fades into the background, but he's a narcissist, so I can't see him going willingly, and his base will fight to keep him center stage, which is just where he likes to be.
I totally agree with you. His need for attention will continue to spur him to do things to stay in the limelight, no matter what the repercussions are. He has no conscious. That's why I don't think the danger will pass until he's gone. I said prison or death. But, to be honest, I think death will be the only way. While in prison, there is still a great deal he could do. And it doesn't look like he is going to prison.
I think there are two issues here. One is whether he can command majority support of the GOP. That’s the most dangerous option. The other is that he maintains command over an increasingly deranged, extremist core of MAGA diehards, which still number in the tens of millions. For winning power, you need command of the GOP. But to wreak havoc, having a loyal following of millions would be sufficient.
I have no doubt he can remain control and continue to be supported by the extremists. And it's odd to me that everyone forgets to keep mentioning his assistance from Russia. I've long known that Russia has provided Trump with tons of support for a while. In many different ways. That's partly why I say we may not get rid of the danger until Trump passes away. Unless Russia can find another GOP to manipulate to doing whatever they want. I suspect Trump isn't the only GOP that Russia tries to control and use.
I think one thing that Trump did well, unlike any other US politician before him, was his ability to control his narrative, shape his story and use easily understood slogans to amplify his messages and build his cult. He’s a genius (according to him). He backs this up (he went to Wharton). But from a marketing standpoint, I think he may be right?
I think he is a genius at appealing to our lizard brains -- the bits of us that are easily swayed by simple narratives, us/them logic, and some of our basest impulses. I think he would be far more effective if he were disciplined, but his narcissism usually undercuts that.
But there’s also a case for his less disciplined approach appealing to his non-PC base, I think?
I mean effective in terms of outcomes. Maintaining a political base that's part of a cult of personality is easy once you've developed it. Getting actual legislation passed to build a wall is harder than getting people to chant "Build the Wall."