Explaining Trumpism

Robert Kagan, Neo-Conservative Analyst from Brookings, who worked in the State Department under President Reagan and has advised Republican and Democratic officials on foreign policy ever since argues persuasively that the rise of Trump is rooted in what Republican Party leadership has been teaching its members for a long time.  Kagan asks…

“Was it not the party’s wild obstructionism…the insistence that compromise was betrayal…the party’s accommodation to and exploitation of the bigotry in its ranks…the Obama hatred, a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified…that taught Republican voters that government…even parties themselves were things to be overthrown, evaded, ignored, insulted, laughed at?”

And he concludes that…

“…Trump’s legion of “angry” people…are angry about all the things Republicans have told them to be angry about these past 7½ years…”

Here is Kagan’s full commentary from the Washington Post, arguing that party elites have been saturating communication channels with a public pedagogy for at least a decade designed to teach Republicans that obstruction is patriotic and that leadership by insult and ridicule is at the core of their brand.

Ramesh Ponnuru, Senior Editor at the conservative National Review, disagrees with Kagan (sort of) and his critique appeared in today’s Akron Beacon Journal.

Ponnuru appears to agree with Kagan’s point at a very general level, beginning his response with this…

“Robert Kagan, a neoconservative writer, has a theory about Donald Trump: He has risen to the top of the Republican field because the party has taught its members to value obstruction and hate President Barack Obama.”

Ponnuru then argues that the closer we look at Kagan’s claim ‘the less plausible is appears.’ Ponnuru argues that because Trump had not called for the nullification of Supreme Court decisions (and Kagan uses that as one illustration of the public pedagogy from Republican leaders these past 7 years), therefore Kagan’s claim is less plausible.  But Kagan is illustrating obstructionism, not arguing each specific illustration is now part of the Trump campaign.

Conclusion:  Ponnuru’s critique is beside the point here.

Ponnuru then argues if party obstructionism is the explanation why is Trump’s central campaign claim that he is a deal maker?  This critique makes sense only if we ignore the context of Trump’s retreat to ‘I am a deal maker,’ since his deal maker claim appears in order to silence uncomfortable questions and to grind conversation to a halt…that is, as a form of obstructionism that is based on a phony record of business success.

Conclusion: Ponnuru’s critique here misses the point.

Ponnuru then argues that exit polls show Trump’s coalition is not limited to angry white middle-aged men.  This is a good point, because it shows that the threat posed by Trump is more serious than originally expected.  But the fact that Trump’s coalition extends beyond angry white middle-aged men is not an argument again Kagan’s claim that the rise of Trump is rooted in the party’s efforts to teach its members to obstruct and hate the president.

Conclusion:  Ponnuru adds helpful data here, but the data reinforces Kagan’s claim.  It does not challenge it.

This situation creates a dilemma.  The very Republican party elites many are now hoping, often demanding, will step in to stop Trump are also those most responsible for creating the toxic political culture that has now made the threat of a Trump presidency possible.

This is an opportunity to put country first.  Yes, it would be a satisfying ‘just deserts’ experience to watch the self-destruction of the party that has put party before country in order to prevent the first African-American president from helping American families. 

This, however, would be us putting party before country by failing to join forces to stop a dangerous and divisive bigot from getting one step closer to the White House.

I hope the rise of Trump becomes the spark that finally brings the adults in the room together to reject the Tea Party occupation of the House and McConnell obstructionism in the Senate to coalesce…Democrat and Republican…around preventing another episode of a house divided.