"The election of Donald Trump is neither a return to totalitarianism nor the establishment of a tyranny. It reveals an internal malaise in liberal democracies, whose elites have been unable to prevent either social fatigue or cultural fragmentation. Trump is less the creator than the product of a state of mind: that of a people defying its institutions, doubting its elites, yearning for a return to a mythical grandeur. He embodies the eruption of a populism that values immediacy over mediation, emotion over reason, denunciation over deliberation. His practice of power manifests an indifference not only to factual truth, but to the demand for coherence that underpins democratic credibility. In this respect, Trump is not ushering in a new era; he is accentuating the pathologies that threaten all aging democracies: the retreat of rational debate, the substitution of spectacle for politics, the extreme personalization of power.
In international affairs, Donald Trump claims a realism that, by profession, I consider necessary. He rightly reminds us that states defend their interests first and foremost, not moral abstractions. However, his realism is instinctive rather than considered, tactical rather than strategic. By favoring withdrawal, weakening alliances and calling multilateral commitments into question without a clear alternative, he confuses the defense of national interests with short-sightedness. In the long term, this ill-informed realism risks undermining what it claims to protect: the power and influence of the United States in the world.
Donald Trump is neither a dictator in the making, nor a revolutionary. He is the most striking symptom of the fragilities of a democracy which, tired of itself, finds in the refusal of complexity an illusory restoration of its sovereignty."
What do you think of this journalist's analysis of Trump?
Donald Trump represents the fragility of democracy? That's a weak conclusion, considering that his is a reflection of the majority rule. But yes, I agree that the majority of people were tired of political institutions and found it refreshing that he spoke his mind, as we all do.
Disagree with lack of strategy though -- he has been thinking of running for President since 1980, and watched our culture get progressively weakened by political correctness, man hating, catering to the whims of a few, and selling ourselves out abroad. As a businessman, he's simply insulted by the way the woke does business.
In international affairs, I think he is more transactional than the left. If he says something "off the wall," he's probably got a reason for it that may not be obvious but is tactical and strategic. You can't fault him for this -- who else is going to think of the "business of America" besides someone who rose to the top in the American business world?
I generally agree with that analysis. It's pretty even handed. The only part I disagree with is this: "His practice of power manifests an indifference not only to factual truth, but to the demand for coherence that underpins democratic credibility. In this respect, Trump is not ushering in a new era; he is accentuating the pathologies that threaten all aging democracies: the retreat of rational debate, the substitution of spectacle for politics, the extreme personalization of power."
I think that this not only misses the crux of the issue, but ignores the fundamental idea that brought Trump to power twice. This line is even in contradiction with the Journalist's own writing, where they go on to acknowledge Trump's realism in foreign policy.
Trump was elected, specifically because the public has realized how badly the establishment has been lying to them. In response, Trump has not only affirmed what people are experiencing, he has highlighted specifically why those experiences are happening.
The cult of personality element of Trump's political image is in simple contrast to the formless blob that so much of liberal democracy has become. Trump simply has a form.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
15 d
There are some true words in it, but not many. They appear in about the same frequency one would expect if they threw pasta at the wall to see what would end up sticking. A typical "analysis" of American politics from a French "journalist".
Speaking of typical French, I find this attitude is quite typically the French. --> "I have absolutely no confidence in the common sense of most people"
After that I thought It was mostly following a false trail. It is a framework that might be helpful in some respects but not all.
I might see current as a divide in the track and being about choosing the best branch from the worst branch. I'm not saying I do but I think it might be more accurate.
On the left hand branch, if a man feels feminine then it is OK for him to compete in women's sports and punch women in the face in boxing. On the right hand branch, that is just ludicrous crap.
That is a trivial example but I think it is more like that. 'Holy Shit we can't keep on doing this' judgments.
Despite populism being routinely disparaged, that is the very essence of democracy. Elitism is about suppressing and not allowing popular politics. I think the passage should be read from both an elitist view and populist view to assess it.
Over all though I trust in the great common sense of the common people.
That's a big difference between you and me haha. I have absolutely no confidence in the common sense of most people. Even less to judge a policy and its consequences.
"Universal suffrage as it exists is stupider than divine right. You'll see some great ones if you let it live! The mass, the number, is always stupid. I don't have many convictions. But I have this one, strongly. But we must respect the mass, however inept it may be, because it contains the seeds of incalculable fecundity. Give them freedom, but not power. " Flaubert
It is not that I am insensible to the deficiencies. The majority clearly vote for additional benefits for themselves and will keep on doing so no matter how unaffordable policies might be.
The fault line is quite possibly between the elite mostly running things most of the time and the great unwashed rebelling at the ballot box.. Putting it nicely we could see it as a check and a balance.
Ballot box rebellions are somewhat `traumatic and occur when the elite get the balance badly wrong in my thinking..
The problem is that people complain about the elites, but they're the ones who put the elites in place. And most people don't even know the political and economic consequences they're voting for.
Let me give you a concrete example. In Europe many people criticize the European Union, and the fact that there are many technocrats in this EU who are not elected, and impose regulations on us that we don't want.
That's fine, but they vote for representatives who are pro-EU and therefore approve of the way the EU works. You can't complain about a system if you vote for people who clearly state their ambition to continue that system.
Far from "You can't complain about a system if you vote for...", that is exactly what real voters do do. They are possibly forced into least worst choices.
As classic labor parties have transitioned into progressive parties, they have taken their industrial base for granted and long assumed "They have nowhere else to go". Sometimes the heartland doesn't see it that way and progressives get their feelings hurt.
Progressive parties have a broad church with conflicting interests. Green policies and manufacturing policies clearly have oppositional aspects for example.
Trump is peeling off big unions and it shouldn't have been a surprise.
"people defying its institutions, doubting its elites, yearning for a return to a mythical grandeur. He embodies the eruption of a populism that values immediacy over mediation, emotion over reason, denunciation over deliberation."
Sadly not new, similar in structure with the far-right we know of in France: Disdain for science and traditional medias, glorification of a single mind over collective building. I wonder if these traits would have appeared without internet deployment, as it provides such a great infrastructure to put immediacy on a pedestal.
Though populism can be left-handed too, reliance on immediacy is very tempting on the other side of the spectrum as well. I FEEL IT, I'M ATTRACTED ! 🙄
This is an accurate take on what the causes of Trumpism. He's spotted a niche and a frustration that populism seems to thrive on, that of base prejudices and poorly informed citizens who have been coerced into certain beliefs that there are particular entities responsible for individuals NOT getting to reach their goals in a manner they feel they are entitled to.
LOL It's a bunch of gobbly-gook that makes some good points about the underlying causes, but it confuses "malaise" with "ignorance by design".
The writer misleads the reader on one hand by suggesting " ..(the USA) defend (s) their interests first and foremost, not moral abstractions", but goes on to say "his ill-informed actions risk undermining what it claims to protect: the power and influence of the United States in the world."
While Scump is not throwing darts at a global dartboard, but he himself has no plan or understanding of what he's doing EXCEPT what he is told to do and say by the powers running P-2025. In that regard, he IS ushering in a new era, but it's still in progress and he's certainly NOT the architect; he's a convenient polarization force that 49% of people fell for.
19.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
He is partially right. However democrats are the disease and Trump is the cure. Americans are sick of the status quo. For decades American jobs were shipped overseas and American interests have been taking a back seat to all the backroom deals that go on in Washington. Trump is America's way of giving the big middle finger to the political elite. It is a testament to the government that out founders created.
Artsy-fartsy! If the democrats had left him alone his first term he would have drained the swamp and not hurt any of them. Except those tied to the swamp. Now they've created the monster that will destroy them all. Insider trading, embezzlement, and every fraudulent act committed by the guilty politician and buerocrat alike. 😅 It's going to be epic!
I'm skeptical that it is not "the establishment of a tyranny". If they are able to continue defying legal rulings then it will indeed be the establishment of a tyranny.
journalism: The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
Liberalism and socialism are condescending political policies meant to grow intrusive government masquerading as enlightened educated intellectualism. That's why Trump was elected.
I think it's garbage from his opposition designed to disguise its bias at some kind of intellectual revelation. Sounds typical of the Marxist mind manipulation strategy.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
