By Michael Brendan Dougherty
Friday, August 28, 2020
Even when President Trump seems to defect from his 2016
agenda, or speak out of both sides of his mouth, everyone knows what “Trumpism”
is, or what it would be in someone else’s hands: A focus on regaining
manufacturing jobs, particularly those that bolster strategically important
skills such as advanced engineering; the abandonment of efforts to transform
the Middle East; and the acknowledgement of Americans as citizens rather than
mere consumers.
A little more than four years ago, I
wrote that I had been waiting for a nationalist, populist course correction
in the GOP. I wanted a candidate to tell the truth about our failed wars in the
Middle East. I wanted a candidate who would speak bluntly about how China was
using the international system we built and maintained to rip us off — how the
CCP and American elites were engaged in a relationship that degraded the
American worker, de-skilled the American workforce, and empowered the Chinese
Communist Party. And I wanted a candidate who would defy the elite consensus
that favored mass immigration.
Unfortunately, when that candidate arrived, it was Donald
Trump. I was, as the title of the piece in question put it, “For Trumpism,
against Donald Trump.” I wrote that I “simply don’t trust him.”
This produced grief. The partisans who had previously
held me to be a deviationist, a heretic, or possibly a wrecker from the other
side, were now all-in on my ideas, because they were all-in on Trump, and
couldn’t tolerate personal opposition to the man. For the Never Trumpers,
meanwhile, opposing the man wasn’t enough; I had to abominate all the ideas
too, because Trump was their champion. And worst of all, there were the smart,
tough, long-term friends, mentors, and peers with whom I’d diverged. Sometimes
the things I thought of as Trump’s vices, they saw as virtues. Sometimes they
just saw the risks of Trump as more tolerable than I did.
One of those in the latter group, Michael Anton, wrote
almost exactly four years ago the unapologetically pro-Trump essay that people
on the right were waiting to read. “The Flight 93 Election” became a sensation.
In some ways, Anton went right for the jugular of those with precisely my
tendency toward “Pollyanna-ish declinism,” as he put it — those who recognized
the revolutionary mendacity of the Left but were unwilling to vote for the
candidate who, alone, had identified the big issues and possessed both the
confidence to offend the regnant taboos and the charismatic persona to
electrify a winning coalition of voters. “The alleged buffoon is thus more
prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly
oppose him,” he wrote. For him, it was the necessity of Trumpism that made
support of Trump obligatory.
I had the chance to meet Anton later on, during his time
working in the Trump White House. I saw how he served the president in what was
really a lion’s den, surrounded by veterans of prior administrations of both
parties. They were universally hostile to Anton and to Trump, but also, in many
ways, pathetically anxious and needy, looking to the former for any scrap of
usable intelligence on the latter, his thinking, and the direction of his
administration. Many of these people had moved from politics into finance or
consulting. Normally, they would have had connections in the White House
regardless of which party controlled it. That they didn’t in this White House
was hurting their market value tangibly. In many ways, the experience confirmed
my worst suspicions about the state of things.
Over these four years, almost everyone has shifted
somehow, bending slightly in the prevailing wind, or becoming totally
radicalized. Never Trumpers who once counseled a pro-life duty to vote Romney
now hold that pro-lifers have no obligation to vote for a Republican president.
Traditional movement conservatives who saw Trump frustrate less of their agenda
and advance more of it than they’d expected he would have warmed to him.
I sometimes think Anton and I are two of the only people
standing precisely in the same position as four years ago.
Anton has a new book coming, and in a preview he makes his best possible
case for Trump:
There’s little wrong with President
Trump that more Trump couldn’t solve. More populism. More nationalism. More
patriotism. More law and order. More full-throated advocacy for the neglected
American people, for the working class, for the Rust Belt and rural America,
for religious believers and law-abiding gun owners. More defense of free speech
against tech and corporate censorship and suppression, more support for his
voters when they or their interests are viciously attacked. In short, more
adherence to the 2016 agenda.
The only way to get more Trump is,
literally, to get more Trump.
Anton is for Trumpism, therefore for Trump. To him, the
power imbalance between the Left, which controls so many institutions, and the
Right, which occasionally fumbles toward using the lever of power it is elected
to exercise, threatens the existence of the Republic, which needs some
principle of unity. As he sees it, there is nobody more competent waiting in
the wings to advance the Trumpist agenda. The failures of the administration he
attributes to the near-unified opposition of an entrenched and corrupt
bureaucracy, unremitting hostility from the Left-captured institutions, and the
indifference of Trump’s own nominal co-partisans. He sees the alternative to
Trump to be the destruction of our ideals, and national decline. In the 1980s,
conservatives who felt that the Beltway was hindering and compromising Ronald
Reagan used to say, “Let Reagan be Reagan.” I take Anton to be saying, “Let
Trump be Trump.”
It is true, in many ways, that Trump does not have a
party, but he does have the presidency. So I would counter Anton by attributing
the failings of the Trump administration to the man himself. He said
that transgender persons would not serve in the military; he was countermanded
from below. He announced that the troops were coming home from
Afghanistan and Syria; those orders were reversed too. If he can’t or won’t
discipline the underlings who have so thwarted him time and again, that is his
own fault. To be successful, a president needs not only an agenda, but the
skill to bend the government into executing it which he so obviously lacks.
Anton says that we need “a party actively opposed to the
program of the ruling class.” I agree. “If the Republican Party can become
that,” he adds, “all to the good. If it can’t, it should go out of business.” I
agree with that, too. I just apply the lesson, “If it can’t, it should go” to
the man at the top as well. We should stop wasting time, political capital, and
the trust of voters in the vain hope that the next four years will be
different. Let someone else be Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment