Trump failed to destroy democracy. But he exposed flaws that demand attention.
Among the threats to the American political system you fail to mention were the weaponizing of the FBI/CIA and organization of the "Resistance" against a duly elected President, albeit severely flawed. This "Resistance" filled the NYT/WaPo with daily false reports of Russian conspiracy then perpetrated and threatened further violence in American cities unless it got its' way. Is there no intellectual space to acknowledge BOTH that Trump was unsuited for the Presidency AND that the much opposition to him was underhanded, deceitful and undemocratic?
As for disenfranchisement of women voters - "Historically, too many citizens have been excluded from political participation because of race or gender . . .", I recommend that you check your facts before writing 'woke truth'. Women have been voting in higher percentages then men in presidential elections for the past 40 years, cf. Historical Reporting Rates in US Census.
Lastly, I disagree that the Electoral College is a flaw. Much like the structure of the Senate, it was designed to limit political domination by large urban centers of the mostly rural rest of the US. I can think of few better ways to promote dissolution of the US than the elimination of barriers to tyranny of the majority by elimination of the Electoral College, packing the Supreme Court (and the Senate), and elimination of the Senate filibuster. What possible motive would there ever be for compromise with minority views?
One of the questions your article begs so vehemently is the scope of "Trumpism". To the extent it includes the antithesis of Nixon's approach to China, supporting legal immigration (which necessarily means creating strong disincentives to illegal immigration), banning overtly racist "sensitivity" training based on Critical Race Theory, and favoring low regulation/low taxation as the best means of supporting an economy faltering hard as a result of COVID-19, then you're going to have a hard time finding conservatives who will disavow it. To the extent, in contrast, you intend it to be limited to constantly divisive non-factual rhetoric, disrespecting almost every political institution in the United States (the presidency most of all), refusing to negotiate and compromise with political opponents for the good of the country, and failing to provide even a modicum of leadership on COVID-19 and racial strife, then I think you will find a welter of conservative support. Put differently, "Trumpism" sometimes is broadened to include traditionally conservative policies that are not going to be abandoned solely because Trump supported them.
Four days ago, the Persuasion staff asked Teixeira the key question “Did the woke help Trump?” This post omits wokeness and attributes success first to “urban college-educated liberals,” and second to minorities.
These urban liberals did vote for Biden, but according to Teixeira the woke helped Trump by branding the Democrats with “defund and abolish the police” wokeness. Of course, the woke are mostly “urban college-educated liberals.”
(Also according to Teixeira, “The bigger movement was a reduction of the deficit among White non-college voters.”)
A new post on The Hill says wokeness explains the two huge surprises of this election: Biden barely squeaked by, and the Democrats did considerably worse than Biden. I can’t say how accurate it is, but it’s worth reading.