If I remember correctly, in the 1960's, the CIA wrote some papers about countries who converted from Authoritarianism to Democracy and that the process took at least 20 years and was usually the most violent and bloodiest period of that country's history. To my mind, this process took so long because it was fundamentally a generational process; the old generation that understood "the old way" of doing things needed to pass away (and their old way of doing things) before a new generation rose up to be able to trust the new process (and the new way of doing things).
As for Trump, everything he is accusing anyone else of doing is a pathological self-own because he accuses everyone else of exactly what he is trying to do. He says "the Dems are trying to rig the elections" -- except that is exactly what *he* is trying to do.
This Orwellian up-is-down and down-is-up will take years to fix. Might I guess at least 20?
But maybe we should take it a step further, in that this Orwellian frame of mind is shared by the new Axis of Evil (Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, etc) and pushed very hard by them. Our globalized world has made these into universal and connected problems.
Globalization is creating a mono-culture and the weaknesses of mono-cultures are known. Are we making another run at leaping the barrier to a more fully globalized world? It would seem to me that every time we have tried this before it has ended in a war. (Not that I am against globalization.)
Fundamentally, Trump is not smart enough to be *the* cause for any of this, he is merely the opportunistic figurehead for a lot of other people. And, given this strain of thought has existed to various degrees for *many decades* (e.g. Lindburg in the 1920's) I don't think it's going to go away without a significant shock to stomp it down. I think a case could be made that this reactionary population is one tail of the bell curve and will always be with us. But social media has given them a voice and a community to draw on.
I pray God will help us beat back the Christian Nationalists. ;-)
Trump has indeed eroded trust, but pre-Trump erosion of trust, especially related to official handling of 2008-2009 crisis, opened the door for Trump. Official response to COVID has contributed as well, confirming for many that once-trusted sectors like public health are suspect.
Following up with this question to ChatGPT: Given that an inability to trust underlies the tendency of narcissists to need to control everything by force, to what extent do you think the illiberal extremes elements within both the left and right seek power by undermining trust generally in society and perversely benefit one another at the expense of those on the left and right who adhere to classical liberal principles.
What you’re proposing—a nuanced relationship between classical liberalism, illiberalism, and left-right political alignments—offers a rich framework for analyzing political dynamics. Let’s explore how illiberalism and narcissistic tendencies can manifest across the ideological spectrum, considering your idea that these tendencies are overt on the right and covert on the left.
1. Orthogonal Axes: Classical Liberalism vs. Illiberalism
You are suggesting that the left-right political spectrum (progressive vs. conservative) is distinct from the liberal-illiberal axis, which centers on adherence to principles like fairness, individual rights, reciprocity, and generosity. Classical liberalism—defined by its commitment to these ideals—can thus exist on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
Conversely, illiberalism, which includes tendencies toward autocracy, authoritarianism, and control, can also occur on both sides. This illiberalism, however, may take different forms:
• On the right, illiberal tendencies may manifest as fascism, nationalism, or authoritarian leadership that overtly emphasizes control and exclusion.
• On the left, illiberalism often expresses itself in more covert forms, such as paternalism, ideological purity tests, or moral authoritarianism in the name of progress.
2. The Narcissism Parallel: Overt vs. Covert Illiberalism
Your analogy between overt and covert narcissism fits well into this model. Just as overt narcissists (like Donald Trump) seek attention and control through grandiosity and aggression, right-wing illiberalism is more overt:
• Leaders and movements openly pursue power, promote hierarchical structures, and justify their actions through ideas of national strength or cultural supremacy.
On the other hand, left-wing illiberalism can be more covert, masking authoritarian impulses under the guise of benevolence, inclusion, or equality:
• This may manifest through excessive control of speech and thought (e.g., “cancel culture” or strict ideological conformity), where the rhetoric of progress or justice serves as a cover for dominance and exclusion.
In both cases, the common denominator is a narcissistic need for control—either by demanding submission through brute force or by manipulating social norms in subtle ways.
3. Left and Right Illiberalism in Action
• Right-leaning illiberalism:
• Fascism, authoritarian populism, or nationalism. These systems often emphasize strength, hierarchy, and exclusion. Control is maintained through fear and force.
• Example: Autocratic leaders like Viktor Orbán or Jair Bolsonaro openly pursue nationalist policies and consolidate power under personal authority.
• Left-leaning illiberalism:
• Illiberal tendencies on the left may involve intolerance for dissent within progressive movements or the imposition of rigid ideological frameworks. Here, the rhetoric focuses on collective good or justice, but it can suppress individual autonomy or pluralism.
• Example: Authoritarian actions by leftist governments, such as in Venezuela, or forms of moral authoritarianism in Western democracies, where strict adherence to social or environmental causes becomes a new orthodoxy.
4. Classical Liberalism as a Counterweight
Classical liberalism—centered on individual rights, fairness, and reciprocity—can act as a counterbalance to illiberal tendencies on both sides. In healthy democracies, these principles prevent both:
• The exclusionary excesses of right-wing illiberalism.
• The paternalistic authoritarianism on the left.
However, as political systems polarize, the liberal middle ground may shrink, and the illiberal tendencies on either side can become more prominent—mirroring overt and covert narcissistic behaviors as you’ve described.
5. Conclusion: A Complex Political Landscape
In your framework, illiberalism on the right manifests overtly, drawing attention to itself through aggressive control and dominance. On the left, illiberalism may hide under progressive rhetoric, masking control with benevolence and moral superiority. Both are forms of political narcissism—one blatant, the other subtle—reflecting a common struggle for power at the expense of individual freedom and fairness.
This analysis underscores the importance of classical liberal values as a stabilizing force, ensuring that neither the right nor the left slips too far into illiberalism. Recognizing these dynamics is crucial to fostering healthier democracies that uphold the principles of freedom, fairness, and reciprocity across the ideological spectrum.
Question to ChatGPT: In my view, the progressive conservative spectrum is orthogonal to the axis of what I refer to as classic liberalism, embodying the principles of fairness, individual rights, generosity and reciprocation, which are present across the ideological left-right spectrum. However, illiberalism, autocracy, fascism are orthogonal to the left-right spectrum and what I refer to as illiberal tendencies on either the left or the right could be equated to narcissism. However, that narcissism tends to be more overt in the right illiberal quadrant and more covert in the left illiberal quadrant.
Your insight about the relationship between trust, control, and illiberalism touches on important dynamics within political psychology and society. Illiberal extremes on both the left and right do often seek power by undermining trust in institutions, norms, and fellow citizens. This erosion of trust makes individuals more vulnerable to manipulation and control, creating opportunities for authoritarian elements to flourish.
1. The Role of Trust in Classical Liberal Societies
In societies governed by classical liberal principles, trust serves as a crucial foundation. Social trust—the belief that others will act fairly and institutions will uphold the rule of law—allows people to cooperate across political differences and reduces the need for coercive control. This trust supports the principles of:
• Fairness: People believe that outcomes, even if not perfect, are generally just.
• Individual autonomy: Citizens feel empowered to make their own choices without fear of betrayal or manipulation.
• Reciprocity: There is a shared expectation that acts of goodwill will be returned, fostering social cohesion.
Without trust, these liberal ideals crumble, and people become more susceptible to authoritarian leaders promising stability through control.
2. How Illiberal Extremes Undermine Trust
A. Eroding Institutional Trust
Both illiberal movements on the right and left frequently sow distrust in institutions:
• Right-wing illiberals often attack democratic institutions, accusing them of corruption or betrayal (e.g., populist leaders claiming electoral fraud or “deep state” conspiracies) .
• Left-wing illiberals may erode trust by framing institutions as inherently unjust or oppressive (e.g., claiming that existing legal frameworks perpetuate systemic racism or economic inequality) .
The effect is the same: polarization increases, and people lose faith in the very systems that underpin liberal democracies.
B. Promoting Distrust Among Citizens
These movements amplify divisions within society, encouraging citizens to view one another with suspicion:
• Right-wing narratives might portray certain groups (e.g., immigrants or minorities) as threats to social order.
• Left-wing narratives may portray individuals with privilege or opposing views as complicit in systemic injustice.
Both strategies fragment society into hostile factions, making cooperation and trust nearly impossible. As trust erodes, control through force, rules, or moral coercion becomes more necessary.
3. The Mutual Benefit of Extremes
Illiberal extremes on the left and right paradoxically benefit one another by reinforcing mutual distrust:
• Each extreme justifies its existence by pointing to the threat posed by the other. Right-wing illiberals use the perceived chaos of progressive movements to justify authoritarian measures, while left-wing illiberals point to the rise of right-wing authoritarianism as evidence that strict ideological conformity is necessary.
• This dynamic creates a feedback loop where both sides gain power by convincing citizens that they must surrender trust in others and rely instead on the movement’s authority or ideology.
4. Harm to Classical Liberals
Those who adhere to classical liberal principles—valuing openness, fairness, and individual autonomy—are often caught in the middle. They:
1. Reject the authoritarian impulses on both sides, which isolates them from illiberal factions.
2. Struggle to maintain trust when both extremes actively work to undermine it.
3. Become marginalized, as their commitment to dialogue and mutual respect is dismissed as naive or inadequate in the face of supposed existential threats posed by the other side.
In essence, the erosion of trust benefits illiberals at the expense of classical liberals, as people gravitate toward more authoritarian solutions in times of uncertainty.
5. Conclusion: A Call to Defend Trust
The mutual reinforcement of illiberal extremes poses a profound threat to the liberal order. Restoring trust—both in institutions and among citizens—is essential to resisting authoritarian tendencies. This involves:
• Protecting free expression and promoting dialogue, even with those we disagree with.
• Rebuilding faith in institutions through transparency and accountability.
• Fostering social trust by encouraging reciprocity and mutual respect across political lines.
If classical liberalism is to survive, it must actively counter the forces that thrive on distrust. Otherwise, the polarization and authoritarianism fostered by both illiberal extremes will continue to erode the principles that sustain open and free societies.
I am just not sure about this. Would you trust a society founded on slavery, resting on stolen land, and predicated on unnecessary rights, like the right to bear arms and the right to private property, while eschewing the truly essential rights, like a right to housing?
I suspect that the decline of legitimacy is always a team sport.
No man is an island. No man can possibly be an island. We live in a civilization with rules and standards of conduct. We *need* each other. Everything is a team sport to some degree. American rugged individualism is, at best, aspirational, at worst very corrosive. But it is an acknowledgment of our base human nature of competition. Our system harnesses these base needs, proscribes the excesses, and points them in constructive directions. The issue is not "how bad things were" but "look how good things are in spite of all that bad".
This is not just "rose colored glasses" and trying to move the goalposts.
Pessimism, at it's best, is a stop-loss viewpoint. But there is no up-side, no ability to gain, with a pessimistic view. Because, under a pessimistic view, no risk is taken, so there is no possibility of gain.
During the 20th century, several hundred million people were killed. Hitler was a light-weight compared to Stalin and Mao. Yet in spite of all that disaster and destruction, human longevity is up, technology is up, hunger is down, poverty is down, violence is down (until Putin pushed it up again).
Don't be captive to your own ethnocentrism and judge humanity by your view of the US. On the whole, humanity is on a huge rise. Pessimism is unfounded.
As some others have pointed out over time, this erosion of trust in our government goes back at least to our disastrous involvement in Vietnam, not so much because of the military disaster itself, but because of the consistent pattern of lies told by our government about its progress. The publishing of the Pentagon Papers and the Tet offensive blew the lid off of those lies, but did nothing to mitigate either the needless loss of lives (over 50,000 of my generation and the far greater Vietnamese losses) or the erosion of trust, particularly in the Johnson and Nixon administrations.
Nixon himself added to the increasing mistrust with both his notorious Southern Strategy and Watergate. Ford then failed to bring him to the bar, leaving a legacy of unfinished justice.
Ronald Reagan continued to erode that trust with his constant accusations of government overreach then with the Iran Contra debacle.
9/ll momentarily brought us together (as Pearl Harbor had done in another era of division), but G H W Bush and his successors and their generals then went back decieving us about both the reasons for and the process of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So Trump had a fertile field in which to spread his manure. I agree that of all the forces causing our mistrust of both government and each other he has been the most corrosive single force in our increasing polarization and mistrust; possibly the most corrosive force attributable to one man in our history. But we have to remember that he was and continues to be enabled by a political party which at least ever since Barry Goldwater’s campaign has worked to divide us and to erode trust in our institutions, whose leaders clearly recognized the threat Trump posed as soon as he came down that damned escalator, said so publicly, and then continued to bend the knee in their attempt to use him to further their own divisive agenda.
Behind and often below it all, the ongoing conservative reactions to Brown v Board, Roe v Wade, Engel v Vitale, Virgina v Loving, and Obergefell v Hodges have continued to divide us and further create mistrust and even hatred. Trump and his myrmidons have also been playing on that with skill.
As a former soldier, I am aware of a number of old phrases which IMO quite adequately describe this ongoing ---------, but I won’t repeat them here. I will only quote the cartoon character Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us."
If I remember correctly, in the 1960's, the CIA wrote some papers about countries who converted from Authoritarianism to Democracy and that the process took at least 20 years and was usually the most violent and bloodiest period of that country's history. To my mind, this process took so long because it was fundamentally a generational process; the old generation that understood "the old way" of doing things needed to pass away (and their old way of doing things) before a new generation rose up to be able to trust the new process (and the new way of doing things).
As for Trump, everything he is accusing anyone else of doing is a pathological self-own because he accuses everyone else of exactly what he is trying to do. He says "the Dems are trying to rig the elections" -- except that is exactly what *he* is trying to do.
This Orwellian up-is-down and down-is-up will take years to fix. Might I guess at least 20?
But maybe we should take it a step further, in that this Orwellian frame of mind is shared by the new Axis of Evil (Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, etc) and pushed very hard by them. Our globalized world has made these into universal and connected problems.
Globalization is creating a mono-culture and the weaknesses of mono-cultures are known. Are we making another run at leaping the barrier to a more fully globalized world? It would seem to me that every time we have tried this before it has ended in a war. (Not that I am against globalization.)
Fundamentally, Trump is not smart enough to be *the* cause for any of this, he is merely the opportunistic figurehead for a lot of other people. And, given this strain of thought has existed to various degrees for *many decades* (e.g. Lindburg in the 1920's) I don't think it's going to go away without a significant shock to stomp it down. I think a case could be made that this reactionary population is one tail of the bell curve and will always be with us. But social media has given them a voice and a community to draw on.
I pray God will help us beat back the Christian Nationalists. ;-)
Trump has indeed eroded trust, but pre-Trump erosion of trust, especially related to official handling of 2008-2009 crisis, opened the door for Trump. Official response to COVID has contributed as well, confirming for many that once-trusted sectors like public health are suspect.
Following up with this question to ChatGPT: Given that an inability to trust underlies the tendency of narcissists to need to control everything by force, to what extent do you think the illiberal extremes elements within both the left and right seek power by undermining trust generally in society and perversely benefit one another at the expense of those on the left and right who adhere to classical liberal principles.
What you’re proposing—a nuanced relationship between classical liberalism, illiberalism, and left-right political alignments—offers a rich framework for analyzing political dynamics. Let’s explore how illiberalism and narcissistic tendencies can manifest across the ideological spectrum, considering your idea that these tendencies are overt on the right and covert on the left.
1. Orthogonal Axes: Classical Liberalism vs. Illiberalism
You are suggesting that the left-right political spectrum (progressive vs. conservative) is distinct from the liberal-illiberal axis, which centers on adherence to principles like fairness, individual rights, reciprocity, and generosity. Classical liberalism—defined by its commitment to these ideals—can thus exist on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
Conversely, illiberalism, which includes tendencies toward autocracy, authoritarianism, and control, can also occur on both sides. This illiberalism, however, may take different forms:
• On the right, illiberal tendencies may manifest as fascism, nationalism, or authoritarian leadership that overtly emphasizes control and exclusion.
• On the left, illiberalism often expresses itself in more covert forms, such as paternalism, ideological purity tests, or moral authoritarianism in the name of progress.
2. The Narcissism Parallel: Overt vs. Covert Illiberalism
Your analogy between overt and covert narcissism fits well into this model. Just as overt narcissists (like Donald Trump) seek attention and control through grandiosity and aggression, right-wing illiberalism is more overt:
• Leaders and movements openly pursue power, promote hierarchical structures, and justify their actions through ideas of national strength or cultural supremacy.
On the other hand, left-wing illiberalism can be more covert, masking authoritarian impulses under the guise of benevolence, inclusion, or equality:
• This may manifest through excessive control of speech and thought (e.g., “cancel culture” or strict ideological conformity), where the rhetoric of progress or justice serves as a cover for dominance and exclusion.
In both cases, the common denominator is a narcissistic need for control—either by demanding submission through brute force or by manipulating social norms in subtle ways.
3. Left and Right Illiberalism in Action
• Right-leaning illiberalism:
• Fascism, authoritarian populism, or nationalism. These systems often emphasize strength, hierarchy, and exclusion. Control is maintained through fear and force.
• Example: Autocratic leaders like Viktor Orbán or Jair Bolsonaro openly pursue nationalist policies and consolidate power under personal authority.
• Left-leaning illiberalism:
• Illiberal tendencies on the left may involve intolerance for dissent within progressive movements or the imposition of rigid ideological frameworks. Here, the rhetoric focuses on collective good or justice, but it can suppress individual autonomy or pluralism.
• Example: Authoritarian actions by leftist governments, such as in Venezuela, or forms of moral authoritarianism in Western democracies, where strict adherence to social or environmental causes becomes a new orthodoxy.
4. Classical Liberalism as a Counterweight
Classical liberalism—centered on individual rights, fairness, and reciprocity—can act as a counterbalance to illiberal tendencies on both sides. In healthy democracies, these principles prevent both:
• The exclusionary excesses of right-wing illiberalism.
• The paternalistic authoritarianism on the left.
However, as political systems polarize, the liberal middle ground may shrink, and the illiberal tendencies on either side can become more prominent—mirroring overt and covert narcissistic behaviors as you’ve described.
5. Conclusion: A Complex Political Landscape
In your framework, illiberalism on the right manifests overtly, drawing attention to itself through aggressive control and dominance. On the left, illiberalism may hide under progressive rhetoric, masking control with benevolence and moral superiority. Both are forms of political narcissism—one blatant, the other subtle—reflecting a common struggle for power at the expense of individual freedom and fairness.
This analysis underscores the importance of classical liberal values as a stabilizing force, ensuring that neither the right nor the left slips too far into illiberalism. Recognizing these dynamics is crucial to fostering healthier democracies that uphold the principles of freedom, fairness, and reciprocity across the ideological spectrum.
Question to ChatGPT: In my view, the progressive conservative spectrum is orthogonal to the axis of what I refer to as classic liberalism, embodying the principles of fairness, individual rights, generosity and reciprocation, which are present across the ideological left-right spectrum. However, illiberalism, autocracy, fascism are orthogonal to the left-right spectrum and what I refer to as illiberal tendencies on either the left or the right could be equated to narcissism. However, that narcissism tends to be more overt in the right illiberal quadrant and more covert in the left illiberal quadrant.
Your insight about the relationship between trust, control, and illiberalism touches on important dynamics within political psychology and society. Illiberal extremes on both the left and right do often seek power by undermining trust in institutions, norms, and fellow citizens. This erosion of trust makes individuals more vulnerable to manipulation and control, creating opportunities for authoritarian elements to flourish.
1. The Role of Trust in Classical Liberal Societies
In societies governed by classical liberal principles, trust serves as a crucial foundation. Social trust—the belief that others will act fairly and institutions will uphold the rule of law—allows people to cooperate across political differences and reduces the need for coercive control. This trust supports the principles of:
• Fairness: People believe that outcomes, even if not perfect, are generally just.
• Individual autonomy: Citizens feel empowered to make their own choices without fear of betrayal or manipulation.
• Reciprocity: There is a shared expectation that acts of goodwill will be returned, fostering social cohesion.
Without trust, these liberal ideals crumble, and people become more susceptible to authoritarian leaders promising stability through control.
2. How Illiberal Extremes Undermine Trust
A. Eroding Institutional Trust
Both illiberal movements on the right and left frequently sow distrust in institutions:
• Right-wing illiberals often attack democratic institutions, accusing them of corruption or betrayal (e.g., populist leaders claiming electoral fraud or “deep state” conspiracies) .
• Left-wing illiberals may erode trust by framing institutions as inherently unjust or oppressive (e.g., claiming that existing legal frameworks perpetuate systemic racism or economic inequality) .
The effect is the same: polarization increases, and people lose faith in the very systems that underpin liberal democracies.
B. Promoting Distrust Among Citizens
These movements amplify divisions within society, encouraging citizens to view one another with suspicion:
• Right-wing narratives might portray certain groups (e.g., immigrants or minorities) as threats to social order.
• Left-wing narratives may portray individuals with privilege or opposing views as complicit in systemic injustice.
Both strategies fragment society into hostile factions, making cooperation and trust nearly impossible. As trust erodes, control through force, rules, or moral coercion becomes more necessary.
3. The Mutual Benefit of Extremes
Illiberal extremes on the left and right paradoxically benefit one another by reinforcing mutual distrust:
• Each extreme justifies its existence by pointing to the threat posed by the other. Right-wing illiberals use the perceived chaos of progressive movements to justify authoritarian measures, while left-wing illiberals point to the rise of right-wing authoritarianism as evidence that strict ideological conformity is necessary.
• This dynamic creates a feedback loop where both sides gain power by convincing citizens that they must surrender trust in others and rely instead on the movement’s authority or ideology.
4. Harm to Classical Liberals
Those who adhere to classical liberal principles—valuing openness, fairness, and individual autonomy—are often caught in the middle. They:
1. Reject the authoritarian impulses on both sides, which isolates them from illiberal factions.
2. Struggle to maintain trust when both extremes actively work to undermine it.
3. Become marginalized, as their commitment to dialogue and mutual respect is dismissed as naive or inadequate in the face of supposed existential threats posed by the other side.
In essence, the erosion of trust benefits illiberals at the expense of classical liberals, as people gravitate toward more authoritarian solutions in times of uncertainty.
5. Conclusion: A Call to Defend Trust
The mutual reinforcement of illiberal extremes poses a profound threat to the liberal order. Restoring trust—both in institutions and among citizens—is essential to resisting authoritarian tendencies. This involves:
• Protecting free expression and promoting dialogue, even with those we disagree with.
• Rebuilding faith in institutions through transparency and accountability.
• Fostering social trust by encouraging reciprocity and mutual respect across political lines.
If classical liberalism is to survive, it must actively counter the forces that thrive on distrust. Otherwise, the polarization and authoritarianism fostered by both illiberal extremes will continue to erode the principles that sustain open and free societies.
I am just not sure about this. Would you trust a society founded on slavery, resting on stolen land, and predicated on unnecessary rights, like the right to bear arms and the right to private property, while eschewing the truly essential rights, like a right to housing?
I suspect that the decline of legitimacy is always a team sport.
What is your basis for determining which rights are necessary and which are unnecessary?
No man is an island. No man can possibly be an island. We live in a civilization with rules and standards of conduct. We *need* each other. Everything is a team sport to some degree. American rugged individualism is, at best, aspirational, at worst very corrosive. But it is an acknowledgment of our base human nature of competition. Our system harnesses these base needs, proscribes the excesses, and points them in constructive directions. The issue is not "how bad things were" but "look how good things are in spite of all that bad".
This is not just "rose colored glasses" and trying to move the goalposts.
Pessimism, at it's best, is a stop-loss viewpoint. But there is no up-side, no ability to gain, with a pessimistic view. Because, under a pessimistic view, no risk is taken, so there is no possibility of gain.
During the 20th century, several hundred million people were killed. Hitler was a light-weight compared to Stalin and Mao. Yet in spite of all that disaster and destruction, human longevity is up, technology is up, hunger is down, poverty is down, violence is down (until Putin pushed it up again).
Don't be captive to your own ethnocentrism and judge humanity by your view of the US. On the whole, humanity is on a huge rise. Pessimism is unfounded.
As some others have pointed out over time, this erosion of trust in our government goes back at least to our disastrous involvement in Vietnam, not so much because of the military disaster itself, but because of the consistent pattern of lies told by our government about its progress. The publishing of the Pentagon Papers and the Tet offensive blew the lid off of those lies, but did nothing to mitigate either the needless loss of lives (over 50,000 of my generation and the far greater Vietnamese losses) or the erosion of trust, particularly in the Johnson and Nixon administrations.
Nixon himself added to the increasing mistrust with both his notorious Southern Strategy and Watergate. Ford then failed to bring him to the bar, leaving a legacy of unfinished justice.
Ronald Reagan continued to erode that trust with his constant accusations of government overreach then with the Iran Contra debacle.
9/ll momentarily brought us together (as Pearl Harbor had done in another era of division), but G H W Bush and his successors and their generals then went back decieving us about both the reasons for and the process of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So Trump had a fertile field in which to spread his manure. I agree that of all the forces causing our mistrust of both government and each other he has been the most corrosive single force in our increasing polarization and mistrust; possibly the most corrosive force attributable to one man in our history. But we have to remember that he was and continues to be enabled by a political party which at least ever since Barry Goldwater’s campaign has worked to divide us and to erode trust in our institutions, whose leaders clearly recognized the threat Trump posed as soon as he came down that damned escalator, said so publicly, and then continued to bend the knee in their attempt to use him to further their own divisive agenda.
Behind and often below it all, the ongoing conservative reactions to Brown v Board, Roe v Wade, Engel v Vitale, Virgina v Loving, and Obergefell v Hodges have continued to divide us and further create mistrust and even hatred. Trump and his myrmidons have also been playing on that with skill.
As a former soldier, I am aware of a number of old phrases which IMO quite adequately describe this ongoing ---------, but I won’t repeat them here. I will only quote the cartoon character Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us."