I am no Trump fan: there are many valid reasons to reject him as a presidential possibility, some of which you have outlined. But when you throw out this hyperbolic quatsch, it only taints and undermines those valid reasons. Even worse, it "raises the temperature"--to use a phrase popular with the Left--increasing the chances that random nuts from both sides will resort to extreme measures.
Remember all the people chanting "lock her up" last time around? Nobody ever locked her up. Nor was the wall built or Mexico charged for it. And so on.
"Or, imagine the following scenario: widespread protests understandably and predictably break out in opposition to the administration rounding up and detaining millions of immigrants; Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, giving him the power to send in soldiers to restore order, which is then followed by more protests, which is then followed by more widespread deployment of troops and the de facto imposition of martial law in several American cities."
This is a classic ‘it can’t happen here’ argument. In fact something very like it did happen here between 1861 and 1865. The fact that the Civil War was fought over the existence of slavery, a system which no longer exists save perhaps in the minds of die-hard racists does not alter the fact that it was brought on by a cabal of southern plantation owners who felt so strongly that their point of view was valid that they were willing to go to war to protect it. The issue had so polarized the country that millions of other southerners, many if not most of whom owned no slaves, were willing to offer their lives to protect the cabal against ‘a war of northern aggression'. (Hear ’the ‘tyranny' of the progressive left;) We were saved by the determination and eventual sacrifice of Abraham Lincoln and those thousands in the Union Army, the man who helped found the party now all-too-ironically dominated by Trump and his myrmidons.
You note that no one got locked up and the wall wasn’t built (in fact a good portion of it was), but you are taking a very short term view. The Civil War was not brought on during one eight year period - its roots went back to the debate over the Declaration of Independence and the south’s refusal to agree to it, and thus to support Independence unless any reference to slavery was edited out, perhaps the most ironic part of the whole business, pointed out by the English essayist Samual Johnson who asked. “How is it that we hear the loudness yelps for freedom from the drivers of negroes?
The problem here is not just Trump but the more shadowy (and not so shadowy - think Elon Musk) figures behind him, some of whom created Project 2025, who feel that the country would be best led by an elite rather than through the far too messy, inefficient, and all too often ignorant practice of the rabble (democracy). Such people have been around ever since ‘the kingship descended from heaven’ in ancient Sumer, and they will never go away. But now Trumpism has given them the kind of opening they haven’t ever really had in this country, and they (perhaps alongside their religious arm, the Christian Nationalists and their supporters on the Supreme Court) will be happy to take advantage of Trump 2.0 to try to put their ideas into practice.
You really might want to get out and "touch grass," as they say.
My mind goes to more recent events than the Civil War, namely:
* Woodrow Wilson's Espionage and Sedition acts -- passed by a Democrat in the name of protecting "our democracy"
* FDR's internment camps -- passed by a Democrat in the name of protecting "our democracy"
* Joe McCarthy - would-be tyrant (supported by many Dems, BTW), ultimately thwarted by fellow Republicans (Prescott Bush)
* Richard Nixon -- persuaded to resign by fellow Republicans
So, if recent history is any indication, the odds slightly favor Democrats as the ones who will take away our rights-- all in the name of defending "our democracy" of course.
More broadly, across history, tyranny usually ascends the stairs of hyperbolic claims of existential threats.
I recommend you read recent issues of "The Atlantic" (the mag for Democrats in power) which now compares Trump to Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin in one sentence and then suggests that the Constitution (and the First Amendment in particular) should be repealed. Couple that with Hillary Clinton and other leaders talking about controlling "misinformation" and the recent episodes of Govt. officials actively telling Facebook and other social media to suppress certain stories (as verified by Zuckerberg) and you have more cause for real concern.
The Atlantic has gone a bit (more than a bit) crazy of late. The Atlantic actually published an article titled “Separating Sports by Sex Doesn’t Make Sense”. The article attracted considerable ridicule (as well it should have). So much so, The Atlantic published a response by Steve Magness.
"Richard Nixon -- persuaded to resign by fellow Republicans"
This one comment gives part of the game away. If the leaders and the followers of today’s Republican Party had half the courage of the men who got Nixon to resign for a far less dangerous act than Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government, we wouldn’t still be dealing with him and all his manure as a candidate.
As to the rest of your examples, yes, they happened, but you’ve used them without historical context, and thus assigning them to Democrats misses the point.
Wilson actions, like the almost identically named actions of John Adams over a century earlier, came at times when a general hysteria ruled the country - the first during the quasi-war with France and Jefferson’s whole hearted support for the French Revolution despite it’s descent into bloody violence, and the actions of Citizen Genet - and the other due to the hyperbolic rhetoric backing up our almost too late involvement in WWI when our natural isolationism had kept us out for three years despite Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania. It finally took the Zimmerman telegram following on Pancho Villa’s attacks from Mexico to get Wilson off the bench. And then the government hyped the war in order to combat that isolationist tendency. Same playbook used by Johnson and Nixon during Vietnam. Jail the dissenters!
FDR’s internment camps, of course were the result of December 7th (much like the anti-Muslim hysteria following 9/11 which Trump still echoes) when, in fact, there was absolutely no way Japan was ever going to be able to attack the West Coast in any force nor was there any indication of Nisei cooperation with them in any such endeavor. It was on a par with all the false hype about Japanese spies destroying our aircraft on Hawiian airfields when, in fact, it was just such unrealized and unfounded fears that had convinced our own AAF to line them all up in the middle of the field, making them easy prey for Japanese Zero’s and dive bombers.
Joe McCarthy was at best a blowhard liar (much like Trump in that regard) who took .advantage of the wave of anti-Communism following Russia’s actions in Europe after WWII following so closely on what so many Americans had understood to be their friendship during the war and the much exaggerated fears of some sort of commie takeover of the US which was never going to happen either then or now. This pretty much all came to naught despite the J. Edgar Hoover’s, the Birchers’, and Barry Goldwater’s attempts to keep it alive.
No such levels of actual hysteria exists today because none of the condition existing at those other times are in existence now except in Republican fever dreams hyped by Trump and his myrmidons. Rather they are attempting to manufacture this ‘threat from within’ (all those Democratic Marxists, communists, and socialists - words thrown loosely around by Republicans, most of whom couldn’t accurately define any of the three terms) when in fact it is Trump and his cohorts behind Project 2025 who pose the real threat from within.
The greatest threat to democracy always comes from within; our near fatal inclination to eat ourselves alive from the inside out. It destroyed ancient Athens and it will destroy us if we let it. Lincoln understood that when, in 1838 he noted that’ “As a nation of free men we shall live through all time, or die by suicide”. I
n the present case, however, it is not the Democratic Party who is the main culprit.
So a guy (Elon Musk) who supported Obama is the real threat. Sure he is. The reality is that the left (cultural left, not economic left) took over and America has been reeling from it ever since.
Reeling? Really? In whose eyes? Those on the right like Trump, Vance, Christian Fundamentalists and Nationalists who would love to severely limit what it means to be an American as opposed to freely including all of us.
Does the left sometimes go to extremes in demanding minority rights - yes. But I’d much prefer erring in that direction to the exclusionary visions of the right.
In real life (not your fantasy world), Trump/Vance enjoy unprecedented levels of black and brown support. Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
As for “reeling”. What you call a country with a budget deficit of 7% of GDP? Total debt (in peacetime) of over 100% of GDP? Well below replacement fertility? Most births outside of wedlock (for non-college educated women)? Should I mention the (de-facto) absence of education in American cities? The presence of males in women’s sports is a symptom of a society gone wrong.
Trump/Vance enjoy support from those who have fallen prey to the most ambitious and most pervasive con job ever attempted by an American president and his myrmidons.
And that budget deficit - much of it was created by Trump’s tax cuts.
In fact, of course, our current economy is in very good shape despite Republican attempts to say otherwise because they can’t admit that supply side economics has never worked as they said it would. Sorry, Reagan was wrong.
A graph of the budget deficit (as a percent of GDP) is provided by FRED series FYFSGDA188S. The graph shows that (aside from CV-19) Obama and Biden are the real big spenders, not Trump. A typical number is that Trump’s 2017 budget deficit was 3.4% of GDP. Versus 6.7% for Biden for 2024. The effect of the Trump tax cuts is around 1% of GDP.
And here I thought that all of the supporters of a person who really isn’t there (“Heels Up Harris”) were actually the deluded ones. How many delegates did she get back in 2020? You can count them on one hand… After that hand has been amputated (the joke was devised by Bill Maher).
If the Supreme Court (SC) held that unborn children were persons (for religious reasons) you might have a point. However, that is what the SC didn’t do. The SC turned the abortion issue back over to the states.
The abortion issue should remain between a woman, her partner if applicable, and her doctor because the medical and psychological possibilities involved are far too complex to be adequately dealt with in some one-size-fits-all legal solution by a bunch of partisan legislators with their own religious agendas.
Literally, no country in the world has taken your position on the abortion issue (“The abortion issue should remain between a woman, her partner if applicable, and her doctor”). Every country, has taken the position that the state has a right (and responsibility) to intervene.
Oh, I see, and that makes it right? Numbers alone have never been the measure of what is right. You may recall that for over half our existence as a nation, 'the numbers' favored keeping women out of the voting booth. For over half a century 'the numbers' favored slavery. Or perhaps you would have agree with both......
I think taxes should be a private matter between accountants and taxpayer. I think education should be left up to parents. I think war should be left up to officers. "Crime" should be left up to private citizens. How dare the public get involved in (what should be) private matters.
Really. Then perhaps the political system should do more to protect that child after birth instead of enabling every nut case who thinks that shooting a lot of school children is sufficiently answerable just by endless ‘thoughts and prayers’.
2024 will record over 1 million abortions. So far roughly 24 people have been killed in school shootings. I guess 24 is greater than 1 million. I guess.
I was with your argument up until the claim that the civil service is "merit based." The annual employee turnover rate is ~6% versus an the ~18% for corporations. A bit more than 3% is due to retirement and another 1% to death - and the real attrition rate is ~2%. Now anyone who has worked in a large company or for any length of time or stood in line at their local DMV will understand that a great deal more than 2% of the workers need to find other employment every year, this due to mismatch of skills, low productivity, or outright incompetence. Calling the federal civil service "merit based" is a stretch!
TDS is the basis of this article and one supposes is what to expect on an academic Substack article. under the name of what is usually an intelligent, balanced Substack opinion, who has guests that make many good points. However those ones who are long in the tooth know that political life doesn't favour "nice guys" especially in America, e.g. however nice Jimmy Carter was, he was a one term President when America woke up to his placating, "Peace in our time" policies. He will say that his Saviour allowed him to survived malignant malanoma and he is still walking amongst us. Does that make him a "good President?" Just because Kamala is a Democrat, does that give her credentials to be a "good President?" Just as Trump is a Republican does that make him destined to be a "bad President?" This divisive political treadmill upon which it seems America is traveling, could eventually be the demise of one of the world's greatest powers the world has seen, and quite rightly so. Eaten from within by those who sell sacrificial auturism, America is on the highway to hell that leads to the graveyard of empires. Powerful leaders history have shown, are responsible for the continuation of the the leaders vision of what made and will continual to make their country and "empire" flourish. Kamala will not be that leader. Agreed, Trump will be for the next four years and then ... "Après moi, le déluge" as all readers know is a French expression attributed to King Louis XV of France, or in the form "Après nous, le déluge" to Madame de Pompadour, his favourite. It is generally regarded as a nihilistic expression of indifference to whatever happens after one is gone, though it may also express a more literal forecasting of ruination.
Regardless of which candidate gets elected, the problem for our constitutional democratic republic is a weak legislative branch. That problem, of course, would be made worse by a second Trump presidency.
I have been listening to Damon Linker downplay the danger posed by Donald Trump and arguing against charging, trying, and imprisoning him for his crimes, why simultaneously tut-tutting about his "abnormal and alarming" tendencies on the Bulwark's "Beg to Differ" podcast for almost four years now. Halfway through this typically prolix and tedious piece, I gave up on it as more of the same. I'm sorry to see Persuasion provide him with one more opportunity to talk, er, write, out of both sides of his mouth.
I read up to the part about the Middle East. Up to there, what the author wrote was plausible. On the Middle East, the actions that the author predicts a second Trump administration will take simply don't match the subsequent description. At all. The difference was so stark that I didn't bother continuing.
"...all the while keeping himself within a couple of points of his opponent?". I guess you have never heard of "Heels Up Harris". She has a long record of failure. Failure on border. Failure in the White House (somehow she failed to notice Biden's decline). To be blunt, Trump is running against a candidate who really isn't there.
"How is it possible that a louche Manhattan real estate mogul, tabloid celebrity, and reality-show television star...?"
There it is, in that last phrase. The support that Donald Trump received from millions of people in 2016, which can be attributed to a variety of things, rested on the trust established by his fictionalized persona on The Apprentice. Even around the time of the 2020 election, when journalists talked with young Latino men who surprisingly favored Trump, it turned out that they knew him through that television show.
If Trump had never had his career on TV, he probably couldn't have managed one in politics.
I am no Trump fan: there are many valid reasons to reject him as a presidential possibility, some of which you have outlined. But when you throw out this hyperbolic quatsch, it only taints and undermines those valid reasons. Even worse, it "raises the temperature"--to use a phrase popular with the Left--increasing the chances that random nuts from both sides will resort to extreme measures.
Remember all the people chanting "lock her up" last time around? Nobody ever locked her up. Nor was the wall built or Mexico charged for it. And so on.
"Or, imagine the following scenario: widespread protests understandably and predictably break out in opposition to the administration rounding up and detaining millions of immigrants; Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, giving him the power to send in soldiers to restore order, which is then followed by more protests, which is then followed by more widespread deployment of troops and the de facto imposition of martial law in several American cities."
This is a classic ‘it can’t happen here’ argument. In fact something very like it did happen here between 1861 and 1865. The fact that the Civil War was fought over the existence of slavery, a system which no longer exists save perhaps in the minds of die-hard racists does not alter the fact that it was brought on by a cabal of southern plantation owners who felt so strongly that their point of view was valid that they were willing to go to war to protect it. The issue had so polarized the country that millions of other southerners, many if not most of whom owned no slaves, were willing to offer their lives to protect the cabal against ‘a war of northern aggression'. (Hear ’the ‘tyranny' of the progressive left;) We were saved by the determination and eventual sacrifice of Abraham Lincoln and those thousands in the Union Army, the man who helped found the party now all-too-ironically dominated by Trump and his myrmidons.
You note that no one got locked up and the wall wasn’t built (in fact a good portion of it was), but you are taking a very short term view. The Civil War was not brought on during one eight year period - its roots went back to the debate over the Declaration of Independence and the south’s refusal to agree to it, and thus to support Independence unless any reference to slavery was edited out, perhaps the most ironic part of the whole business, pointed out by the English essayist Samual Johnson who asked. “How is it that we hear the loudness yelps for freedom from the drivers of negroes?
The problem here is not just Trump but the more shadowy (and not so shadowy - think Elon Musk) figures behind him, some of whom created Project 2025, who feel that the country would be best led by an elite rather than through the far too messy, inefficient, and all too often ignorant practice of the rabble (democracy). Such people have been around ever since ‘the kingship descended from heaven’ in ancient Sumer, and they will never go away. But now Trumpism has given them the kind of opening they haven’t ever really had in this country, and they (perhaps alongside their religious arm, the Christian Nationalists and their supporters on the Supreme Court) will be happy to take advantage of Trump 2.0 to try to put their ideas into practice.
Of course it can happen here, but not overnight.
You really might want to get out and "touch grass," as they say.
My mind goes to more recent events than the Civil War, namely:
* Woodrow Wilson's Espionage and Sedition acts -- passed by a Democrat in the name of protecting "our democracy"
* FDR's internment camps -- passed by a Democrat in the name of protecting "our democracy"
* Joe McCarthy - would-be tyrant (supported by many Dems, BTW), ultimately thwarted by fellow Republicans (Prescott Bush)
* Richard Nixon -- persuaded to resign by fellow Republicans
So, if recent history is any indication, the odds slightly favor Democrats as the ones who will take away our rights-- all in the name of defending "our democracy" of course.
More broadly, across history, tyranny usually ascends the stairs of hyperbolic claims of existential threats.
I recommend you read recent issues of "The Atlantic" (the mag for Democrats in power) which now compares Trump to Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin in one sentence and then suggests that the Constitution (and the First Amendment in particular) should be repealed. Couple that with Hillary Clinton and other leaders talking about controlling "misinformation" and the recent episodes of Govt. officials actively telling Facebook and other social media to suppress certain stories (as verified by Zuckerberg) and you have more cause for real concern.
The Atlantic has gone a bit (more than a bit) crazy of late. The Atlantic actually published an article titled “Separating Sports by Sex Doesn’t Make Sense”. The article attracted considerable ridicule (as well it should have). So much so, The Atlantic published a response by Steve Magness.
"Richard Nixon -- persuaded to resign by fellow Republicans"
This one comment gives part of the game away. If the leaders and the followers of today’s Republican Party had half the courage of the men who got Nixon to resign for a far less dangerous act than Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government, we wouldn’t still be dealing with him and all his manure as a candidate.
As to the rest of your examples, yes, they happened, but you’ve used them without historical context, and thus assigning them to Democrats misses the point.
Wilson actions, like the almost identically named actions of John Adams over a century earlier, came at times when a general hysteria ruled the country - the first during the quasi-war with France and Jefferson’s whole hearted support for the French Revolution despite it’s descent into bloody violence, and the actions of Citizen Genet - and the other due to the hyperbolic rhetoric backing up our almost too late involvement in WWI when our natural isolationism had kept us out for three years despite Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania. It finally took the Zimmerman telegram following on Pancho Villa’s attacks from Mexico to get Wilson off the bench. And then the government hyped the war in order to combat that isolationist tendency. Same playbook used by Johnson and Nixon during Vietnam. Jail the dissenters!
FDR’s internment camps, of course were the result of December 7th (much like the anti-Muslim hysteria following 9/11 which Trump still echoes) when, in fact, there was absolutely no way Japan was ever going to be able to attack the West Coast in any force nor was there any indication of Nisei cooperation with them in any such endeavor. It was on a par with all the false hype about Japanese spies destroying our aircraft on Hawiian airfields when, in fact, it was just such unrealized and unfounded fears that had convinced our own AAF to line them all up in the middle of the field, making them easy prey for Japanese Zero’s and dive bombers.
Joe McCarthy was at best a blowhard liar (much like Trump in that regard) who took .advantage of the wave of anti-Communism following Russia’s actions in Europe after WWII following so closely on what so many Americans had understood to be their friendship during the war and the much exaggerated fears of some sort of commie takeover of the US which was never going to happen either then or now. This pretty much all came to naught despite the J. Edgar Hoover’s, the Birchers’, and Barry Goldwater’s attempts to keep it alive.
No such levels of actual hysteria exists today because none of the condition existing at those other times are in existence now except in Republican fever dreams hyped by Trump and his myrmidons. Rather they are attempting to manufacture this ‘threat from within’ (all those Democratic Marxists, communists, and socialists - words thrown loosely around by Republicans, most of whom couldn’t accurately define any of the three terms) when in fact it is Trump and his cohorts behind Project 2025 who pose the real threat from within.
The greatest threat to democracy always comes from within; our near fatal inclination to eat ourselves alive from the inside out. It destroyed ancient Athens and it will destroy us if we let it. Lincoln understood that when, in 1838 he noted that’ “As a nation of free men we shall live through all time, or die by suicide”. I
n the present case, however, it is not the Democratic Party who is the main culprit.
So a guy (Elon Musk) who supported Obama is the real threat. Sure he is. The reality is that the left (cultural left, not economic left) took over and America has been reeling from it ever since.
Reeling? Really? In whose eyes? Those on the right like Trump, Vance, Christian Fundamentalists and Nationalists who would love to severely limit what it means to be an American as opposed to freely including all of us.
Does the left sometimes go to extremes in demanding minority rights - yes. But I’d much prefer erring in that direction to the exclusionary visions of the right.
In real life (not your fantasy world), Trump/Vance enjoy unprecedented levels of black and brown support. Exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
As for “reeling”. What you call a country with a budget deficit of 7% of GDP? Total debt (in peacetime) of over 100% of GDP? Well below replacement fertility? Most births outside of wedlock (for non-college educated women)? Should I mention the (de-facto) absence of education in American cities? The presence of males in women’s sports is a symptom of a society gone wrong.
Trump/Vance enjoy support from those who have fallen prey to the most ambitious and most pervasive con job ever attempted by an American president and his myrmidons.
And that budget deficit - much of it was created by Trump’s tax cuts.
In fact, of course, our current economy is in very good shape despite Republican attempts to say otherwise because they can’t admit that supply side economics has never worked as they said it would. Sorry, Reagan was wrong.
A graph of the budget deficit (as a percent of GDP) is provided by FRED series FYFSGDA188S. The graph shows that (aside from CV-19) Obama and Biden are the real big spenders, not Trump. A typical number is that Trump’s 2017 budget deficit was 3.4% of GDP. Versus 6.7% for Biden for 2024. The effect of the Trump tax cuts is around 1% of GDP.
And here I thought that all of the supporters of a person who really isn’t there (“Heels Up Harris”) were actually the deluded ones. How many delegates did she get back in 2020? You can count them on one hand… After that hand has been amputated (the joke was devised by Bill Maher).
If the Supreme Court (SC) held that unborn children were persons (for religious reasons) you might have a point. However, that is what the SC didn’t do. The SC turned the abortion issue back over to the states.
The abortion issue should remain between a woman, her partner if applicable, and her doctor because the medical and psychological possibilities involved are far too complex to be adequately dealt with in some one-size-fits-all legal solution by a bunch of partisan legislators with their own religious agendas.
Literally, no country in the world has taken your position on the abortion issue (“The abortion issue should remain between a woman, her partner if applicable, and her doctor”). Every country, has taken the position that the state has a right (and responsibility) to intervene.
Oh, I see, and that makes it right? Numbers alone have never been the measure of what is right. You may recall that for over half our existence as a nation, 'the numbers' favored keeping women out of the voting booth. For over half a century 'the numbers' favored slavery. Or perhaps you would have agree with both......
I didn’t know that Norway (where abortion is restricted after 11 weeks) was a bastion of slavery and female oppression. But now I do.
Of course, I am using Norway as an example of a country with relatively liberal abortion laws.
I think taxes should be a private matter between accountants and taxpayer. I think education should be left up to parents. I think war should be left up to officers. "Crime" should be left up to private citizens. How dare the public get involved in (what should be) private matters.
That reply is so specious as to merit little more than laughter.
I don't think taxes, education, war, crime, and abortion are laughing matters. How about you?
There is another person involved, the unborn child. In a democracy, the political system tries to consider the interests of that person.
Really. Then perhaps the political system should do more to protect that child after birth instead of enabling every nut case who thinks that shooting a lot of school children is sufficiently answerable just by endless ‘thoughts and prayers’.
2024 will record over 1 million abortions. So far roughly 24 people have been killed in school shootings. I guess 24 is greater than 1 million. I guess.
And they didn't actually hang Mike Pence
See, it wasn't so bad.
I was with your argument up until the claim that the civil service is "merit based." The annual employee turnover rate is ~6% versus an the ~18% for corporations. A bit more than 3% is due to retirement and another 1% to death - and the real attrition rate is ~2%. Now anyone who has worked in a large company or for any length of time or stood in line at their local DMV will understand that a great deal more than 2% of the workers need to find other employment every year, this due to mismatch of skills, low productivity, or outright incompetence. Calling the federal civil service "merit based" is a stretch!
TDS is the basis of this article and one supposes is what to expect on an academic Substack article. under the name of what is usually an intelligent, balanced Substack opinion, who has guests that make many good points. However those ones who are long in the tooth know that political life doesn't favour "nice guys" especially in America, e.g. however nice Jimmy Carter was, he was a one term President when America woke up to his placating, "Peace in our time" policies. He will say that his Saviour allowed him to survived malignant malanoma and he is still walking amongst us. Does that make him a "good President?" Just because Kamala is a Democrat, does that give her credentials to be a "good President?" Just as Trump is a Republican does that make him destined to be a "bad President?" This divisive political treadmill upon which it seems America is traveling, could eventually be the demise of one of the world's greatest powers the world has seen, and quite rightly so. Eaten from within by those who sell sacrificial auturism, America is on the highway to hell that leads to the graveyard of empires. Powerful leaders history have shown, are responsible for the continuation of the the leaders vision of what made and will continual to make their country and "empire" flourish. Kamala will not be that leader. Agreed, Trump will be for the next four years and then ... "Après moi, le déluge" as all readers know is a French expression attributed to King Louis XV of France, or in the form "Après nous, le déluge" to Madame de Pompadour, his favourite. It is generally regarded as a nihilistic expression of indifference to whatever happens after one is gone, though it may also express a more literal forecasting of ruination.
Regardless of which candidate gets elected, the problem for our constitutional democratic republic is a weak legislative branch. That problem, of course, would be made worse by a second Trump presidency.
I have been listening to Damon Linker downplay the danger posed by Donald Trump and arguing against charging, trying, and imprisoning him for his crimes, why simultaneously tut-tutting about his "abnormal and alarming" tendencies on the Bulwark's "Beg to Differ" podcast for almost four years now. Halfway through this typically prolix and tedious piece, I gave up on it as more of the same. I'm sorry to see Persuasion provide him with one more opportunity to talk, er, write, out of both sides of his mouth.
The sole superpower?
And what about overturning democracies? We just helped Pakistan overturn their democracy.
We need a completely new foreign policy. But we will not get it from Trump .
I read up to the part about the Middle East. Up to there, what the author wrote was plausible. On the Middle East, the actions that the author predicts a second Trump administration will take simply don't match the subsequent description. At all. The difference was so stark that I didn't bother continuing.
"...all the while keeping himself within a couple of points of his opponent?". I guess you have never heard of "Heels Up Harris". She has a long record of failure. Failure on border. Failure in the White House (somehow she failed to notice Biden's decline). To be blunt, Trump is running against a candidate who really isn't there.
"How is it possible that a louche Manhattan real estate mogul, tabloid celebrity, and reality-show television star...?"
There it is, in that last phrase. The support that Donald Trump received from millions of people in 2016, which can be attributed to a variety of things, rested on the trust established by his fictionalized persona on The Apprentice. Even around the time of the 2020 election, when journalists talked with young Latino men who surprisingly favored Trump, it turned out that they knew him through that television show.
If Trump had never had his career on TV, he probably couldn't have managed one in politics.