Home / News / 10 of the Best Theories About Donald Trump

10 of the Best Theories About Donald Trump

Photo Credit: stock_photo_world / Shutterstock.com

In reverence to the black hole who swallowed the news for an whole year, here are my personal top 10 theories about Donald Trump of 2017. None of them could presumably explain everything; nothing is wholly wrong. Several of them volume to restating the simple thought in a new way, pronounced thought being “This male has totally messed with the minds.”

Early in the year we finished it through a weekend without observant or essay his name, and we once chose to go an whole announcement day at Salon with no stories about him. But Donald Trump can't be exorcised so easily. He may be degraded or ashamed someday, but he can't be dismantled or erased from history. As we close out the unimaginable first year of his unimaginable presidency, Our only choice is to try to understand.

Trump is a chronological portion who will shortly be erased


We competence call this one the “Hamilton solon fallacy,” and we know it’s kind of meant to bring that up all over again. Essentially, the thought is that Trump’s election represents a bug or glitch in the program of democracy, which was differently operative OK on the pathway toward the First Woman President™. Once the complement administrators notice the unsuitable curiosity (to drag the embellishment out a little longer), the offending lines of code will be private and we’ll be back to normal operation.

If the illusory thought that Trump’s election competence be nullified before he even took bureau — by way of the Electoral College sportive an eccentric management it has not hexed given the 18th century — was a blatant instance of the Trump-as-fluke hypothesis, it’s distant from the only one. Republicans in Congress will finally arise up to their inherent responsibilities and comprehend that their boss is a dangerous, unhinged, blatantly extremist moron! (Because they sincerely had no idea until now!) Mike Pence and the Cabinet will exude Trump from bureau under the weird kangaroo-court record envisioned by the 25th Amendment! (Which do not sound like a good thing at all!) Sometime very soon, Bob Mueller will perp-walk Trump and several of his family members out of the White House, in chains and orange jumpsuits! Et cetera.

To burst forward several bullet points, this strongly resembles what philosopher Jean Baudrillard called the “zero hypothesis” in his famous contention of the 9/11 militant attacks, which I’ve created about before. The 0 supposition binds that a bad or terrifying eventuality has no clarification and requires no explanation: “It ought not to have existed and, basically, it does not exist.” Baudrillard identified this as a theological notion, “the thought that Evil is small apparition or an random vicissitudes in the arena of Good.”

Major proponents: Everyone in your social-media feed, one year ago. A vast suit of Rachel Maddow’s audience. John McCain — at slightest in private.

Points in favor: Trump’s electoral feat was motionless by fewer than 80,000 votes widespread opposite 3 states, and concerned such a extravagantly unusual set of resources that we’ve all had moments of desiring it didn’t really occur or was somehow illegitimate. We haven’t gotten to the R-word yet, but the thought that Vladimir Putin was pulling strings behind the scenes, and finished this all happen, is a chronicle of the 0 hypothesis.

Points against: Um, it’s totally delusional, ahistorical and untrue? It’s a magnanimous chronicle of the reality-denial some-more ordinarily found among worried swindling nuts like Alex Jones? OK, I’ll play nicely: The Trump-as-fluke supposition rests on a towering of indeterminate assumptions about the health of the democracy before Nov 2016, and refuses to acknowledge how both parties collaborated to transparent a trail for the election of a transparently utter buffoon.

Trump is an tangible or determined nazi dictator

As Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post recently observed, the word “fascist” seems to fit the resources flattering well: A personality who treats his slight election as a concept mandate, who sincerely seeks to criticise approved institutions and the order of law, who thrives on stoking secular or secular tensions and demonizing an imprecisely tangible “establishment,” and who seeks to accumulate all probable energy to himself as the unitary pitch of both the state and its people. But as she serve noted, the word also carries 20th-century associations of large-scale military defeat and mass murder, things that Donald Trump and his supposed transformation manifestly miss the willpower, classification or caring ability to lift out in practice.

Major proponents: Yale historian Timothy Snyder, in maybe the most-read and most-shared Salon interview of the year. My co-worker Chauncey DeVega (who interviewed Snyder) has been a thought-leader in this realm, but flattering much every spectator and commentator on American politics who falls somewhere between Jeff Flake and the Revolutionary Communist Party has flirted with the terminology, and the idea. we sincerely don’t know either that’s a good thing or not.

Points in favor: I mean, it’s clearly not wrong to advise that Trump would like to hold all domestic energy himself and order forever. His bottom of support is vaguely identical to that amassed by Hitler, Mussolini and Franco during their particular rises to power. As in those cases, much of the entrepreneur chosen motionless he’d be good for business and came along for the ride, sickening as they may have found the sideshow antics.

Points against: Let’s be satisfactory to the fascists, shall we? Whatever we wish to contend about their fake-news speculation of story and their unforgivable crimes, no one can explain their transformation lacked a awake ideology, well-organized domestic institutions and a extended bottom of renouned support. Trump buffaloed his way into the presidency by cunning, good happening and ideal timing, but he doesn’t have any of those things. His beliefs is small-minded, opposing fantasy; his transformation is a series of reconstruction meetings for racists. He’ll always be a wannabe.

See above. Isn’t this just the opposite of “Trump is a fascist”? The #MAGA movement’s clarity of self rests wholly on the clarification of “American.” If that word is taken to meant only that subset of the white race that feels discontented and oppressed for misleading reasons, is happy to censure all of it on feminism and black people and immigrants and gays, and thinks politics is all a garland of crap anyway (not an undiscerning perspective in itself), then a half-baked, Vicodin-goggles worldview comes into focus.

As I’ve suggested previously, the spin of anarchy concerned here would means the drum player in an early-‘80s East Village sound rope to hang her conduct in shame. Trump represents the will of those Americans who no longer hold out any critical wish that things can get better, but are fervent to retaliate those who have lectured them or sneered at them or gained (perceived) advantages at their (perceived) expense.

Major proponents: Donald Trump and his core supporters. Newt Gingrich. Various cringing toadies on the Republican right or in the regressive media who (like Gingrich) substantially don’t trust it, or trust anything.

Points in favor: Then the first angel sounded his trumpet, and accost and fire churned with blood were flung to the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, along with a third of the trees and all the immature grass.

Points against: Trump himself is a short-lived phenomenon, representing a demographic with a common death wish that isn’t even close to a majority. But the repairs finished will prolonged endure him, or them.

Trump is the voice of the speechless “white operative class” and an countenance of “economic anxiety”

See above, and then see above that. This is the pseudo-anthropological, neutral-sounding interpretation of “Trump is a sum fascist.” It contains a pellet of truth, in that many people who upheld Trump were not wholly unwavering of the border to which they were driven by bigotry, anti-intellectualism and a yearning for an all-white nazi utopia, or had adequate self-awareness to feel nervous about those things. Framing that choice in terms of mercantile logic, no matter how spurious, seems to supplement a receptive support — which is also comforting to reporters and pundits.

Major proponents: The New York Times, and certain strains in both the core and left of the Democratic Party.

Points in favor: Even if many Trump electorate were not bad or working-class, and even if “economic anxiety” is a code word for a some-more difficult reduction of informative and secular unease, category recession and discontinued opportunities, that doesn’t meant it isn’t real.

Points against: Ultimately, this is a pompous try to spin a story of atavistic, undiscerning desires and the darkest places in the American essence into a sensitive account about people out of a Raymond Carver story or a Springsteen song.

Trump is a Russian victim and/or a Republican useful idiot

OK, down the rabbit hole we go! we deliberate ducking this one wholly by filing the “Russia question” as a subset of Theory No. 1 above, Trump-as-fluke. If you can convince yourself that Trump was imposed on us from outside, by the Mephistophelean low diversion of Vladimir Putin, that clearly lends force to the aforementioned “zero hypothesis” under which Trump’s election possesses no chronological significance or didn’t really happen. It also avoids the doubt of how Trump swept to feat over every Republican in the famous star and put himself in position to be Putin’s sock-puppet boss — given Uncle Vlad didn’t stage-manage that part.

There’s no indicate trying to challenge the significance and clarification of the increasingly distorted Russia scandal, a black-hole-inside-a-tesseract that looks opposite from every indicate on the domestic spectrum and has turn a major ideological or philosophical chasm both within American multitude and within the Democratic Party and the left-liberal anti-Trump coalition.

But here’s what we can contend for sure: Some reasonable and intelligent people perspective Trump as an tangible Russian agent or guaranty (knowing or unknowing), others as the random customer of an endless hacking and promotion campaign. Those views are in fact shared by many Republicans — whatever they may contend in open — who have motionless it was worth roving along with some grade of super-dubious Kremlin connectors given Trump would commission scads of worried judges and sign their vast tax-cut bill, along with anything else they actually conduct to get by Congress.

Major proponents: The comprehension community, the producers and on-air hosts at CNN and MSNBC, many of the mainstream media, a plain cut of the Democratic Party. If that combo doesn’t ring some alarm bells for you, we don’t know what to say.

Points in favor: There were several famous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, and there’s copiousness justification that Russian hackers and trolls worked to support Trump and harm Hillary Clinton (among other things) during the 2016 campaign. It’s also transparent that Trump’s impasse with Russian oligarchs and Russian income extends low into the past, with a major and fantastic stopover at the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. As for the “Republican useful idiot” part, that’s just true.

Points against: What does any of this supplement up to? we have no thought and, honestly, conjunction do you. Mueller’s exploration hasn’t even hinted at anything that would hold Trump personally, and my camber is that liberals will have an huge unhappy when he finally issues his findings. If there is critical Russian kompromat in Donald Trump’s past (which seems some-more likely than not), it competence not have anything to do with his election campaign.

This may be a gone speculation in the issue of Bannon’s Alabama Waterloo, but the puzzling mindfulness the Breitbart commander binds for pundits and domestic reporters seems unabated. According to this theory, Trump was a formless pile of game-show-celebrity clay with no domestic temperament until Bannon breathed life into him. It’s like a really sum and disturbing reboot of the myth of Pygmalion, or the story of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster.

Of course, Dr. Bannon’s election-winning secret salsa was fundamentally thinly potential white nationalism surfaced off with pie-in-the-sky New Deal economics and homoerotic visions of robust, virile men carrying lunch-buckets to jobs at wholly hypothetical shipyards and ironworks. (That will never stop being funny, Steve-O.) Which, come to consider of it, is flattering doggone close to the bulletin of that famous domestic party that got itself inaugurated in Germany in the early 1930s, and brings us back to the tender that Trumpism is fascism on the down-low.

Major proponents: Steve Bannon, and all the reporters who hatred themselves for amatory him.

Points in favor: Right-wing populists have been angry about the pomposity and crime of the Republican Party for a generation; Bannon’s “Leninist” campaign of defeat actually worked. Then he threw all domestic knowledge to the breeze and pandered directly to the darkest and many delusional impulses of the Republican base, and that worked too. Once.

Points against: Bannon’s trillion-dollar infrastructure devise is a sum fantasy, as is his grand and foolish speculation of story and his prophesy of a 50-year Republican Reich. After his unusual success in electing a Democrat to the Senate from the reddest state in America, it’s reasonable to consternation either Bannon will ever run a winning campaign for anyone, anywhere, ever again. Which leads naturally to the next theory.

Trump is a disruptive postmodern talent who has remade reality

What if Steve Bannon wasn’t the Machiavellian designer who made Donald Trump, and it was some-more the other way around? As I wrote recently, the fact that Trump almost never says anything loyal (unless by accident) and has no honour for systematic justification or any shared thought of reality is not a guilt but an asset.  Lies are the piece of Trump’s politics, directed at a open that doesn’t much like reality as they understand it.

[Trump] creates an whole star of lies and invites his listeners to live in it, rather as Walt Disney’s thesis parks were meant to create a pseudo-America some-more welcoming than the genuine thing. Trump’s tsunami of outrageous, unfit lies that no receptive person could presumably accept is something like a theatre magician’s conspiratorial blink to an assembly that, in [Hannah] Arendt’s phrase, has taken retreat in cynicism. You know and we know that the whole craving of politics is fraudulent, Trump told his MAGA-hatted minions (in effect); let’s infer it by perpetrating the biggest rascal of all.

Major proponents: Well, positively there’s me. But an whole cadre of lefty-egghead commentators has vacillated between the thought that Trump is the apparatus of other, smarter people and the thought that in his sub-Hitler, reptilian fashion, he has outsmarted us all. We can overlay in the associated thought that Trump is actually a opening artist, maybe actually the undead Andy Kaufman, who would have noticed his opening as pristine genius.

Points in favor: This is a comparatively avaricious reason that accounts for many of the manifest justification and views Trump as the egotistical and self-interested protagonist of his own story, rather than a spoke in some vast and improbable wheel. He hacked a debility in democracy, so to speak, exploiting the open ardour for anticipation fascism while holding advantage of countless other extrinsic factors: Bannon, the Russians, sexist and extremist paranoia, the debility of Hillary Clinton and so on.

Points against: A little too neat, maybe? Kind of airless and intellectual, not to discuss that it treats a male who fundamentally did not win the election like a Great Man of History. Trump isn’t Napoleon, or Hitler. Neither of those two was a sum dumbass.

Trump is an avatar of American ignorance, prejudice and stupidity

Clearly true, and alarming, but not very illuminating. we consider this is just a pessimistic reformulation of all the progressing theories, solely for the “zero hypothesis” ones in which Trump doesn’t really matter and the ignorance, prejudice and irrationality mentioned above are just a flitting weather complement before the object breaks by again.

Leading proponents: Everyone who didn’t opinion for him, and a satisfactory series of people who did.

Points in favor: That drunken feeling you get, when you see him on TV and have to remind yourself, that male is actually the president.

Points against: None. It just doesn’t explain anything.

Trump is a seminal figure in a new Age of Revolution, aka World War IV

Leading proponents: Although that specific plan is mine, the mixture are all borrowed from other sources (notably Baudrillard and historian E.J. Hobsbawm), and associated arguments have been modernized in incomparable abyss by countless academics.

Points in favor: It’s a useful first gash at a chronological framing that creates clarity of Trump as an aspect and effect of a much incomparable pattern, not as a weird curiosity that unexpected cheerless American democracy. And but the need to rivet in arguments about the awfulness of Hillary Clinton and either Bernie coulda, shoulda, woulda. Because, dear God, can we greatfully all close up about that?

Points against: Doesn’t tell us much of anything about how Trump actually got inaugurated — “the indomitable workings of history” is not an tangible answer — or what we need to do to make certain he goes away.

Trump is an rivalry of democracy, the Enlightenment and civilization

That competence sound blatantly obvious, and also like a highfalutin way of repeating several things we’ve already said, including, “He’s a Nazi.” But the Nazis, nonetheless vastly some-more terrible than Trump in terms of tangible actions and effects, would not have described themselves as against to the Enlightenment or Western civilization. They were big on art and culture, and wished to be accepted as the ultimate defenders of those things in an age of Jewish-contaminated decadence. Yes, their tastes were coarse and nauseating and their bargain of enlightenment was immorality and shallow. But they were pretentious, which is one insult you can't play at Donald Trump.

This strikes me as a distinct point, yet I’m not certain what it means. Except this: The recoil from Obama to Trump was not just from the first black boss to an sincerely extremist white man, but also from the many cosmopolitan, egghead boss of new decades to a person who revels in incuriosity and small-mindedness, does not even fake to review books or listen to exemplary music or caring about the supposed aloft pursuits, and appears to spend many of his waking life examination wire news.

Trump epitomizes the nauseous but destined fact that a vast cube of the American race is entirely disconnected from the values on which the commonwealth was founded, or views them as insincere jive mouthed by hypocrites, roughly the way Soviet adults of the 1970s noticed the guarantee of a stateless multitude of concept copiousness and equality. Trump’s fans adore him for speaking law to power, the law in this instance being that American life has no indicate over self-aggrandizement, self-indulgence and spectacle. This problem has been clear for years, but we’ve all been sanctimonious it isn’t there. We can’t do that anymore; in this and in so many other things, the Dear Leader has shown us the way.

Leading proponents; points in favor; points against: No one could presumably remonstrate with this. And no one knows what to do about it. So Happy New Year!


Andrew O’Hehir is a comparison author for Salon.

auto magazine

Check Also

How Donald Trump Plans to Enlist Fossil Fuels in the Struggle for Global Dominance

Photo Credit: Ungnoi Lookjeab/Shutterstock The new U.S. appetite policy of the Trump epoch is, in …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>