The Peril of Potemkin Democracy

Trump doesn’t have to be Hitler to bring an end to the Republic.

One of the most difficult puzzles of the Trump administration is figuring out which dystopian scenario to worry about. Depending on who you listen to, everything Trump does is a feint meant to misdirect us away from the main threat, which is somewhere else.

Maybe Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts“, Stephen Miller’s assertion that the president’s power “will not be questioned“, or the president’s own declaration that CNN and the other mainstream news sources are “enemies of the American People” are assaults on the fundamental basis of democratic governance, or maybe they’re shiny objects intended to distract the press from digging into Trump’s radical appointments. Or maybe putting a buffoon like Rick Perry in charge of our nuclear energy programs is itself meant to split Congress on partisan lines so that neither party will get around to investigating Trump’s relationship with Russia. Maybe Russia is a red herring, and we ought to be paying attention to all the ways Trump and his cronies are setting themselves up to profit from his presidency. Or maybe the profiteering is small potatoes next to the alt-right influence of Steve Bannon, whose prophecy of a global war with Islam might be self-fulfilling if Islamophobic policies like the Muslim ban recruit enough young people into terrorism. Or maybe the Muslim ban is just a stalking horse meant to produce a clash with the judiciary, which Trump hopes to crush in the ensuing constitutional crisis.

I could keep going. Like a comic-book villain, Trump seems to be advancing towards the Apocalypse in all directions at once. Does that mean all roads need to be guarded equally? Or are all but one or two of the threats just distractions intended to split opposition forces? Is each proposal just the first step on a long march towards tyranny? Or is Trump like any other new president, checking off boxes on his list of campaign promises and hoping his various constituencies will be satisfied with a few symbolic baubles, so he can eventually focus on the things he really cares about? And what are those things?

Uncertainty of threat leads to uncertainty of response. Should we focus on throwing Trump’s allies out of Congress in 2018, or will that be too little too late? Right now, should we be calling our congresspeople? Marching in the streets? Planning our escape to Canada or Sweden? Or stockpiling arms for the inevitable civil war? Is paranoia making you worry too much? Or is denial making you too complacent?

A key point in Trumpian strategy is to keep your opponents rattled, and in that he is definitely succeeding. Probably the best line in SNL’s People’s Court skit wasn’t trying to be funny at all. The judge says: “I want one day without a CNN alert that scares the hell out of me.” Lots of us do.

So, acknowledging the uncertainties and the twin risks of paranoia and complacency, let’s see if we unrattle ourselves and focus our concern in the right places.

Why do people do what they do? This observation isn’t terribly deep, but it does help organize my analysis: What people do is always a combination of what they intend and the opportunities they happen across. For example, some people are in the careers they’ve pictured since they were kids, while others went wherever the jobs were when they graduated. Two people might work across a desk from each other, but one got there through a long-term plan and the other happened into it.

World leaders are the same way: They do some things because that’s why they set out to become world leaders in the first place. They do other things because the opportunity presents itself or some situation thrusts itself upon them. Lyndon Johnson launched the Great Society because that’s what he always wanted to do; he saw himself as a protege of FDR, so he wanted to be remembered as the president who completed the New Deal. But his response to an unanticipated challenge also made him the Vietnam War president.

So there are two parts to figuring out what to fear from Trump. First, what drives him, so that he will set out to make it happen? And second, where are the opportunities he might try to exploit?

Drives. Let me start by saying that I’ve never met Donald Trump, so all my opinions about him come at a distance. But at the same time, he has been in the public eye for decades and hasn’t exactly hidden his personality, so I’m not just shooting blind.

My take on Trump is that his drives are all personal, and he has no fixed political goals at all. This is the biggest reason why comparisons to Hitler are misguided. Hitler was ideological. Any unscrupulous German politician might have opportunistically used anti-Semitism to rabble-rouse. But Hitler was so identified with it that he carried out the Final Solution in secret, and speeded it up as the war began to go badly. He seemed haunted by the idea that he might lose power before he finished his genocide. Similarly, he was always planning to attack Russia; the German people needed to expand in the east at the expense of the racially inferior Slavs.

You’ll search in vain for any similar fixed political goals, good or bad, in Trump. He’s been both pro- and anti-abortion. He’s been a libertine and the candidate of the Religious Right. He was for the Iraq War until he decided he had always been against it. During the campaign, his policy prescriptions were all over the map: The government spends too much, but should start a massive infrastructure project. It should both get out of healthcare and make sure everybody gets covered. He is simultaneously a hawk and an isolationist, a champion of both the working stiff and the billionaire who keeps wages low.

One reason Congress is so frozen at the moment is that even after face-to-face meetings where public pandering can be put aside, Ryan and McConnell still have no idea what Trump really wants them to do. Even ObamaCare repeal — which every Republican from Trump on down pledged to do on Day 1 — is frozen, largely because Trump has not committed himself. He has left Congress to face the real-life difficulties of healthcare, while he floats vaguely above them, ready to tweet out his wrath if Congress’ program doesn’t fulfill his impossible promises.

But Trump is a bundle of personal drives: He wants to be the center of attention, to be admired and idolized. He needs to win, to never be wrong, and to be better than whoever people might compare him to. Fame and TV ratings and crowds are a few ways he measures his success, but the biggest is money and the appearance of money.

Politics is just another game that he can win, and so prove his superiority. And if being president also makes him a lot of money, that’s a double win. Everything else is just a move in that game. Does he hate Muslims or Mexicans? Not really, I think. But a lot of people do, and they’ll cheer for him if he says and does anti-Muslim or anti-Mexican stuff.

While he is not ideologically racist, he is favorably inclined towards any argument that justifies his own superiority. In practice, that can sometimes lead to the same result. Sexism, I believe, runs a little deeper: Women are simultaneously individuals to be dominated as well as chips in his competition with other men. Being shown up grates on him, but being shown up by a woman is doubly galling.

What I don’t see in him is an urge to remake society in his own image. He has no vision like a thousand-year Reich, a new Soviet man, or anything else that would lead to a micro-managed totalitarian system.

The opportunity that doesn’t exist. Even if Trump didn’t intend to go there, you might still imagine him opportunistically drifting into a Hitler-shaped or Stalin-shaped hole in American society. I firmly believe that there is no such hole. The 21st-century authoritarian model is quite different (as we’ll discuss below).

Germany in 1933 and Russia in 1917 were both countries in great economic distress, dealing with the aftermath of a humiliating defeat in war. Both had nostalgia for a former era when a strong ruler was firmly in charge.

Trump’s appeal is based on a dim echo of that situation. Many Americans are disappointed in their economic prospects, but compared to Depression-era Germany, few are desperate. (Wondering whether your salary will ever justify your student loans is a world away from wondering what bread will cost next week.) America’s persistent inability to wipe out enemies in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria is frustrating, but doesn’t compare to Russia’s or Germany’s humiliating defeat in World War I.  Trump’s rhetoric is nostalgic, but the leaders of those warmly-recalled eras were grandfatherly men like Eisenhower or Reagan, not iron-fisted czars or kaisers.

Trump has many fans, but Trumpism runs shallow compared to Hitlerism. In 1933, virtually every part of German society had its own Nazi movement eager to take power. In 2017, it’s hard to picture what a Trumpist takeover of the universities or of California would even mean, much less who would do it or how. The difficulty Trump is having staffing his administration is a symptom of this shallowness. He won with 46% of the vote, after all, and many who voted for him were not happy about it.

The appeal of Potemkin democracy. While America as a nation is not experiencing the kind of despair and defeat that leads to totalitarianism, many groups within America have seen a long-term decline in their influence and status, with no end in sight. Many members of these groups are deeply nostalgic, and prior to Trump’s election felt the kind of hopelessness that yearns for radical change.

These are the people I described in 2012 in “The Distress of the Privileged“: whites, men, conservative Christians, native-born English-speakers, and so on. These groups have never been oppressed in America and face no prospect of it, but they used to dominate society to an extent that they no longer do. That relative loss of power feels like persecution, even if in reality it is nothing more than a loss of privilege. [1]

But many of them experience that pseudo-persecution intensely, and believe it is being thrown in their faces constantly: when their doctrines are no longer taught or their prayers recited in public schools; when they have to compete in the workplace on near-equal terms with blacks and immigrants and women; when courts take the side of gay couples against the Christians who want to discriminate against them; when they express their distress in public and do not see their problems move immediately to the top of the agenda; when history classes call attention to the flaws of their heroes, or to the contributions of members of other groups; and on many other occasions. Those who look for these insults to their pride, and seek out media that highlights and exaggerates them, can find something every day.

These are the people who make up the bulk of Trump’s base, and who will be willing to watch democracy crumble if it allows them to regain the privileges they believe are rightfully theirs. While the extreme edge of this group contains open white supremacists, theocratic Dominionists, and even self-proclaimed Nazis, for the most part its members are not that radical: They’re happy with an American-style democracy as long as they’re comfortably in the majority and the elected government favors them. That’s what they’re nostalgic for.

But as they have sunk towards minority status, more extreme methods have begun to appeal: suppressing other voters in the guise of preventing “voter fraud”, gerrymandering legislative districts so that their minority of votes can dominate Congress and the state legislatures, shutting down immigration from people not like them, suppressing protest with police violence, and so on.

For the most part, their ideal America would be a Potemkin democracy. It would have the appearance of free institutions: elections, media not directly controlled by the government, opposition politicians not in jail, and so on. But the outcomes of those elections would never be in doubt, and democratic methods would never be sufficient to achieve equality for non-whites, non-Christians, or those that white Christians disapprove of (like gays).

The autocracy model that works. In a recent article in The Atlantic, David Frum described how democracy slipped away in 21st-century countries like Hungary, South Africa, and Venezuela. The Washington Post paints a similar (if less fully developed) picture of the year-old populist government in Poland.

What has happened in Hungary since 2010 offers an example—and a blueprint for would-be strongmen. Hungary is a member state of the European Union and a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights. It has elections and uncensored internet. Yet Hungary is ceasing to be a free country.

The transition has been nonviolent, often not even very dramatic. Opponents of the regime are not murdered or imprisoned, although many are harassed with building inspections and tax audits. If they work for the government, or for a company susceptible to government pressure, they risk their jobs by speaking out. Nonetheless, they are free to emigrate anytime they like. Those with money can even take it with them. Day in and day out, the regime works more through inducements than through intimidation. The courts are packed, and forgiving of the regime’s allies. Friends of the government win state contracts at high prices and borrow on easy terms from the central bank. Those on the inside grow rich by favoritism; those on the outside suffer from the general deterioration of the economy. As one shrewd observer told me on a recent visit, “The benefit of controlling a modern state is less the power to persecute the innocent, more the power to protect the guilty.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s rule over Hungary does depend on elections. These remain open and more or less free—at least in the sense that ballots are counted accurately. Yet they are not quite fair. Electoral rules favor incumbent power-holders in ways both obvious and subtle. Independent media lose advertising under government pressure; government allies own more and more media outlets each year. The government sustains support even in the face of bad news by artfully generating an endless sequence of controversies that leave culturally conservative Hungarians feeling misunderstood and victimized by liberals, foreigners, and Jews.

In Poland:

In merely a year, critics say, the nationalists have transformed Poland into a surreal and insular place — one where state-sponsored conspiracy theories and de facto propaganda distract the public as democracy erodes.

In the land of Law and Justice, anti-intellectualism is king. Polish scientists are aghast at proposed curriculum changes in a new education bill that would downplay evolution theory and climate change and add hours for “patriotic” history lessons. In a Facebook chat, a top equal rights official mused that Polish hotels should not be forced to provide service to black or gay customers. After the official stepped down for unrelated reasons, his successor rejected an international convention to combat violence against women because it appeared to argue against traditional gender roles.

The national broadcasting network has lost much of its independence, and the Catholic media outlets are happy with the new regime, so the overall news coverage is positive. Cosmopolitan Warsaw is dumbstruck, but in the countryside the new government is quite popular. Some say its economic policies — subsidizing couples with children and lowering the retirement age — aren’t sound in the long term, but facts and numbers aren’t making much of an impact on the public debate.

The ultimate model of a 21st-century autocrat, of course, is Vladimir Putin, whose praises Trump often sings. Putin’s situation gives him many advantages that Trump lacks: Pre-Putin Russia in many ways resembled the pre-totalitarian societies I discussed earlier, with extreme economic distress, national pride wounded by defeat in the Cold War and the collapse of its Soviet empire, and nostalgia for past dictators. But even as Putin becomes (by some accounts) the world’s richest individual, and as his hold on government is increasingly unassailable, Russia continues to have many of the trappings of democracy. There are elections, even if it’s hard to participate in them. [2] Some limited media criticism is tolerated, though sufficiently annoying critics do sometimes drop dead under suspicious circumstances. Putin even respected Russia’s presidential term-limit law, stepping into the Prime Minister’s role for a term to let someone else serve as a figurehead president.

Frum sums up:

Outside the Islamic world, the 21st century is not an era of ideology. The grand utopian visions of the 19th century have passed out of fashion. The nightmare totalitarian projects of the 20th have been overthrown or have disintegrated, leaving behind only outdated remnants: North Korea, Cuba. What is spreading today is repressive kleptocracy, led by rulers motivated by greed rather than by the deranged idealism of Hitler or Stalin or Mao. Such rulers rely less on terror and more on rule-twisting, the manipulation of information, and the co-optation of elites.

First steps. It’s not hard to find steps Trump has already taken down the Potemkin democracy path. As often as he verbally attacks CNN, there is virtually no chance of troops seizing its studios in a totalitarian coup. But Jared Kushner has already met with a high executive of CNN’s corporate master, Time Warner, to criticize CNN’s coverage of the new administration. According to The Wall Street Journal, he called out two commentators by name: Van Jones (a black) and Ana Navarro (a Nicaraguan immigrant). The implied threat is all too obvious: Billions of dollars hang on whether the Trump administration approves Time Warner’s proposed merger with AT&T.

There is no need for Trump critics like Jones or Navarro to wind up in Guantanamo. It is sufficient if he can get them shunted off to media outlets that only liberals or people of color pay attention to.

Similarly, Trump has talked about expanding the scope of libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations. Melania is already suing one, using the lawyer that Peter Thiel used to kill Gawker. The point, apparently, is not to recover damages, but to put critics out of business.

Under the guise of “reforming the bureaucracy” or “draining the swamp”, Trump seeks to populate government service with people loyal to him rather than to the missions of their departments.

His refusal to separate himself in any meaningful way from his business empire, his lack of transparency about his finances, and his flagrant use of his position as president to promote his profit-making properties are all part of this pattern. Frum projects these trends into 2020:

Most Americans intuit that their president and his relatives have become vastly wealthier over the past four years. But rumors of graft are easy to dismiss. Because Trump has never released his tax returns, no one really knows.

The repeatability of 2016. As Trump is fond of reminding us, the experts said he couldn’t win in 2016, and they were wrong.

But it’s worth considering exactly what they were wrong about. What made Trump’s victory so implausible was that he consistently spoke to a base that was nowhere near a majority of the American people. It seemed obvious that his appeal could not translate into a majority of the votes cast.

And it didn’t: He got 46% of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 48%, a difference of nearly three million votes. What everyone failed to see was that:

  1. The combination of sexism, a long-term build-up of anti-Hillary hype, Trump’s relentless lock-her-up negativity, and unethical meddling by Russia and the FBI would make Clinton unacceptable to enough voters that the election would be close, despite Trump’s general unpopularity.
  2. The inherent gerrymandering of the Electoral College would allow Trump to win despite being outvoted by a clear margin.

After taking office, Trump has continued to speak only to his base, which is still an electoral minority. Unsurprisingly, a whopping 55% of Americans now view him unfavorably after only one month of his presidency.

But couldn’t the same strategy work again in 2020? Given enough repetition, a sufficiently cowed media, new illicit meddling (maybe by a Trump-tamed NSA this time), and relentless efforts to smear whoever the leading Democrat turns out to be — “Pocahontas” Warren, for example — couldn’t he repeat the same trick and be re-elected with no more popularity than he had in 2016?

What to expect. What Trump wants and has always wanted is to make vast amounts of money, to be courted by his fellow billionaires, and to have the power to take revenge on those who slight him. The repressive kleptocracy model offers all that.

To stay in power — and ideally to hand power off to a chosen successor like son-in-law Kushner or daughter Ivanka — Trump must keep the loyalty of his distressed/privileged base. In order to do that, he will offer them some substantive benefits. But ultimately he has no loyalty to them, so he will consistently attempt to give them symbolic victories that cost him nothing, or to take credit for far more than he actually does. The most efficient way for him to maintain their loyalty is to keep them constantly agitated by imaginary insults from their enemies, which Trump will defend them against. [3]

That base will continue to be an ever-shrinking minority, but by making it increasingly harder for others to vote, for immigrants to enter the country, for resident aliens to become citizens, for opposition parties to bring their case to the general public, and for voting majorities to achieve actual power, Trump will endeavor to enlarge that minority’s power far beyond its numbers. In doing so, he will simply be extending and exaggerating policies the Republican Party and the conservative media have pursued for many years.

Accompanying these policies will be the constant attempt to increase public cynicism. Sure, Trump lies, Trump profits from government, Trump bends the rules in his favor, but that’s just politics. Everybody lies, everybody cheats, all news is fake.

The threat, then, isn’t that some Reichstag-fire incident will set off a well-planned takeover that overnight makes America unrecognizable. On the contrary, America in 2020 will be very recognizable, as long as you don’t look too deeply.

[1] This is not to say that some members of these groups don’t have genuine problems worthy of government help — ex-workers of dying industries in dying-industry towns, like West Virginia coal miners, for example. But even here, what thrusts them into public attention isn’t the degree of their distress, it’s that they’re native-born English-speaking white men in distress. It’s the my-problem-should-move-to-the-top-of-the agenda privilege.

Tim Wise comments:

When white people are hurting economically we’re supposed to feel their pain and “bring the jobs back” to their dying rural towns. But when people of color lack jobs in the cities (in large part because of the decline of manufacturing over 40 plus years, as well as discrimination) we tell them to “move,” to go to school and gain new skills, and we lecture them on pulling themselves up by their bootstraps because the government doesn’t owe them anything. But apparently we DO owe white coal miners and assembly line workers their jobs back because remember, out of work white men are “salt of the earth” while out of work people of color are lazy.

[2] Garry Kasparov discusses the difficulties of getting on the ballot and campaigning in Russia in his book Winter is Coming. For example, the rules require your party to have a nominating convention of a certain size, but what if no one is willing to displease the government by renting you space for it?

[3] A good example was his rally this week in Florida, which Melania opened with the Lord’s Prayer. Not only does that give conservative Christians a we’re-still-in-charge-here thrill at no cost to Trump, it allowed the pro-Trump side of the media to further their Christian-persecution narrative.

Supposedly liberals were up in arms about the prayer, but I would never have heard about it if not for Fox News’ coverage of how up-in-arms people like me are. The liberal web sites I regularly cruise didn’t find it worth mentioning. (Fox’ sources are social-media posts by ordinary people. You could find similar posts objecting to more-or-less anything that happens.)

In fact, a campaign rally is a private event, so opening it with prayer does not violate church-state separation. If Trump wants to signal to non-Christians that they are not welcome at his rallies, that’s up to him. I was not offended and I suspect very few liberals were.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Heliopause Molly  On February 20, 2017 at 10:47 am

    I really liked this article!!

  • James  On February 20, 2017 at 10:47 am

    great post! you always help add clarity. i would note that i think some of the folks near him in power do seem to have strong ideological drives (pence, bannon) and appear to have enough influence to implement them at least in part. it’ll be interesting to see how that shakes out because their implementations wont’ necessarily interfere with rumps primary drives (and will likely add to his fame and wealth).

  • Donna victor  On February 20, 2017 at 10:50 am

    Brilliant , however I was hoping to find some small comfort…….can not seem to get rid of that tightness in my chest.

  • Mikel Aickin  On February 20, 2017 at 11:29 am

    I think your point is right, that trying to Hitlerize
    the conversation about Trump is like the generals trying
    to re-fight the most recent war. History does not repeat
    itself exactly, but the same themes and patterns seem
    to recur. One that I think deserves a lot of attention
    is not about Trump, whose simple-mindedness and
    dysfunctional personality are obvious, but that just
    as in the case of 1930’s Germany there are a lot
    of citizens who support whatever madness it is that
    Trump seems to promise. If about one-quarter of the
    US adult population is as politically delusional as
    they appear to be, then the questions the rest of us
    have to face are, how did they get that way, and what
    can we do to avoid suffering from the consequences
    of their actions? Whether we will have to put up
    with Trump in the long run will be determined by
    the balance of his instinct for self-preservation
    and his tendency to self-destruction, but even when
    he disappears from the scene, that one-quarter of
    the population will still be there.

  • prairiemaryblog  On February 20, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    Excellent essay, concentrating on the evidence that we are addressing the foxes’ strategy (lots of smaller feints) rather than one big totalitarian idea (the hedgehog), I think there are some additional elements, like the conversion of high schools into athletic programs and so on.

    But the One Big Idea that I worry about is a third party force that is nothing but commerce — no ideology but profit and then THAT controlled by BIg Data, the constant scrutiny of people voting with their credit cards. I think this is what Trump reacts to: how many people bought what in the previous interval. I think the lesson of “A Biliion Wicked Thoughts” — that people are up to invisible and “forbidden” practices that NEVER show up in surveys. The surveys don’t call people with cell phones, do they? Facebook can reveal diseases, desperation, skews of thought, coalitions of the underserved, that are very useful information for advertising, which is what campaigning has become.

    Others have pointed out that the qualities necessary for campaigning are quite different from those necessary for governing. Campaigning is “FUN,” but actually governing is boring, tedious, unrewarded. Somehow elections winnow OUT the leaders we need.

    Thank you for your careful reflection.

  • Karen W. Hughes  On February 20, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    An interesting and well thought out article – Thank you. I would agree if it were not for Bannon. I’m uncertain exactly how much control he exerts over Trump but his aims and goals are very different and perhaps much darker..

  • bobdrad  On February 20, 2017 at 1:29 pm

    Great past, as always. Typo: “As Trump is found of reminding us” pls correct.

  • coastcontact  On February 20, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    While your fears of a Potemkin Democracy are justifiable that outcome is an unlikely scenario. Even as I write this response there are marches and demonstrations occurring in major cities with titles of “Not My President’s Day.” While it is accurate that the congress seems to be silent I anticipate an uprising by GOP lawmakers. Wiser heads will prevail and that will end the Trump presidency. Even now we can see the seeds of those wise leaders. Comments this past Sunday by John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the beginning of what I anticipate will be the impeachment of Mr. Trump. Yes, I refuse to put the title “President” in front of his name. Incidentally I am prepared to leave this country if my expectations do not occur and you are correct in analyzing the end of the Republic.

  • Amanda  On February 20, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    I really appreciate your breakdown of the situation and I’ve read several of the same articles that you mentioned. But I’m having the same problem with your post that I’ve been having with most posts like this lately: It offers little in the way of what we can do about it. It seems I find few suggestions for how to defeat this more insidious populist take-over. I’ve gleaned a few good words of advice, especially when written by people who have gone through similar regimes, but little else. It seems more and more people are starting to understand what is really happening but nobody seems to be able to tell us how to combat it. Some of the advice I have read leans toward not being radical or combative, but again that’s more of a warning about what NOT to do as opposed to a suggestion for what TO do. Wondering if you have any thoughts on this? My own personal agenda involves taking part in less rallies and other demonstrations and instead working toward learning to lobby my reps effectively, increasing voter turn-out, and speaking effectively about issues with an eye on changing minds or at least helping people take the right stances. Would love to hear what you think our solutions to this Trumpian problem should be.

  • MAHA  On February 20, 2017 at 4:12 pm

    Hi Doug,

    I can understand why you worked on this article as long as you did before feeling ready to post it, I am still trying to get a sense of how Trump is going to change America, myself, but I appreciate having the benefit of your analysis while I watch. Maybe it’s a fairy tale I am telling myself but I do believe good will ultimately triumph over evil, though “ultimately” is an unknown period of time.

    Deborah McP

  • Larry Benjamin  On February 20, 2017 at 8:32 pm

    I would say the primary agenda of this administration is to transfer as much wealth from the poor and the middle class to the upper class, with the people on the very top getting the lion’s share. And they will get away with it as long as they can keep the 25% of the population that supports them convinced that their real enemies are racial and religious minorities, feminists, atheists, liberals, elites, journalists, scientists, and whichever other groups can be presented as the opposition.

  • Daniel.  On February 20, 2017 at 9:27 pm

    Wait wait wait. Melania asked God to give her, her husband, and his voters the same kind of forgiveness that they give to those who trespass against them? Wow. I’m not normally vindictive, but that would be fascinating to watch.

  • familytreedet  On February 21, 2017 at 1:15 pm

    Long, but hits many good points especially the persecution complex area.

  • janinmi  On February 21, 2017 at 3:14 pm

    My take-away from this post: Trump wants to be king. How un-American. *snort* Thanks for the excellent elucidation of the current HoS (head of state). Have a nice week off, and please follow through with the companion piece on what to do about this. I’ll be patient. 🙂

  • Dan Willis  On February 21, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    A fascinating and illuminating post (as usual). However, I’m unconvinced by the part where you doubt that Trump is ideologically racist. What has he said or done–or not said or done–that makes you conclude this?

    • weeklysift  On March 4, 2017 at 6:57 am

      I don’t have the kind of evidence you’re asking for, but I read the lack of evidence in the other direction. Like a lot of whites (particularly older ones) he has a long history of being racially insensitive, but the dog whistles to the KKK and other white supremacists seemed to start with the campaign. I think that kind of stuff is opportunistic rather than ideological.

  • ramseyman  On February 21, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    Great research on the perspective from Eastern Europe! But about that question – “Uncertainty of threat leads to uncertainty of response. Should we … ?” You could start by not giving the abuser the brand name power which comes from people massively using his name online.

  • ADeweyan  On February 21, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    I’ve been wondering about the term “gerrymandering” as applied to Trump’s electoral-college win. I’m probably just missing something, but it seems to me that gerrymandering only directly applies to the Trump gaining a rubber-stamp Congress in addition to the Presidency. From what I’ve seen, in the key swing states that Trump won, he won by a genuine majority, not by carefully-crafted district borders.

    It may be that the use of “gerrymandering” here is referring to the dramatic imbalance between votes in sparsely-populated states and those in more populous states, but is that a fair use of the term?

    • ramseyman  On February 27, 2017 at 1:18 pm

      As I understand it, from a strictly lay perspective, the electoral college was originally devised as a compromise to keep the slave states happy. Representatives of those states were concerned that they did not have enough popular vote to maintain equal leverage in the selection of president and vice president. The electoral college is therefore designed to give extra weight to states that are more rural. Accordingly, it could arguably be described as an inherently gerrymandered system.

    • weeklysift  On March 4, 2017 at 7:06 am

      It was more of a metaphorical usage: The system has the effect of weighting Republican votes over Democratic votes, and also of hiding big Democratic majorities inside single states (like California). It’s not a coincidence that two of the last three presidential elections won by the Republican candidate were popular-vote losses, and that no Democratic victor in modern times has lost the popular vote. The Electoral College gives Republicans a persistent advantage.

      As ramseyman points out, the system was designed to weigh small-state votes more than large-state votes, so it also resembles gerrymandering in that sense. But the Founders didn’t foresee the modern party system, so the current partisan effect is accidental.

      A complete, literal gerrymander is when you move boundaries to include or exclude voters who vote a certain way, and the state borders have not been moved in that way.

  • Simply Splendid Food  On February 22, 2017 at 7:56 am

    Love the cartoon!

  • themightnightbullshit  On February 23, 2017 at 2:22 am

    I agree with the argument that Trump will do everything in his ability to further anger his base and empower their vote, however, I feel like that fairly obvious right? What I think is a more interesting is to what degree he believes this move is sustainable. Trump can resist immigration, the freedom of information, social change, but in the arc of history these forces have so far proven unstoppable. There’s a market in resisting globalism, that’s for sure…but it can’t be the best long term bet. The next question is, how long-term is it? Does it last two terms?

  • Daniel Lynch  On February 23, 2017 at 6:00 am

    Is Trump merely the perfection of a Potemkinist system that has been in place for decades now?

    Obama arguably disguised our kleptocracy more effectively. For all his progressiveness, in the end, no one who was responsible for the 2008 crash is in jail. The corporate globalist banking and commerce system grew apace during Obama’s eight years.

    All the post-modern gears that have sidelined the working class (both white and male as well as non-white and female) continued to grind. While Obama himself might not have been the Profiteer-in-Chief like Trump is, he still presided over a corporatist system that marginalized millions of people and marauded the planet, which has been on a predictable trajectory since WWII.

    I would argue that corporatist kleptocracy is bigger than any president, Red or Blue. Arguably, Blue presidents provide a better cover—but presidents don’t have the tools necessary for the worker’s revolution Bernie was advocating.

    • weeklysift  On March 4, 2017 at 7:16 am

      I think we’re arguing about whether the Obama-to-Trump change is a difference in degree or difference in kind. I’ll just claim that even if you frame it as a difference in degree, it’s still pretty big.

      Under Obama (or previous presidents of either party), the big money wielded power that the politicians had to respect, whether they were ideologically inclined towards those power centers or not. With Trump, a particular cabal of moneymen takes over the government itself.

      I would compare it to the difference between a city where crime is common but chaotic, compared to a city where an organized crime syndicate runs everything.


  • By The Chaos President | The Weekly Sift on February 20, 2017 at 11:56 am

    […] week’s featured post is “The Peril of Potemkin Democracy“. It’s my attempt to put the Trump threat in […]

  • By The Center Cannot Hold on February 21, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    […] a little subtler, and for that reason maybe more sinister. Both David Frum in the Atlantic and Doug Muder in this week’s Sift have posited that Trump might be angling for a Potemkin […]

  • […] The Peril of Potemkin Democracy […]

  • By Worrying About Progress | The Weekly Sift on March 6, 2017 at 11:15 am

    […] me, such examples just underline what does matter, which I spelled out two weeks ago: identity politics. The Trump base voter is nostalgic for an America where white Christians are […]

  • […] never been true in America before, and it would be a big step towards turning us into a Potemkin Republic, like Putin’s Russia, where we maintain all the facades of democracy and the rule of law, but […]

  • By Battles in Progress | The Weekly Sift on November 12, 2018 at 12:17 pm

    […] the Acosta incident points out is that White House briefings have become Potemkin democracy. The administration spokespeople routinely lie, and if a reporter protests against being lied to, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: