THE MAKING OF DONALD TRUMP & MAGA

 

Now that we are almost a year into Trump’s second term, it is an appropriate time to stand back from the head scratching and frustration to pose an important question. Where did Trumpism and MAGA come from? I am not referring to the man himself, but rather to the ideological and political movement that supports the president.

The contrast between Trump’s first term in office and today’s version is striking. The years 2016-2020 were characterized by internal dysfunction. Moreover, there were enough adults in the room to save the country from Trump’s worst impulses. The first administration’s inability to formulate coherent policies, the constant turnover of cabinet members, and the impeachment proceedings all slowed him down.

Trump learned from his earlier debacle and began laying the groundwork for a different approach well before he won reelection. He enlisted the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025 to provide a road map for a second term. The president hit the ground running with a more ideologically developed and institutionally robust movement.

He now surrounds himself with sycophants that never say no. His advisers all believe: 1) that foreign policy is transactional and does not require long-term goals; 2) that the free movement of goods is not acceptable; and 3) that the free movement of people is even less acceptable.

Trumpism and MAGA did not begin with the Heritage Foundation. The ideological position which supports a white Christian, isolated America, empty of as much diversity as possible, has a long and entrenched history.

These views can be traced back to early colonial Puritan beliefs, followed by the vision of 19^th century American exceptionalism, disengaged from the world. Manifest Destiny held that the U.S. had a divinely ordained mission to expand across the continent. Before the Civil War, slavery supported white nationalism. Following black emancipation, a segregated South kept the ideology alive. Over time, these ideas coalesced to create a movement that resulted in the Heritage Foundation and the alt-right.

Since WWII, a number of movements and individuals have been important in the making of Donald Trump. A new book with an unusual title helps provide historical background into the intellectual origins of today’s alt-right movement. Hayek’s Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right, by Quinn Slobodian outlines the genesis of right-wing ideology with a colorful cast of characters.

The book introduces Friedrich August von Hayek, an Austrian-born British economist and philosopher. Hayek (1899-1992) had considerable influence on a variety of political and economic thinkers, including the alt-right.

Slobodian traces a history of ideas inspired by Hayek based on “hardwired human nature, hard borders, and hard money” (gold or silver). The early movement “forged an alliance with racial psychologists, neo-confederates, ethno-nationalists, and goldbugs” that would become known as the alt-right.

Historians have linked the making of Donald Trump to several national politicians from America’s recent past. Gillis Harp, a retired professor of history at Grove City College draws a comparison with George Wallace in his recent commentary, “The first Trump ran for president in 1968.” Harp notes that in this Vietnam dominated election year “political violence and rapid social change opened the door to a candidate well outside of the mainstream.”

In a familiar theme, white working-class Americans became alienated from the conventional political order. Harp points out that “Wallace drew support from Northern blue-collar voters who were attracted to his folksy populism, social conservatism, and frontal attack on the political, journalistic, and educational establishment.” Wallace exploited “cultural war” issues. He campaigned on “taking the handcuffs off the police.”

“Make America Great Again” is not a Trump invention. Ronald Reagan made the same promise during his 1980 presidential campaign. Reagan was the first presidential candidate to use the slogan on campaign merchandise. Reagan and Trump are similar in their shared backgrounds in the entertainment industry and their strong communication skills. Both successfully tapped into a narrative that someone from outside the traditional political establishment could capture the presidency.

Ross Perot, who ran for president as an independent in 1992, provides another comparison to Trump due to their shared similarities as wealthy political outsiders. Both men ran anti-establishment populist campaigns focused on objections to free trade and government corruption. Like Trump, Perot called for a tougher stand on immigration. He also employed a Trump-like, blunt, communication style that appealed to voters not happy with “smooth-talking” Bill Clinton. My father, like many other life-long Democrats who always supported the Party’s nominee, voted for Perot.

In the online Politico Magazine, editor John Harris, wrote a feature article, Ross Perot: The Father of Trump. Harris reminds us that “Perot was a secular prophet who in his time anticipated and personified the disruptive currents of the present. Idiosyncrasy, or at a minimum an eagerness to break standard political molds was part of Perot’s charm.”

Harris concludes, “Perot’s campaign revealed clear evidence of a constituency in national politics, radicalized in its disaffection with the major parties and with a nagging sense of American decline. This constituency did not go away after Perot did.”

On a daily basis, we are gob-smacked by the barrage of statements, executive orders and policies issued by the Trump administration. Clearly, our political past was a prelude to our present predicament. What changed was the Republican Party’s willingness to capitulate to Trump and make him a mainstream candidate.