The Case for Trump

1. Trump capitalized on a deep and growing divide between coastal elites and the heartland.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states: red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats.

A new divide. The traditional rich-poor divide was supplanted by an ominous split between coastal elites and the interior middle class, expressed politically, culturally, socially, and geographically. This mirrored ancient divides like Athens vs. Sparta, with cosmopolitan shores warring against the traditionalist land. Trump inherited this split, widened by Obama's policies which, despite his initial inclusive rhetoric, governed with a one-sided, almost triumphalist attitude towards the blue states.

Leveraging the split. Trump gambled that the forgotten interior could defeat the coasts in the Electoral College. Unlike prior Republicans who lost consistently blue states, Trump aimed to capture swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by energizing disenchanted white working-class voters, many without college degrees, who felt ignored by both parties. His success in these states, often by narrow margins, proved this strategy effective.

Elite disdain. A key factor was the perceived condescension of coastal elites towards the heartland, exemplified by comments like Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" or other public figures' dismissive remarks about the intelligence, culture, and even hygiene of Trump supporters. This disdain, often voiced more openly after the election, fueled a counter-contempt among Trump voters who felt their values and struggles were mocked, making Trump's uncouthness seem like a justified pushback.

2. Trumpism offered a populist agenda focused on trade, immigration, and challenging foreign policy norms.

When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win.

Signature issues. Trump focused on issues resonating with the working class: ending costly, inconsequential wars, recalibrating unfair trade deals, and securing the border against illegal immigration. He framed these as zero-sum games where America was losing due to incompetent leaders and foreign "cheaters," contrasting with the establishment's globalist orthodoxy.

Disrupting norms. Trump challenged bipartisan consensus on:

• Foreign Policy: Questioning NATO, the UN, and interventions like Iraq and Libya, arguing they were fought for ungrateful others at Americans' expense. He advocated a Jacksonian nationalism – retaliate overwhelmingly but avoid optional wars.
• Trade: Rejecting free trade dogma for "fair trade," threatening tariffs to force concessions from countries like China, Mexico, and Germany, arguing trade deficits cost American jobs.
• Immigration: Demanding a border wall and strict enforcement, arguing illegal immigration suppressed wages, increased crime, and undermined sovereignty, contrasting with "comprehensive reform" seen as amnesty.

Consistency and results. Unlike many politicians, Trump sought to implement his campaign promises, surprising critics. His focus on these issues, often neglected or mishandled by rivals, galvanized his base and provided concrete policy goals for his administration.

3. Trump's unconventional persona and communication style were inseparable from his political success.

My use of social media is not Presidential—it’s MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL.

Beyond the issues. Trump's unique persona – honed on reality TV – was central to his appeal. His charisma, humor, and presence, combined with his garishness and perceived authenticity, resonated with voters tired of polished politicians. His crude language and feuds, while alienating to some, were seen by supporters as transparent and a refreshing contrast to political doublespeak.

Strategic use of media. Trump mastered using controversy to gain free media attention, estimated at $1 billion during the campaign. His outrageous remarks and tweets, while often criticized, kept him in the headlines and allowed him to control the narrative, forcing opponents to react to his provocations. This was a deliberate tactic to set himself apart and deter attacks.

The "counter puncher". Trump often framed his insults and attacks as retaliation against those who first criticized him. This "he started it" dynamic resonated with supporters who saw him as fighting back against a hostile media and establishment. His ability to out-brawl opponents, even when using cruder tactics, often left his adversaries looking more unhinged than he did.

4. The Democratic Party's progressive shift and reliance on identity politics alienated key voters.

For those of us that are in states that Trump won we would really appreciate if she would be more careful and show respect to every American voter and not just the ones who voted for her.

Obama's legacy. While Obama won two terms, his progressive governance, particularly in his second term, moved the Democratic Party significantly leftward. This alienated traditional working-class voters and contributed to massive down-ballot losses, leaving the party weaker at the state and federal levels than at any time since the 1920s.

Identity over class. The party increasingly prioritized identity politics, focusing on issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation, often framed through concepts like "white privilege" and "white supremacy." This approach, while energizing some segments, was perceived by many working-class voters, particularly whites, as divisive and dismissive of their economic struggles.

Hillary's failure. Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, in contrast to her more centrist 2008 run, doubled down on progressive themes and identity politics to counter Bernie Sanders. Her infamous "deplorables" comment epitomized the party's perceived disdain for Trump voters, many of whom were former Democrats. This failure to connect with the working class in key swing states proved fatal.

5. The Republican establishment's adherence to outdated dogma failed to address the concerns of its base.

The irate conservative base believed that politics had become a red-blue near civil war that was now engulfing their entire lives with little private space left.

Winning but losing. Despite controlling Congress and many state governments, Republicans had struggled to win the presidency, losing the popular vote in five of the six elections prior to 2016. The base grew frustrated with leaders perceived as timid and ineffective in Washington.

Stale orthodoxy. The establishment adhered to rigid free-market dogmas that seemed disconnected from the struggles of the working class:

• Unfettered free trade regardless of deficits or job losses.
• Unquestioned global commitments and nation-building interventions.
• "Comprehensive immigration reform" often seen as amnesty.

Lack of fighters. Conservative voters felt their leaders were too polite and unwilling to engage in the political "civil war" they perceived. Candidates like McCain and Romney were seen as too moderate and unable to counter Democratic attacks effectively. Trump's aggressive, brawling style, while off-putting to some, appealed to those who wanted a leader willing to fight for them.

6. The "Deep State" bureaucracy, largely progressive, became a significant force opposing Trump.

This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady state.

A state within a state. The permanent federal bureaucracy, along with revolving-door political appointees and associated institutions (think tanks, media, universities), grew into a powerful force often resistant to change and aligned with progressive and internationalist views. This "administrative state" wielded significant, often unaccountable, power over taxes, regulation, surveillance, and national security.

Resistance to Trump. This establishment largely opposed Trump due to his outsider status, unconventional style, and promise to "drain the swamp." They viewed him as a threat to their norms, influence, and ideology. This opposition manifested in leaks, undermining directives, and public criticism from former officials.

Weaponization and bias. Critics alleged that elements within the FBI, DOJ, and other agencies became politicized, potentially using their power to target political opponents, as seen in controversies surrounding the handling of the Clinton email investigation, the use of the Steele dossier, and the composition of the Mueller team, which was heavily staffed by individuals with ties to Democrats or anti-Trump sentiments.

7. Trump framed American decline as a deliberate outcome of elite policies and globalism.

The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.

Not fated, but chosen. Unlike traditional declinists who saw decline as an organic cycle or a result of moral decay, Trump argued it was a deliberate choice made by a small group of elites in Washington who benefited from policies that harmed the rest of the country.

Blaming others. Trump blamed foreign nations for cheating on trade and taking American jobs, and American leaders for making "dumb deals" that allowed this to happen. He contrasted this with Obama's tendency to blame Americans for their own shortcomings or laziness.

A rigged system. Trump's narrative resonated with those who felt left behind by globalization. He argued that the elite had prioritized enriching foreign industries and workers at the expense of American ones, leading to factory closures and the decline of the middle class in the heartland. His promise was to reverse this rigged system and restore American prosperity.

8. Hillary Clinton's personal scandals and perceived inauthenticity inadvertently aided Trump.

Not being Hillary Clinton had at least become by November 2016 better even than not being Donald Trump.

A flawed opponent. Hillary Clinton's extensive political résumé was countered by a long history of personal and professional scandals (Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, email server, Clinton Foundation, Uranium One). These issues, often met with shifting explanations and perceived stonewalling, eroded public trust.

Neutralizing Trump's negatives. Clinton's own vulnerabilities, particularly regarding ethics and honesty, inadvertently neutralized many of Trump's liabilities. When she attacked his business practices or past scandals, he could effectively counter by highlighting her own, often more serious, controversies.

Lack of a compelling message. Beyond being the potential first female president and not being Donald Trump, Clinton struggled to articulate a clear, resonant message that addressed the economic anxieties of swing-state voters. Her perceived inauthenticity and occasional condescending remarks further alienated potential supporters.

9. Trump's controversial style, while criticized, was seen by supporters as necessary pushback against the establishment.

The real obscenity in their view was appeasing such a lethal monster as Kim, and his father and grandfather for nearly the past seventy years.

Beyond character. While Trump's crudity, feuds, and controversial past were widely criticized, his supporters often separated his personal flaws from his political purpose. They saw his unconventional behavior not as a liability, but as a necessary tool to challenge a corrupt and out-of-touch establishment.

Fighting back. Trump's willingness to directly attack the media, political opponents, and perceived enemies, often using blunt and vulgar language, was viewed as a refreshing contrast to the perceived timidity of traditional politicians. His supporters felt he was finally saying what they thought and fighting back on their behalf against those who disdained them.

Results over rhetoric. For many Trump voters, the perceived effectiveness of his policies on the economy, immigration, and foreign policy outweighed concerns about his temperament or personal conduct. They prioritized achieving tangible results and disrupting the status quo over traditional presidential decorum.

10. Unprecedented efforts to delegitimize and remove Trump began immediately after his election.

Never in the history of the American presidency has there been such an immediate and sustained effort by the opposition to remove an elected president before completing his first term.

Immediate resistance. Unlike past presidents who faced opposition, Trump was met with intense, multifaceted efforts to delegitimize and remove him from office even before his inauguration. This included protests, calls for electors to defect, and early discussions of impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment.

Multifaceted attacks. The "Resistance" employed a variety of tactics:

• Public protests: Women's March, anti-Trump rallies.
• Media campaigns: Overwhelmingly negative coverage, often focusing on personality and scandals.
• Legal challenges: Lawsuits based on emoluments clause, attempts to challenge election results.
• Government leaks: Constant leaks from within the administration and intelligence agencies.
• Calls for violence: Rhetoric from some public figures normalizing violence against Trump.

Deep State involvement. Allegations and evidence emerged suggesting that elements within the permanent bureaucracy actively sought to undermine the Trump presidency, exemplified by the anonymous New York Times op-ed claiming an internal "resistance" working to frustrate his agenda.

11. Despite chaos and opposition, Trump's early presidency achieved notable economic and foreign policy results.

At the end of the first five hundred days of Trump’s tenure, both critics and supporters agreed that the economy was performing at a level not yet seen in the twenty-first century.

Economic surge. Despite predictions of doom, the US economy under Trump experienced significant growth:

• GDP consistently over 3% annualized rate.
• Unemployment reached near 50-year lows.
• Business and consumer confidence soared.
• Stock market reached record highs.

Policy drivers. This economic performance was attributed to Trump's policies:

• Massive deregulation across various sectors.
• Tax cuts (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017).
• Increased energy production (oil, gas, coal).
• Boosterism and perceived pro-business stance.

Foreign policy shifts. Trump challenged the post-war order, leading to notable changes:

• Defeat of ISIS's territorial caliphate.
• Withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
• Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem.
• Pressuring NATO allies to increase defense spending.
• Engaging North Korea in denuclearization talks.
• Confronting China on trade imbalances.

12. Trump's management style, marked by high turnover and feuds, disrupted Washington norms.

The new Fake News narrative is that there is CHAOS in the White House. Wrong! People will always come & go, and I want strong dialogue before making a final decision.

High turnover. Trump's administration saw unprecedented turnover among senior staff and cabinet officials in its first two years, far exceeding historical norms. This was attributed to his management style, feuds, and preference for loyalty and personal compatibility over traditional credentials.

Chaos as energy. Trump often embraced the perception of chaos, viewing it as "energy" or a necessary disruption of the status quo. He frequently fired or forced out appointees who clashed with him, leaked to the press, or were perceived as disloyal, regardless of their experience or reputation.

Constant feuding. Trump continued his campaign style of public feuds with individuals across the political spectrum, including members of his own administration, Congress, the media, and even foreign leaders. While this alienated many, it also reinforced his image as an outsider constantly battling the establishment.

Last updated: May 21, 2025