Historical Background of the Ideology Behind the Rise of Trump

[Recusant]

I thought about adding this to the "Duce" thread, but I know some people are loath to read history, and I wouldn't want to mislead them by putting it in a thread devoted to current politics. 

It's a concise history of the conservative populist stream in American politics, warts and all.

"An Intellectual History of Trumpism" | Politico

The hidden history of Trumpism suggests that the president-elect may be not simply an opportunistic showman but the leader of an at least semi-coherent ideology—a new iteration of the populist and nationalist paleoconservatism that has long lurked in the shadows of American politics. Now, for the first time since the isolationist 1930s, this ideology commands real influence, and for the first time in our history, it will enjoy favor from a sitting president. The prospects could not be more ominous.

[Icarus]

^ A Cliff-Notes style synopsis for a century of political history.   That article has the element of religion woven into the mix of accounts. Not a surprise.

[Recusant]

Another item from Politico on the history of the American right's flirtation with fascism. It demonstrates that contemporary ideologues like Tucker Carlson entertaining Nazi apologists is not so much an aberration as the continuation of a long-standing undercurrent in American "conservatism." Includes history of the recurrent American right-wing accusation that its opponents are all "Marxists" or "communists."

"The Right Is Defending the Nazis — Again" | Politico

Tucker Carlson may have reached a disturbingly new low when he hosted a two-hour podcast with Darryl Cooper, a Nazi apologist whom he called "the best and most honest popular historian in the United States."

Cooper's audacious claims that Winston Churchill, not Adolf Hitler, was the "chief villain of the Second World War" and that the Holocaust was essentially an accident prompted widespread indignation on the establishment right. National Review Executive Editor Mark Antonio Wright declared, "No, Winston Churchill was not the 'chief villain' of the Second World War," while Liz Cheney observed, "No serious or honorable person would support or endorse this type of garbage." Others, such as Bari Weiss, have pointed to Pat Buchanan and his 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War as the origin of conservatives' revisionism about World War II and the Holocaust.

Carlson's decision to wade into such murky waters shouldn't be a total shock. Over the past few years, Carlson, like others on the right, have embraced a populist-nationalist streak that has courted some of the darkest forces in American politics. This interview comes only a few months after top MAGA influencer Candace Owens declared that Israel was supplying arms for a "Christian Holocaust"; and two years ago, Donald Trump had dinner at Mar-a-Lago with the white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, though he later said he was unaware of Fuentes' identity.

But the mounting attraction of today's America First movement to antisemitism and Holocaust denial has much deeper roots than the rise of Trump or his ideological predecessor Buchanan. It connects to a strain of the radical right that has been present for many decades, one that has nourished hostility to defending democracy at home and abroad. Throughout, a key element of this strain of thinking has been to depict liberals as communists — a tradition many in the GOP continue to follow even if they don't all understand its radical roots. As Trump inveighs against "Comrade" Kamala Harris, he fits snugly into this tradition.

[Continues . . .]

[Asmodean]

Is Conservative-leaning Populism Trumpism, or only in the United States?

Because in the latter case, I'm not quite sure if it could be called "Conservative Populism." Rather, it's more... "Anti-Establishment, anti-Globalist" Populism. Neither of those are prerequisites of Conservatism, as Progressivism, for example, is "supposed" to be anti-establishment in principle and Nationalism is not on the Conservative-Liberal axis. (As in, you can be either and be a Nationalist - or not)

[Recusant]

Certainly, just ask the Soviet revanchists. One might consider that at least nominally an example of leftist nationalism. Though to consider somebody like Putin to be a leftist . . .

Still, I suppose thinking of Tito's Yugoslavia we have a reasonable example of leftist nationalism. China is a special case--they've considered themselves the center of the world forever.

So yes, a US thing. Extreme right wing movements take different paths in different contexts. See Germany and the neo-royalist absurdity, which seems to me to have a similar root element of right-aligned populism, decked out in the traditional panoply of weaponised xenophobia. That xenophobia being the prime mover of the "anti-globalist" facet.

As for anti-Establishment, I don't see it as a generalised anti-Establishment drive, but rather pointedly a rejection of anything to the left of Trump, including old-school Republicans like the Cheneys. They will not take that extra step to the right that he demands of his party. Not so much anti-Establishment, rather a vehement aversion to the government attempting to remedy an inherent structural flaw under the broad theme of "DEI." That's one of the current snarl words among the upstanding right after all.

Were the Establishment to resemble the vision laid out so helpfully by the Heritage Foundation and the talent behind Project 2025, the "tear it down" sentiment would subside to bitter quibbles over how best to deny particular rights to the populace.

Trumpism is certainly conservative. When taking into account the Christian Nationalism/Dominionist element which can be reasonably described as ultraconservative, the entirely on-brand conservative climate denial and the gleeful disdain for lefty environmentalism implied in the slogan "Drill baby drill," and the hallowed tradition of suppressing the suffrage of racial minorities. The list can continue, but the descriptors of "conservative" in at least the US sense (if it differs from some world standard) and "right" to far right are entirely appropriate in my opinion.

[Asmodean]

Certainly, just ask the Soviet revanchists. One might consider that at least nominally an example of leftist nationalism. Though to consider somebody like Putin to be a leftist . . .

That's kind-of where I'm going with this. It's a matter of where your axes lie. Here, for example, the left to right axis has a collectivist to individualist component. Putin is certainly a collectivist.

The same axis also has a socialist to capitalist component, which is kind-of stupid because again, limited mutual exclusivity. a collectivist can be a Capitalist, though it would be more difficult for an Individualist to be Socialist.

In any case, I'd place Putin as a highly-authoritarian slightly Left-leaning Centrist.

Still, I suppose thinking of Tito's Yugoslavia we have a reasonable example of leftist nationalism. China is a special case--they've considered themselves the center of the world forever.

Indeed, there is a difference between ideological nationalism and cultural.

That xenophobia being the prime mover of the "anti-globalist" facet.

Mmmmh... In cases. The anti-Globalist movements are also largely driven by the desire to protect their respective national interests. (America first for Americans, Norway first for Norwegians, so forth)

It's neither fear nor distaste for the foreigner, though obviously it fits those holding such phobias far better than the idea of a "borderless world," so they tend to support it in limited capacity. For example, here, we do have a couple of "Deport everyone" parties that fit the example of xenophobic ideologies in practice, but they have no traction (As in, none at all) What they call for is not what Right wing Populists call for.

As for anti-Establishment, I don't see it as a generalised anti-Establishment drive, but rather pointedly a rejection of anything to the left of Trump, including old-school Republicans like the Cheneys. They will not take that extra step to the right that he demands of his party. Not so much anti-Establishment, rather a vehement aversion to the government attempting to remedy an inherent structural flaw under the broad theme of "DEI." That's one of the current snarl words among the upstanding right after all.

This may be accurate, though Trump is not particularly far to the Right if you use the axis "properly." I base my assessment on repeatedly hearing people being fed up with career politicians, who are "all the same, just under different banners." Then of course there are remnants of the whole Covid-fiasco-dissatisfaction... What have you. Such matters do drive people to a bombastic "drain that swamp" candidate - even if he is in reality a swamp creature like the rest. At least he "talks the talk."