Jonathan Bernstein offers spot-on insights on American politics with every column and his piece last Wednesday was no exception. Though his observations are measured and well-grounded, there is sometimes room for a quibble or two. And, less often, more than a quibble. Let’s take a look at two paragraphs from “Republican Voters Aren’t Trump Zombies.”
So when the Washington Post’s Annie Linskey says that “Trumpism is having a better record than Trump himself tonight,” I’d say that the strain of the party that emerges as Trumpism or Tea Partyism or Gingrichism or Nixonism or McCarthyism — and yes, there are differences among those incarnations of right-wing radicalism but it’s not hard to see continuity as well — is particularly dominant within the party now, but it just doesn’t have all that much to do with Trump.
None of which is to dismiss Trump as a major player in Republican politics. His endorsement may not be treated as holy writ, but it doesn’t have to be to make a difference in close primaries. He’s popular among Republican voters. He may well win the party’s presidential nomination in 2024. He’s probably the single Republican most able to focus resentment and grievance. And should he regain the presidency, he remains dangerous to democracy precisely because he’s so bad at normal politics, not to mention unusually contemptuous of the rule of law.
Radicalism over the years
Yes, absolutely, there is great continuity from the 1950s to the present with numerous incarnations of radicalism in the Republican Party. And while it’s jolting to read the assertion that Trumpism – the dominant variant of GOP radicalism circa 2022 – “just doesn’t have all that much to do with Trump,” Bernstein is right. When we look at the trajectory and obsessions of the Republican Party, populated by shameless liars, white nationalists, conspiracy theorists, election deniers, and insurrectionists, with agendas inspired by the urge to own the liberals and an eagerness to employ the coercive power of the state against the perceived enemies of the GOP – Trump could be struck dead by a lightning bolt tomorrow and it wouldn’t make all that much difference. Trump has already set things in motion, accelerating the Republican Party in an authoritarian direction.
But then – in the final sentence of the quoted passage – Bernstein says of Trump that “should he regain the presidency, he remains dangerous to democracy precisely because he’s so bad at normal politics, not to mention unusually contemptuous of the rule of law.” While I agree regrading contempt for the rule of law, I have more than a quibble with Bernstein’s "precisely because" assessment regarding Trump’s dearth of political skills. I think this is flatly wrong.
A weak president
Throughout the Trump presidency, a recurring theme for Bernstein (often invoking Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power), was that Trump was a weak president because he was so politically inept. Bernstein (as well as Dan Drezner, David Hopkins, Matt Glassman, and other political scientists) argued that Trump, lacking both the understanding and the skillset to wield power effectively, often failed where more savvy, disciplined leaders would have notched victories.
This was, I believe, obviously true throughout the first year of the Trump presidency. And the second. Perhaps the third. But – at some point – things changed. Trump changed. The party actors changed. The political environment changed. And, while Trump continued to display glaring weaknesses at “normal politics,” he still managed to get what he wanted at times. He compensated for his deficiency with workarounds. And by the last months of his presidency he had become more powerful than the figure we had watched in earlier years.
In May 2020, Ross Douthat (who viewed Trump as a clownish figure, “interested in power only as a means of getting attention”) acknowledged Trump’s weaknesses, but argued that because “real political authority, the power to rule and not just to survive, is something that Donald Trump conspicuously does not seem to want,” that he posed no threat to democracy.
Bernstein disagreed and responded:
Presidential weakness isn’t insurance against harm. The real nature of presidential power, as the political scientist Richard Neustadt explained long ago, is a function of bargaining skill, mastery at gathering and processing information, understanding of the political and other incentives of those a president deals with, and thorough knowledge of the political system. Trump has none of those things. Indeed, that makes his influence minimal. But presidents who can’t manipulate the system to realize their visions of what the country needs try instead to work around the system, even if that means bending or breaking the rules. It usually doesn’t work, but along the way they can do all sorts of damage.
I agree with every word. Douthat is completely off base. And in mid-2020, I accepted the view of Trump as a weak president. But in retrospect, I believe that by that time, it was a mistake to continue to insist on Trump’s weakness. As I noted above, there is evidence that he compensated for his dearth of normal political skills. And – with all his failings – his strength became more evident throughout the final months of his presidency.
By May 2022, Trump had appointed Bill Barr as attorney general and was beginning to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the fall election, so he could dispute the loss – a long term project. In June, he staged a triumphant march across Lafayette Square with General Milley, Attorney General Barr, and others in tow. And Trump inspired (and presided over in absentia) the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. Whether normal or not, each of these episodes had implications for normal politics, Trump's political standing, and his dominance of the party.
Since leaving the White House, Trump has convinced most Republicans in the party that he was the legitimate winner of the November 2020 election; has inspired across the country election ‘audits,’ voter suppression legislation, laws to make it easier for Republicans in charge to overturn elections, and scores of GOP candidates (for governor, attorney general, secretary of state … down to local election officials and even volunteers) who are committed to ensure his victory next time; has shown that he can still expect pledges of support from Congressional Republicans even after they have publicly stated that he is unfit to serve; and he continues to have broad support throughout conservative media.
A weak president? Not all that weak.
The obvious rebuttal to my view is that these are not examples of normal politics. This isn’t the stuff analyzed in Presidential Power; Neustadt doesn’t give points for insurrection. We can see this move in the language. Douthat mentions “real presidential authority.” Bernstein references “the real nature of presidential power,” the attempts “to work around the system,” and a few paragraphs later, “true presidential influence” and “the proper use of the political system.”
But a key dimension of presidential power is influence (Neustadt's "ability to persuade.") And Trump's influence -- if we set aside preconceptions about moving legislation or directing foreign policy (neither of much interest to the man) -- along several dimensions is highly significant, especially for someone who lost his reelection bid decisively.
Reagan was an icon. Reaganism became an invocation. We're still living in the economic world that Reagan blessed, which has given us an increasingly greater separation between the top one-tenth of one-percent and the rest of us. Trump has transformed the Republican Party and the country just as fundamentally -- with culture, not the economy, as the battlefield. (Ironically, this shift, by ensuring that race and culture dominate our politics, may actually keep Trickle-down economics in place and protect the billionaires from meaningful blowback.)
If Neustadt had studied the Trump presidency
I’ll venture that if Neustadt had observed the Trump presidency, he would have been willing to add another chapter to his book, broadening his view of presidential power to make sense of what he saw.
But even if not, we should broaden our view.
1. We should concede that Trump’s stumbling moves (even if illegitimate or illegal) sometimes served to boost his reservoir of legitimate presidential power. We should concede that when the political environment shifted; when the fealty of Republicans (in Washington, across the country, in office and out, on Fox News Channel and Facebook) to Trump swelled; when Trump became a huge political figure in spite of his weaknesses; when he retained the GOP crown even after his defeat -- every one of these things increased the man’s political power (as defined by Neustadt). Trump didn't get much smarter, but he succeeded in increasing his clout for good or for ill.
A rejoinder is that (in Drezner's words) "constraints on the presidency have been severely eroded in recent decades, enabling even a comparatively weak leader to be a powerful president." This is almost certainly so. But look at what he has conceded: Trump as a powerful president. A focus on Trump's many weaknesses is just wrongheaded.
2. But let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that Trump was a weak president and (if he were to return) he would be a weak president in the future. Still, that’s not what makes him dangerous. He has shown that he isn't deferential to democratic norms (inside or outside the rule of law) and may transgress those norms whenever the whim strikes. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he is ready, willing, and able to trample democratic safeguards. We can be certain that we would see more of these transgressions in a second term. Count on it. That's the danger, not whether Trump is or is not skillful at normal politics.
3. Finally, if it were true that Trump is a danger to democracy precisely because he is poor at normal politics, then could we be assured that a more skillful Republican with an itch for authoritarian rule would pose a lesser danger? Not at all.
Consider a Ron DeSantis White House. His political skills appear far sharper than Trump's, but this isn't in the least reassuring. Yes, we could imagine hypothetical situations where DeSantis would act less recklessly than Trump, but in the real world (when we can't choose a hypothetical future), we have no reason to suppose that democracy would be less threatened by President DeSantis than by President Trump.
Donald Trump is bad at normal politics. Yes, his ignorance and fecklessness early on may have prompted transgressions against democracy. But at this stage, that's water under the bridge. I believe we can be grateful that Trump was as feckless as he was for as long as he was. And going forward, we have every reason to fear another Trump term, regardless of his mastery of, or failures to master normal politics.