That’s Cliff Winston’s assessment here at LSEblog:
Since entering office for his second term, President Trump has consistently ignored expert advice on key policies, sought to intimidate his perceived enemies and critics, and counted on the public to trust his judgments without question. Clifford Winston writes that these are all characteristics of a narcissistic populist presidency, and that his policy agenda has and will create adverse outcomes for many Americans as well as obstacles to innovation.
Depending on the party that they represent, past US presidents have taken either a conservative approach to governance, championing limited government interventions in Americans’ lives, or a liberal one, espousing expansive government interventions. In contrast, President Trump does not consistently advocate for either limited or expanded government. Instead, he identifies as a populist, appealing to much of the public’s policy preferences. However, because Trump is the first US president to at least publicly proclaim that he is on a mission from God and that he runs both the country and the world, he is best understood as a narcissistic populist.
…
Economic implications:
- Tariffs that reduce competition from foreign competitors, increase domestic prices, and require additional subsidies for farmers.
- Opposition to efficient efforts to reduce pollution, which will harm Americans’ health.
- Opposition to the New York City congestion pricing scheme, which is reducing congestion and automobile accidents and increasing foot traffic in downtown commercial areas.
Importantly, Trump’s myopic policy agenda is also creating obstacles to innovation that could advance the nation, such as:
- Price controls for pharmaceuticals, which could result in less innovation, fewer new drugs, and shortages of current drugs.
- Restrictions on immigration, which could lower the rate of socially beneficial innovation because immigrants tend to contribute a disproportionate share of US inventions and aggregate innovation.
Entire post here.
Trump is neither conservative nor liberal. But we do have a way of understanding his position in politics, I think. He represents what Peter Turchin calls “frustrated elite aspirants, who harness popular resentment to turn against the established order”. Turchin’s view is that the rise of a class of frustrated elite aspirants leads to political rupture, a view which has a lengthy pedigree.
I offer a small bouquet of quotes from (mostly) historians (mostly) on how civilizations fall, ’cause that seems a salient issue these days.
Back in the 14th century, Ibn Kaldun said “The strength of a civilization lies in its ability to maintain social cohesion.” Kaldun’s quote suggests failure to maintain social cohesion means the fall of civilization.
Arnold Toynbee agreed, theorizing a pattern to the rise and fall of civilizations, with the fall beginning this way:
“First the Dominant Minority attempts to hold by force—against all right and reason—a position of inherited privilege which it has ceased to merit; and then the Proletariat repays injustice with resentment, fear with hate, and violence with violence when it executes its acts of secession.”
This is where Turchin comes in, further describing Toynbee’s mechanism by which defense of inherited privilege leads to “violent political rupture”:
“One of the most important…hidden forces is a perverse “wealth pump” that, under certain conditions, begins to transfer wealth from the “99 percent” to “1 percent.” If allowed to run unchecked, the wealth pump results in both relative impoverishment of most people and increasingly desperate competition among elites. Since the number of positions of real social power remains more or less fixed, the overproduction of elites inevitably leads to frustrated elite aspirants, who harness popular resentment to turn against the established order. In America, the wealth pump has been operating full blast for two generations. In historical terms, our current cycle of elite overproduction and popular immiseration is far along the path to violent political rupture.”
Thought I’d bring this up to see if it rings any bells.
Just for fun, here’s Frank Wilhoit, whose only claim to fame, as far as I know, is this quote:
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Paraphrasing Withoit, conservatism is the political movement which defends the Dominant Minority in holding inherited privilege which it has ceased to merit. Trump is working to topple the Dominant Minority in an effort to establish himself as “the” elite. Our historians warn that toppling the existing arrangement, rather than reforming it, leads to a period of turmoil and loss.