Does Trumpism, as a movement that goes beyond the man himself, exist?

[Vosem]

My opinions on this are pretty well-known, but I want to know what others think. Note that I said "movement" and not "ideology", since I think it's very difficult to say that it exists as an ideology but one could argue that a popular movement exists.

If you say it does, what politicians adhere to it? What are its core principles, besides a vague sort of nationalism (which has been common for decades) and insulting its opponents (which other politicians have been very slow to adopt)? Are current House members that have endorsed Trump adjudged as Trumpists by the electorate, or are the endorsements not indicative of an emerging bloc within the party (or not indicative of Trumpism)? Assuming Trump is nominated in 2016 and then loses overwhelmingly (which seems to be the opinion of the majority both on and off this board), what happens to Trumpism next?

Assuming Trumpism does exist as a popular movement, what is its shelf life? Outside of the Northeast (NH & VT showed the opposite of the pattern I describe in this paragraph), it seems to play extremely poorly with younger Republicans, with even states that voted for Trump by more than 20 points seeing  Trump's opponents win pluralities among the under-30 group (Nevada is a very extreme example of this phenomenon, where Trump beat Rubio by 22 points even as Rubio beat him by 6 in the under-30 vote), and Trump typically losing under-45 voters in states where he loses by single digits (both Carolinas are good examples of this). Assuming Trump is nominated and then loses overwhelmingly (I don't want to turn this thread into an argument about his chances, in the nomination fight or general election), will a recognizable Trumpism still be around in 2020? What about 2030?

[Derpist]

Yes. Neoliberal capitalism is finally ready for the dust-bin of history. Strike down Obi-Wan Trump this year and Trumpism will arise stronger.

IMO, the reason Trumpism does worse among younger Republicans is that a lot of young Republicans are Ayn Rand-reading types who have been less exposed to the reality of the capitalist economy in person. I suspect this is the same reason a lot of young Democrats are such doctrinaire socialists.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's pretty obvious Drumpf speaks to an underlying current of attitudes in the American electorate that goes far beyond himself, yeah.

That said, it's equally obvious that there's no Drumpfism properly speaking.

[RINO Tom]

No.  They barely listen to the stuff he says, they're voting for him because of his persona, attitude and a few inflammatory catch phrases.  If Trumpism takes over the GOP, it'll lose a lot more voters than it will gain, and most who aren't clinging to a long-lost America can see that.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes. Neoliberal capitalism is finally ready for the dust-bin of history. Strike down Obi-Wan Trump this year and Trumpism will arise stronger.

IMO, the reason Trumpism does worse among younger Republicans is that a lot of young Republicans are Ayn Rand-reading types who have been less exposed to the reality of the capitalist economy in person. I suspect this is the same reason a lot of young Democrats are such doctrinaire socialists.

not happening.

[Virginiá]

It's pretty obvious Drumpf speaks to an underlying current of attitudes in the American electorate that goes far beyond himself, yeah.

That said, it's equally obvious that there's no Drumpfism properly speaking.

I would also say that the group of people he speaks is only a small plurality and mostly older, white working class voters. That demographic is disappearing either through death or education, on top of being marginalized by exploding eligible minority voter growth.

The only movement/agenda being set for the future in this race is by Sanders, who has the support and admiration of an enormous majority of the Millennial generation. Trump will be nothing more than gasoline on a fire - Bright, hot and pretty looking for a brief moment, and then after that, nothing but a charred black burn mark on American history.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes. The only real difference between what Trump says and what the GOP says is that he says it clearly without the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, you know what I mean" efforts of the establishment to activate the base while pretending they aren't actually saying and thereby losing the moderates needed to win purple States.

[Santander]

The only movement/agenda being set for the future in this race is by Sanders, who has the support and admiration of an enormous majority of the Millennial generation.

Most of whom will become steadily more conservative as they get older. Younger generations are supposed to have outlandish world views that are suppressed by older generations. The young overthrowing the old leads to social reform/moral decline, but once they see that the generation after them is even more radical, they cling to their ideology and become the new conservatives. I have faith that most young Sanders (and Clinton) supporters will eventually realize the errors of their ways and I just hope that it happens before they've destroyed their country.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's pretty obvious Drumpf speaks to an underlying current of attitudes in the American electorate that goes far beyond himself, yeah.

That said, it's equally obvious that there's no Drumpfism properly speaking.

I would also say that the group of people he speaks is only a small plurality and mostly older, white working class voters. That demographic is disappearing either through death or education, on top of being marginalized by exploding eligible minority voter growth.

I wouldn't be quite as optimistic in this regard. Drumpf's success is tapping into a fundamental trend in Western democracies that we see in Europe as well. There's an increasing number of people that, both for cultural and economic reasons, feel increasingly threatened by globalization and the erosion of strong nation-States. This translates into rejection of a wide range of policies like free trade and immigration (and of course, in the European context, the EU). The problem is, due to how globalization works (especially because of how it generates economic insecurity), the is a lot of people who has lost and will keep losing from it. These "losers" (that's Kriesi's term, not mine), while they will probably never be a majority, will continue to represent an important constituency in the US, and it's very possible that the might control the GOP in the decades to come.

The good news is that a candidate who takes inspiration from Bernie might find an appeal among this electorate, especially if they manage to make the case that the real enemy are corporations and millionaires, not immigrants. But regardless, it is a force to be reckoned.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The only movement/agenda being set for the future in this race is by Sanders, who has the support and admiration of an enormous majority of the Millennial generation.

Most of whom will become steadily more conservative as they get older. Younger generations are supposed to have outlandish world views that are suppressed by older generations. The young overthrowing the old leads to social reform/moral decline, but once they see that the generation after them is even more radical, they cling to their ideology and become the new conservatives. I have faith that most young Sanders (and Clinton) supporters will eventually realize the errors of their ways and I just hope that it happens before they've destroyed their country.

There's very little evidence that that this "liberal at 20, conservative at 50" cliché has any truth to it. Most people's partisan affiliation remains stable after the first 3 election cycles.

[Virginiá]

The only movement/agenda being set for the future in this race is by Sanders, who has the support and admiration of an enormous majority of the Millennial generation.

Most of whom will become steadily more conservative as they get older. Younger generations are supposed to have outlandish world views that are suppressed by older generations. The young overthrowing the old leads to social reform/moral decline, but once they see that the generation after them is even more radical, they cling to their ideology and become the new conservatives. I have faith that most young Sanders (and Clinton) supporters will eventually realize the errors of their ways and I just hope that it happens before they've destroyed their country.

That's not really how generational politics work. People do not really get conservative as they grow older. People think that is how it works because our current elder generation is more conservative, but that is only the current situation. Older people now are Silent Generation and Boomers, who were always more conservative throughout their entire lives. People who grew up under FDR (Greatest Generation) stayed Democratic pretty much their entire lives, so people in the late 70s/80s would have been saying "all old people get more liberal and/or Democratic as they age" if we applied your idea. As Antonio said above, political leanings get locked in pretty quickly in young adulthood.


I like this one because it has voting trends of all groups, which shows how consistent party affiliation has been throughout their lives. Some beliefs may change, but not like you are saying.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/section-1-how-generations-have-changed/

This is the main page, and the entire report is quite big:

http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/

So I wouldn't really hold out hope. The conservative-as-you-age idea just isn't true. Based on the voting patterns since Bill Clinton's tenure, this country is about to get hit by a massive wave of ultra-Democratic voters over the next 10+ years.

[Santander]

Back on topic, Trump speaks the views of the "silent majority", and it's not just a bunch of angry white men. America is a revolutionary republic that still has not lost its revolutionary fervor - it is not supposed to be a refined, polite society. Trump ditched the doublespeak of the GOP and says what the people are thinking.

Trump's message is not new, it has many of the same themes as Wallace, Buchanan, Perot and others before him, but he is a much more compelling figure than any of them. The media hails Trump Democrats as the new Reagan Democrats - that's because Trump is basically Reagan with a New York flavor instead of a Hollywood flavor. Nobody believes that Trump knows everything, but like Reagan, he will find people to delegate responsibility to. He has simplistic views, but the voters don't listen to positions anyway, so why force them to? Trump is far from GOP economic orthodoxy, but Reagan was a former union leader and not a rabid ideologue either. Trump combines the plain speaking of third-party populists before him with the people skills of Reagan, which is a powerful combination that cannot be ruled out in the general election. Trump didn't build this movement, he merely lit a torch and is lighting the way.

Until recently, I never believed in the idea of American exceptionalism, but over the years, I've done a lot of thinking on the topic. America is unique in its iconoclasm and its constant struggle for freedom, and it is the freest country in the world, free in ways that rankings cannot capture. It is also arguably the most moral major country in the world, although its treatment of the poor could certainly improve. Trump's politics are in the American tradition, and he's assembled a wonderful coalition through hope, not just anger. The people's minds, thoughts and emotions have been suppressed by both parties, who treat their constituents with contempt. Trump is freeing them, and in a way, he is already "making America great again", although probably not in the way he means when he says it.

I'm a non-white immigrant and former congressional staffer. I'm not a stereotypical Trump supporter, but I'm very close to becoming one, and there are millions of others who will do the same between now and November. Trump's campaign is not a grievance campaign for angry white men, it is a continuation of the struggles for freedom that have made America great.

[Indy Texas]

No, Trumpism is not a coherent movement that goes beyond Trump.

But I really hope you (not you personally but the Very Serious People in the GOP whose views yours tend to overlap with) realize that this is a symptom of what happens when the interests of your party's donors/elites/bureaucracy diverge too far from those of the folks on the ground. This is their way of "acting out." They don't have the money or the power to take over the GOP outright, but they can give it a big headache and make it virtually impossible for it to win.

This is why I keep telling you that simply returning to the Bush Era Republican Party isn't going to work. That's not what the people on the ground want anymore.

The relationship between Trump and the Trumpkins is remarkably symbiotic. He is using them as tools to aggrandize himself. They are using him as a giant middle finger to everyone who pays no attention to them.

[MK]

Its people like Vosem( and ones who share his view) who look down at working class folk and think that they know better.  These people(trumpsters) vote what they believe are their best intrests,yet the elites republican types want to elect "establishment" types that do absolutely nothing but sell their jobs and economic security to the highest bidder.  Their main concern is holding office and postions in washington.  They then start wars with neocon polices and once again want the working class folks to sacrifice their sons and daughters.  Trumpism is the folks deciding they've had enough.


BTW I voted for Obama in 08 and supported him through most of this 1st term until the dems have gone completely communist.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BTW I voted for Obama in 08 and supported him through most of this 1st term until the dems have gone completely communist.

As Inigo Montoya would say:

[MK]

BTW I voted for Obama in 08 and supported him through most of this 1st term until the dems have gone completely communist.

As Inigo Montoya would say:

I work, pay my taxes(whats fair), dont enguge in crime or drugs or as Hillary Clinton suggusted men of color should do " join gangs".  I keep and bare arms as a responsible adult male.  The demoracrrtic party and left wants to infringe upon that by coming in a taking my right to do so.   There are plently examples in history of communist regimes doing they very same things .   

[pho]

Paleoconservatism has existed for a long time, and will continue to do so long after Trump is filed away in history's WTF folder. Trump is just famous and media savvy enough to have brought the ideology to the mainstream in a way Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo never could.

The irony is that Trump himself probably thinks all of his ideas are new and has no clue what paleoconservatism is.

[i4indyguy]

Voted No.
1 aspect of trumpism is his approach to how to finance electoral runs. Which is to say... refuse to spend.   On anything.  Use morning Joe as your advertising platform, and use twitter as your GOTV apparatus.  These things could only work with somebody who has his name ID already, and only Trump and his personality could have made it work so well up to this point.  So for that reason I don't see this model being replicable.

we would be talking about a different campaign, probably a loosing campaign, if Donald trump had been forced to beg for finances from Koch Bros/ Chambers etc. 

[beaver2.0]

I don't think so.  I believe that the people who support Trump would exist regardless of him, but at least at the present, I don't think that they could organize and effective coherently without him or a similar unifying figure.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Paleoconservatism has existed for a long time, and will continue to do so long after Trump filed away in history's WTF folderleaves office after his second term. Trump is just famous and media savvy enough to have brought the ideology to the mainstream in a way Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo never could.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't think so.  I believe that the people who support Trump would exist regardless of him, but at least at the present, I don't think that they could organize and effective coherently without him or a similar unifying figure.

But other unifying figures will come along, you understand? Like in the Netherlands, to name one example.

[MaxQue]

America is unique in its iconoclasm and its constant struggle for freedom, and it is the freest country in the world, free in ways that rankings cannot capture. It is also arguably the most moral major country in the world, although its treatment of the poor could certainly improve.

No and no. Freedoms are infringed all the time by governments and police, and yet, unlike most Western countries, Courts fail to uphold the Constitution in those cases.

And you can't seriously claim a country with Wall Street, Delaware fiscal paradise, pretending to be God and killing people and so on is the most moral country. It's the country that's the best at putting and keeping its moral varnish. Building churches and getting upset when someone swears on TV isn't being moral. It's just plain hypocrisy.

[Wells]

Yes, but it won't last very long, as most of Trump's supporters are old white people. They'll be gone by 2024.

[beaver2.0]

I don't think so.  I believe that the people who support Drumpf would exist regardless of him, but at least at the present, I don't think that they could organize and effective coherently without him or a similar unifying figure.

But other unifying figures will come along, you understand? Like in the Netherlands, to name one example.

I'm not sure about that.  It could happen, maybe not.

Yes, but it won't last very long, as most of Trump's supporters are old white people. They'll be gone by 2024.

I don't think so.  They are not all old.  Some will be alive for a while.

[tallguy23]

Sanders surge of support is a sign of the future Democratic electorate.

Trump's supporters wouldn't be rallying around an outsider unless it were Trump. He's just capitalized on the scared/angry/stressed vote.