Phases of populist leader

[American2020]

I've read history of populist or extremist leaders arriving in power and leaving it.
I've established a timeline of fives stages, which fullfiles in 80% of cases.

Phase 1: Opportunity
There're possibilities a populist or extremist leader becomes president or prime minister, after a decent one is gone.

Phase 2: Arrival in power
The leader arrive in power amid great dissatisfaction against the establishment and institutions, and political instability.
The electoral campaign is often negative, with fake news, chaotic or violent.

Phase 3: Leader's administration
His administration is chaotic and controversial. He makes controversial policies. He uses people's ressentiment to implement his policies, which don't respect moral and established rules.
He can however have success with its policies.

Phase 4: Discontent
The leader and his polices are unpopular, because of economical or political disasters.
Many of his supporters, followers, allies and right hands are turning against the leader.

Phase 5: Fall
The leader leave the presidency in the same conditions he came in.
The leader resignes, is impeached or serverly beatten in elections.

[The_Doctor]

What's the book called?

[Meclazine for Israel]

Trump will end his reign as President one day.

That is a certainty.

But not before giving the system a red hot shake. And the flow-on benefits from what he does will have two effects.

Firstly, the next government, regardless of bias, will keep his more favourable policies which were introduced. We had a similar situation in Australia with John Howard. He was not afraid to introduce policy which was beneficial in the long term but unpopular in the short term to the left wing snowflakes.

Secondly, the right side of politics will simply rinse and repeat with candidates who say similar things, but in a much more eloquent way. Donald has really smashed the door in for these candidates, so you may find the next candidates get rid of the travel ban policies, but keep the wall and strict immigration deportation laws.

There are a lot of positive things that can happen in the USA once Donald leaves.

I think the Atlas forum has a very short sited view of how this will all play out.

[The_Doctor]

Yes and no. The site is definitely underestimating when Trump falls. But his legacy is definitely under questioning, even in this early stage. The principal reason is that in the United States, mandates are how you cement your policies and legacy.

Quick example - Reagan and Bush 43. Reagan won huge mandates both times and clearly crushed his opposition twice and elected a vice president who believed in his agenda. The opposition basically lost every ground that they held and the election of Bill Clinton was a surrender to the Reagan era. When Clinton attempted to act like a liberal the Republicans took over Congress.

Bush 43 was elected narrowly twice and there were huge pockets of opposition to him. The opposition never ran out of fuel and energy during his tenure. The Republican majorities in Congress were narrow and slender.

Trump is following the W model. He's allowing his opposition a great deal of energy and he leads a party that is extremely wary of supporting him. He makes no effort to reach beyond his base to meet his opposition. He believes he can crush them but in fact he's a highly weakened president who has limited political capital. He has six years until the opposition probably regains Congress (at best, if he's impeached or resigns, obviously moot). Obviously a Democrat will succeed him or whoever follows him after impeachment.

Trump's Republican Party isn't entirely behind him and if Trump winds up a failed president the Republican Party will seek a different policy and direction (basically what they did after W.) The Republicans in Congress will be only too happy to diverge from Trumpism. See Tom RINO. This is one problem with your theory that succeeding Republicans will simply be Trump lite. The math also doesn't support the notion of broad support for Trump ideas. The House Republican caucus won the popular vote by just 1%.

Noticeably that Democratic president will have a highly anti Trump base and since Trump so far never got a mandate, that Democrat will probably overturn many Trump policies.

The impact of Trump probably will be the election of a Sandernista liberal Democrat who will have extremely liberal economic policies. A lot of Trump Midwestern voters liked Bernie Sanders and disliked Hillary over her neoliberal ideas.

[The_Doctor]

It's also highly unlikely Trump expands his numbers in 2020. There aren't a huge mess of third party voters that exist for him to tap into. Clinton won 48% remember and most of the 48% will stay Democratic. So it's highly unlikely Trump maintains any mandate.

His political inexperience is also going to be a huge factor in how limited his legacy will be. Some things will stick but it won't be anywhere near what his supporters think. I think there's more of a chance Obama's legacy sticks rather than Trump's. Obama's approval ratings and electoral prowess demonstrates there is a path forward for Obama fellow travelers (of a more populist hue). Trump I doubt has that ability.

[Hermit For Peace]

Trump will end his reign as President one day.

That is a certainty.

But not before giving the system a red hot shake. And the flow-on benefits from what he does will have two effects.

Firstly, the next government, regardless of bias, will keep his more favourable policies which were introduced. We had a similar situation in Australia with John Howard. He was not afraid to introduce policy which was beneficial in the long term but unpopular in the short term to the left wing snowflakes.

Secondly, the right side of politics will simply rinse and repeat with candidates who say similar things, but in a much more eloquent way. Donald has really smashed the door in for these candidates, so you may find the next candidates get rid of the travel ban policies, but keep the wall and strict immigration deportation laws.

There are a lot of positive things that can happen in the USA once Donald leaves.

I think the Atlas forum has a very short sited view of how this will all play out.

Something that I personally am interested in is this: how would you rationalize that it's good in the "long run" for Trump to virtually gut our Environmental Protection Agency? History has shown that it has done tremendous good for the environmental health of this country.

Who has the shortsighted view of this situation?

[The_Doctor]

You gotta ask yourself if the Trump crew knows anything about cementing legacies given they acted like idiots during the campaign and won despite their own polling showing them coming up short. This isn't a genius operation despite the win. They caused themselves a ton of unnecessary damage and now their supporters try to convince themselves that it was a brilliant genius strategy all along.

They're largely people who literally stumbled into a win and believe their own crap. This is nowhere near a Rovian strategy that was intended to create a lasting majority or the long march from Goldwater's loss to Reagan's win. This is literally a 18 month fly by the seat operation.

Ask the average Trumpist strategist how he plans to convince 55% of the country to embrace the Donald's political ideology and the answer is “hope and prayer on a string.˝ They're strategic morons and in many cases probably woefully incompetent in grasping policy. They're emotional instant gratification-ists.

No this isn't how legacies are made and kept. It is however very much the stuff of failed presidents.

[Meclazine for Israel]

You gotta ask yourself if the Trump crew knows anything about cementing legacies given they acted like idiots during the campaign and won despite their own polling showing them coming up short. This isn't a genius operation despite the win. They caused themselves a ton of unnecessary damage and now their supporters try to convince themselves that it was a brilliant genius strategy all along. 

I have a better summary saying the same thing.

Trump won the pre-selection and got the pilot's job of the Republican party. But many said they did not want him as pilot because he had never flown a plane before.

Donald then locked himself in the cockpit and flew straight into a thunderstorm. Trump tipped the plane left, right, upside down, lost control and was screaming straight down in a spiral facing imminent death. Nothing could be more certain.

The republicans passed out through the incredible G forces and awoke to find they had landed safely on the airstrip with all three levels of government, and Paul Ryan got off the plane smiling and was amazed to see Trump standing proudly on the tarmac. 

[The_Doctor]

Haha, A+ rendition.

 Yes except Ryan stumbles off the plane and Trump flashes the thumbs up signal. And everyone goes “The heck just happened?˝ Five months later we're still trying to figure out what happened.

[Dr. Arch]

You gotta ask yourself if the Trump crew knows anything about cementing legacies given they acted like idiots during the campaign and won despite their own polling showing them coming up short. This isn't a genius operation despite the win. They caused themselves a ton of unnecessary damage and now their supporters try to convince themselves that it was a brilliant genius strategy all along.

They're largely people who literally stumbled into a win and believe their own crap. This is nowhere near a Rovian strategy that was intended to create a lasting majority or the long march from Goldwater's loss to Reagan's win. This is literally a 18 month fly by the seat operation.

Ask the average Trumpist strategist how he plans to convince 55% of the country to embrace the Donald's political ideology and the answer is “hope and prayer on a string.˝ They're strategic morons and in many cases probably woefully incompetent in grasping policy. They're emotional instant gratification-ists.

No this isn't how legacies are made and kept. It is however very much the stuff of failed presidents.

You've quickly become one of my favorite posters on this site. Appreciate your contributions.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

This can apply to non-populist leaders as well, all you need is a politician with extremely unpopular policies or an unsatisfied populace

[pbrower2a]

A slight correction:

I've read history of populist or extremist leaders arriving in power and leaving it.
I've established a timeline of fives stages, which fulfills in 80% of cases.

Phase 1: Opportunity
There are possibilities a populist or extremist leader becomes president or prime minister, after a decent one is gone.

Phase 2: Arrival in power
The leader arrive in power amid great dissatisfaction against the establishment and institutions, and political instability.
The electoral campaign is often negative, with fake news, chaotic or violent.

Phase 3: Leader's administration
His administration is chaotic and controversial. He makes controversial policies. He uses people's resentment to implement his policies, which don't respect moral and established rules.
He can however have success with its policies.

Phase 4: Discontent
The leader and his polices are unpopular, because of economical or political disasters.
Many of his supporters, followers, allies and right hands are turning against the leader.

Phase 5: Fall
The leader leave the presidency in the same conditions he came in.
The leader resigns, is impeached, is severely beaten in elections, or is overthrown by the Armed Forces of the nation or of one or more foreign powers.

Julius Caesar to Benito Mussolini in Roman and Italian history.