The Only Way to Defeat Trump

 

I see that JV Last and I agree that there is only way to defeat Donald Trump.  The secret is to get him on the wrong side of Rule #1 for Smart Authoritarians -- don't do anything unpopular until after you have consolidated power.

If Donald Trump successfully subdues our institutions to his will, then he can do unpopular things at will because there will be no countervening power structures to stop him.  Such is the situation in Venezuela today.  

But if he loses popularity before consolidating power, then our institutions will rediscovery their spines and start restraining him.

Trump is currently the most popular he has ever been -- either minimally under water, or slightly favorable -- and our institutions are cowering before him.  To some extent, this is normal.  Almost all Presidents enjoy a honeymoon of strong popularity and institutional sycophancy at the outset of their terms.  (The first Trump term is a notable exception).  The honeymoon has been a short-lived phase up till now and has always faded.  

But these are not ordinary circumstances.  If Trump is able to remain popular for long enough -- I do not pretend to know how long that is -- he could lock in power in ways that could change the whole dynamic.  For instance, the tech cartel adopt social media algorithms to suppress any story critical of Trump and promote anything favorable to him.  Trump's FCC can pull licenses from any radio or television station that runs adds that displease him.  Big media can understand that getting favorable regulatory decisions will depend on favorable coverage.  The IRS can strip unfriendly non-profits of their tax exempt status.  Government contracts can be made to depend on political donations.  State and local governments, and a wide range of institutions, can lose their federal funding for failing to toe the line.  Courts can be afraid to rule against him for fear that he will disregard the ruling.  Proud Boys can harass and intimidate Trump opponents, confident in a pardon even if they are criminally charged.  State and local governments that prosecute can be denied federal assistance next time a wild fire hits.  And so forth.

But this won't happen if Trump is sufficiently unpopular.  Congressional Republicans just might vote against him if what is proposes is sufficiently unpopular.  Big business will see less advantage in hitching their brand to a leader who is widely hated.  The Supreme Court will find its spine stiffened if it is confident it has public opinion on its side.  State and local governments will become increasingly willing to defy Trump if swing voters broadly swing against him.  Even the Proud Boys will start to see recruiting drop off and enthusiasm decline if Trump makes himself sufficiently unpopular.

So we need to hit early and hard to undermine Trump's popularity.  But how?

Last makes an excellent point -- popularity and unpopularity both tend to be self-reinforcing:

Do people care about the price of eggs? Well, if the president is popular and egg prices are high, then everyone assumes that the public doesn’t care about the price of eggs. And because people assume that, they don’t talk about it.

But if the price of eggs is high and the president is unpopular, then people won’t shut about how terrible it is that egg prices are off the charts.

Perhaps you remember this dynamic?

When a president is popular, nothing sticks and nothing matters. When a president is unpopular, every stupid, random thing is a catastrophe they have to answer for.

Very true!  But how do you attack this self-reinforcing dynamic?  Or, to put it differently, what matters to the American people?  What will hurt Trump's popularity?  

Well, for starters, I would say not any sort of scandal.  Scandals are perhaps the prime example of this dynamic.  If a politician is otherwise popular, no one cares about a scandal.  People being angry about a scandal is a symptom that a politician is unpopular. 

Not the price of eggs, either.  Voters know that egg prices were high before Trump came to power and are unlikely to blame him for high prices now.  And besides, the right wing media are (correctly) explaining that high prices are the result of bird flu.  

Something that makes people's lives noticeably worse would probably move the needle.  I am guessing tariffs that affect mostly clothing or electronics prices will probably not make much difference because clothing and electronics are occasional purchases and people are unlikely to notice increases in price.  On the other hand increased healthcare costs due to reduced Obamacare subsidies are the sort of thing that will affect people's regular expenses and are likely to provoke a backlash.  Other proposed budget cuts may also prove unpopular.

What about things that don't affect people's every day lives, but are likely to be unpopular on principle? Last proposes hammering on the January 6 pardons.  If the American people could forgive Trump for January 6, I would expect them also to forgive the pardons.  Still, graphic videos of violence against police together with condemnations of the pardons may move the needle some, especially among the police.  It may, for instance, make police more willing to arrest any Proud Boys and other militia types who stir up trouble -- a very important consideration!  He also proposes making hay out of Trump's pardon of Ross Ulbricht, a large-scale online drug dealer.  That also sounds likely to be unpopular, especially if accompanied by detailed descriptions of Ulbricht's crimes, which are not all that widely known.

I can think of other things to use as well, but they have to be made accessible to a typical low information voter.  A VA hiring freeze sounds like something that would be extremely unpopular.  Yes, the VA can assure people of exemptions but, as the saying goes, if you are explaining, it means you're losing.  

Talking about the National Institute of Health (NIH) communications and grants freeze is too abstract to interest most people.  Talking about cancer patients being frozen out of studies or hospitals forbidden from purchasing supplies sounds like the sort of thing that could stir public outrage.

The foreign aid freeze will no doubt be popular.  That it is cutting off treatment for AIDS overseas will probably be greeted with a shrug because the beneficiaries of the program are not American.  But maybe we can give it a try.

Of course, the problem with all of these is that they are short term.  The Trump Administration may back down under pressure and the issue may be quickly forgotten.  Proposals to end FEMA, now, sound like political suicide.