FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump welcomes Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban as he arrives at the White House in Washington, U.S., May 13, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis/File Photo
Although President Donald Trump's opponents — who range from liberals and progressives to right-wing Never Trumpers and libertarians — agree that the United States would be better off if he had lost the 2024 election, they have different views on what makes him tick politically.
In a think piece published by the conservative website The Bulwark on September 16, Lee Morgenbesser — a professor of politics at the School of Government and International Relations at Griffith University in Australia — describes two competing "theories" among Trump's opponents. Morgenbesser doesn't chose between the two, but rather, argues that they both have merit.
"A decade into the Trump era, there remains a fundamental tension in the way critics and opponents think, write, and talk about Donald Trump," Morgenbesser explains. "He is alternately a conniving destroyer of republican institutions or a mentally and emotionally debilitated, increasingly senile whack job. Both accounts have much to recommend them. There is evidence to support both, and each helps explain the man and his effect on American politics and policy."
READ MORE: 'Something is wrong': MAGA pundits say Trump is 'lying to us' about Charlie Kirk shooting
Morgenbesser continues, "Yet if Trump's opponents are to understand the president and his movement — a necessary precondition for fighting it — the inconsistencies between the two theories should be resolved, or at least understood."
The Griffith professor stresses that one view among Trump's opponents doesn't automatically invalidate the other.
"In a sense, the more flattering view of Trump is that he is implementing the so-called 'authoritarian playbook,'" Morgenbesser argues. "In this view, he is diligently working his way through a series of established techniques that autocratic leaders — Hugo Chávez, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orbán, Daniel Ortega, and Vladimir Putin — have used to remove executive constraints, weaken opposition parties, silence the media, undermine elections, and curtail civil liberties and political rights…. The other view is that Trump is nothing more than a mad king — or, at least, a mad aspiring king."
Morgenbesser adds, "By this theory, Trump is more comparable to Caligula, Charles VI, Henry VI, Peter III, or Idi Amin, all of whom were autocratic and, for lack of a better word, crazy…. But which is it? Is Trump cleverly, methodically attacking the foundation and pillars of free government with cunning and guile? Or is he a madman whose danger lies in his recklessness? How should we reconcile these two versions of Trump?"
READ MORE: Liberals need to stop spreading this myth about Charlie Kirk
According to Morgenbesser, both "versions" of Trump are accurate — as he combines elements of the two.
"There are other ways to resolve the contradiction between the wily authoritarian and the mad king," the Griffith professor observes. "One is to distinguish between what we might call the 'personal Trump' and the 'collective Trump.' The personal Trump spends much of his time on social media, calls in to cable news shows on a whim, watches unhealthy amounts of television, and is often seen with flagging energy. The collective Trump, including his staffers, allies, informal advisers, and appointees, can together tirelessly do a significant amount of work."
Morgenbesser continues, "Many of the people working for Trump are intelligent, well educated, canny, capable, and limited more by their rivalries with each other than by their consciences. Trump's evolution over time suggests that the collective Trump is cleverly breaking down the guardrails of democracy for an absolutist personal Trump."
READ MORE: 'Deeply troubling': Military expert warns Trump is unilaterally 'deciding to kill people'
Lee Morgenbesser's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.