The Divider, Trump in the White House 2017–2021
Peter Baker, Susan Glasser, Doubleday 2022
Did Trump Represent the Ruling Class?
Does Trump have an Ideology?
Can There Be Trumpism without Trump?
This is an interesting and detailed account of the ins and outs of the Trump regime. Much of it is well known to those who follow the news, but this gives excruciating detail of Trump’s narcissism and craziness. He burned through advisors and officials at an unprecedented rate.
Too often people only attribute this to Trump’s personality. Obviously, his personality is a factor. However, there are two questions that need more analysis: 1) What were the nature of Trump’s conflicts with the ruling class establishment? How did these conflicts impact his regime including what he did and didn’t accomplish? 2) What does Trump’s accession to the highest office in the U.S. say about the state of U.S. politics and economics?
On the first question, a major source of the high turnover of Trump appointees was this conflict. The “adults in the room” were predominant for the first couple years according to Baker and Glasser. They stayed on as long as they did to control Trump. Trump was woefully ignorant of how government operated. He thought he could run it like his businesses. He was checked by laws, bureaucracy, courts, and Congress. This shows that calling the Trump administration “Fascist” was always wrong. In the first couple years, the checking of Trump often came from inside his administration. After that, according to the authors, the push back often came from the outside. Either way, he was never a dictator, and this frustrated him. Checking Trump came from two motives: keeping him from undermining the institutional integrity that the capitalists need to rule society, and dissuading him from policies that much of the ruling class rejected (tariff wars, pulling out on NATO etc.)
The other aspect of the first question is this: How much did Trump represent a wing of the ruling class or a strong opinion within the ruling class? How much did his transactional approach to foreign policy, his dissing of NATO etc. represent a significant ruling class opinion? It seems that there was at least a reasonably strong America First tendency in the ruling class that downplayed the need for alliances and multi-lateral operations. Some of this had come out during the GW Bush administration but not to the degree it did under Trump. The smaller, less globalized capitalists were the biggest supporters of this trend. The dominant section of the ruling class however wanted to maintain traditional foreign policy of support for NATO, opposition to Russia etc. Trump compounded his America First policy with a psychological affinity for dictators like Putin, Orban and Kim Jung Un. This in turn reflected the orientation of the same smaller scale large capitalists who backed divisive right wing bigoted movements and appreciated a turn toward authoritarianism even if they weren’t yet ready to junk bourgeois democracy. (“constitutional democracy”)
On the second question, Trump was an aberration personally, but not an aberration politically. With the onset of neo-liberalism and especially with the crisis of neoliberalism, ruling class consciousness diminished. When the overall system seemed to be failing, especially after 2008, the attitude of many capitalists was “screw everybody else — I want to get mine”. This meant that they were less willing to tax themselves for the collective good of American capitalism. Their primary concern was low taxes and weak or no regulation. This was exemplified in the infrastructure debate. Though Biden finally got this through, 33 Republican senators refused to vote for it. This makes no rational sense from a collective capitalist class viewpoint. Commerce requires roads and bridges and now internet. Private corporations are not going to provide this on their own since it is not profitable. Some of the infrastructure bill may have seemed like a benefit to workers which accounts for some of the capitalist resistance, but so much of it helped capitalism overall that it is still a mystery as to why senators voted no. This is especially true since infrastructure spending would directly profit a myriad of corporations. Most of the actual infrastructure work would be done by private corporations with government money. Public spending, private profit. The conservative opinion in the ruling class seems to be that showing government can do anything right will strengthen liberal intervention in the economy and higher taxes which will hurt their interests down the road. Again, this conservatism is most pronounced among the lower reaches of the corporate capitalist class, which in some cases gives funding to the even more extreme middle class right wing.
Trump represented the conservative wing of the ruling class. His accession to office was allowed by the growth of this non-class-conscious trend in the ruling class. He was a great representative of this individually selfish mentality. He served the needs and policies of the conservative wing (tax cuts, deregulation, less international commitments) while lining his own pockets in every way possible. This included ripping off his own supporters. The common idea that “Trump had no ideology” is just wrong. He clearly opposed what he called “the radical Left”, the “socialist Democrats” etc. Despite his claims to billionaire status, he was a member of the lower reaches of the large capitalist class and saw himself as representing their interests.
Trump was also enabled by the growth of a middle-class extreme right wing (small owners, managers, independent professionals etc.) This ranged from those close to traditional Republicanism all the way over to quasi-Fascists. This mass base was increased by the failures of neoliberalism. The economic and social position of large sections of the population were hurt under neo-liberalism. Neither Republicans or Democrats gave much relief to the declining middle class or higher paid workers. In part because the Left was too small to present an alternative, they turned to right wing “populism” led by Trump, a supposed outsider and anti-establishment figure.
This gave Trump the chance to get elected, even though he never had majority support. Too often, commentators imply that this movement arose on its own out of irrationality and is driving the whole Trump phenomenon. Though the mass base and the politicians at the top reinforce each other, the creation of this mass base comes from economic and social deterioration. Much of it is funded by conservative capitalists. Though the base of the right wing was middle class , it was able to attract some workers as well. The base in the middle class is shown by who was arrested after Jan. 6, 2021.
The election of Biden was a victory for more class conscious, globally oriented sections of the ruling class. However, the battle within the ruling class continues. This is shown in part by the current fight in Congress. The small corporate capitalist/ middle class alliance is willing to shut the government down to get policies more amenable to its base. Too many commentators see this as just irrational. “All they want is power” say some. Just as with Trump, there are real perceived economic interests behind this fight. The Democratic wing of the ruling class will likely be strengthened by the continuing conflict with China. The ruling class will feel pressure to unite to some degree and even sacrifice to meet this threat to its profit and power.
It is a tragedy that any workers have been sucked into Trumpism! His promotion of racism, misogyny, immigrant-bashing, LGBTQ bashing etc. is not only disgusting but will also divide workers and make it harder to win gains for the whole class. However, the liberal wing of the ruling class is also pursuing its own strategy for continuing and increasing the exploitation of workers. They have and will continue to push austerity. Under Democratic domination, the concentration of wealth has reached new extremes and is continuing. The Democrats are intensifying the conflict with Russia and may soon be in a more direct military conflict with China. These will divert resources from human needs and lead to the unnecessary death of perhaps thousands while risking nuclear annihilation. Short of that, an increased war drive will increase repression.
The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is a difference over how to increase the exploitation of workers and exactly how to use special oppression to do this. Workers should not support either wing of the ruling class. Workers need to have their own independent political movement to fight for the needs of the vast majority. In the longer run, workers need to abolish the capitalist system. Workers create the wealth. It is time that workers use what they have created to build a system based on human need instead of profit.
This book focuses on Trump as an individual without looking at the social, political, and economic causes of Trumpism. Its underlying bias is toward the liberal wing of the ruling class, seeing Trump’s politics as irrational for American capitalism. — an economic system the authors implicitly support. Despite its underlying orientation, “Divided” gives the raw material needed for a deeper understanding of Trump and Trumpism.
