While much of Hanson’s reasoning regarding the 2016 election is weak and indefensible, some of Hanson’s argument has proven to be defensible in more recent times as Trump has shown instances of effective leadership in the face of unprecedented criticism by the media and society. He has done so by sticking with his plan to drain the swamp of the deep state ‘Ancien Regime’ of cultural elites, and by taking a crude yet effective approach when leading the country.
Trump may have been unprepared and incompetent at times, but his campaign promises were unprecedented. The deep state that Hanson describes “should have been a nonpartisan meritocratic cadre of government officials who were custodians of a civil service that had often served Americans well and transcended changes in presidential administrations” (179). Hanson argues that the deep state has become increasingly progressive, political, and internationalist. Trump ran on the unprecedented idea of “draining the swamp”, or ridding the government of an unnecessary amount of government employees that were “progressive activists” and weaponized top reflect current orthodoxies. For example, the Obama administration attempted to “recalibrate the war on terror” by the use of state sanctioned euphemisms, an idea that Trump attacked throughout his campaign (177). The deep state runs deep though, and Trump was “warned by friends, enemies, and neutrals that his fight against the deep state was suicidal” (199). Despite this, Trump continued his attack on the deep state, and faced unprecedented criticism from the media and the country as a whole.
The deep state was fond of Obama, yet held animosity toward Trump as he campaigned on the premise of “draining the swamp”. This animosity was highlighted in a New York Times article from 2018 written by a “senior official” claiming to be a member of the Trump administration. The official claimed that members of Trump’s administration were banding together in an attempt to “frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations” (170). The anonymous author acts as civil hero of types, acting as a double agent undermining the president. Hanson asserts that the author does not mention a “particular presidential act that by any coherent definition could be called illegal, dangerous, or unethical, much less unprecedented in presidential history” (171). Hanson’s argument here becomes weak and indefensible, as even though the author of the article may not mention certain aspects of Trump’s life, some digging could bring forward many unprecedented presidential actions such as publicly mocking opponents and other highly respected officials, such as John McCain.
Essentially, Trump has made himself a very easy target, which was potentially an advantage during and after his campaign, as Trump only gained more prevalence in the media as time went on. For example, Alec Baldwin was quoted saying “we need to overthrow the government of the United States under Donald Trump” (200). Such media prevalence is a possibility for why Trump was elected, as opposed to the idea that he was only elected due to the fact that racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia are so rampant in the US. There was a tumultuous political climate at the time of the election, and many people didn’t know who to vote for. Many people assumed that a celebrity with no political background could ever win president, but many people were probably drawn to Trump due to his rogue personality and the unprecedented nature of the election. He has proven to lead in a crude manner as seen in his dealings with countries like North Korea, but this crude leadership style has shown to be effective in cases such as North Korea. Hanson argues that many of the predictions in society about Trump were wrong, and that the deep state was wrong about his nomination, election, and governance (210). Although certain aspects of Hanson’s argument have proven to be weak and indefensible, Trump’s plan to “drain the swamp” and lead in a crude manner has proven to outlast many critics.
This is a phenomenally written essay and I like how you went about your argument. You show that Hanson’s arguments are defensible, in the perspective that Donald Trump has stuck to his “crude yet effective” plan while leading the country. I like how you mentioned in the second paragraph that Trump faced a lot of criticism, but I think it’s important to note that the criticism towards him, all over the news, put him at an advantage. He was able to have all of his non-supporters point fingers at him, giving him the virality when he was able to use manipulation to win the 2016 election. You wrapped up this short essay nicely and you did mention how he was at an advantage because of the criticism and the media, which I agree with. I think the media prevalence was important to the election and his campaign. The criticism that was shown about him allowed him to truthfully “drain the swamp” as he won the presidential election. Again, great job on this essay and I liked the way you organized it, the structure is very strong. Great job showing both sides of the argument and then dialing in on one. Good work
Overall, this was a very good essay that included great use of citing Hanson as well as your own opinion. Your ideas are clear and well organized, as seen with your introduction that was very effective by giving some background information on the topic and stating your opinion. A possible suggestion would be to paraphrase instead of quote in some situations, as using your own words may be more effective. Additionally, I agree with your ideas about media and how its presence may have had an impact on Trump being elected as mentioned in your final paragraph. You could maybe expand on this because the media is so important in this day in age. Furthermore, it could be interesting if you relate this to other sources of technology like social media, since Trump has used it so much and has been mentioned by other politicians and public figures through the use of social media as well. Lastly, you conclude your essay nicely by mentioning how Trump’s manner has not really seemed to be affected by the immense criticism he has received.
I think you wrote a very strong essay, you wrote some very blunt statements about the author and you supported them with quotes and other evidence which made the statements stronger. I also thought that you did a good job of bringing up the fact that the author can be both weak and strong in his arguments based on the specific context you put him in. I really liked the part where you bring up Trumps social media presence. The past election was the first election that a social media presence of the candidates was taken into account when voting for our president. Trump did take advantage of this and he used it as free publicity. He went on the idea of saying outrageous things on social media so it would be shared and reposted millions of times, leading to more people knowing his name in the race for the presidency. This is one of the major facts of why he won, he used social media as a free publicity platform and it worked for him. So, now we see other candidates this election trying to do the same thing because it is very cost effected and reaches so many more people than a speech in person could in this day and age.
You did a great job of supporting every point that you argued with textual evidence from Hanson’s reading. Although, in some cases, quotes could have been stated in your own words and just cited, such as the last quote in the second paragraph. I find that your argument that Trump used the media’s pointing fingers at him to his own advantage is crucial in viewing how the election played out. Your statement, “Essentially, Trump has made himself a very easy target, which was potentially an advantage during and after his campaign, as Trump only gained more prevalence in the media as time went on” defines this nicely and concisely. He also was able to use his social media to his own advantage. Both of these aspects of his social media presence provided Trump with free publicity and made himself known in the race for the presidential election. Additionally, you did a great job of arguing for both sides of the argument, which was well formated, and overall benefited your paper. Overall, your essay was well structured with strong transitions and compelling supporting evidence.
I really enjoyed your essay. I thought you organized it very well. The quotes you used helped you develop your argument. I agree with the fact that Trump attacking certain people in the media, and other unethical aspects of his past have made him a very easy target. At the same time I agree that this media attention and social media presence, despite its usually negative nature did overall help his campaign. Clearly this isn’t the only reason his campaign was successful. I think another large part of it was in fact some of the other factors mentioned in the prompt like racism and homophobia. But again I thought your essay was very well written and you answered all parts of the prompt with evidence from the text and your own insight.