Category: Short Essays and Responses

The Case For Trump by Victor Hanson talks about the 2016 election and what exactly lead to the election of Donald Trump. The election was very surprising to many, especially because Donald Trump did not have political experience, while Hilary Clinton had much of it. Furthermore, Donald Trump does not act like a typical politician. He is much more abrasive and less “classy”. Hanson argues that his attitude is part of what got him elected, and that it appealed to the working class in America.

  Hanson argues that there are “two America’s”, one comprised of the smaller cultural elite, and the other the larger working class. He states that they are growing apart in terms of views, and that most of the people in the lower class felt that regular politicians were failing them. Trump was an outsider, a bad boy, and his unique role in politics appealed to a sector of the culture who wanted real change in the country. Hanson also argues that there is a an ancien regime, which is a group of the cultural elite who are actively trying to oppose Trump. I do not think that the ancien regime is as strong as Hanson makes them out to be. I think that precisely what made Trump appealing to some voters is what puts him in the spotlight: he’s different than other presidents. Some people really like it, and some people really do not. This leads to people paying extra attention to him, some wanting him to succeed and some waiting for people to mess up. The fact that people have such strong views on Trump just furthers the cultural divide. However, I think this is a side effect of our divisive political system, and not the ancien regime being out to get Trump. 

Hanson also argues that to be an effective President, you don;t necessarily have to be a moral person. Donald Trump is not a typically moral person, but many presidents in the past who we consider “good” have had similar scandals as Trump. Also, many of our most moral presidents have not been all that effective. I still do think it is important for presidents to show some degree of morality. It is clear that more than just racism and xenophobia of voters put Trump in office, however, Trump’s attitude and moral failures did give people with racist and xenophobic veiws more validity in their feelings. Because of Trump’s sometimes lack of morality, political correctness, and his ability to “tell things how they are”, some people interpret his words as racist, xenophobic, or tolerant of those things. Even if this isn’t Trump’s intention, it still gives the racists and xenophobes of the US a champion, and makes them feel like they have a voice and are not a minority. This makes them more dangerous, and spreads their views wider. It could be argued that this is not Trump’s responsibility, but I think as President, it should be considered his responsibility, and morality in a president is something we should value to an extent.

The 2016 election was very controversial and took many people by surprise. In Victor Hansons book The Case for Trump he analyzes the cause behind Trump’s victory and some of the reasons why having Trump as a president may not be as negative as it has been made out to be by the “elite culture” and “ancien regime” he describes. This cultural elite is supposedly the top portion of Americans who are well off financially and typically part of a privileged group. Hanson explains that this cultural elite are the ones who are mainly opposed to Trump and are responsible for much of the negative views that people have developed towards him. Trump won the 2016 presidentail race in part due to his rhetoric which was appealing to many people who are racist and xenophobic, but he also won due to his promise for radical change and his ability to appeal and resonate with the working class in America.

Hanson start off by talking about the split in America that he characterizes as “The two Americas”. When speaking about the divide in the country that he has noticed he focuses heavily on the divide between big cities and, essentially, the rest of the country. This is when he starts to describe and hint at the cultural elite and ancien regime in American society. By focusing on the divide in America he starts to suggest that perhaps the reason Trump won the election was due to the fact the the half of America that voted for Trump was feeling ignored and neglected by the other half. Thus, Trump’s rhetoric about bringing real radical change and “Draining the Swamp” resonated with many of the people that felt as if they were being ignored by the current political leaders. Hanson utilizes the divide in America to help shed light as to why Trump’s campaign was successful and shows how there was more than racism, xenophobia, and sexism involved in the election of Trump. Trump reflected what many Americans wanted but where not seeing in the politicians they were previously electing. Nonetheless, the negative rhetoric that Trump had on various groups of people, especially minorities, did help him gain support from people who are racist, xenophibic and sexist but as Hanson explains many of his voters came from a place in which they simply felt they were being ignored by mainstream politicians and having an outside man would bring them the change they wanted.

Along with Hansons argument as to why Trump won the election he also brings up something which he describes as the ancien regime or cultural elite in American society. Hanson argues that there is a regime in place that actively sought to oppose Trump and find ways to make sure his decisions are not carried through in the government. The evidence that Hanson presents for this ancien regime shows some actions that may have been taken against Trump in order to ensure that his decisions do not have an impact on the government. The presence of the Ancien regime is debatable and the manner in which Hanson presents it makes it appear as a very concrete and organized group that is actively going against Trump through covert methods. There is no doubting that actions are being taken against Trump in order to prevent him from achieving certain things, but that is simply the nature of politics in America. Perhaps Trump has experienced opposition more, than in comparison to other presidents but I believe the idea of the Ancien regime is not as serious as Hanson is making it out to be and that Trump has simply faced more opposition politically because of his status as an outsider to politics.

Clearly racism, xenophobia, and sexism played a role in Trump’s election but I think that Trump’s rhetoric for radical change and him being a political outsider also heavily influenced the 2016 election in his favor and to the idea of an Ancien regime actively opposing Trump I believe that it could better be explained as a higher level of opposition in  the government to his actions and ideas due to how removed he was and is to the mainstream political world.

Hanson’s reasoning as to why Trump won the 2016 election, has many positive points. However, Hanson’s points were not as strong as they could have been. America has been advancing socially for years. Racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia have been lessening in America. At the time of this election these four discriminatory thoughts were at the peak of change. Therefore, the possibility of them playing an important role in the election is relevant but Hanson’s argument of Trump wanting to make America successful again is what won his election overall. 

Hanson discusses the differences between Hillary’s campaign and Trumps. Hillary’s campaign was focused on being the first woman president, rather than Trump’s campaign whom focused on America and making our country better. Wanting success for America and to create a better life for Americans, is what drew in the working class citizens towards Trump. Crediting those who have been forgotten by former politicians, which is a great deal of Americans allowed Trump’s outcome to be successful. Three swing states, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin helped in Trumps’ success. With these three states voting for Trump allowed him to win the presidency. These three swing states have the so called “blue state-model.” This model entails social media, steep taxes, big government, social liberality, smaller families, sophisticated culture, and high incomes (Hansen 34). This model has been a focus throughout America, the average families, not those who are apart of the cultural elite but those who are everyday, working citizens. 

A “cultural elite” has always been in existence and continues to be. This group of people are the ones who control the government, the lands, and mostly everything around them because of their income status. Those who are not considered to be in the cultural elite such as African Americans and Hispanics took over inner city living. Privilege and success were camouflaged by progressive politics, allowing for zoning restrictions and high taxes decimate the middle class and leaving some homeless. If there was an option to allow hillside estates be built and allow middle class citizens to afford a home versus keeping green spaces, the elite metalism always won (Hanson 39). Those who are affected by the cultural elite is whom Trump connected with in his campaign, these are the people who are in the swing states as well as many others. The focus of Trump’s campaign rears out of making the cultural elite more accessible to the lower classes. “Trump certainly felt that making everyone wealthier would make them stronger and happier and thus the country as a whole more unified, safer, and more stable” (222). This goal of Trump’s campaign is the evidence needed to show that the cultural elite does exist in America. 

Americans have found it hard to accept the fact that Trump was elected as our president, they say he is discriminatory to all Americans that are not like him. However, Trump did not win the election due to America being prejudice. He won because America needed change in the economy. Citizens needed to be able to afford their lives in America and the government needs to focus on the struggles happening within America’s land rather than foreign affairs.

Hanson’s reasoning concerning the 2016 election is weak and indefensible. Trump was an exceptionally unprepared and incompetent candidate who was elected simply because racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia are so rampant in the US. Further, there is no evidence that there is a ‘cultural elite’ or an ‘Ancien Regime’ as he describes them. 

Donald Trump entered the 2016 presidential race with campaign themes that were extremely controversial and outlandish, including some of his remarks. Trump did not focus on a few quite provoking issues like Social Security growth, gay marriage, transgendered bathrooms, or affirmative action. Trump’s campaign was about his stance on the economy and jobs, war, globalization and illegal immigration. There is a selection of people who argue that Trump was unprepared and an incompetent candidate because of his selection and prioritization of national issues. No, he wasn’t an incompetent candidate and unprepared. He was elected because he was the alternative to something else and he was able to use the criticism against him to give him the spotlight and the advantage.  

Trump’s theory of declinism made many anti-Trump progressives and Democrats voice their antipathy loudly to Trump. Trump was then able to “manipulate them as proof of how unhinged and excitable the alternative to himself was” (264). In other words, the anti-Trump progressives and Democrats were so outrageously against Trumpism and his declinisim that he was able to manipulate them and make them look bad. These critics were more focused on making sure Donald Trump did not win the election with his campaign, rather than focusing on promoting their candidate of choice. Donald Trump’s declinism was written off by the media as “sophomoric” (235). They thought it was a very inexperienced theory and ideology for a new president, yet the criticism allowed for him to have an advantage. The critics were “as blind to the scope and resonance of Trump’s signature ideology as they were to the inherent weakness and vulnerability of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy,” proving that his unique personality and way of campaigning allowed for him to be in the spotlight and to win the election (235). The anti-Trump progressives and the Democrats were too busy pointing fingers at Donald Trump, giving him an advantage, when they should be promoting their candidate and not worrying so much about the opposition. This occurred for President Obama as well, one of the reasons why Obama won was because he did not give somebody else the spotlight by trying to beat them, he focused on his campaign and his values which lead him to victory.  

It could be possible that the widespread of racism, sexism, xenophobia and homophobia assisted in his appearance to the media that helped him give him the spotlight to win his election, but not enough to win his campaign. His dedication to “draining the swamp,” working towards a cleansing of the political world, economic perspective and ability to stick to his motto was a bigger and larger reason for his victory in the election. It could be that his neglect to these important topics fueled his critics, giving him the spotlight and the fame to ignite his victory in the election, yet “Donald J. Trump’s presidency is too brief to yet be judged absolutely” (274).  

To conclude, Donald Trump used a very unconventional set of techniques and ways to win the election. His controversial personality and beliefs lead to many critics giving him the spotlight in the election, taking away the importance of his opposing candidates. In addition to his initial supporters, he used the criticism of the opposition to gain advantage and win the election. As of now, “neither is it yet clear that Trump is a bad man or a good president, or vice versa, or neither or both” (275). He was clearly stubborn and prepared, since he was able to use his tactics successfully to win the election. I assume that he will continue to do this for the next election, as it gave him the advantage in the previous.  

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.