logo
Want to understand Trumpism? This is the book you need

Want to understand Trumpism? This is the book you need

Yahoo24-05-2025
The 2016 election wasn't the first occasion on which Donald Trump had considered running to be president of the United States. He seriously played with the idea in the run-up to the 2000 election too. Oprah Winfrey might have been his running mate.
Trump was a member of the Republican Party back then, but not a happy one. In October 1999, aged 53, he bolted to join the upstart Reform Party because he thought the GOP was becoming 'too crazy'. But he also feared that the frontrunner to be the Reform presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, was mad. 'It's just incredible that anyone can embrace this guy,' Trump said at the time. 'He's a Hitler lover. I guess he's an anti-Semite. He doesn't like the blacks, he doesn't like the gays… He would only get the staunch Right wacko vote.' It didn't escape Trump's notice that David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, wanted to join the Reform Party. Trump left it again in February 2000, after mere months.
Trump, in the 1990s, was politically heterodox. Over the decade, he donated equally to the Democrats and the Republicans. He supported Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He held liberal positions on abortion and healthcare. But he was also sceptical about immigration and free trade; his longest-held political conviction was that America was being ripped off by other countries. And on the latter issues he found himself politically aligned with Buchanan, who had been Richard Nixon's speechwriter in the late 1960s and coined the phrase the 'Silent Majority'.
Buchanan features among the leading characters in When the Clock Broke, a spry and superbly written book on 1990s American politics by John Ganz. It's the best account I have ever read on the origins of Trumpism. I confess that I didn't come into the book with great expectations: my knowledge of Ganz was largely confined to seeing him being rude to random Right-wing people on X, and knowing that he had a Substack account dedicated to the study of fascism. But this is a substantial work of intellectual history. Trump haunts almost every page, and Ganz's passionate engagement with personalities and ideas he clearly deplores – he's fiercely Left-wing – is invigorating.
Part of the reason why it works is that Ganz shares with the people about whom he writes the conviction that America is in crisis. 'American democracy,' he writes, 'is often spoken of as being in peril.' He agrees, adding: 'Others point out that democracy never fully existed in the first place' and 'this book also agrees with that thesis'. (He merely disagrees with them on what to do about it.)
The book's argument is clear and convincing: understanding American politics in the early 1990s is key to understanding Trumpism today. During that period, a group of maverick intellectuals and politicians, from Duke and Buchanan to Ross Perot and Murray Rothbard, waged war against the conservative establishment. 'For them,' Ganz writes, 'the 1980s represented a betrayal: they understood Ronald Reagan as the champion of the economic interests of and cultural values of white Middle Americans, but [the latter] now seemed worse off than ever.'
The country was in dire straits. The streets were plagued by crime and drug use. Recession and unemployment crippled hard-working families. Political correctness in universities and the media demonised American culture and history. Ross Perot became the 'populist billionaire', winning over 18 per cent of the vote in the 1992 election on a platform of reducing the national debt and slashing bureaucracy.
Sam Francis, one of the intellectual figures behind this reaction to the conservative establishment, wrote that 'the New Right is not a conservative force but a radical or revolutionary one.' True, they were revolutionary in one sense, but they were arch-conservative in others. Some of them described themselves as the Old Right, and contrasted themselves with the neo-cons who often, as Ganz writes, were 'formerly liberals who had only recently fled the Democratic Party out of disgust for the New Left and fear of the Black Power movement.' Buchanan and his ilk considered them to be newcomers who 'were barely conservatives in the first place'.
The New Right, by contrast, were essentially paleocons who 'traced their lineage to the isolationist, pre-war America Firsters'. They anathematised a range of things, from 'the New Deal' to the 'Great Society'. They despised mass immigration, free trade and foreign interventionism, all of which had become emblematic of the Reagan-Bush GOP from 1981 to 1993. (Reagan famously gave amnesty to almost three million illegal immigrants in 1987.)
The person who embodied the out-of-touch conservative establishment more than anyone else was George HW Bush, Reagan's vice-president from 1981 to 1989 then president himself from 1989 to 1993. He was patrician by blood and upbringing; he had been raised in New England, had been educated at private schools and at Yale, and had gone from plum job to plum job, becoming director of the CIA, ambassador to the UN, and eventually the man in the Oval Office. It was no surprise that Buchanan referred to Bush as 'King George' – which, for obvious historical reasons, may be the worst insult one can bestow on an American leader.
Bush's tax hike in the early 1990s, after promising he wouldn't raise them – 'Read my lips', and so on – was a particularly egregious betrayal. Buchanan said of Bush: 'He is yesterday and we are tomorrow. He is a globalist and we are nationalists.' In 1992, Buchanan demanded a wall along the border with Mexico and a five-year moratorium on legal migration. He won 37 per cent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, and declared in a speech there: 'When we take America back, we are going to make America great again, because there is nothing wrong with putting America first.'
The rest of the 1990s would, however, prove a great disappointment for these insurgents. Perot did much worse in 1996 than he had in 1992. Buchanan also tried to run on a GOP ticket again, but was unable to capture the same level of support and enthusiasm as he had four years before. Francis and Rothbard remained relatively obscure. And, of course, the Reform Party did poorly in the 2000 election. In retrospect, 1992 was the high noon for these particular renegades, at least on an individual level. Yet their ideas and convictions would come back with a renewed force in the mid-2010s, and dominate the Republican Party today.
'On the one hand,' Ganz writes, the influence of Francis on the 21st-century GOP is abundantly clear. 'There's a conception of the party as a national populist movement on behalf of the Middle American working class led by a Caesarist president to smash the power of the 'globalist' professional and managerial elite.' And then there's the influence of Rothbard, who had 'a radical libertarian project of administrative state demolition beyond a populist façade'. In other words, Buchanan was John the Baptist to Trump's Messiah. Thirty years on, the Republican party is no longer the party of Reagan and the Bushes: Trump rules unopposed. When the Clock Broke is a brilliant explanation of his rise.
When the Clock Broke is published by Penguin at £10.99. To order your copy, call 0330 173 5030 or visit Telegraph Books
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A Dirty Dozen: 12 New-Order Trump Icebreakers For Polar Security
A Dirty Dozen: 12 New-Order Trump Icebreakers For Polar Security

Forbes

timea few seconds ago

  • Forbes

A Dirty Dozen: 12 New-Order Trump Icebreakers For Polar Security

Over the past several months, America's approach to Polar security has been a perplexing mix of future commitments coupled with tough, near-term pull-backs. In the interim, China is highlighting America's apparent retreat, surging icebreakers and other craft to both the North and South Poles. It is high time for President Trump to walk his own talk, cutting administrative red tape to contract out the construction of a 'Dirty Dozen' new ships with new American icebreaker-builders. America needs at least 12 tough, mid-sized Trump icebreakers—utilitarian bruisers—for service in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. Despite a lot of White House attention, America's icebreaking fleet remains in a shambles. The venerable USCGC Polar Star (WAGB 10), commissioned in 1976, completed the vessel's 28th voyage to Antarctica, and the Coast Guard commissioned the USCGC Storis (WAGB 21). That vessel is a something of a frankencutter, cobbled together from an unwanted anchor handling tug with icebreaking characteristics. Immediately after commissioning, the converted 'icebreaker' was sent on patrol, likely to track one of the five recently-built Chinese icebreakers currently operating waters off Alaska. One other ship, the USCGC Healy (WAGB-20) is available for moderate icebreaking tasks in the Arctic. In the Antarctic, research programs—the basis for a future U.S. territorial claim to the continent—are being slashed. The contract to operate RV Nathaniel B. Palmer, a research icebreaker, was abruptly terminated, joining the recently terminated ARSV Laurence M. Gould support ship, in some form of layup. Meanwhile, China and Russia are rushing to build new 'research' bases across the frozen continent and deploying massive fishing vessels to exploit America's retreat. Only the little R/V Sikuliaq, an 'ice-capable research ship' more suited for Arctic work, is left. The scientific stewards of America's various footholds on the Antarctic continent have been left scrambling. Right now, America's icebreaker shipbuilding effort is offering more pomp than product. The President has been vocal about increasing America's icebreaking capabilities during his first administration, and has continued pressing forward from the earliest days of his second term. But things are not working out. Bollinger Shipyards, after inheriting the Coast Guard's troubled Polar Security Cutter program, is struggling to get the job done. In an almost universal industry sign of programmatic trouble ahead, the company has focused more corporate energy upon building a powerful political machine than upon building Coast Guard icebreakers. Bollinger's political campaigning has worked, but the $951.6 million the yard won to advance production of the first PSC and stands to get $4.3 billion in funding for additional vessels. But that funding may not go as far as the government might hope. A glance at publicly available data hints that the shipyard's efforts seem focused on building stakeholder confidence in Mississippi rather than upon building real capacity. The PR doesn't hold up. As the funding rolled in earlier this year, Bollinger bragged that, since Nov 2022, the company spread some $76 million in capital investments across 4 Mississippi shipyards. In shipbuilding, that amount of capital investment is no more than chump change. In December 2022, BAE Systems Southeast shipyard in Jacksonville, Florida, announced an $250 million investment in a massive Pearlson shiplift, and, while Bollinger was busy celebrating their political wins, the Trump Administration—in a strange case of really poor staff work from the Navy's front office—lost a chance to showcase their maritime commitment. Rather than make headlines, BAE had to quietly 'cut the ribbon' in a low-key celebration two months ago. If the Navy's front office was actually doing their job, the White House should already be primed to have the President show up as the first Navy vessel arrives. Gulf Coast braggadocio, coupled with an incredibly effective government relations team, makes Bollinger an exciting-sounding partner. But the fact remains that America's first heavy icebreaker won't go into service for years yet and Bollinger, despite lashing up with the well-regarded Canadian shipbuilder Seaspan and Finnish shipbuilder Rauma last month, is struggling to move forward with their current icebreaker contract. The only bright sign of life in American icebreaker shipbuilding is Davie Shipbuilding, currently setting up to invest upwards of a billion dollars in what will soon be the former Gulf Copper shipyards in Texas. This dynamic and experienced icebreaker builder—with integrated icebreaker-building shipyards in both Finland and Canada—is the only foreign shipbuilder besides the Korean shipbuilding giant Hanwaha that has, as of yet, responded to the President's call to invest billions in the United States to bring manufacturing jobs back home. 12 Trump Icebreakers Are Needed Now America's Polar policy is a mess. The only way to improve things is for the President to follow up on his long-held desire for more icebreakers. An announcement of 12 new mid-sized icebreakers—more than the expected eight–makes sense. To keep a single ship on station, the Navy needs three ships—one on duty, one in training, and the other in refit. For icebreakers—whose job is to batter themselves against on unwitting ice field—a user needs around four ships and a lot of spare engines and other key parts to keep one on station. By adding four more 'Arctic Security Cutters' to the Coast Guard's minimal ask, another set of robust mid-sized bruisers can be forward-deployed in Australia, tasked with the job of supporting America's modest footholds on the Antarctic continent and pushing back against Chinese and Russian efforts to erode America's long-benevolent stewardship of the continent. It is time for America to get back into the Polar security game, and the White House can do it today, right now, by announcing the purchase of a 'Dirty Dozen'—12 tough, new Trump icebreakers.

The latest on Trump's presidency and redistricting efforts in Texas and California
The latest on Trump's presidency and redistricting efforts in Texas and California

CNN

timea few seconds ago

  • CNN

The latest on Trump's presidency and redistricting efforts in Texas and California

Update: Date: Title: California Democrats ready redistricting plan after Texas House approves new maps Content: California Democrats are taking up their proposed constitutional amendment to temporarily redraw their congressional maps, hours after Republicans in the Texas House passed new maps of their own. After weeks of opposition and days of heated committee meetings and floor debates, lawmakers in both states are on track to pass their redistricting efforts today. In California, the state Assembly and Senate will consider a trio of bills that will allow for a special election to pass a constitutional amendment to replace the state's existing congressional maps through 2030. From there, Democrats in the state must convince Californians to overturn the congressional maps drafted by the independent redistricting commission voters first empowered to draw the lines in 2010. California Democrats have described their redistricting push as reaction to the Texas plan and President Donald Trump's effort to create a more favorable 2026 midterm election map. The legislation includes a trigger clause that says the state will only move forward if other states — such as Texas — seek to implement their own mid-decade redistricting. In Texas, meanwhile, the state House yesterday evening approved new congressional maps — an 88-52 vote on party lines that came two days after the Democrats who had fled the state, denying the House a quorum for 15 days, returned to Austin. The Republican-dominated state Senate is reconvening tonight, and the redistricting plan's passage there is all but certain. Democrats are seeking to gain five seats in California, while Republicans are eyeing five additional seats in Texas. The legislature will consider the proposed referendum, as well as two related bills, starting today. All three need a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers to pass. If passed, voters would be able to weigh in on whether they want to allow the legislature to override the congressional lines drawn by the state's independent redistricting commission to put in place new lines through 2030. Update: Date: Title: Analysis: Democrats might be done "going high" against Trump Content: Democrats have tried everything to beat Donald Trump. But they're only 1 for 3 in presidential elections against him. Twice, they impeached him — but that didn't destroy his political career. Several top Democratic prosecutors brought the force of the law against him, but in trying to bring him down, they only made him stronger. They've tried to 'go high' when he went low. But he went lower and won. And painting Trump as the worst-ever threat to American democracy didn't thwart the greatest White House comeback story in history. So, what do Democrats do now? The latest plan, piloted by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose counteroffensive just won the support of former President Barack Obama, is to be a bit more like Trump — but only up to a point and for a limited time. California state legislators are expected on Thursday to pass bills to set up a statewide referendum in November on redrawing the state's congressional maps in a way that could net Democrats five seats in the House of Representatives. The counterattack went into force after deep-red Texas enacted its plan, ordered by the president, to launch a rare mid-cycle redistricting effort in search of five Republican House seats. Trump is blatantly attempting to save the GOP — and himself — from losing the chamber in the 2026 midterms and is prepared to do anything to prevent it. Read Collinson's full analysis here.

Trump Demands 'Free Tina Peters', Threatens 'Harsh Measures'
Trump Demands 'Free Tina Peters', Threatens 'Harsh Measures'

Newsweek

timea few seconds ago

  • Newsweek

Trump Demands 'Free Tina Peters', Threatens 'Harsh Measures'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump repeated his demand for Tina Peters to be released from prison and threatened "harsh measures" if she remains detained. Peters, 69, is a Colorado election clerk convicted of tampering with voting machines after the 2020 presidential election. She is serving a nine-year sentence in La Vista Correctional Facility. "FREE TINA PETERS, a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians, including the big Mail-In Ballot supporting the governor of the State," Trump posted to Truth Social on Thursday morning, August 21. "Let Tina Peters out of jail, RIGHT NOW." Trump added: "She is an old woman, and very sick. If she is not released, I am going to take harsh measures!!!" This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store