Donald Trump: a 'dangerous madman'?

Let's stop this suicidal male hatred now

You cannot watch a TV news programme, listen to a radio programme or read a newspaper without the mantra being repeated that Donald Trump is a danger to both individual freedom and economic prosperity.

In the process, Trump is consistently portrayed as a ‘dangerous madman’. He is said to be driven only by ‘vindictiveness’ and ‘nihilism’. His politics are said to be part of a deliberate effort to destroy the liberal world order and replace it with total disorder.

Opinions differ only on the extent to which this ‘nihilistic’ reversal of all values is utterly irrational; a few are able to discern a certain rationale in it as well. 

The latter scenario is said to make the matter much more serious, as it only reinforces the disastrous nature of his politics, just as it supposedly allowed Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Netanyahu, Orbán and, earlier, Adolf Hitler to pursue their goals with ‘diabolical’ precision.  

Anyone who takes a sober look at what is actually going on will see that the import tariffs imposed by Trump by decree are still, on average, well below those of his trading partners and that, from that perspective, they represent a very moderate form of ‘revenge’. But is it really ‘revenge’ at all? Trump is happy to sit down with countries willing to do something about their own import tariffs. 

So you could call his politics a form of diplomacy. A form of ‘male’ diplomacy, admittedly: you indicate that you will no longer be led like a lamb to the slaughter, nor will you go down on your knees begging for tariffs to be lowered or abolished, but show for the first time that you are prepared to strike back, in the hope that your trading partner will change his mind and also examine his own import tariffs.

That those import tariffs are imposed by decree does not mean that the democratic rule of law is undermined; this instrument is an integral part of that rule of law, at least in the US. You can only speak of a ‘dictatorship’ in this context if you wanted to retroactively declare all presidents in US history to have been dictators.

Besides, how come nobody caught on when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama called for import tariffs, urged European countries finally to honour their commitments to NATO, and advocated the deportation of criminal migrants? The only difference with Trump is that he is not just shouting it, but putting his money where his mouth is and threatening countries that fail to honour their commitments with sanctions.

So the hatred towards Trump does not so much concern his politics, but his person: it is outright man-hatred.

For those for whom this seems a bit far-fetched, this hatred has been around for so long that we are often not even aware of it anymore. Certainly not since this hatred has taken hold of the mainstream media and politics, ever since the father of the so-called Frankfurt School, sociologist and philosopher Theodor Adorno, wrote The Authoritarian Personality in 1950. Since then, this hatred has even gained scientific prestige has been nestled into American and European culture via a long march through the institutions.

Adorno's book sought to explain the rise of fascism in the glorification of typically masculine values such as courage, confrontation, aggression, exclusion and (national) self-interest. As such, these values were diametrically opposed to the feminine values of the liberal world order: humility, empathy, diplomacy, dialogue, inclusiveness and (universal) solidarity.

For fascism to be a thing of the past once and for all, boys also needed to be taught typically feminine values. With the help of those values, a new, left-liberal, world order of eternal peace and prosperity could take shape.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, liberals went into a jubilant mood. Its most high-profile interpreter was the political philosopher, Francis Fukuyama. He even proclaimed the end of history in 1992.  War - that quintessentially male pastime - had been defeated by the soft forces of democratic-capitalism and would definitely be a thing of the past. At best, police actions could still push for regime change so that the democracy everyone in the world had been waiting for could finally be established.

However, not only elsewhere in the world but even at home, more and more people appeared unhappy with the outcomes of the liberal world order. This was for the following reasons.

1. Liberals still think you can establish democracy under any circumstances more or less by external force. But almost always, such adventures end in civil war and chaos, with dire consequences for the societies involved.
    
2. Liberals think they can save the whole world from imminent demise due to climate change. However, the associated Green Deals lead to ever-rising energy prices, an increasingly unstable energy supply and, with it, economic decline and increasing poverty.
    
3. Liberals think they can save the whole world by endlessly taking in migrants. This leads not only to repopulation and increasing poverty, but also to undermining the dominant Judeo-Christian-humanist culture that had laid the foundation for unprecedented freedom and prosperity.
    
4. Liberals think they can save the whole world by endlessly spending borrowed money to fund their own ideals. That citizens and businesses are weighed down by increasingly heavy burdens, and that this has a negative effect on the earning power of economies, seems to escape the governing elites.
    
5. Liberals think they can save the whole world with their good intentions. Anyone who dares to point out the suicidal side effects of related policies on the economy and society is dismissed as a scary populist, put under censorship and, if necessary, forcibly silenced.

Since soft counterforces had failed so far, it turned out to be necessary to have a man who would stand aside for nothing and no one in order to strengthen the popular protest in politics as well. 

A man who was prepared to risk not only his entire life and possessions, but also his good name. A man who did not mind being despised by the sitting elites because of his criticism of the harmful side effects of the liberal world order. 

A man who, with his typically masculine bravado, reawakened the awareness among all sections of the population that resistance to the seemingly supreme elites was possible, while also giving them new hope for a better future. A man who was willing to fight to Make America Great Again. 

The bravado with which Trump confronted was loathed by representatives of the liberal order like Barack and Michelle Obama as vulgar. ‘When they go low, we go high,’ was how they interpreted their claim to the moral high ground.

In The New York Times last 1 May, columnist David Brooks condemned Trump's style as ‘pagan’, because inspired by the hubris once peculiar to the Romans. See his grandiose real estate projects, his enthusiasm for pro wrestling and military parades. With Trump, everything has to be grand and compelling.

Here in this country, a critic like Charles Groenhuijsen interpreted liberal sentiment. By now seriously considering that Trump would win the race for the White House, he still imagined in his Donald Trump (2015) that Obama would leave the following message for his successor at his farewell:

Be modest.

Be humble.

Be patient.

Or pretend…

Enjoy the ride.

All the best,

Barack

The message from the liberal elites was clear: We know, Donald, that you are a typical alpha male, with all that bluster, pride and vigour of yours. But please pretend to be a woman. We know that deep down you will always be a fascist. But pretend for a moment that you are a liberal. Then the next time you lose the election, we can just go on with our liberal project as if nothing ever happened.

Meanwhile, Trump, with his masculine way of doing politics, did manage to stand up to the prevailing current in media and politics and give broad voice to the wide-spread unrest in society. It brought him to power in 2016, only to come back even stronger in 2024.

Apparently, more and more people saw in this ‘dangerous madman’ a man capable of effectively bringing an end to a liberal era in which their freedoms were increasingly infringed upon and in which they saw their prosperity evaporate faster and faster. 

That his message resonated particularly among men should come as no surprise in this regard. For too long they had allowed themselves to be patronised by an elite that treated them as pathetic females and small children. For too long, they had believed in the liberal talk that promised them heaven on earth and that even fewer and fewer women still believe in.

For them, Trump is the epitome of a pride and decisiveness that enables men to have faith in themselves again, to take fate into their own hands with self-confidence and fight for home and property, wife and children. Trump is the epitome of the man which an increasing number of women also feel is there to protect them .

Trump is the man fighting against the false pretence that America can save the whole world. For him, the interests of his own Americans are paramount. Together with them, he promises to make America great again

Whether his masculine form of diplomacy will have the desired effect in the process remains to be seen.

But this does not make Trump's policy ‘nihilistic’ at all. It was clear that continuing on the old path would be short-sighted. The ill effects of the delusion of a global free market economy were already too dire for that.

This is not to mention the suicidal features of the pursuit of a liberal world order, in which not only the economic foundations of our culture, but also that culture itself, including the underlying drive to reproduce, are in danger of being destroyed.

Being aware of this and finally doing something about it does not make you a ‘dangerous madman’. On the contrary, it apparently took a man to put an end to a politics in which politicians claim the moral high ground for themselves on the backs of citizens.

In The Churchill Complex (2020), historian Ian Buruma predicted that Trump will one day be seen as ‘a temporary phase of insanity’ in America's proud democratic history. 

In contrast, I predict that Trump will one day be seen as the one who saved democracy from imminent demise and ushered in a time of renewed vitality.