It has always struck me that Trump's personification of the American volk arises not so much from Trump himself, but in the sort of negative space of the "elites" reaction to him. "Owning the libs" as they say, he is a gravitational object that draws a particular fault line which is resonant with people beyond policy, words, or even the person of Trump himself.
And I guess that speaks to the point about monarchy as well. It is singular by definition, there cannot be two kings. Trump must be gone for there to be another Trump.
We discussed the “two bodies of the king” in my literature classes when we were reading Shakespeare’s Henry plays - it illuminated, among other moments, the battle scene where many imposters were dressed as the king to confuse the enemy. It’s still a useful concept for distinguishing the president from the presidency. For example, in the way the White House Counsel is (or ought to be) a lawyer for the institution of the presidency, and not the man or woman themselves.
(If I recall correctly, there was a medieval case where a person attempting to kill the king could be accused of two crimes: for attempting to kill the corporeal king and the legal king. That strikes me as going a bit far.)
Very nice column. The parallel is also apt because Trumpists would never recognize a Democrat as possessing the same second body. It would have to have the right mystical substance or blood, and no democrat would qualify.
You write this (not coincidentally, 'cuz it's in the air) as I've found myself recently considering the parallels between fascism and monarchy. They're certainly not identical, but there's material to be mined in the common ground. Perhaps they're in the same clade in a taxonomy of political systems and we can regard fascism as a mutation of monarchy, borrowing some (palin?)genetic material from other species.
The danger I see is that Trump, the flesh and blood humanoid, is not long for this world. He's not going to make it to 2028. Either ill health, prison or Russia will get him.
However, Trumpism is forever. He has caused permanent, irreversible damage to government and culture. Trump the humanoid has set the table for a more capable and more charismatic despot to succeed him.
Sarah Kendzior has said that in tyrannical societies, politics is a family business. So expect Donald Jr. and Ivanka to jockey as heirs to the throne of the House of Trump.
As far as a non-Trump, expect Ron DeSantis to plot a national comeback or someone like Greg Abbott or Dan Patrick from Texas to pose as the more capable Trump.
I've often had the same thought about the "President's two minds": that the conservative legal movement advocates a view of this all-powerful, omni-competent Unitary Executive, even as the people who conservatives put in that position are anywhere from mediocre half-wits to (in the case of Reagan) literally entering senility.
In a way, it's almost admirable. I feel like under the right circumstances, anyone could fall under the spell of a particularly charismatic leader, believe that person to be truly extraordinary and want to invest him with absolute power. But to believe in autocracy so much that you'd be willing to settle it on someone whose brain is demonstrably half-mush is real commitment to the bit. It's like they are trying to make a point, standing up for...whatever it is they have instead of principle.
Yes, and in more mundane political terms: when conservative intellectuals construct these high-minded (sounding) philosophical arguments for why an autocratic government would be a good thing, I keep thinking, "but why is *this* the craven dope you want to be the autocrat?"
Some of the voices are just plain crackpots or grifters (Steven Bannon). But others aren't stupid, and they no doubt set great store on the solemnity of their political analysis. And it leads them to be serious advocates of Donald Fucking Trump? Someone who is almost identical to dim mob boss? You spend years reading and writing about political philosophy and you arrive at "Tony Soprano for President––and let's tack on a 3rd term"?
Why Trump? One of the animating qualities of fascism is its eclecticism. Unlike other ideologies, fascism wasn't rooted in foundational texts but rather passions and sentimentalities. It's formless enough that anyone can see what they want out of a fascist movement and believe it will lead to wish fulfillment. This is why classes at odds, like workers and bosses, anarchists and militarists, coalesce around a fascist leader.
I probably mis understand this line of two body legal fantasy but we are to believe that once one becomes president, through whatever means shy of popular vote that person undergoes an ontological change in which he is no longer what he once was but has been transformed through some magical process into the cosmic will of the wealthy? And needless to say could shoot a supreme court justice in broad daylight and be innocent because the will of the people has been expressed through his being and reflected in his acts? Apologies for any mis reading.
The schmuck as deity. That’s a good line.
A good read as always, gracias.
It has always struck me that Trump's personification of the American volk arises not so much from Trump himself, but in the sort of negative space of the "elites" reaction to him. "Owning the libs" as they say, he is a gravitational object that draws a particular fault line which is resonant with people beyond policy, words, or even the person of Trump himself.
And I guess that speaks to the point about monarchy as well. It is singular by definition, there cannot be two kings. Trump must be gone for there to be another Trump.
We discussed the “two bodies of the king” in my literature classes when we were reading Shakespeare’s Henry plays - it illuminated, among other moments, the battle scene where many imposters were dressed as the king to confuse the enemy. It’s still a useful concept for distinguishing the president from the presidency. For example, in the way the White House Counsel is (or ought to be) a lawyer for the institution of the presidency, and not the man or woman themselves.
(If I recall correctly, there was a medieval case where a person attempting to kill the king could be accused of two crimes: for attempting to kill the corporeal king and the legal king. That strikes me as going a bit far.)
Trump truly is the personification of white America's id. So in that sense he could be said to have a body mystical.
Very nice column. The parallel is also apt because Trumpists would never recognize a Democrat as possessing the same second body. It would have to have the right mystical substance or blood, and no democrat would qualify.
You write this (not coincidentally, 'cuz it's in the air) as I've found myself recently considering the parallels between fascism and monarchy. They're certainly not identical, but there's material to be mined in the common ground. Perhaps they're in the same clade in a taxonomy of political systems and we can regard fascism as a mutation of monarchy, borrowing some (palin?)genetic material from other species.
The danger I see is that Trump, the flesh and blood humanoid, is not long for this world. He's not going to make it to 2028. Either ill health, prison or Russia will get him.
However, Trumpism is forever. He has caused permanent, irreversible damage to government and culture. Trump the humanoid has set the table for a more capable and more charismatic despot to succeed him.
Sarah Kendzior has said that in tyrannical societies, politics is a family business. So expect Donald Jr. and Ivanka to jockey as heirs to the throne of the House of Trump.
As far as a non-Trump, expect Ron DeSantis to plot a national comeback or someone like Greg Abbott or Dan Patrick from Texas to pose as the more capable Trump.
In "It's Alright Ma," Bob Dylan wrote: “Sometimes even the President of the United States must stand naked.”
I've often had the same thought about the "President's two minds": that the conservative legal movement advocates a view of this all-powerful, omni-competent Unitary Executive, even as the people who conservatives put in that position are anywhere from mediocre half-wits to (in the case of Reagan) literally entering senility.
In a way, it's almost admirable. I feel like under the right circumstances, anyone could fall under the spell of a particularly charismatic leader, believe that person to be truly extraordinary and want to invest him with absolute power. But to believe in autocracy so much that you'd be willing to settle it on someone whose brain is demonstrably half-mush is real commitment to the bit. It's like they are trying to make a point, standing up for...whatever it is they have instead of principle.
Yes, and in more mundane political terms: when conservative intellectuals construct these high-minded (sounding) philosophical arguments for why an autocratic government would be a good thing, I keep thinking, "but why is *this* the craven dope you want to be the autocrat?"
Some of the voices are just plain crackpots or grifters (Steven Bannon). But others aren't stupid, and they no doubt set great store on the solemnity of their political analysis. And it leads them to be serious advocates of Donald Fucking Trump? Someone who is almost identical to dim mob boss? You spend years reading and writing about political philosophy and you arrive at "Tony Soprano for President––and let's tack on a 3rd term"?
Why Trump? One of the animating qualities of fascism is its eclecticism. Unlike other ideologies, fascism wasn't rooted in foundational texts but rather passions and sentimentalities. It's formless enough that anyone can see what they want out of a fascist movement and believe it will lead to wish fulfillment. This is why classes at odds, like workers and bosses, anarchists and militarists, coalesce around a fascist leader.
I probably mis understand this line of two body legal fantasy but we are to believe that once one becomes president, through whatever means shy of popular vote that person undergoes an ontological change in which he is no longer what he once was but has been transformed through some magical process into the cosmic will of the wealthy? And needless to say could shoot a supreme court justice in broad daylight and be innocent because the will of the people has been expressed through his being and reflected in his acts? Apologies for any mis reading.