Donald Trump has been defeated, defeated by logic in the US congressional midterm elections. Democratic logic in the West differs from that of Third World countries, where democracy is merely a formality, or consensual, tribal, sectarian, or a dictatorship in disguise. In America, the people vote and may make the wrong choice, but their choices are not eternal, and their allegiance to a party, a movement, or a leader is neither sealed in blood nor a sacred covenant. Before his Democratic opponents defeated him, Trump was defeated by his own supporters: the nationalists, Republicans, and independents who had once been dazzled by his personality and by ideas that broke with the norms of traditional American politics.
In the two remaining years of the Trump era, American politics enters a period of tug-of-war between a narcissistic, go-it-alone president and a Congress that fiercely opposes him. Trump went to the extreme in his hostility toward the Democrats, to the point of personally insulting former President Joe Biden as a decrepit old man. Time will tell how Trump will coexist with a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress. But the election results, which most likely surprised neither Trump and his team nor the Democrats, were clear indicators of growing public opposition to Trump and to policies that have exhausted American citizens.
The vote against the Republicans was, in large part, a vote against Trump personally. His antics and rhetoric no longer convince young Americans. But does bringing Trump down in such a humiliating manner mean bringing down Trumpism itself, as a political “doctrine” for governing the United States (and the world)?
Trumpism was not a revolution against the Republican Party. Rather, it was an internal movement that reshaped the party under the influence of a man who arrived with ideas that played on people’s emotions and needs, in a massive media campaign he led himself. He is, at heart, a showman and a polarizer.
Trumpism raised a central slogan, “America First,” which sums up Trump’s worldview. According to this vision, international relations are not a network of mutual commitments and shared values, but relationships of interests and deals: allies must pay more in exchange for protection, and countries that benefit from the American market must make trade and political concessions. Applying this slogan put America in confrontation with its allies, from Canada to Europe and the East, and with its rivals and adversaries, from China to South America. Within this framework falls the idea of economic nationalism and trade protectionism, as Trumpism holds that globalization has harmed the American working class and led to factories and jobs moving to China, Mexico, and other countries. Hence it promotes tariffs, support for domestic production, and the reshoring of industries as means of restoring American economic power. Also within this framework falls opposition to immigration, which Trumpism accuses of threatening domestic security, national identity, and job opportunities.
Trumpism views the United Nations, NATO, and international organizations and agreements in terms of what they offer the United States and what they cost it. It does not see these institutions as binding authorities in their own right, but as tools to be engaged with or withdrawn from according to American interests.
Trumpism presented itself as the voice of Americans marginalized by the political, economic, media, and academic elites in Washington, using the dichotomy of the people versus the establishment, and the ordinary citizen versus the elite that runs the state. It adopted a discourse defending conservative values and national identity. But its most prominent element is the centrality of the individual. Trump does not present himself merely as a president implementing a party program, but as the one person capable of bypassing traditional institutions, confronting his opponents, and rebuilding the state according to his vision.
Trump made a series of mistakes, including confusing America’s economic power with the ability to impose its will on the world, friends, allies, and adversaries alike. This backfired, increasing disruption to trade, supply chains, corporate activity, and investment, driving up prices, and failing to protect domestic production. It also distanced America from its political and economic allies, especially in Europe. He contradicted himself by presenting himself as a man of peace while waging war on Iran, which he and his vice president admitted was a main reason for the Republicans’ defeat, blessing Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, and openly flaunting his friendship with war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump went far in turning political rivalry into a struggle over institutions, casting doubt on electoral, judicial, and media institutions, and on the legitimacy of his political opponents. His refusal to concede defeat in the 2020 election and the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, marked a turning point in his relationship with the American political system.
Can this defeat be considered the end of Trumpism?
This question has not escaped American think tanks, which agree that it is still too early to speak of the end of Trumpism. The “America First” slogan, for instance, will endure under any new administration, as will economic protectionism. These think tanks outline three possible scenarios for the future of Trumpism.
The first scenario: Trumpism continues as a party doctrine, transforming from a movement tied to Trump into a permanent Republican current that embraces economic nationalism, a hard line on immigration, the priority of direct American interests, and skepticism toward the traditional international order. This scenario is supported by the fact that Trumpism is no longer merely an electoral phenomenon, but has extended its reach within the Republican Party, the conservative media, and broad social and economic sectors.
The second scenario: the emergence of Trumpism without Trump, meaning a new leader who adopts the same principles but with a different style, less tied to personal confrontations and better able to turn ideas into lasting institutions and policies. This scenario may be the most significant for the future of the Republican Party, as it would allow the party to retain its populist and nationalist base while overcoming the problem of depending on a single personality.
The third scenario: the breakup of the coalition that created Trumpism. The movement brings together groups whose interests do not necessarily align: workers hurt by globalization, social conservatives, nationalists, businessmen, and the owners of Big Tech companies.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their owsn and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.
