I think this is a good analysis of DeSantis as an avatar for "Trumpism", if we treat it like an ideology, or at least a political style that can be replicated. I wonder, though, if you discount how singular Trump is because of his skills and history as an entertainer -- his feral charisma, his emphasis on facades and showmanship, his ability to surprise and distract, his decades of ubiquitous celebrity as a "successful businessman". I don't think he is funny, but he can be fun for people with a certain vulgar sensibility. Ron DeSantis has none of this.
You mention this in your article, but perhaps it would be worth weighing more directly how much of Trump's appeal has come from his sheer entertainment value (again, not for everyone, but for a large enough segment of the population) versus the political and ideological features you associate with "Trumpism" in this article?
Here's another counterpoint: I'm not convinced that Americans would ultimately accept a truly authoritarian state, even with someone like DeSantis in charge of the executive branch, and so some of the ideological presuppositions around this reactionary movement are murky, in my view. Here's a thought experiment. Imagine that the war in Ukraine had not happened yet, but it would happen in 5 years, and during that time 5 million hardcore MAGA-types emigrated to Siberia out of disgust for lefty coastal wokeness in the US and set up a political network in one of the regions there. How many of them would want to mobilize to Ukraine, versus agitating against the regime in Moscow? It may seem paradoxical, but the reactionary types in this country are also anti-authoritarian, and the movement might exhaust itself if there were no liberal authority to react against.
Charisma in politicians is overated. Nice to have, but Nixon had zero, yet was, until Watergate, a successful president in a challenging time. The illiberalization of the GOP, to the extent it exists, (not that sure) is mostly a reaction to Democratic illiberalism--wokeness.
Alan--
I think this is a good analysis of DeSantis as an avatar for "Trumpism", if we treat it like an ideology, or at least a political style that can be replicated. I wonder, though, if you discount how singular Trump is because of his skills and history as an entertainer -- his feral charisma, his emphasis on facades and showmanship, his ability to surprise and distract, his decades of ubiquitous celebrity as a "successful businessman". I don't think he is funny, but he can be fun for people with a certain vulgar sensibility. Ron DeSantis has none of this.
You mention this in your article, but perhaps it would be worth weighing more directly how much of Trump's appeal has come from his sheer entertainment value (again, not for everyone, but for a large enough segment of the population) versus the political and ideological features you associate with "Trumpism" in this article?
Here's another counterpoint: I'm not convinced that Americans would ultimately accept a truly authoritarian state, even with someone like DeSantis in charge of the executive branch, and so some of the ideological presuppositions around this reactionary movement are murky, in my view. Here's a thought experiment. Imagine that the war in Ukraine had not happened yet, but it would happen in 5 years, and during that time 5 million hardcore MAGA-types emigrated to Siberia out of disgust for lefty coastal wokeness in the US and set up a political network in one of the regions there. How many of them would want to mobilize to Ukraine, versus agitating against the regime in Moscow? It may seem paradoxical, but the reactionary types in this country are also anti-authoritarian, and the movement might exhaust itself if there were no liberal authority to react against.
Charisma in politicians is overated. Nice to have, but Nixon had zero, yet was, until Watergate, a successful president in a challenging time. The illiberalization of the GOP, to the extent it exists, (not that sure) is mostly a reaction to Democratic illiberalism--wokeness.