How Donald Trump’s smallness drives the GOP’s nice grasp plan
Republicans these days are prone to complaining about the “awake” culture, denouncing an increasing awareness, awareness of, and concern about the persistent injustices and injustices that have long structured American society.
Apparently, advocating black lives, believing that transgender people deserve civil rights, or condemning and resisting attacks on American democracy in favor of minority rule are somehow undesirable attacks on what Senator Marco Rubio (R-FLA) referred to as “traditional values”. In fact, Rubio went so far as to recently write an open letter to “wake up American corporations” threatening them with abolishing corporate tax cuts if they didn’t stop meddling in politics by opposing swarms of voter suppression laws on state legislative acts across the country.
No doubt Donald Trump’s brazen racism and uncompromising authoritarianism have encouraged Republicans to make such outrageous and open complaints about people and institutions in power to participate in democracy and to stand up for the protection of civil rights for all, the cornerstone of democracy, to use.
However, it would be wrong to see Trump as the source or main promoter of this autocratic attack on democracy and civil rights.
He may have encouraged and enabled Republicans to speak louder, but let’s be clear that Republicans have hugged Trump and used him in many ways to try to advance their long-standing master plan to implement a permanent Republican majority, which one Anti-democratic minority rule that in no way represents the will of the American people.
As early as 1994 at least, members of the Republican Party expressed their ambitious desire for a permanent majority. This year then-Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) foresaw a realignment that would make this permanent majority possible, as did Tom DeLay in 2004. Republican Karl Rove naturally dreamed that the election of George W. Bush as president would usher in such a majority.
In 2014, after another wave of Republican elections, MP Greg Walden proclaimed with similar megalomania: “We’re as back to a majority as any of us saw in our lifetime. It can be a hundred-year majority. “
And let’s be clear: the Republicans did not achieve these majorities because they represented the will of a majority of American voters. George W. Bush was, of course, elected with a minority of votes. Even then, as I recently wrote on the PoliticusUsa pages, they were able to win seats through gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts that enabled them to win the majority of seats with a minority of votes.
Steve Benen’s analysis of what he called Walden’s “hubris” in 2014 really highlights the similarities between the characters of the pre-Trump Republican Party and what it smells like today.
In response to Walden’s madness of a “hundred-year majority”, Benen writes:
Roger that? The Republican Party may be unpopular and its ideas may lack public support, and it may not have a real political agenda, but its leaders are still comfortable staying in the majority – until 2114.
Benen’s compelling analysis suggests that today’s GOP is more identical to the supposedly healthy pre-Trump GOP than a distortion of it that some commentators and so-called established Republicans crave. Today we see the GOP refusing to support policy proposals by the Biden administration, which polls say are very popular with Americans. But even then, the GOP did not listen to or care about the majority of Americans.
Paul Abrams argues in a 2011 article in the Huffington Post that the GOP’s tendency to work against the interests and health of Americans predates Trumpism. Take his analysis of Karl Rove, who looks at Rove’s role in American life before getting into politics proper, and begs the question:
What about Karl Rove, a man who had an early career job at Brown & Williamson tobacco company, learned to sell something that no one reasonably would buy and feel confident that he was helping recruit 5,000 children a week, a habit of smoking?
Similarly, in Abrams’ analysis, Rove’s aim was to win a republican majority that had little to do with obeying the rules of a democratic system that represented the interests of the people, as he writes:
Rove’s vision of an enduring Republican majority had little to do with winning properly conducted elections for the simple reason that in free elections there is no Republican majority, and Rove knows it. Therefore, in order to get a Republican majority and make it permanent, he had to 1) gain power; and 2) destroy the vitality of democratic institutions. He has achieved (1).
Rove’s game plan, as Abrams called it back then, is exactly what is played today. Republican parliaments are actively involved in suppressing the vote and overturning the 2020 presidential election.
The difference now is Trump’s dangerous psychology, which combines a heavily narcissistic personality with clearly deep-seated insecurities that constantly admire him and make it impossible for him to admit that he didn’t win an election.
In other words, Trump’s overwhelming mental disorders that make him a mean and small person who is so self-centered that he has a personality disorder that makes him grossly incompatible with democracy itself.
His special psychology made him the perfect candidate for the attempt to realize the republican will of an anti-democratic minority rule.
Previously, aside from their actual practices, Republicans seemed constrained by the need to respect democratic norms.
Trump’s narcissism and his apparent belief that rules don’t apply to him have broken this fragile compulsion.
His psychological profile and small size fit perfectly into the grandiose historical agenda of the Republican Party.
His belief that he is still president, or entitled to the presidency, is simply the most honest and overt expression of republican ideology.
Tim Libretti is a professor of American literature and culture at a Chicago state university. A longtime progressive voice, he has published many scholarly and journalistic articles on culture, class, race, gender, and politics, for which he has received awards from the Working Class Studies Association, the International Labor Communications Association, the National Federation of Press Women, and the Illinois Woman’s Press Association .