Repation in History
"Their frayed nerves were easily infected with the fiercest phases of the war psychology, and they have boiled and fretted and fumed. The hatreds and violence, which were jammed up without issue in action against the enemy, turned against all kinds of imaginary enemies—the enemy within, the enemy to the south, the enemy at Moscow, the African American, the immigrant, the labor union—against anything that might be treated as a plausible object for unexpended feeling.
This sect has been called conservative. It is not that in any accurate sense of the term. The sect has been called reactionary. That also is inaccurate for the last thing this sect has in mind is a return to the easygoing, decentralized, unregimented America of the nineteenth century. It has been called capitalistic. It is not capitalistic, if that means that it is interested in the administration of capitalism. The sect is radical jingo with the prejudices of the junker rather than of the great industrialists. It is really incapable of distinguishing between the military government of an occupied country like Cuba and the civil government of the United States. It is a mystical sect of innovators who propose to exalt the federal government into a state of supreme and unquestionable authority. They are not finicky about law or principle .... They have the mood, if not the courage of the coup d'etat. They have backed every attack on civil liberty." - Walter Lippmann
In 1920, as America stood at the crossroads of tradition and modernity, journalist Walter Lippmann penned a scathing critique of General Leonard Wood in The New Republic. His analysis went beyond political commentary, serving as a prophetic warning about a recurring and troubling force in American politics: the rise of nationalist fervor intertwined with authoritarianism during periods of social and economic upheaval. Fast forward a century, and Lippmann’s insights remain strikingly relevant. The rise of Donald Trump and his fervent base echoes the themes he identified in Wood’s movement, reminding us that history often repeats itself, different faces, but the same unsettling essence.
A Nation on the Brink of Radicalism
Lippmann portrayed Wood’s supporters as people swept up by the fervor of wartime emotions, channeling their frustrations into hostility toward perceived enemies. This characterization feels strikingly relevant today. Wood’s followers transformed their grievances into an aggressive brand of nationalism, targeting groups such as immigrants, labor movements, progressives, and anti-military advocates.
The anger and discontent we see today bear a powerful resemblance to those of Wood’s era. Over the past two decades, America has been battered by crisis after crisis, a prolonged war on terror, a devastating economic collapse that hollowed out the middle class, and a global pandemic that deepened political and cultural rifts. Much like Wood’s supporters, modern nationalist movements take these anxieties and redirect them toward scapegoats. Today, the so-called “woke” establishment, global elites, and demographic changes are painted as existential threats to the nation’s identity.
Trumpism, much like Wood’s movement, thrives on a foundation of grievance and resentment. Both are driven less by coherent policy than by reactionary impulses, framing their platforms around themes of victimhood and betrayal. Lippmann noted that Wood’s faction turned its anger inward, blaming labor unions, immigrants, minorities, and foreign influences for America’s woes. Similarly, Trump’s base directs its frustrations toward minorities, immigrants, and global elites, amplifying fears of cultural and economic erosion. Both movements share a common narrative: the belief that an entrenched establishment is conspiring to destroy the “true” America. They exploit the idea of national decline, stoking fears of existential threats while promising a return to an idealized past.
Wood’s rhetoric, with its emphasis on cultural uniformity and rejection of foreign influence, closely parallels Trump’s. Wood famously proclaimed, “America first must be stamped upon every heart,” insisting on a single language and a unified national identity. In the same vein, Trump’s critiques of multiculturalism, diversity initiatives, and bilingual education push a similarly exclusionary agenda, reinforcing a vision of America rooted in uniformity and unwavering loyalty to a nationalist ideal.
Radical Jingoism Masquerading as Conservatism
Lippmann rejected the idea that Wood’s movement was conservative, instead labeling it “radical jingoism.” It was not a defense of tradition, but a reactionary push for power, driven by resentment and a warped vision of national strength. Likewise, Trumpism is often mischaracterized as conservative. Traditional conservatism emphasizes limited government and the preservation of democratic institutions, but Trumpism rejects these principles. It is a movement obsessed with power, driven by an idealized vision of an America that never truly existed. This vision is enforced not through dialogue or democratic norms, but through executive overreach, judicial dominance, and, when necessary, brute force.
Like Wood before him, Trump appeals to those who desire a leader unrestrained by legal or ethical boundaries. Lippmann described Wood’s followers as seeking to exalt the federal government into a state of supreme, unquestionable authority. Trump embodies this same authoritarian impulse, from his calls to “terminate” parts of the Constitution to his threats of military action against domestic protesters. His leadership style echoes Lippmann’s warnings of a movement willing to undermine democracy in the name of strength and control.
Wood’s rhetoric also reflected this authoritarian streak. He championed national strength inseparable from military might, declaring, “We must be prepared to meet the organized strength of wrong with a desperate strength of right.” Trump’s militarized response to political dissent, such as his calls to deploy troops against Black Lives Matter protests and his admiration for autocrats, follows the same trajectory, justifying power through force and suppression.
Junkers vs Industrialists
In the Prussian context, a "Junker" referred to the landed aristocracy that held significant social, political, and economic power during the 19th and early 20th centuries. These individuals were often large landowners, deeply tied to military and state structures, and exhibited strong authoritarian tendencies. The Junkers were characterized by their loyalty to the monarchy and their resistance to democratic reforms, instead favoring a hierarchical, military-focused society that upheld their own privileges. They were not particularly aligned with capitalist or industrial interests, instead prioritizing land ownership, military service, and a conservative, nationalist vision of governance.
Trump's approach to elevating certain businessmen, like Elon Musk, can be seen as reflecting a modern twist on the Junker mentality. Rather than promoting economic policies that foster broad capitalist growth, Trump has concentrated power and influence in the hands of a few high-profile figures who align with his political objectives. Musk, for instance, has benefited greatly from Trump-era policies such as deregulation, tax incentives, and direct political support, despite his business dealings often straddling both traditional capitalism and cutting-edge technology. Like the Junkers, these businessmen are not necessarily representative of the broader capitalist class but are elevated due to their political loyalty, ability to wield economic power, and alignment with Trump’s nationalist and populist agenda. This concentration of economic influence in the hands of a select few, based on political connections rather than traditional industrialist merit, echoes the hierarchical and loyalty-driven approach of the Junkers.
Furthermore, the Trump administration, like Leonard Wood’s faction, does not govern with the primary goal of maintaining capitalism but rather uses economic policy as a tool for nationalist ambitions.Traditional capitalistic governance that industrialist thrive in prioritizes market stability, investment confidence, and global trade expansion, yet Trump’s approach embraces economic disruption. His administration’s use of tariffs, trade wars, and protectionist policies often created instability rather than fostering predictable growth. Instead of aligning with multinational corporations and financial institutions that thrive on free trade and economic cooperation, his policies prioritized economic self-sufficiency, even when it clashed with the long-term interests of major industries.
More than anything, the administration rejected the stability and predictability that industrialists value in favor of control and confrontation. Business leaders typically seek regulatory consistency and global market access, yet Trump’s governance style thrived on economic warfare, threats to corporations, and unpredictable policy shifts. His willingness to impose tariffs, attack major tech companies, and pressure businesses into political allegiance signaled a departure from the pragmatic management of capitalism. Instead of governing with the mindset of an industrialist seeking long-term economic prosperity, his administration operated with the instincts of a militarist, treating economic policy as a battlefield rather than a system to be maintained.
Mystical Sect
Walter Lippmann’s description of Leonard Wood’s supporters as a "mystical sect of innovators" who sought to elevate the federal government to a position of supreme and unquestionable authority, indifferent to law and principle, provides a sharp lens through which to view the actions of the Trump administration. Lippmann’s critique underscores the dangers of those who, in pursuit of power, are willing to dismantle checks and balances and disregard legal norms. Similarly, the Trump administration consistently exhibited a willingness to sidestep established legal frameworks in favor of executive action. Key policies like the travel ban, the family separation policy at the border, and the use of emergency powers to fund the border wall reflected an impulse to expand executive authority without regard for the legal, ethical, or constitutional limitations that traditionally governed such decisions.
This willingness to disregard laws and principles closely mirrors the behavior Lippmann attributed to Wood’s faction, which sought to consolidate federal power by undermining legal constraints. Trump’s conflicts with the judiciary, especially when his policies were struck down by courts, often included vocal attacks on judges and the judicial process itself. He regularly framed legal rulings against his administration as attacks on the people and his mandate, rather than respecting the role of the courts as a check on executive power. His administration also faced criticism for a dismissive approach to established norms, such as the refusal to comply with subpoenas, obstruction of congressional oversight, and the politicization of law enforcement agencies. These actions suggested a direct disregard for the principles of accountability and transparency that are supposed to constrain government power.
However, where Lippmann’s description of Wood’s supporters suggested a clear authoritarian push to centralize and elevate federal power without question, the Trump administration mixed this desire for centralization with a populist, anti-elite rhetoric that positioned itself as a champion of the people. While Wood’s faction may have been seen as an intellectual elite seeking to wield federal power for what they saw as the greater good, Trump’s appeal was rooted in a populist rejection of the so-called "deep state" and Washington elites. Yet, both shared a similar approach: a willingness to dismantle norms, weaken institutional checks, and concentrate power in a way that undermined the democratic safeguards built into the U.S. system. Trump’s rhetoric, much like the "mystical sect" Lippmann described, fused a vision of federal authority with a disregard for the legal and institutional constraints that typically bound it. This combination of executive overreach and populist appeal was not only central to the Trump administration but also eerily reminiscent of Lippmann’s warning about those who seek to make federal authority unquestionable.
The Coup Mentality
Lippmann’s observation that Wood’s followers had “the mood, if not the courage, of the coup d’état” remains a chilling metaphor. It captures a mindset willing to bypass democratic institutions for the sake of power. This mentality surfaces when factions reject constitutional norms and pursue extralegal means to achieve their goals. In Trump’s era, the metaphor becomes even more alarming. His refusal to accept the 2020 election results, baseless claims of voter fraud, and pressure on state officials to overturn the outcome were blatant attempts to subvert democracy. The January 6th insurrection was the culmination of this coup mentality, a violent effort to overturn a legitimate election and seize power.
Trump’s rhetoric encouraged his followers to reject democratic institutions unless they delivered the desired outcome. This parallels Wood’s movement, which similarly sought to erode the foundations of democratic governance in favor of populist authoritarianism. Lippmann’s warnings ring clear: unchecked, such movements can destabilize democracy, replacing it with authoritarian rule.
The Unbroken Cycle
The most haunting aspect of Lippmann’s critique is its timelessness. The faces change, the rhetoric evolves, but the core dynamics of nationalist authoritarianism remain the same. These movements thrive during times of crisis, offering the illusion of strength and stability by scapegoating the “other” and erasing complexity with promises of a simpler, purer past.
Lippmann recognized these impulses not as conservatism, but as a thirst for control, an authoritarian streak that reemerges whenever the conditions are right. Today, as Trumpism continues to dominate the Republican Party, political violence rises, and faith in democracy erodes, we must confront the reality that this is not a new phenomenon. We are reliving history, repeating a cycle that Lippmann identified a century ago.
The question remains: Will we finally learn from the past, or will we continue to stumble into the same abyss?
Add comment
Comments