Professor contrasts Trump’s political mindset and practices
with a more humane approach to the world.

Written by Dr. Brian Frederking
Artwork by Philip Slein

The 2024 U.S. election and current Trump administration represent a traditional backlash against the modern world. Both major U.S. political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, generally oscillate between modern and traditional understandings and practices of politics. Trump does not: he is all traditional, all the time.

For most of human history, traditional politics has prevailed. Modern politics is an 18^th-century Enlightenment innovation, and it has led to significant human progress with large increases in life expectancy, education and income. Nonetheless, the traditional framework remains politically potent.

Trump has a zero-sum mindset, always talking about winners and losers. He divides people and complains when “they win” and “we lose.” Trump never suggests that win-win outcomes exist, let alone that we should try to achieve them. He never uses even banal modern rhetoric, such as, We all have common interests, and if we just work together, we can find solutions that benefit all of us. The idea that we could all win is ludicrous to him. Trump wants to be the winner, and that means there must be losers.

Trump rejects the many ways that modern citizens define a neutral state. A neutral state treats all citizens equally. The neutral state is limited and enables citizens to make their own choices; secular; has nonpartisan civil servants who provide public goods; does not pick winners and losers in the marketplace; and has independent prosecutors and judges to enforce the rule of law. Instead, Trump fervently embraces the traditional notion that the state must punish bad people and reward good people – and he decides who the good people and the bad people are.

Modern politics considers tyranny its foremost problem. Enlightenment advocacy of democracy, capitalism and human rights – including the U.S. constitutional system of limited government, separation of powers, and checks and balances – warns us about monarchs and demagogues. Traditional frameworks see chaos as its main problem – and thus the need for a strong government to address the chaos. Trump’s political rhetoric – regarding immigration, changing gender norms, stolen elections, “political carnage,” etc. – magnifies chaos. His own chaotic governing style, ironically, is not a detriment in traditional systems. Trump gets to be both the busy arsonist and the heralded hero for mitigating the damage that he has caused.

The modern framework emphasizes interdependence. Global capitalism, climate change, pandemics, the possibility of nuclear Armageddon, and many other issues put us all in the same boat. Modern forms of politics recognize that interdependence requires common solutions to common problems. It recognizes that our lives are diminished when others suffer and that altruism should be well-regarded.

Traditional politics emphasizes hierarchy rather than interdependence, and all Trump sees is hierarchy (see Hierarchy vs. Networks and other essays by Dr. Frederking in this magazine). He demands fealty from other Republicans. He embraces gender, racial, religious and economic forms of hierarchy. He admires authoritarians because they have established hierarchical political systems. He belittles democratically elected leaders, who are enmeshed in interdependent webs of parliaments, courts and civil society. 

A final distinction is that the modern world relies on science and reason while the traditional world relies on authority and common sense. Trump’s greatest threat is his assault on truth. His political superpower is the ability to lie prodigiously. He attacks everyone committed to the pursuit of truth – scientists, journalists, civil servants, prosecutors, judges and academics. He wants citizens to accept his lies as truth, so he undermines all modern institutions that are based on evidence rather than on dictatorial fiat. His supporters believe all sorts of outlandish claims, and this anti-intellectualism has already led to dangerously absurd outcomes like measles outbreaks. One important public good that neutral modern states provide is information – weather reports, climate data, unemployment and inflation rates, disease patterns, consumer risks (from food, medicine, products, etc). Trump’s civil servant purge enables Trump alone to define the truth.

The essence of the traditional critique of the modern world is that the state cannot be neutral. Whatever action the state takes, it is always taking sides. It always benefits some citizens and harms others. A secular state that removes prayer and creationism from public schools means that the state is taking the side of atheists over religious people. Civil rights movements take the side of minorities over whites, women over men, and LGBTQ over heterosexuals. The justice system takes the side of criminals over law-abiding citizens. The welfare state takes the side of lazy people over industrious people. International law and the free movement of labor take the side of foreigners over US citizens. A modern civil service is not neutral – afterall, they locked us up in our homes over a virus.

If the state cannot be neutral, and the state always takes sides, then you are left with the hope that it rewards good people and punishes bad people. Trump’s political power is his ability to convey the argument that “they” (Democrats, coastal elites, Hollywood, academics, the media, the swamp) think that “you” (the real Americans) are the bad people. They think that you are stupid, racist and sexist. They think that foreigners, minorities, bureaucrats and welfare bums are the good people. If you elect Democrats, they will reward them and punish you. That is what the state does. Traditionalists say, Elect me, and I will reward you and punish them.

This is powerful politics. It argues that the modern world – individualism, secularism, “immorality,” changing gender roles, open borders, technology – has led to chaos. The modern elites have betrayed you. There is too much economic anxiety. We are lonely, alienated, with no purpose or meaning in life. We need the state to restore order, community and stability. We need to return to traditional notions of gender. We need to keep the criminals in jail. We need real borders. We need to make America great again.

This traditional backlash against the modern world is also a dangerous argument. The most obvious illustration is Trump’s rejection of modern democratic norms and embrace of traditional authoritarian norms. The list of democratic norms that Trump routinely violates is depressingly long: the rule of law, independent prosecutors and judges, checks on the executive, truth telling, fair elections, fighting corruption (Tesla showroom at the White House), freedom of the press (banning the Associated Press from the White House press pool), no violence (endorsing the Jan. 6th rioters), peaceful transfers of power (rejecting the 2020 election results), concession speeches (ditto, re: 2020 election), good relations with other democracies (deriding our democratic partners and embracing authoritarian rulers), and many more.

The traditional backlash against the modern world rejects the notion that the US is a pluralistic, multiracial democracy based on a set of political principles, instead advocating Christian nationalist and white nationalist ideas about the nature of this country. The traditional backlash rejects the modern notion of a neutral civil service providing public goods, instead pursuing government purges, privatization efforts, and politicized services (disaster relief for red states but not necessarily blue states). The traditional backlash rejects the modern welfare state, attacking programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The traditional backlash rejects the post-World War II global order (as Trump walks away from alliances and trade agreements with fellow democracies), international law, international organizations and human rights – which emboldens his fellow authoritarians around the world and makes the planet more dangerous and impoverished.

There are two possible paths for modern citizens at this moment. One is to concede that Trump has irrevocably altered our politics into a traditional framework and play that game. We choose our version of the bad guys – billionaires, corporations, authoritarians, theocrats, and white nationalists – and run on a platform to punish them and reward everyone else. But the other side has a never-ending list of possible “bad people” – immigrants, professors, Muslims, criminals, women who get abortions, married people with no children, election workers, racial minorities, urbanites, transgender people, etc., etc., etc. All they need to do is adjust their current list of bad people – migrants who eat pets! – and keep going. There are a million ways to say that the modern approach rewards bad people and punishes good people. And Trump has perfected it. The likely outcome of this labeling-based approach is the traditionalists would do it better, and our politics would get worse/nastier than it already is.

A better route is to push back against this traditional backlash and advocate modern politics. Can we convince more citizens about the possibility of win-win outcomes? Can we convince men that gender equality is good for them? Or whites that DEI is good for them? Can we convince Trump voters that a neutral state providing public goods can benefit us all? That civil servants protect public interests and are not some alien, tyrannical force? That democracy is better than authoritarianism? That the world we have been creating since World War II is worth preserving? That traditional politics itself is just a way to rile them up but not solve their problems? That we also love our country? That a narrative of a country continuously trying to live up to its principles is healthier and truer than a narrative that we were greater in some fictionalized past?

This approach would emphasize all the mistakes that Trump and his cronies make. It would make them own all the ways their government failed to respond to typical issues – bird flu, disaster relief, food safety, transportation safety, etc. – because of his authoritarian purges of civil servants. It would constantly connect his tariffs and deportation policies to inflation. It would have a larger story about how his attempts to punish the bad people have a way of punishing us all in an interdependent world. It would point out all the mundane ways that civil servants protect our interests and improve our lives.

Given the nature of this traditional backlash, competent people must aggressively take on the project of literally defending the modern world – telling/showing that a neutral state in an interdependent world can provide win-win outcomes in policy areas like education, employment, health care, and immigration and border security. If we cannot fulfill the Enlightenment promises of the modern world, then the traditional backlash will continue, reeking evermore havoc on our world.

– – –  s s l  – – –

Philip Slein is a St. Louis artist and gallerist. Since 2003, the Philip Slein Gallery (https://www.philipsleingallery.com/) has showcased the best abstract and figurative painters in the country. Philip earned a BFA in painting from the University of Missouri-Columbia and an MFA in painting from Washington University in St. Louis. Before opening the gallery, he taught drawing and painting to university students. Philip continues to receive abundant praise for his political cartoons, which he started publishing during the 2020 U.S. presidential election (https://www.instagram.com/philipslein/). His strong interest in political cartooning started early; as a child, Philip wrote to famed editorial cartoonist Pat Oliphant — and received an encouraging reply.

Dr. Brian Frederking is a political science professor at McKendree University, located about 30 miles east of St. Louis. He received his graduate degrees from Syracuse University and his undergraduate degree from McKendree College. His research interests include the United Nations Security Council, international law and organization, and global governance. This is Brian’s fourth essay for Supplement St. Louis. Brian’s writings and viewpoints in this publication are not connected with McKendree University.