“The Operating System Is Corrupt: Trumpism and the New American Order”

I don’t like Trump. Not as some recent development either- disliked his bitch ass back when he was bragging about superficial opulence, complaining about Black people, kicking old, sick and poor people out their homes, and his rampant history of being disrespectful to women. Let’s not forget his connection to questionable people either. 

His character is another indictment- pettiness and vindictiveness, self-aggrandizement, obsession with optics, money, and all the selfishness, narcissism, and avarice it entails. Also fundamentally believe that not adopting a servant leader mindset for public office should be a disqualifier- but unfortunately, however, these have all likely been prerequisites to his undeniable success.

I’ve always considered Trumpism some political fringe dead-end- the chimeric bastard spawn of the tea-party, conspiracy theorists, gun nuts, Christian nationalists, and the disillusioned conservative and Republican bases who grew dissatisfied with the inability to meaningfully distinguish their candidates from their Democratic counterparts.

Also wanted to believe he would maybe shift his tone and approach the second time around- but was both wishful and naïve thinking on my part. A now politically experienced celebrity with populist, elite, business and institutional support? It’s now evolved into something else entirely. 

A two-term president with a meaningful and powerful coalition, is also influential enough to capture the ever shifting cohort of voters that will vote whichever way the wind blows and Trump’s ever growing influence (for better or worse) is undeniable at this point. 

But what is this influence in total? What are its effects? Because from my perspective- it just seems to be a very small circle of sycophants, symbiotes, and other parasites that benefit. The rest are just spectators at varying levels of the pyramid- all subordinate to the watchful eye of a gargantuan ego. Gargantuan both in size and speed, combined with either superhuman or a pharmaceutically enabled work ethic. His blowhard status crosses into legendary; Able to generate an endless rant of verbal slop that just overwhelms others -not for its relevance, but by its sheer volume and its obfuscation- a combination of corporate/politicalspeak- strategic in its ability to play multiple sides while saying nothing of substance all at once. 

Regardless, everything is much more purposeful, forceful, and emboldened. The US political and legal system couldn't contend with it- and now it's expanded to a global setting. With governments and political movements attempting to emulate branding, messaging, politics and premise. International with its attempts to create groveling satellites in service and orbit to its progenitor. 

Rather than just this writing off- or focusing critiques from the standpoint of ridicule, or moral high-ground, or anxiety based handwringing (which serves no one.) Think it's important to explore both how we got here, why, and where things are potentially heading - so let's start at the beginning.

Over the past 70 years, Conservative Administrations have all executed a variation of the same blueprint- privatization, foreign expansion, and social conservatism- to consolidate elite power while weaponizing culture wars as a distraction- and this all started with Nixon. 

A brief historical timeline:

Nixon (1969–1974) – Strategic Realignment, Authoritarian Undercurrents, and Reactionary Appeal

• Southern Strategy & Racialized Politics: Nixon capitalized on white backlash to civil rights by appealing to “law and order” sentiment—reframing race as a crime problem and catalyzing the long-term realignment of the South toward the GOP.
• Expansion of the Security State: Increased domestic surveillance, laid the foundation for the modern prison industrial complex, and empowered federal policing under the guise of anti-crime and anti-drug initiatives.
• Anti-Intellectualism & Media Hostility: Attacked the press as biased, cultivated a narrative of elite liberal betrayal, and began framing dissent as subversion—a rhetorical move Reagan would normalize.
• Executive Overreach & Paranoia: Watergate exposed the deep suspicion of democratic constraints at the executive level, foreshadowing later authoritarian tendencies in GOP politics.

Reagan (1981–1989) – Neoliberalism, Moral Panic, and Military Expansion

• Privatization & Deregulation: Slashed social programs, cut taxes for the wealthy, and weakened federal oversight in favor of corporate power.
• Demonization of Marginalized Groups: Framed Black women as "welfare queens," ignored the AIDS crisis, and criminalized the poor to justify social service cuts.
• Foreign Policy & Militarization: Funded right-wing paramilitaries (e.g., Iran-Contra), massively expanded the military under anti-communist rhetoric.
• Rise of Christian Conservatism: Cemented evangelical power, weaponized “family values” against abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and secularism.

George H.W. Bush (1989–1993) – Foreign Expansionism & Softened Reaganomics

• Continuation of Reaganomics: Maintained deregulation and corporate-friendly policies, exacerbating economic inequality.
• Foreign Militarism: Launched the Gulf War under the pretext of protecting Kuwait but reinforced U.S. oil interests.
• Tough-on-Crime & Social Neglect: Sustained the war on drugs and mass incarceration policies while doing little for the poor or working class.

George W. Bush (2001–2009) – War on Terror, Corporate Greed, & Cultural Conservatism

• War on Terror & Islamophobia: Used 9/11 to justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, expanded surveillance, and militarized law enforcement.
• Corporate Corruption & Deregulation: Set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis through reckless tax cuts and deregulation favoring Wall Street.
• Neglect of Veterans & Working Class: Pro-military rhetoric didn’t translate into support—veterans faced underfunded healthcare and job instability.
• Religious & Cultural Conservatism: Banned same-sex marriage, weaponized evangelical support to maintain conservative dominance.

Trump (2017–2021) – Authoritarian Populism, Nativism, and Institutional Sabotage

• Dismantling Government Institutions: Gutted regulatory agencies, defunded federal programs, and undermined public institutions 
• Nativist & Racist Policy: Instituted the Muslim ban, child separations, and emboldened white nationalist rhetoric under the guise of nationalism.
• Corporate Enrichment & Deregulation: Massive tax cuts for the wealthy, policies favoring big business over public welfare.
• Culture War as Political Strategy: Used “anti-woke” and anti-immigrant rhetoric to distract from systemic failures while mobilizing his base.

As we can see- Trumpism isn't anything new- if anything its a recycling of proven playbooks that his predecessors have used to varying degrees of success- but with one distinct difference (that also speaks to his character) rather in duty to country or party- it became towards himself- a new end. 

Trump’s Approach: A Disruptive Take on the Old Playbook

Trump’s rise wasn’t an ideological departure so much as an evolution of the conservative ideology, adapted through a sales-driven, media-savvy approach. Outside of the existing republican machine- a new dynasty that supplants the old- and the demonizing of the old republican guard- serves this purpose as well. 

• Marketing over Policy: Unlike Reagan or the Bushes, Trump wasn’t a doctrinaire conservative. He repackaged existing GOP themes—nativism, deregulation, and privatization—into an anti-elitist, "outsider" brand.
• Fracturing Traditional Conservatism: By rejecting neoconservatism (Bush-era globalist militarism) while embracing economic nationalism and cultural grievance politics, he reoriented the Republican base. Showing that this coalition is driven more by influence- rather than theoretical rigor. 
• Dynastic Shift: The Bush and Clinton dynasties represented entrenched bipartisan power structures. Trumpism effectively sidelined these families, replacing them with a new cult of personality-driven GOP leadership model.
• Strategic Media Domination: His ability to control narratives via social media, conservative media networks, and outrage cycles outpaced traditional political messaging.

However despite the familiar administrational approach- this evolution of conservative ideology commands a new categorization. But what? It’s not quite Republican, Traditional Conservatism or Neoconservatism. 

For added context, Neoconservatism, as defined by figures like Irving Kristol and its Bush-era adherents (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld), emphasizes:

1. Interventionist Foreign Policy: Exporting democracy, militarily enforcing U.S. hegemony.
2. Globalist Economic Strategy: Trade agreements, corporate globalization, and maintaining U.S. leadership in international institutions.
3. Moral & Institutional Conservatism: A commitment to spreading “Western values” abroad while preserving established domestic institutions.

Trump explicitly rejected these pillars:

• Isolationism over Interventionism: He critiqued endless wars, downplayed democracy-promotion, and leaned into transactional foreign relations (e.g., praising autocrats, pushing "America First" over global stability).
• Economic Nationalism over Globalization: He shattered the bipartisan consensus on free trade with tariffs, withdrawing from TPP, and renegotiating NAFTA into USMCA.
• Institutional Disruption over Preservation: Instead of reinforcing American institutions, he actively undermined them—targeting the intelligence community, DOJ, and even the military-industrial complex when it conflicted with his personal brand.

Trumpism can be viewed as ‘post-neoconservative’ in that it builds on the Nixon/Reagan/Bush-era framework but rejects the internationalist and institutionalist assumptions that neoconservatives upheld. Instead, it fuses:

• Market Libertarianism (but only for elites) – Tax cuts and deregulation remain, but without traditional GOP free-market absolutism (e.g., Trump used tariffs and government pressure on companies towards his own ends.)
• Authoritarian-leaning Populism – Neocons framed U.S. dominance as a moral good; Trump framed dominance as a ‘winner takes all’ nationalist struggle.
• Cultural Grievance Politics – Neocons weaponized morality (faith, patriotism); Trump weaponized outright resentment (anti-woke, anti-media, anti-elite).

Rather than a clean ideological break, Trumpism represents a shift from elite-driven neoconservatism to a reactionary, populist conservatism that abandoned globalist ambitions while intensifying domestic culture war and economic nationalism. It's post-neoconservatism in that it retains power-consolidating tactics but realigns them under a more media-centric, personality-driven, and nationalist framework.

A Populist Mutation of Conservatism or ‘Paleoconservatism’ and its the 1940s Parallels 

While attempting to be some new vision for America- there are other parallels- with ‘Paleoconservatism’ being what its most similar to- a modern return to conservatism’s roots- and to better understand its ideological premise- lets go back to a similar period in time in history. 

Paleoconservatism emerged in opposition to both New Deal liberalism and early Cold War interventionism, favoring:

1. Economic Nationalism – Opposition to free trade and international economic entanglements.
2. Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy – “America First” isolationism, resisting entanglement in global conflicts.
3. Social & Cultural Traditionalism – Distrust of immigration, multiculturalism, and secularism.
4. Skepticism of Expanding Government Power – Opposition to the administrative state and elite control.

While its easy to simplify these political positions as reactionary forces to the early emergence of globalism, Liberalism and ‘The New” - there is something also much deeper and philosophical here as well- something the modern Right has lost sight off- its current diluted and crude derivatives stem from a much older theoretical basis.

If modern liberalism is rooted in Enlightenment anthropology—rationality, autonomy, universal rights—then paleoconservatism is rooted in pre-modern metaphysics: fallen man, sacred order, and the tragic cycle of history. Supported by:

• Plato justified hierarchy by arguing that justice in the state requires a fixed social order governed by philosopher-kings, where each class fulfills its predetermined role in a rational, stratified society.
• Augustine, in The City of God, positioned temporal political authority as a necessary restraint on human sin, portraying earthly order as a flawed but essential bulwark against the chaos of fallen nature.
• Hobbes theorized sovereign violence as the foundation of peace—claiming that without an absolute authority to impose order, human life would descend into a brutish, anarchic state of nature.
• Burke defended landed aristocracy as the organic expression of inherited wisdom, believing that tradition, property, and hierarchy embodied the accumulated moral capital of a civilized society.

Because even if most practitioners of conservative politics don’t read these thinkers, the shape of their worldview is prefigured by them:

• The idea that human beings are untrustworthy and require external constraint.
• That chaos results from too much liberty.
• That hierarchy is natural, or even divine.
• That history decays, not progresses.
• That truth is fixed, not emergent. 

These ideas form the metaphysical floor of conservative instinct—even if today they surface not in treatises, but in tweets, cable news segments, and incoherent grievance politics. Trumpist conservatism is no exception: it recycles the same core themes—hierarchy, mistrust of human nature, fear of disorder—but updates them for a spectacle-driven, emotionally reactive media environment.

The irony is that most right-wing movements don’t emerge from theory—they emerge from backlash. And yet, that backlash is structured by a theoretical architecture that’s half a millennium old. It’s reactionary politics that rejects modernity while unknowingly channeling pre-modern metaphysics—a populist revolt riding on the bones of aristocratic philosophy.

With this being said- this philosophical premise also establishes and legitimizes the notion of the sovereign. Where ‘Great Men” are believed to be the divine servants of order, continuity, and control, often against emergent egalitarian energies- enforcing and strengthening institutions that protect this hierarchy, power, and continuity are a sole focus. The rest do not serve a purpose and if anything, distract from it.

Back to Key Parallels Between the 1940s & Today

1. America First & Isolationism

• 1940s: Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee opposed U.S. entry into WWII, prioritizing nationalism over global alliances.
• Today: Trumpism echoes this isolationism—withdrawing from international agreements, weakening NATO, and promoting transactional foreign policy.

2. Economic Nationalism vs. Free Trade

• 1940s: Paleoconservatives opposed FDR’s New Deal and postwar economic liberalization (e.g., the Bretton Woods system).
• Today: Trumpism rejects Reagan-era free trade policies, reviving tariffs and protectionist economics as a populist stance.

3. Nativism & Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric

• 1940s: Anti-immigrant sentiment was fueled by fears of Jewish refugees, anti-Catholic prejudice, and racial anxieties.
• Today: Trumpism channels the same nativist energy—demonizing immigrants, pushing border restrictions, and reviving racialized nationalism.

4. Authoritarianism & Distrust of Liberal Institutions

• 1940s: Many paleoconservatives admired fascist and authoritarian movements (e.g., admiration for Mussolini, Franco, and pre-war Hitler).
• Today: Trumpist rhetoric embraces strongman politics, praises autocratic leaders (Putin, Orban, MBS) and undermines democratic norms.

5. Culture War as a Political Weapon

• 1940s: Paleoconservatives saw postwar liberalism as an existential threat to traditional America—opposing civil rights, feminism, and secularism.
• Today: Trumpism relies on anti-woke, anti-LGBTQ+, and Christian nationalist narratives as a rallying point for the base.

Conclusion: The Return of 1940s Political Thought

Trumpism is not simply a Reagan-era throwback—it revives and modernizes the older paleoconservative tradition that predates Cold War neoconservatism. Today’s right-wing populist movements mirror the nationalism, nativism, and authoritarian-leaning tendencies of the 1940s, proving that these ideological struggles never truly disappeared—they were just repackaged for a new era.

Carl Schmitt - Crisis, Sovereignty, & Authoritarian Politics

Carl Schmitt (1888–1985) was a German legal and political theorist best known for his work on sovereignty, the nature of the political, and the limits of liberal democracy. A controversial figure due to his association with the Nazi regime, Schmitt remains a significant intellectual influence in political theory—particularly among those examining authoritarianism, emergency powers, and the fragility of democratic institutions. Though morally compromised, his insights into power, decisionism, and the construction of political order have made him a foundational figure in realist political thought, legal theory, and critiques of liberalism.

In his book The Concept of the Political (1932) Schmitt argued that liberal democracy is inherently unstable because it avoids real conflict, whereas authoritarianism thrives by clearly defining "friend vs. enemy." Applied to today, culture wars, polarization, and the erosion of democratic norms all fit within Schmitt's model—where leaders (like Trump) seize power by manufacturing crises and defining political enemies.

Connecting Schmitt’s Core Premises to Modern Applications

1. Liberal Democracy’s Instability

• Schmitt’s View: Liberal democracy tries to mediate conflicts through bureaucracy, legalism, and consensus-building, but this inherently weakens it against more decisive, authoritarian movements.
• Today: Western democracies struggle with decision paralysis—gridlock, judicial overreach, institutional skepticism—while authoritarian leaders (Putin, Orban, Xi, Trump) seize power by presenting "clear" solutions and rallying people around existential threats.

2. "Friend vs. Enemy" Politics

• Schmitt’s View: The essence of politics is the distinction between “friend” and “enemy.” A system that doesn’t clearly define an enemy is politically weak and will collapse under external or internal pressure.
• Today: Trumpism, MAGA politics, and many populist movements thrive by explicitly naming enemies:
  • Deep State, media, immigrants, globalists (Trump)
  • Woke culture, feminists, LGBTQ+ movements (Right-wing grievance politics)
  • Elite technocrats, climate activists, Silicon Valley oligarchs (Populist-right AND left critiques)
• Result: Schmitt’s formula perfectly describes modern culture wars—where the most effective leaders (in terms of mobilization, not morality) are those who construct a binary us-vs-them narrative.

3. Crisis as a Political Tool

• Schmitt’s View: A state of exception (crisis) justifies the suspension of normal laws and institutions. Authoritarian figures manufacture crises to expand executive power and sideline democratic processes.
• Today:
  • Trump declared the 2020 election fraudulent to justify staying in power.
  • Orban in Hungary uses “migrant crises” to justify permanent emergency powers.
  • Putin positions NATO as an existential threat to justify war and repression.
  • Even democratic leaders use crises to expand executive power (Patriot Act post-9/11, COVID emergency measures, etc.).
• Result: The weaponization of crisis narratives is now a standard part of global politics, reinforcing Schmitt’s claim that liberal democracy’s survival depends on who controls the crisis and defines the enemy.

Schmitt’s Relevance to the Modern Right Schmitt as a Theoretical Bridge

Modern far-right movements—from Trump and Bannon to Orban and Bolsonaro—follow a distinctly Schmittian logic:

• Manufacture crisis to destabilize the status quo.
• Concentrate power by presenting the leader as the only one who can resolve the emergency.
• Discredit pluralism and compromise as weakness or betrayal.
• Define existential enemies—immigrants, intellectuals, “woke” culture, media elites—to unify supporters.
• Undermine democratic institutions (courts, elections, universities) by casting them as corrupt or illegitimate.

These are not novel tactics—they’re the predictable mechanics of illiberal politics when democracy is hollowed out by fear, identity, and power concentration. Schmitt doesn’t offer solutions—he exposes how authoritarianism emerges when democracy lacks the strength or clarity to defend itself. His work serves as a conceptual link between historical fascism and contemporary reactionary politics, giving structure to what might otherwise seem like populist chaos.

Schmitt isn’t a blueprint to be followed. He’s a diagnostic—and a warning of how democracies decay from within.

Extrapolating These Lines Into Future Outcomes

There are no guarantees, but given what we know now, there are some highly likely outcomes here if things continue their current course:

1. Permanent Crisis Governance

• Crisis becomes default mode of governance—real or manufactured threats (immigration, crime, universities, globalists) justify erosion of due process and expansion of executive authority.
• Insight: The line between emergency and normalcy collapses. The state becomes an actor of exception, not rule.

2. Erosion of Institutional Legitimacy

• Courts, media, universities, public health agencies, and voting systems are continually delegitimized unless aligned with the ruling narrative.
• Long-term effect: Technocratic governance dies; loyalty supersedes expertise.
• Schmittian dynamic: "Friend/enemy" logic replaces pluralism—only insiders are legitimate.

3. Corporate-Government Synthesis (Neofeudalism)

• Deregulated Wall Street + populist rhetoric = plutocratic state disguised as populist nationalism.
• Wealthy actors benefit from instability (e.g., private equity in housing, prisons and migrant detention, defense contractors in crisis zones).
• Corporate influence grows while public goods are defunded or privatized (education, healthcare, infrastructure).

4. Selective Authoritarianism & Soft Secession

• Blue states and urban zones resist federal overreach, leading to de facto political fragmentation.
• Local jurisdictions may refuse cooperation with federal law, creating patchwork legality (abortion access, sanctuary cities, anti-DEI laws).
• Result: A "dual sovereignty" model—red vs. blue legal orders within a single flag.

5. Weaponized Historical Narratives → Cultic Politics

• National identity is rewritten through mythic narratives, not shared history.
• Politics becomes ritualistic—loyalty pledges, symbolic purity, enemy expulsion.
• Democracy as a procedural system fades, replaced by faith-based legitimacy tied to personality and myth.

6. Tactical Disengagement from Global Order

• U.S. retreats from global institutions (NATO, UN, WHO) under nationalist banner, but not from global capital.
• Result: a mercantile, transactional foreign policy—alliances only if profitable.
• Risk: ceding international leadership to autocratic states, further emboldening anti-democratic actors worldwide.

Trumpism isn’t building a coherent ideological state—it’s executing a parasitic strategy of power accumulation through:

• Narrative control (enemy construction, mythmaking)
• Permanent destabilization (crisis as tactic)
• Resource extraction (economic gains for elites under populist cover)

This isn't governance in the classical sense. It's strategic demolition of democratic norms and pluralism to recentralize power—not in institutions, but in himself, factions, personalities, and aligned corporations.

Future Insight: Think Less in Terms of Institutions, More in Terms of Power Ecology

• The U.S. may not formally collapse—but the operating system will change:
  • Law becomes suggestion.
  • Truth becomes tribal.
  • Loyalty replaces qualification.
  • Citizenship becomes tiered.
  • The commons become assets to be harvested.

What we're watching isn't a revolution. It's a slow, adaptive mutation—where democratic form persists, but its substance is reprogrammed by actors using old tools (crisis, fear, identity) in a new, post-liberal context.

What comes next depends on whether anyone recognizes the architecture being built—and whether they’re willing to disrupt the blueprint.