Florida Man Arrested for Threatening to Kill Trump and JD Vance
There's *ANOTHER* Disturbing Update on the Trump Assassination Attempt
Soundbite During the Biden Campaign Staff Call Shows They’re in Big Trouble
Disturbing Update on Trump Assassination Attempt
Kamala Harris Is Now Being Summoned to Put Out Fires
Convention Delirium: MSNBC’s Fake Presence, NPR Hit With Hulkamania, and a 'LOTR' Conspira...
God, Religion and You
MSNBC Attempts to Trick Viewers Into Thinking They Were at the RNC
Here Where Most Voters Stand With JD Vance
Another Democrat Senator Tell Biden to Pack His Bags
Trump Takes Remarkable Lead Over Biden Following Assassination Attempt
Corey Comperatore's Funeral Is Today. Here's How Trump Is Honoring Him
Climate Change Alarmists Among Those Calling on Biden to Drop Out
Human Smuggling Has Become a ‘Primary Focus’ in Another Unlikely Border Sector
'Audacity Is Off the Charts': Tulsi Gabbard Savages Kamala Harris for Going After...

It's an Era of Angry Populism and No One Is Immune

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
As many conservatives grapple with the growing prospect of a Donald Trump presidential nomination, I've started to hear them asking one another the once unthinkable: "Would you vote for Trump?" Mostly, the answer is "of course not." He's a fascistic clown. He's a clandestine liberal (not really that cagey about it, to be honest) who'd be a disaster for the country, not to mention destroy the Republican Party for generations, perhaps forever.

Which is exactly the point, right?

The Washington Post's Michael Gerson writes that Trump is "proposing a massive ideological and moral revision of the Republican Party." He might have added: Like the one Democrats have already gone through.

Since there's so much concern-trolling and hand-wringing about the future of the right, it should not escape our attention that Republicans aren't the only ones dealing with the corrosive effects of populist anger and a cult of personality.

Yes, Trump is going to be a spectacular disaster -- maybe even worse than most -- but why would anyone believe the contrived progressivism and incompetence of Hillary Clinton or (the incredibly expensive) radicalism of Bernie Sanders would be any less of a catastrophe? The Democrat front-runners aren't less inclined to embrace authoritarianism or destructive economic theories than Trump -- even if some of those ideas were mainstreamed over the past few years.

Democrats aren't ripping themselves apart as their leadership continually surrenders to the most strident voices in the party. Clinton, once the target of grassroots' derision and frustration, now sounds like a random blogger at Daily Kos -- which once upon a time wanted to burn it all down, as well. The Democrats' debate was a celebration of "free" stuff and gargantuan reforms that would have been unthinkable positions for a mainstream Democrat candidate in 1992, or even 2008.

And, contra the finger-wagging wisdom of moderates, Democrats are just as likely to embrace a hateful tone aimed those they hold liable for the ills of the nation. They just happen to direct that anger at clingy gun-owners, reactionary Christians or those who believe in the superiority of Western ideals. Thought pieces fret over the end of civility only when the "anger" chafes against sensibilities of the media. President Obama and Trump fans have more in common than they'd like to imagine.


If Trump can be accused of fascism (and there's something to this charge), surely Bernie Sanders, now making huge strides in the polls, can easily be accused of being a Marxist. More so. Yet, how apprehensive are Democrats about this turn towards leftism? Could the hundreds of seats lost to Republicans over the past few years have anything to do with this turn? Is anyone worried that Sander's success will exacerbate the cultural rifts already destroying the party's appeal? How many Democrats ask themselves: Hey, would I vote for Bernie Sanders over Marco Rubio?

The corrupted centrist and one-time backer of the Iraq war (once the litmus test for liberals) holds every conceivable fiscal and political advantage over an obscure senator peddling failed ideas from early 20th century. Yet, imagine, if you will, what Clinton's prospects would look like if a more competent and charismatic socialist were running instead of Sanders, who is now ahead of Clinton by 27 percentage points among Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, according to a new CNN/WMUR poll. Or imagine if there were four or five other competent and well-funded candidates running in the Democrat primaries splitting the votes as they do on the other side? Would Sanders be where Trump is? What happens if the bottom falls out? What happens if Hillary's candidacy becomes untenable because of her legal problems? Democrats will have a socialist candidate, who probably would more appropriately reflect their views.

This should not surprise anyone. After a number of populist revolts against their establishment during the Bush years -- including the tossing aside Clinton in 2008 -- liberals reinvented their party. And still Obama could not realize most of his agenda with the party behind him. The fear (and the promise) of a Trump candidacy comes from vastly overestimating executive power.


I'm not sold on the inevitability of a Trump victory in the primaries, but you don't get to build the ideal candidate, you get what the era gives you. This is an era of anger and populism. It was in 2008 -- when the recession shook free the anger and frustrations of many nervous voters -- and it still is.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos