The nightmare of liberal democrats has returned. On November 5, Donald Trump was re-elected and became the 47th President of the United States. In every sense of the word, Trump is an eccentric figure. In the coming years, he will make decisions that are likely to affect the lives of people all over the world. For that reason, it is worth getting to know him better and analyzing the sociopolitical codes that produced him.
In this context, it is fair to say that Trump is one of the most significant products of American culture and political tradition. His behavior and rhetoric, in many ways, represent a distilled version of the country’s dominant traits. But what exactly is the Trump phenomenon? What created him, and why does he hold such importance for the United States? Perhaps more importantly, what will he do next?
This article will explore three key points in answering these questions. First, we will examine America’s identity as a nation of immigrants and the effects of this dynamic. Then, we will consider how Trump’s personality traits align with the cultural DNA of the United States. Finally, we will look at how political trends in the U.S. paved the way for a figure like Trump to rise to power.
Plato believed that politicians must lie in order to govern the people. He even referred to these lies as “noble lies,” framing them as a necessary tool for maintaining social cohesion. From this perspective, it is possible to understand Donald Trump’s tendency to lie, at least to a certain extent. However, I believe there is a key distinction that sets Trump apart from traditional politicians.
Conventional politicians may lie, but they remain aware that they are doing so. Lies, for them, are a strategic tool, a means to an end. They know the truth, but choose to conceal or distort it when it serves their purpose. Trump, on the other hand, appears to operate differently. He seems to genuinely believe his own lies. In this sense, Trump’s approach can be described as pragmatic in a radical way. He attempts to reconstruct reality from the ground up. It is as though he is unaware that he is lying. Every statement he makes, in his mind, becomes a truth. As a result, he appears to be free of any internal contradictions.
I believe the roots of this behavior can be found in American culture. Ralph Keyes argues that lying as a means to gain power is deeply embedded in the national genetic code of the United States. According to Keyes, Americans have turned self-aggrandizement into an art form. He highlights two reasons for this. First, the United States was founded by immigrants people who place enormous value on controlling their own identities. Second, Americans are constantly on the move, and in each new place they find, they have endless opportunities to reinvent themselves by telling stories that make them appear more important.
Over time, this dynamic has made Americans highly adept at myth-making, and even at accepting one another’s fabrications as part of a shared narrative.
One of the most striking examples of this tendency is found in the story of Paul De Man, one of the leading figures of postmodernist thought, a philosophical movement that emphasizes subjectivity and perspective over objective truths. De Man became a cult figure in American intellectual circles and was widely celebrated as a literary critic. Originally from Belgium, he presented himself in the United States as someone who had escaped Nazi-occupied Europe. Even more compelling, he implied that he had joined the resistance against the Nazis during World War II. This charismatic narrative helped him earn a secure and respected place within American academia.
But none of it was true.
After his death in 1983, a researcher examined De Man’s past in detail and uncovered a series of facts that contradicted his claims. De Man had never joined a resistance group fighting against the Nazis. On the contrary, he had collaborated with them. Before coming to the United States, he left his wife and child behind in Belgium, became involved in illegal activities, and manipulated his personal history. He presented his uncle as his father and remarried in America without ever officially divorcing his first wife.
Despite this fabricated identity, De Man managed to gain a strong following in the U.S. He embraced the American tradition of reinventing oneself through a constructed identity and found success even under false pretenses.
Even after these revelations, Jacques Derrida, another key figure in postmodern thought, attempted to restore De Man’s reputation. Derrida reinterpreted De Man’s anti-Semitic articles through his method of deconstruction, arguing that the writings were intended as irony. He suggested that statements appearing to express anti-Semitism were in fact satirical, and that De Man’s real target was not Jewish people, but anti-Semites themselves. According to Derrida, De Man meant the opposite of what he seemed to say.
This is why Trump’s relationship with truth and lies becomes more understandable. In my view, Trump carries on the American tradition of identity construction, bringing it to life through his rhetoric. He continuously recreates himself, adjusting his persona to fit the moment. The immigrant legacy that shaped the U.S. has always involved an endless reinvention of identity, and Trump’s flexible approach to truth is deeply connected to this cultural pattern.
Trump has transformed the long-standing American practice of myth-making, fabrication, and identity creation into a modern leadership style. At this point, it’s also worth mentioning narcissism. The willingness to reshape reality from the ground up is closely tied to this psychological dynamic.
Before exploring how Trump has become fully integrated into America’s narcissistic culture, it’s important to examine the worldview that shapes his thinking. One of the authors he greatly admires is Norman Vincent Peale. Peale’s influential book The Power of Positive Thinking, published in 1952 and a longtime bestseller, promotes the idea that people can create their own reality through belief and mindset. During his early life, Trump was deeply influenced by Peale’s teachings. According to Peale, no matter how difficult or hopeless reality may seem, the crucial factor is an individual’s attitude toward those facts. His approach is not only a doctrine of success, but also an outlook that encourages denial of uncomfortable or challenging truths.
Another major influence on Trump is Ayn Rand. Rand’s philosophy glorified individual talent, praised capitalism without apology, and presented selfishness as a moral imperative. She believed that pursuing one’s own happiness was the highest ethical goal. It’s not difficult to see how these arguments resonate with Trump’s narcissistic and self-centered worldview.
At this point, it’s also worth mentioning Michiko Kakutani, a critic who highlights the narcissistic discourse aligned with the post-truth era that Trump embodies. Kakutani argues that this era prioritizes subjective judgments over objective truths. In her view, what matters most is not truth itself, but the elevation of personal beliefs and emotions, driven by narcissistic motivations.
So, where does this narcissism fit within American society on a cultural level?
Here, Christopher Lasch’s concept of “The Culture of Narcissism” becomes highly relevant. A historian and thinker influenced by the Frankfurt School, Lasch saw the rise of narcissistic tendencies in America not merely as a psychological disorder, but as a cultural phenomenon. He argued that narcissism had become deeply rooted in American society since the 1970s. According to Lasch, this condition emerged as a psychic response to the bureaucracy, therapeutic culture, visual media saturation, and consumer habits that defined modern life. For many individuals, narcissism became a coping mechanism, a way to manage the stress and anxieties created by modern existence.
Lasch also points out that society has replaced the ideal of collective liberation with the pursuit of individual success and instant gratification. According to him, modern Americans have set aside the values of previous generations in favor of personal comfort and immediate rewards. This cultural transformation, as Lasch describes it, has placed society under the influence of narcissism and led to a style of leadership that turns politics into spectacle. So, what are the main elements of this narcissistic leadership model, which Trump seems to embody so completely?
Narcissistic leadership often emerges during times of crisis. A leader of this kind offers simple solutions to complex problems and claims that only under their leadership can these solutions be achieved. Their rhetoric is filled with grand declarations, such as “I alone can fix it” or “No one else can solve these problems but me.” This approach encourages people to believe in them without question. In moments of crisis, individuals desperately searching for a way out often feel compelled to follow such a leader.
Trump exemplifies this type of leadership in many ways. He frequently describes his predecessors as failures and insists that he alone can lead the country in the right direction. This strategy merges leadership with personality, resulting in a personal cult. Trump seems increasingly inclined to identify his personal identity with his office, blurring the line between himself and the position he holds. As a result, he may struggle to recognize the limits of that office.
Another hallmark of narcissistic leadership is the manipulation of reality and the construction of a narrative built on continuous denial. Denial plays a crucial role in human consciousness. Trump’s repeated rejection of clear facts is a striking example of this mechanism. Denial can be understood as the refusal to accept realities that are perceived as dangerous or painful. It often functions as a defense mechanism, allowing individuals to exclude past events or truths they find threatening. In this way, denial helps preserve the self, enabling a person to avoid the inner conflict that arises from holding two contradictory beliefs at once.
In Trump’s case, his manipulation of reality aligns with this pattern of denial. He consistently ignores his failures and obvious facts that work against him, instead presenting himself as “the greatest” or “the best.” In the post-truth era, Trump’s approach is less about what is true or false and more about what serves his purpose. His constant redefinition of reality, followed by his insistence that whatever he says is the truth, reflects this mindset.
Examples of this behavior include his obsession with the number of votes he received in his election against Hillary Clinton, as well as the size of the crowd at his first inauguration. His anger over these subjects illustrates his style of rhetoric, where personal perception and narrative take precedence over objective fact.
Alongside all these observations, another question remains: how new are Trump’s far-right political tendencies within the landscape of American politics? Many mainstream and liberal media outlets have argued that Trump’s eccentric personality and outsider status introduced racist and discriminatory themes into U.S. politics that were previously absent from the public agenda. But is this really the case?
Lale Demirtürk, an academic specializing in American studies, offers a critique of this narrative. In her book Racist Discourse and Violence in the United States: An Expansion of the Policy of ‘Killing’ Black People, she challenges the idea that Trump is the root cause of these issues. Demirtürk writes:
“As long as media organizations in the U.S. and abroad insist on portraying Trump as an unprecedented extremist in America, and continue to exploit his persona for higher ratings, the existence of a broad audience in the country—one that believes in white superiority or sees itself as privileged simply for being white—will remain overlooked. These individuals openly express their racist and sexist views without shame. Trump, by presenting himself as the embodiment of American ethnic nationalism, reinforces the belief that ‘real’ American citizens are white ‘pure-blooded’ Euro-Americans. In this way, he imposes an Aryan vision of American society. However, Trump should be seen not as the cause, but as a representative of an already well-established white supremacist ideology that has deep roots in American society.”
According to Demirtürk, Trumpism is the extreme ideology of Euro-Americans who fear the loss of their global power and feel increasingly threatened by social movements led by Black Americans who challenge the state. She argues that this ideology is not new in the U.S., but rather a continuation of long-standing ideas. Political scientist Cas Mudde offers a similar perspective. He sees Trumpism as a far-right ideology that combines elements of nativism, authoritarianism, and populism—all of which had a strong presence in the U.S. long before Trump’s rise.
Mudde examines empirical data regarding nativism prior to 2016. According to a study conducted at the University of Chicago, 65 percent of Americans believe that racial diversity makes the country stronger, and 61 percent think that legal immigration enhances America’s reputation as a land of opportunity. However, the same study shows that nativist thinking has long been entrenched in American society. One-third of Americans believe that the culture established by the country’s first European settlers plays a crucial role in defining American identity. Additionally, 40 percent consider Christian religious beliefs equally important for American culture. Furthermore, 47 percent of Americans view illegal immigration as a threat to their way of life, and 15 percent believe that even legal immigration poses a similar danger.
Another key point raised by Mudde is the strong authoritarian tendencies within American society. Nearly half of the U.S. population can be classified as having authoritarian leanings. The military and police are consistently ranked among the most trusted institutions in the country. Until at least 2014, public opinion polls showed that most Americans believed the courts were too lenient on criminals, and the majority supported capital punishment for murder. In addition, Americans have tended to accept authoritarian policies in the name of counterterrorism. For example, in a 2006 survey, 47 percent supported wiretapping without court approval, and 65 percent believed the media should avoid reporting on secret methods used in the fight against terrorism. Around 23 percent of respondents thought that criticizing the president during times of national security threats was inappropriate.
Similar findings emerge when examining populism. Cas Mudde notes that the majority of Americans display mild or strong populist tendencies. Research conducted before 2016 revealed that 80 percent of Americans believed politicians in Congress should act according to the will of the people. More than 70 percent thought that special interest groups were obstructing the country’s progress. Nearly half of the U.S. population saw politics as a battle between good and evil. Based on this data, Mudde describes Trumpism as a form of “pathological normalcy” in the United States, where mainstream opinions have become radicalized. In his view, Trump’s influence did not appear suddenly, and Trumpism will not disappear with Trump.
Mudde also rejects the narrative, often repeated by some Republican critics, that Trump is an outsider who forced far-right ideas onto the party. According to him, the Republican Party’s shift toward the far right had already begun before Trump and he merely capitalized on the existing trend. Authoritarian, nativist, and populist policies were well established in Republican-controlled states long before 2016. Immigration restrictions and anti-Sharia laws were frequently enacted in Republican-led legislatures. Many Republican governors refused to accept Syrian refugees into their states, claiming that terrorists might be among them.
Moreover, the ties between the Republican Party and far-right groups existed well before Trump’s political rise. While Trump may not represent the entire Republican Party at the federal level, at the state and local levels-especially in America’s heartland—he closely reflects the party’s base. According to Mudde, during the 2016 election, Trump represented the interests of the Republican grassroots far more effectively than establishment figures like Mitch McConnell or Jeb Bush.
The conspiracy theories often attributed to Trump also predated his candidacy. Skepticism about global warming, fear of refugees, and conspiracies surrounding political opponents like Obama and Clinton were already widely held among Republican voters. For example, a study conducted before 2016 found that 81 percent of Republicans believed Hillary Clinton knew about the impending attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and failed to act. Fifty-four percent thought global warming was a hoax created by scientists. Fifty-three percent believed Barack Obama was not born in the United States. While Trump frequently amplified these views, they were already deeply ingrained in the party’s base.
At this point, the question arises: where exactly does Trump stand within the political spectrum? It is difficult to define Trump’s precise position within the far right. The distinction between the “extreme right” and the “populist radical right” makes this even more complex. At times, Trump adopts an extreme right stance, such as when he praised Xi Jinping for securing lifetime leadership in China, suggesting admiration for anti-democratic models. At other times, he embraces the ideals of the U.S. Constitution and appeals to the concept of “real Americans,” positioning himself as a populist radical right figure.
In the end, Trump can be seen as a pragmatist who adopts far-right rhetoric when it serves his purposes. Just as he has fully adapted to America’s narcissistic culture, he has also aligned himself with existing political trends. In this sense, Trumpism is both a cause and a consequence of American political culture.
Despite everything, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Trumpism has fundamentally reshaped the traditional Republican Party, giving it a more aggressive identity that shows little regard for established norms. At the heart of this transformation was the American public, which showed extraordinary enthusiasm for Donald Trump, a figure who came from outside the mainstream political class. But what was the underlying issue? In other words, why did the American people place such trust in an unconventional figure like Trump and elect him to the White House twice?
At this point, the commentary of Tucker Carlson becomes particularly noteworthy. Carlson, known for his years as an anchor on the conservative Fox News and more recently for his broadcasts on the X platform, continues to influence large audiences with his provocative remarks. In his 2018 book Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution, Carlson makes striking observations about the factors behind Trump’s popularity.
According to Carlson, the Democratic Party is no longer the representative of the working class and has aligned itself with the wealthy since the early 2000s. He argues that both major parties in the U.S. have increasingly come to resemble one another, merging their interests over time. In his view, the marriage of market capitalism with the progressive social justice movements—commonly referred to as "woke" or "social justice warriors"—has inflicted unprecedented damage on the American economy. The reason, he claims, is that both parties found it cheaper to talk about social issues than to raise wages.
Carlson also examines the issue of mass immigration through this lens. He argues that government support for immigration is primarily motivated by the need for cheap labor, which in turn drives down wages for American citizens, particularly low-skilled workers. He views the Democrats’ indifference to this problem as a strategy to gain votes from immigrant communities. Carlson further claims that both parties have united in support of military interventions around the world, interventions that have brought instability to many regions. According to him, these foreign policy moves are not only failures from a strategic standpoint but have also imposed costly burdens that erode the welfare of the American people.
In addition, Carlson accuses both parties of undermining constitutional rights. He argues that they label any criticism directed at them as an attack on authority, using this tactic to suppress dissent. He claims that freedom of speech is being stripped away from campuses, Silicon Valley, and the media, with journalists functioning less as independent investigators and more as spokespeople for politicians. Carlson emphasizes that the most effective way to control the public is to fuel internal conflict within society. He argues that identity politics has become one of the ruling class’s most powerful tools because it divides society into opposing groups, making it easier for those in power to consolidate control.
So, what should we expect from the future? First and foremost, we need to take our eyes off Trump himself and focus on the forces behind him. If we insist on seeing Trump as the sole architect of America’s, and the world’s current predicament, we risk failing to grasp the truth and remaining unprepared for the painful changes that lie ahead. Who, then, is Donald Trump?
In many ways, Trump is a symptom of the collapse of the liberal democratic order and the international system that was enthusiastically promoted after the fall of the Soviet Union. He stands as proof that, contrary to Francis Fukuyama’s claim, history did not end it has continued at full speed. Trump is the leading figure of a new era in which globalization is in retreat, borders are hardening, and the rise of populism in the West shows no signs of slowing down. His ascent signals that capitalism, inherently a system of crises, has entered yet another period of deadlock. As Antonio Gramsci wrote in the early twentieth century, “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters.” In this sense, Trump is a symbol of the death of the old world.
As for what Trump will do next, that remains a complicated question with no easy answers. But one thing seems certain: he won’t wear the traditional Republican uniform or align himself with the established political order. Instead, he will tailor his own. We can expect Trump to openly challenge the status quo in the United States, to draw sharper lines around national borders, and to embrace a more isolationist approach in foreign policy. Considering the ongoing legal proceedings related to the January 6 Capitol riot, it’s likely that he will adopt an even more aggressive stance and push the boundaries of presidential power further than ever before.
One way or another, it’s clear that both the United States and the wider world are heading toward difficult times. Which direction history will ultimately take remains to be seen. All we can do is wait and watch as it unfolds.
KATEGORİLER
Bilgi Alın
© 2025 Scrolli. Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Scrolli Medya A.Ş
