Historians’ Views on Trump During the Election (HSC SSCE Modern History): Revision Notes
Historians’ Views on Trump During the Election
Introduction: The challenge of writing contemporary history
During the 2016 American presidential election campaign, political commentators and historians began seriously considering the possibility that Donald Trump could become President of the United States. This period presents a fascinating case study in the construction of modern histories because it demonstrates the unique difficulties historians face when attempting to analyse current events.
When historians write about contemporary figures and events, they must make assessments based on incomplete evidence. They cannot know what the future will bring, yet they are compelled to interpret what they observe and make predictions. Sometimes their bold statements can appear overly dramatic once time has passed and more evidence becomes available. Nevertheless, examining how historians responded to Trump's 2016 campaign reveals important insights about how history is constructed in real time.
The 2016 election provides a unique opportunity to study how historians work in real time. Unlike studying events from centuries ago, contemporary historians must make judgements without knowing the full outcome or having access to all relevant documents and evidence that will only become available years later.
The varying interpretations of Trump's candidacy by different historians also highlight a fundamental problem in writing modern history: reasonable experts can view the same events and reach quite different conclusions. This section explores how historians invoked historical parallels to make sense of Trump's campaign and what their disagreements tell us about the nature of historical interpretation.
Historical parallels: Echoes of the 1930s
From early 2016 onwards, many historians and political commentators began publishing their views about Trump after he secured the Republican nomination for president. While Trump had supporters, he also attracted significant criticism from historians who raised concerns about his personal character, suitability for office, and the unprecedented nature of his values and proposed policies.
Some left-wing critics identified what political commentator Mark Oppenheimer called 'ominous historical parallels' in Trump's campaign. Several historians noted that global events in 2016 seemed to signal a troubling trend: the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, the rising support for Marine Le Pen's National Front party in France, and Trump's success in America all suggested that nations were turning away from international cooperation and towards nationalism.
Brexit refers to the decision by the United Kingdom to exit the European Union. This represented a major shift towards national sovereignty and away from international integration.
For some historians, these developments recalled an earlier, darker period in history: the 1930s. This decade was characterised by the rise of authoritarian regimes (governments demanding complete obedience with no avenue of appeal) and extreme nationalism. Some historians went so far as to argue that Trump's election campaign speeches revealed what they called 'fascist tendencies'.
Fascism is a political system based on a very powerful leader and state control. It is characterised by extreme national and racial pride, and does not permit political opposition.
These historical comparisons were controversial, but they reflected genuine concern among some historians that democratic norms and institutions were under threat.
Robert Kagan's warning: 'This is how fascism comes to America'
One of the most forceful critics was American historian Robert Kagan, a lifelong conservative thinker and Republican voter. His opposition to Trump was so strong that he left the Republican Party to support Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the election.
Kagan's analysis of Trump's appeal
On 18 May 2016, Kagan published an influential article in The Washington Post titled 'This is how fascism comes to America'. He acknowledged that Trump had successfully connected with widespread feelings of economic stagnation and social dislocation among many Americans. However, Kagan argued that Trump did not offer concrete solutions to people's genuine problems. Instead, Trump offered something quite different:
an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence.
According to Kagan, Trump's speeches provoked and exploited 'feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger'. Kagan identified this phenomenon as fascism, noting that it had been widespread in the first half of the twentieth century. The common element in fascist movements across different countries was the emphasis on a strong leader in whom the fate of the entire nation was placed.
The comparison to Putin
Kagan drew a specific parallel between Trump's approach and that of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He argued that both represented a form of politics based not on detailed policies or coherent ideologies but on the image of a tough leader who could single-handedly solve all problems.
Putinism describes the popular rule of strongman Vladimir Putin, who has been President of Russia since 1999. It emphasises personal power over institutional processes.
Kagan explained this comparison:
Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.
Kagan's fears about Trump's presidency
Kagan's central concern was that if Trump became President, he would lead America down an authoritarian path similar to Putin's transformation of Russia. He questioned whether someone like Trump would become more moderate and measured once given immense power, or whether power would instead amplify his worst tendencies. As Kagan put it: 'Is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?'
Kagan concluded his May 2016 article with a stark warning:
This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party – out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear – falling into line behind him.
This warning was particularly striking because it came from a conservative historian, not a left-wing critic.
Timothy Snyder and lessons from the twentieth century
Another prominent historian who drew historical parallels with Trump's campaign was Timothy Snyder from Yale University. Snyder felt so strongly about the potential dangers he perceived that he wrote a best-selling book called On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, published early in Trump's presidency.
Learning from European history
Snyder identified similarities between the path to power of the Trump administration and that of the Third Reich (Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler). His fundamental argument was that Americans should study and learn from European experiences with fascism in the twentieth century.
As Snyder wrote: 'We are no wiser than the Europeans who saw democracy yield to fascism, Nazism, or communism in the last century. Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience.'
This perspective emphasised that democratic societies are not automatically immune to authoritarianism. Rather, citizens must actively defend democratic institutions and values, learning from historical examples where democracy failed.
Common concerns among historians
Several historians, including Robert Kagan, Timothy Snyder, Paul Krugman, George Prochnik, and John McNeil, raised similar concerns about Trump during the election campaign. Their worries centred on several key themes:
Attacks on institutions: These historians perceived Trump as attacking the institutions that underpin the rule of law – the principle that no one is above the law and that laws are publicly disclosed and enforced through established procedures. They worried about his criticisms of:
- The courts
- Constitutional principles
- Civil liberties
- The free press
Policies against minorities: Historians expressed concern about Trump's proposed policies targeting specific groups, particularly Muslims and undocumented immigrants.
Rhetoric and tone: Many noted the aggressive, divisive rhetoric (speech or writing intended to influence people) used in Trump's campaign, which they felt departed from normal democratic discourse.
These historians argued that such approaches threatened the foundations of American democracy and recalled dangerous historical precedents.
Counter-arguments and alternative perspectives
Not all historians agreed with the comparisons between Trump and fascist leaders. Several prominent voices argued that the term 'fascism' was being applied too loosely or that the historical parallels were overdrawn.
Richard Evans: Questioning the usefulness of 'fascism'
Historian Richard Evans argued in a March 2017 ABC Radio National interview titled 'Is it fair to call Donald Trump a fascist?' that fascism was not a particularly useful concept to apply to Trump. Evans suggested:
Maybe it's a useful term of abuse, but it has been spread so widely and so generally now that it's not even very good as a term of abuse … I think we need to ask a different question, which is how do we defend democracy, what are the threats to democracy, how can we overcome them?
Evans's point was that focusing too much on the 'fascism' label might actually distract from more productive questions about protecting democratic institutions.
Niall Ferguson and other conservative historians
Conservative historian Niall Ferguson was openly sceptical of arguments made by historians like Snyder. He cautioned: 'We've seen this movie before and it doesn't need to end in World War II … Not every authoritarian leader is Adolf Hitler.'
Ferguson's criticism suggested that some historians were making exaggerated comparisons that failed to account for significant differences between 1930s Europe and twenty-first century America.
Alternative characterisations
Some commentators and historians offered different characterisations of Trump that stopped short of calling him fascist:
- Jay Nordlinger in the conservative National Review described Trump as 'a lout', 'a nationalist', 'a demagogue … but he's not a fascist'
- Political commentator Will Saletan argued that 'fascism' was thrown around too casually by the left, just as 'socialism' was by the right
These critics did not necessarily defend Trump, but they questioned whether historical comparisons to fascism were accurate or helpful.
The debate's significance for understanding modern history
This debate among historians about how to characterise and understand Trump during the 2016 election demonstrates several important points about the construction of modern histories:
Incomplete evidence: Historians writing in real time must work with incomplete information. They cannot know how events will unfold or what additional evidence will emerge.
The role of perspective: Political viewpoints can influence historical interpretation. Conservative historians tended to be more sceptical of fascism comparisons than left-wing historians.
The use of historical analogies: Historians invoke past events to help understand present circumstances, but these analogies can be contested and are rarely perfect matches.
The challenge of prediction: Some of the dramatic warnings issued in 2016 may appear overblown with hindsight, but they reflected genuine concerns based on the evidence available at the time.
The value of debate: The disagreement among historians about how to interpret Trump actually enriches our understanding. It shows that historical interpretation is not a simple matter of facts but involves judgement and analysis.
This debate illustrates a fundamental truth about historical interpretation: even expert historians examining the same evidence can reach different conclusions. This doesn't mean history is purely subjective, but rather that interpretation requires careful judgement about which historical parallels are most appropriate and which aspects of current events are most significant.
Exam tips
When answering questions about historians' interpretations of contemporary events:
- Recognise that historians can reach different conclusions from the same evidence
- Consider how historians' own perspectives and values might influence their interpretations
- Evaluate the strength of historical analogies – what are the similarities and differences between past and present?
- Understand the special challenges of writing contemporary history with incomplete evidence
- Be able to explain multiple perspectives rather than assuming there is only one correct interpretation
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
- Historians writing about Trump during the 2016 election faced the challenge of analysing current events with incomplete evidence and an unknown future
- Some historians, notably Robert Kagan and Timothy Snyder, drew parallels between Trump's campaign and historical authoritarianism, particularly comparing his rise to 1930s fascism
- These historians emphasised concerns about Trump's rhetoric, his cult of personality approach (similar to Putin), and perceived attacks on democratic institutions like courts, the constitution, and the free press
- Other historians, including Richard Evans and Niall Ferguson, questioned whether 'fascism' was a useful or accurate label for Trump, arguing that the term was being applied too broadly
- The debate among historians demonstrates key challenges in constructing modern histories: working with incomplete evidence, the influence of perspective on interpretation, and the difficulty of making predictions about current events that may look different with hindsight