Beyond Ideological Reductionism

 

Introduction: Navigating the Complexity of Trump 2.0

The return of Donald Trump to power has sparked a flurry of theories attempting to explain his political project, each grasping at different facets of contemporary American authoritarianism. From the "broligarchy" narrative, which sees a stable alliance with tech elites, to "End Times Fascism," emphasizing apocalyptic Christian nationalism, to Quinn Slobodian's neoliberal genealogy, these frameworks highlight important dynamics but often miss the forest for the trees. This essay argues that these approaches, rooted in ideological coherence, fail to capture Trumpworld 2.0's essence, which is better understood through personalism—a system where power centers on a single leader who instrumentally deploys diverse ideologies for coalition management, not reducible to any one. Drawing on American pragmatism, particularly John Dewey's focus on process over perfection, this analysis offers a "good enough" framework for understanding Trump's regime, acknowledging cultural relativism as a brute fact and emphasizing empirical inquiry into "ruptures in experience."

The Limits of Ideological Paradigms

Ideological frameworks seek to reduce Trumpism to a single narrative, but each falls short when faced with the regime's volatility.

• Broligarchy: Popularized in late 2024, this model posits a durable tech-government alliance, with Elon Musk's $300 million campaign support and DOGE leadership suggesting oligarchic power-sharing [Vox, June 2025]. Yet, Musk's public criticism of Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" as a "disgusting abomination" on X

  

  and threats to leverage Starlink reveal a courtier relationship, not partnership. Trump's willingness to threaten contract revocations underscores personalist control, not stability [NYT, June 2025].
• End Times Fascism: This framework, articulated by Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor, captures Christian nationalism's mobilization but struggles with coalition diversity. Katherine Stewart's work on CN networks during Trump 1.0 is insightful, but Trump's distancing from abortion bans and Leonard Leo, labeled a "sleazebag" [CNN, June 2025], shows CN's displacement by anti-woke and pro-Israel factions. It fails to account for MAHA (RFK Jr.) or America First vs. "Israel First" tensions [The Hill, June 2025].
• Slobodian's Neoliberal Genealogy: Slobodian's Hayek's Bastards traces Trumpism to neoliberalism's evolution, but Trump's tariffs, industrial policy, and national conservative alliances contradict Austrian economics. Figures like Curtis Yarvin reject Hayek, favoring anti-capitalist thinkers, highlighting empirical incoherence [Slobodian, 2025].

These models, seeking ideological coherence, overlook Trump's transactional, improvisational approach, missing coalition volatility and elite disposability.

The Personalist Alternative: Pragmatic Pluralism in Action

Trump 2.0 is better understood as a personalist system, where factions—Christian nationalists, anti-woke crusaders, tech elites, pro-Israel hawks, America Firsters, and MAHA—act as passengers on the "Trump locomotive," boarding and disembarking as expedient. This model, rooted in pragmatic pluralism, accepts cultural relativism as a brute fact, focusing on process over perfection, and leverages "ruptures in experience" (e.g., Musk's feud, CN's policy setbacks) for inquiry.

• Coalition Management: CN, once central, is now a partner, with Russ Vought's policies overshadowed by anti-woke efforts to defund universities and pro-Israel initiatives like anti-BDS laws [ECPS, Feb. 2025]. Tech-libertarians like Musk pursue privatization, finding common cause with CN on government overreach, but Musk's feud shows disposability [American Bridge PAC, 2024]. America First vs. "Israel First" tensions, with isolationists like Tucker Carlson clashing over Iran, reveal competition [BBC, June 2025].
• Instrumental Ideology: Trump's "deep stories"—from "everyman populist" for working-class whites to "New David" for evangelicals—mobilize factions without ideological commitment, aligning with pragmatic pluralism's focus on utility [Hochschild, 2016].
• Empirical Ruptures: The Musk-Trump feud, with Musk's X post calling for impeachment, forced inquiry into elite power, revealing personalism's brittleness [Axios, June 2025]. CN's lack of abortion ban, despite Vought's push, shows coalition shifts, demanding adaptive honesty and fallibilism in analysis.

This personalist model, grounded in Deweyan inquiry, explains volatility, disposability, and incoherence, offering a "good enough" framework for navigating Trumpworld 2.0's complexity.

Why Personalism Explains More

Personalism captures phenomena ideological models miss:

• Elite Disposability: Musk's subordination, despite Starlink's indispensability, shows power hinges on loyalty, not institutions [Bremmer, June 2025].
• Policy Incoherence: Tariffs and immigration restrictions defy neoliberalism, emerging from coalition management, not ideology [Slobodian, 2025].
• Symbolic Politics: Appointments like RFK Jr. for MAHA signal to factions, not reflect policy, aligning with pragmatic pluralism's process focus.

Personalism's brittleness—lacking deep roots—offers hope for resistance, unlike oligarchies. Brazil and Poland's reversals show personalist regimes can be undone with institutional pushback [Moynihan, 2025].

Conclusion: A Pragmatist Path Forward

Competing theories illuminate aspects of Trumpism but miss its personalist essence, seeking coherence where none exists. Trump's genius lies in deploying ideologies instrumentally, managing a diverse coalition while remaining accountable to none. This personalist dynamic, rooted in pragmatic pluralism, explains both strength (mobilizing constituencies) and weakness (dependence on loyalty). For resistance, prioritize institutional defense, judicial independence, and coalition-building, leveraging personalism's fragility. The search for a "good enough" framework, accepting cultural relativism and focusing on process, keeps the conversation alive, offering hope in navigating Trumpworld 2.0's complexities