Talk:Trumpism

Unencyclopedic tone

In addition to what's been said about the partisanship that is so blatant in this article, the tone of the article is not appropriate at all. It reads like an opinion piece from NBC or CNN, not an encyclopedia entry. Statements such as "Nostalgia is a staple of American politics but according to Philip Gorski", "Historian Stephen Jaeger traces the history of admonitions against becoming beholden religious courtiers back to the 11th century", "Sociologist Arlie Hochschild thinks emotional themes in Trump's rhetoric are fundamental" all read like they're trying to turn the article into a holistic evaluation of recent American politics, rather than explaining the subject matter of the article. There's absolutely no need for such lengthy quotations of so many people's random opinions. As a result I'm slapping a tone label on the article. See also WP:NEWSSTYLE FAISSALOO_(talk) 13:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is able to have articles on controversial subjects by adhering to standards designed to insure that the substance of controversies are expressed. For example, in the article Abortion debate, the argument is presented that unborn fetuses without human consciousness cannot be regarded as persons. The source for that point was a noted philosopher who has written about the moral questions surrounding the abortion issue. However, the article also presents opposing views from equally high quality sources. That article has been at times been elevated to high quality rating, even though some of its content might read like an opinion piece from MSNBC, and in other places like information presented by Fox and Friends. We all would like to improve the article on trumpism. In the case of Gorski, what is being advocated? That the article no longer mention the analysis that the religious right and trumpism are linked in the way he describes? Why should we hide that perspective? Gorski is a Yale sociologist whose views on the role of the religious right in trumpism are no doubt unpopular in many communities. But this fact does not bar us from making the reader aware of it anymore than the abortion debate article should be barred from expressing views similarly unpopular in the same community. Robert Jeffress and and Richard Land do not agree with Gorski's perspective and these views are no doubt similarly unpopular among those who opposed Trump, yet they are also included in the article. The analysis of Jeffress and Land are representative, not random views. Nor is Gorki's analysis. Other equally qualified sociologists see the linkage he describes. Gorski's analysis was published not within editorials, but within a juried paper in a book from Springer- a well established scholarly publisher. If there are similar scholarly publications publishing an analysis contrary to Gorski on the particular points he makes, please do the research and make a contribution to the article. If you do not have the time, please give a pointer to the juried scholarly papers or other high quality source and I will endeavor to express the contrary views in a balanced way. Other contributors of course are free to correct the summary if it is too lengthy or unbalanced. Our goal is not to push a particular perspective on Trumpism. It is to illustrate the wide divergence of views on its nature. There is not a lot of agreement in the field on whether it is primarily a phenomenon of history, collective psychology, theology, political science, or sociology. Experts from all these fields are represented in the article, and all tend to think their field is the correct one for analysis of the topic. They can't all be right. Are we saying that the article should not describe these competing and multivaried perspectives? If no specific changes are listed or there is no consensus that such changes would improve the article, I propose that the maintenance template be removed and that the Controversial template be added to the talk page in its place in two weeks. I agree that any material outside the scope of Trumpism ought to be removed. Many may feel that the impact of Trumpism has altered American politics in fundamental ways, but I agree with Faissaloo that the article should not be a "holistic evaluation of recent American politics". If there are specific items that ought to be struck as irrelevant to the topic, please propose specific changes to specific passages so that the article can be improved. J JMesserly (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't consider this article to be in the same vein as the abortion debate article, since the abortion debate article by nature is the discussion of a discussion, and so various views are mentioned from the perspective that they're opposing belief systems as opposed to people disagreeing on particular events. If this article were something like 'Trumpism debate in American politics' I might be more receptive to such quotes. To be clear I don't believe analysis of the link between the religious right and trumpism should be removed and I don't think Robert Jeffress or Richard Land should be mentioned either, but it should stick to what there is some semblance of consensus on and avoid mentioning things that are simply the opinions of singular sociologists. The article seems to have prioritised quantity over quality, which makes it exceedingly difficult to read for very little benefit. FAISSALOO_(talk) 09:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Polling data

I'm struggling to see the relevance of the two paragraphs of polling data in the Future impact section. Neither of the sources specifically connect the findings to the phenomenon of Trumpism, and neither set of data seems significantly more important than the rest of the vast amount of election polling and approval polling asking about Trump or his campaigns. The second paragraph of the two is also not exactly lucidly written, though that could be fixed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson

Australian senator Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party have been compared with Donald Trump in many articles. She supports white supremacy, admits to racism, hates all Muslims, opposes COVID-19 restrictions and vaccinations, and in this ongoing election, she posted a video that attacks others, and made comments on election fraud. She is a Trumpist, and Australia's face of hate. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:18DB:C6BE:F1CE:F19F (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could link some of those articles? I agree that Hanson could be worth mentioning in this article (though not precisely in the terms used above), but would be interested to know what sources we could cite on the connection. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's a couple of citations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Vacant0 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is another source, which states that Hanson is staunchly anti-vax, and has spread false information about COVID-19, despite her testing positive last week like Trump did in October 2020. The link also shows her support for the mostly neo-Nazi Convoy to Canberra, and rejects climate change actions.
And while not in the article I showed, I have heard rumors that Canberra may place extra security around Parliament House to avoid a repeat of the January 6 terrorist attack in Washington, D.C. from supporters of Trump and One Nation in the aftermath of the ongoing election. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:C89B:CA27:9E01:58A9 (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added a mention to the last sentence of the lede, citing this article, which seemed best as it makes the conection to Trumpism, rather than just Trump, especially clear: "While Trump has undercut Australia's US alliance in Washington, Trumpism is undercutting the political establishment at home.... Perhaps the most obvious mimicry of Trumpist populism is Pauline Hanson's embrace of the anti-Muslim agenda." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

We have an article for "Trumpism in Australia", named after Hanson: Hansonism. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:8422:E091:4411:722D (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

We could add a link to Hansonism under "See also", but that section's overly long as it is and I'm sceptical of the value of a link in the absence of prose making the connection clear. Another possibility would be to add a new subsection on Australia to the "Beyond America" section, building on the Hartcher article and probably citing some of the other sources linked above. If you wanted you could draft that here and I or someone else could add it to the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

To build one isn't going to be simple. Some of these sources along with a few others unlisted require paid subscriptions. To expand on Hansonism/Trumpism in Australia, I'll list a few more. Former senator Fraser Anning engaged in white supremacy and victim blaming, supported the White genocide conspiracy theory (Hanson does, too), and had a short-lived far-right group with ties to the United Patriots Front and Blair Cottrell, a neo-Nazi. Also, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings, celebrated Trump's victory in the 2016 election. George Christensen also promoted conspiracy on the storming of the Capitol and mocked the #illridewithyou hashtag. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:F830:30D:F8E2:CF67 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources requiring paid subscriptions can be requested at WP:RX (there are also some browser extensions that can be good for that). The connections you mention seem likely to be relevant, but bear in mind what I said above: we're looking for material on Trumpism, the movement/style/strategy associated with Trump, and that means whenever possible we want to cite sources (like the Hartcher article) that make that connection explicit; apparent similarities to Trump on matters of policy aren't necessarily sufficient. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hanson/Mrs. Trump also hates Indigenous Australians. And sadly, on this link, she has supporters, some of whom are pro-Proud Boys. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:A0B5:BAA3:6CF7:52BF (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Trumpism without Trump

This piece in the Guardian today may be of use for this article: Smith, David (May 28, 2022). "Republican primaries offer look into future of Trumpism without Trump". The Guardian. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit / grammar request

“Discussing the statistical basis for their conclusions regarding the triggering of such waves present the view that "authoritarians, by their very nature, want to believe in authorities and institutions; they want to feel they are part of a cohesive community.“

There are missing words and a missing comma here, should likely read: “Discussing the statistical basis for their conclusions regarding the triggering of such waves, Haidt and Stenner present the view that…”173.56.203.56 (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Spain and Vox

Should Spain's Vox be mentioned alongside Bolsonaro or Salvini? They are usually mentioned alongside, for example in the Spanish version of this article or in the Steve Bannon one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.170.117 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Are they mentioned in connection with Trumpism in reliable sources? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Extreme Ideological Imbalance

I have read over the article multiple times and there needs to be some serious work. I agree with @Faissaloo about how the tone is akin to an opinion piece found in places like Salon and Huffpost. I am also disgusted by the extremely unbalanced perspectives that is on display. The first section has 4 paragraphs

- The first gives an extremely broad perspective that can loosely be applied to anyone who voted Republican. This is not concise to my liking.

- The second has this line "The exact terms of what makes up Trumpism are contentious and are sufficiently complex to overwhelm any single framework of analysis". This to me is just an excuse to use any fringe thinking, or an individual grievance as a mainstream representation. The 3 "characteristics" listed need to be worded differently, especially to something that can be compared to American politics more than international variants; I suppose you could make the characteristics American-focused.

- The third paragraph is a one sided ideological swamp. "Others have more mildly identified it as a specific lite version of fascism in the United States" gives off the belief that this is a rational thought. This paragraph in particular needs to have a pro-Trumpism balance. Perhaps 4 different opinions, one harsher criticism, one "milder" criticism, and the other two being opposites of this.

- The forth paragraph should not be there, perhaps somewhere deeper in the article. I strongly believe this should be a more American orientated; a senator from Queensland, Australia shouldnt be that high, especially as unlike Trump, doesn't work with a party that has come even close to forming government.

I would like to try and rewrite this page over a period of time. I don't want to post any changes until I believe it is satisfactory and until I get some feedback. I will endeavor to make a sandbox article for this very purpose. Its current state is abhorrent IMHO and needs some substantial changes, especially with the removal of this stupid quote. (This is not a rational quote or is made out in fact. Media intimidation and Court packing has been certainly more on the other side of the asile; voter suppression and mass propaganda is a bipartisan thing and "armed paramilitaries" is not in any reality.)

"the election of Donald Trump constitutes perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. There is a real and growing danger that representative government will be slowly but effectively supplanted by a populist form of authoritarian rule in the years to come. Media intimidation, mass propaganda, voter suppression, court packing, and even armed paramilitaries – many of the necessary and sufficient conditions for an authoritarian devolution are gradually falling into place." Titaniumman23 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you miss how the January 6 attack consisted of armed groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers invading the US capitol and threatening the peaceful transfer of power with political violence? I don't agree with your analysis or the comment you referenced from 5 months ago either. There are probably improvements you could make to the article, and you should make them incrementally, in small pieces, not in a big bang release. That is unlikely to work well. Andre🚐 05:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Titaniumman23: While we all work in different ways, redrafting the article in toto doesn't strike me as necessary, or as the best way to make large-scale changes if such changes were needed. There's a risk that you'd end up putting in a lot of work on changes that wouldn't have a consensus in favour. I agree with Andrevan that incremental changes in a WP:BRD manner would probably be the best approach.

Your third point also seems based on a misunderstanding of the article and the perspectives it summarises: to say that Trumpism is proximate to fascism is a descriptive statement; while "fascist" obviously typically connotes "bad" it's also possible to use the word in a way that doesn't entail a value judgement—so an attempt to add a "pro-Trumpism balance" would be a solution in search of a problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Titaniumman23, you will encounter resistance if you try to modify the article to your "liking", or to remove the quote of Gorsky that you don't like, e.g., without gaining consensus here. WP articles are not written, or shouldn't be, to your liking, or anyone else's, and any substantial changes or additions must be supported by reliable sources, as I'm sure you know. Carlstak (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll use articles in accordance to the reliable sources page on Wikipedia. I've tried to change the rating of the Daily Wire on that page.

I'll follow all rules, so don't you worry ;-) Titaniumman23 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the linking at all, because fascism requires a large government apparatus with government regulations and Trumpism is not that. It's a misrepresentation that can allow the reader to assume that because Fascism requires a dictator, that Trump was a dictator.

The question regarding the use of fascism is why not communism or socialism? What difference exists between fascism and the other two that they didn't use that word.

At this stage, ill probably balance it with something along the lines of "supporters have praised the decentralization of the federal government. Titaniumman23 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Trump was said to have admired dictators, and aspired to become a dictator by overthrowing the peaceful transfer of power. Trump embraced authoritarian leaders throughout the world and inspired, and was compared to, such figures Viktor Orban and Rodrigo Duterte. There are many believers in fascism in countries that don't have dictators, and there are fascist leaders who aspired to authoritarianism - they were still fascists before, or if they never achieved it.

Communism and socialism are entirely different, so I'm not sure where you're going with that line of thinking. Communism is generally considered a far-left ideology, while fascism is a far-right ideology, and they are opposed. Corporatism#Fascist corporatism is on the road to fascism, and fascism doesn't do away with oligarchy and wealth, fascism can have state-owned or state-run companiess, see I.G. Farben for example or Volkswagen.

By contrast, state socialism tends to nationalize free market corporations, dissolve them or run them in a centralized way for the benefit of public projects - in communism, theoretically, they are dissolved and replaced by something like stateless classless society. Stalinism, while brutal, genocidal, and a totalitarian authoritarian police state dictatorship, still had soviets and an economic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Bolsheviks weren't going after and demonizing minority groups (not until later at least, certainly not between 1917 and 1929), they were collectivizing kulak farms.

I didn't see any evidence from the Trump administration that they decentralized the government - citation needed, please. Andre🚐 01:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The term "Trumpism" is a prejudicial straw man representation.

As an ideology, so-called "Trumpism" is non-existent and for that reason the term doesn't belong an encyclopedia as if it actually exists.

The political left characterizes "Trumpism" as an ideology of Trump's own making that his "followers" mindlessly believe. One would have to be intellectually dishonest to believe such a misrepresentation. The truth is the other way around. Donald Trump subscribes to the values and principles that the 74 million Americans who voted for him in the last election hold to -- or better put, Trump and conservative Americans have common interests. Neither one is following the other. Rather, they speak the same language. 2600:8801:BE31:D300:85D:896:A272:C46B (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)