Send in the clowns. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Donald Trump is a great uniter, bringing together the most delusional elements of American life. Attacks on his administration’s reactionary turn are, of course, accurate. But it is far wiser to see his cabinet as a crackpot coalition. Served by representatives from the extremist Left and Right, the President appears to reward any idea, no matter its absurdity or origin, as long as it breaks with the exhausted liberal consensus.
Taken together, in fact, I think that the ideas animating Magaworld, though contradicting each other on the surface, represent a distinct societal force — one that divorces the republic from reality, and though years in the making represents a bewildering new retreat from empirical truth. A few years back, Kurt Anderson wrote a book exploring how America has become, to use his eponymous term, a “fantasyland.” I’d go further: it’s clear that the Trump presidency is a fantasyland administration for a fantasyland people, and one with depressing implications for the future of American democracy.
Perhaps the clearest example of Trump’s loony politics is Pete Hegseth. The Secretary of Defense, as the latest case study for America’s obsession with boring redemption-conversion stories, has morphed from a binge-drinking lothario into a fire and brimstone Christian fundamentalist. Forget his toe-curling leaks to journalists: in a series of podcast interviews last year, Hegseth spoke warmly of “sphere sovereignty” — which posits that civil law should defer to the Old Testament, even on matters of women’s rights and homosexuality.
Such theocratic ambitions are central to the dogma of “Christian Reconstructionism” — the same theology that guides Hegseth’s church in Tennessee. Part of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, its founder Douglas Wilson has argued that, in the war for Christian supremacy, women, children, and other civilians are legitimate targets, stating that “the word of God tells Christian soldiers what to do.” Wilson’s rabid form of faith prompts questions as to whether or not Hegseth, a member of his flock, believes that the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution should dictate military policy — or the ravings of an Idaho preacher.
Certainly, Hegseth extends his apocalyptic worldview to domestic affairs, writing that the Christian Right is in a “holy war” against the “Leftist spectre”. Nor is that the only spot where the far-Right fringe is now at the very heart of government. That’s clear enough around the so-called “unitary executive” theory. Developed by Russell Vought, Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, it posits that, contrary to centuries of Supreme Court rulings and scholarly interpretation, the US Constitution gives the president complete and exclusive control over anything that falls within the purview of the executive branch of government.
The “unitary executive theory” resides in the same cul-de-sac as the dreams of techno-monarchy that Curtis Yarvin promotes in books and interviews. His belief that democracy is bloated and ineffective, and therefore, in need of replacement from a governing elite, has inspired Peter Thiel — mentor to none other than JD Vance.
Yet amid this unsurprising fear of far-Right influence, the far Left, too, has made its mark. To understand what I mean, look no further RFK Jr. He may have a name and history that many Americans associate with liberalism, but the Secretary of Health and Human Services’s lineage is deceiving. Unlike his father and uncles, he’s a promoter of deranged conspiracy theories, including that HIV does not cause AIDS; that the Covid-19 vaccine was a medical experiment on blacks and Latinos; that Covid itself was engineered to spare Jews and Chinese; and that African Americans have different immune systems than whites, resulting in reduced need for vaccination.
Commentators of the Left typically wonder “what happened” to Kennedy — once a respected environmental lawyer — while those on the Right parade him as a prop for the power of MAGA ideology. The reality is that Kennedy simply represents a faction of the Left that looks at the “medical-industrial complex” with contempt.
Tulsi Gabbard, for her part, has followed a similar trajectory. Once the co-chairperson of the Bernie Sanders campaign, the former Democratic member of Congress and presidential candidate advocates for Trump policies with a convert’s zeal. Yet if she’s dumped her support for universal health care, and abandoned the eradication of fossil fuels in the Honolulu surf, her foreign policy positions have remained consistent. In 2017, Gabbard introduced legislation in Congress to “end our country’s illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government” — and shortly after the bill failed to reach a floor vote flew to Damascus to meet President Assad.
These sympathies extend to the leader who helped Assad drop bombs on the people of Aleppo: Vladimir Putin. In this, Gabbard retains support among the so-called “anti-imperialist” Left, people like Max Blumenthal and Matt Taibbi who blame every geopolitical problem on the United States.
I could go on here — but beyond these varied examples, what does this frantic blend of Left and Right actually signify? I think that vivid phrase “fantasyland” can start to offer an answer. As America’s democracy weakens, it becomes aggressive and epistemologically reckless. There’s no longer any belief that the leading institutions of American society — from major political parties to the mainstream media — refuse to accommodate. Accusations of “elitism,” “snobbery,” or “disrespect” of religious faith await anyone who utters a complaint about hallucinatory fantasies that now pollute every conversation of political importance.
The bipartisan phantasm of the Trump administration signifies the completion of a national transformation, one resulting from this misguided accommodation. And it isn’t as if the former gatekeepers of discourse, especially in the legacy media, didn’t, at least in part, invite their own destruction. The leading newspapers, journals, and television networks, with few exceptions, were wrong about the disastrous war on Iraq. They ignored the warning signs of the 2008 financial crash — even as, long before that, they offered shortsighted reporting on the Vietnam War and the AIDS crisis.
Noam Chomsky famously lambasted the mainstream media for “manufacturing consent”. Yet if it’s clear that elite opinion-making is in desperate need of an overhaul, the anything goes, anything is possible blend of cynicism and gullibility that’s replaced it is even worse.
Consider, if nothing else, how quick mad-as-a-hatter conspiracy theories now spread online. There was the “plandemic” documentary asserting that a cabal of international elites planned the Covid-19 pandemic, even as millions of Republicans believed that Joe Biden “rigged” the election in his favour. All the while, large numbers of Leftists reflexively assumed that the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump’s life was fake. The mentality that propelled Trump to power is, in other words, bipartisan and deeply cultural — rather than merely political. Nearly half of Americans believe in demonic possession, while almost a third believe in astrology, and 57% think that ancient advanced civilisations like Atlantis actually existed.
None of this is totally new. Religious fundamentalism, con artistry, and hateful manias have always troubled the American psyche. The Know-Nothing nativists of the 19th century; McCarthyism and the Lavender Scare of the 20th; and the evergreen quality of End Times preachers all show that there is a bottomless appetite for American absurdity. But what made the inauguration of Donald Trump different was that it marked the first time that the forces of absurdity became the country’s governing force. Discontent with the decadent status quo led not to thoughtful reforms — but a rejection of reality itself.
To be fair, not everyone is happy at Trump’s carnival mix of extremism. Many of his policies, especially his assault of vital social services, have already provoked outrage. Opposition will only grow if the Republicans proceed with their plans to make massive cuts to Medicaid. Yet even if his policies ruin Trump’s presidency, the mindset they represent is here to stay, not least given the poisonous effects of social media. Expect America’s fantasyland to remain open for many years to come.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribeinteresting wee article, but isn’t the conclusion back to front?
After all, billionaires are used to telling senior politicians what they want in return for their money.
Is this like the thought experiment of who really has the power? The king, the priest or the knight?
In this case, who really has the power: the people who make laws or the people who can buy the people who make the laws?
“effect of a hypothetical wealth tax” – pure speculation. If we we do have such taxation, the incentives for the 18 wealthiest become to spend a great deal of effort avoiding taxation, rather than building better cars, rockets, online stores, search engines etc. Do you also confiscate from the next man down to maintain a differentials, so he too has motivation issues? I think these incentive problems are the main reason Britain grew so slowly before Thatcher’s reforms; British companies were run by accountants minimising taxes while German and Japanese were run by engineers making better products.
The author is describing a system violating the rule of law; it has the President deciding the individual tax rates for the wealthiest 18 people. That is the road to tyranny.
All societies have inequality and the the attempt to remove it both fails in that goal and leads to tyranny. The inequality in North Korea between gulag slaves and Kim Jong-Un is greater that the inequality the author describes. Even if you’re only talking about extremes, and the declining middle, where do you draw the line, and how do you stop short of trying (and failing) to end all inequality?
We should care greatly about absolute poverty, but not relative wealth.
The question is simple for me. Would I want to be Bill Gates?
At some point the wealth that accrues has nothing to do with the improved technology, however good, but is only due to the size of the market. If covid had been the spanish flu and killed between 1 and 2 per cent of us worldwide, there would be fewer people to buy cell phones independent of how good the new models are.
That’s the bit — it’s just a matter of scale — that would be good to tax extra, because it is the same scaling opportunity/problem we have when we want to provide a public good, like healthcare, to everybody.
This reminds me of the old days of The New Statesman when all articles contained the words, ‘get the Rich’ or ‘tax the Fat Cats’. In fact, for tax purposes, the rich means the middle classes. The super-rich or the super-super-rich can get away with it.
It’s not the richest individuals who are the problem. It’s the wealth tied up in corporations, and NGOs (who get their money from corporations, for the most part.) Force the companies to pay out dividends to shareholders, forbid them from supporting political candidates, and regulate and tax the NGOs like crazy.
“an income of at least £120,000 is required to make the cut”
Is this a typo? I cannot believe that a (gross) amount of £120,000 per annum puts one in the top 1% in the UK
It’s around 5x the average salary, and I don’t personally know anybody on six figures so I’d say it’s probably right
If you are PAYE on £120k you take home a lot leas than if you earn that non-PAYE with allowable deductions
The common fallacy is that money is like a resource. If someone has billions of dollars, then if they gave away to the poor, the poor would be better off. But the problem with this is super rich don’t consume the same goods as the average individual and there is little cross over between competition for resources of the sectors. Or to put it another way. The price of super yachts, sports car and holidays on desert islands have little to no relation to the cost super market shops and house hold electronics.
Taking wealth from the rich will certainly mean they no longer can afford these luxuries but someone else from another country will simply take their place, and it would do little to nothing to increasing the wealth of the poor. Unless the sectors of the economy they spend their money on can be made more productive, and they are already mostly mature well optimised sectors already, the result will only be inflation.
Most of the wealth that has accumulated in this top 0.00001% has done so in the most productive and innovative companies on the planet and whilst a properly funded state is a benefit to society, I think that the historic record shows that private individuals and companies invest it better that the governments do.
Whilst it may not improve the wealth of the poor, taxing the super wealthy more heavily (or at least at the same rates as people’s labour) could either mean improved public services such as schools and hospitals, or a slight tax cut for workers giving them a little bit more money to spend in local shops and businesses.
It may not lead to them becoming substantially richer, but it does make their lives that little bit easier. All that money sat at the top doing nothing is bad for both society and the economy
The money isn’t doing nothing. It will be being actively invested in companies which increase the productivity and prosperity of the nation.
It wouldn’t help make people slightly richer, you can only redistribute between sectors which are in competition for the same goods and services. Taxing the upper middle class, who do compete for similar goods and services would help but they’re too numerous and too well organised to allow any government to do that. Taxing the super rich any significant amount would just cause inflation and lead to a flight of capital from country. It wouldn’t work.
Look at the Soviet Union. By over spending on public services and subsidising prices they actually prevented the economic growth that happened in the West and condemned their people to far greater poverty.
Like I said. Private investors have a far better record than governments for producing wealth creation. Better the money is in their hands.
Except that so much of it is being actively invested in funding NGOs and lobbying, and capturing regulators, all of which may be great for the stock prices of the companies involved, but isn’t doing squat for prosperity.
If the money was being actively invested by these people then productivity and wages wouldn’t have been stagnant for the last 3 decades, alas it hasn’t been the case.
Instead it’s been pumped into idle speculation which has driven up the prices of things such as housing making them increasingly unaffordable to many, especially the young.
The brand of trickle down economics your describing has left us with record low levels of home ownership, and full time workers requiring government assistance just to cover their living costs
Yes the digital revolution never happened. Public sector over expansion with grossly generous pensions and mass migration driving down wages has cancelled out the benefits for much of the population but unless you’re blind you cannot deny we have live though one on the greatest changes on technological a advancement in history. If you cannot see that or understand economics, then I can’t help you.
The only flaw in your theory there is that the new digital age is only possible thanks to the internet….whose creation was largely down to being funded by the US government.
The tech giants such as Facebook and Amazon have been disruptive, and their founders are billionaires many times over, but they haven’t improved the wages, working conditions or standard of living for their employees, quite the opposite in fact.
For 40 years now we’ve been fed the lies of trickle down economics, that if we enrich those at the top then everybody below will benefit. For 40 years taxes on high earners have fallen, interest rates have plummeted, labour never been more mobile, unions destroyed, etc, in the belief that this would improve the lot of the working classes, yet it never seems to happen.
Home ownership rates are at record lows and dropping every year, wages have been stagnant and jobs increasingly insecure and precarious. Privatised public services barely function and are propped up with vast amounts of taxpayer money. How long are we supposed to follow your ideology before it delivers the results we were promised, when if anything it appears to be doing the exact opposite?
Like the communists, whose answer to the failings of communism was always to double down, neoliberals seem to believe that just a bit more deregulation and a bit more wealth for those at the top will finally lead us to the land of milk and honey
This is at the heart of all global problems, and if nothing is done about it, there will be civilisational collapse on a global scale.
Why is it a problem for 18 people to have accumulated $50 billion in wealth in an economy of $20 trillion?
That some people have a lot more than others in the US and other countries is not a catastrophe that will lead to collapse on a global scale unless the extraordinarily rich intend to spend their money on killing large numbers of slaves like to Oba of Benin in the19th century or some other activity directly inimical to a sector of society.
In fact the mega rich spend their money on charity, industry or conspicuous consumption that benefits those catering to their demands. The rich can only eat three meals a day like the rest of us. No one is going to starve because the rich have eaten all the food.
Confiscating the wealth of the rich will have no more affect on the rest of us than another round of quantitate easing.
The compound interest formula is the perfect model for the results deplored in this article. So it is the first place to look if one is unhappy with increasing wealth concentration. Taxing income as it is earned instead of realized would make accumulation that much more difficult. Taxing all income from capital at the same rate as income from labor would make it more difficult still. More moral, too.