Is He Evil?

Perhaps one has noticed that a certain populism is on the rise: the commentary on politics is no longer about policies and scandals, but about the "character" of the politician. It's identity-oriented politics that packages policies together, with the economy now withering away as the center of propaganda (it now only serves as an aspect of identity). This trend is most evident in the evaluation of our political leaders: Trump is rejected not because of his foolish economic policies but because he is Trump. What’s even more interesting is the tendency to attribute societal effects to the character of the leaders: the bad economy is because of Biden, Trump is on the rise because his supporters are evil, Kamala Harris’ incompetence is because she is stupid, and so on. Many would say we are facing a new phenomenon that has never occurred before: a recursion of petty populism in the information age.

However, I’d argue that this statement is, in certain aspects, false. Specifically, our tendency to connect the success and failures of a society and a leader to the surrounding figures. Take Trump, for example: the question we often ask is “Why is he so stupid/evil?” Why are he and Elon Musk going through these series of reforms, public stunts, or acts of actual stupidity?

We find similar examples throughout history: Stalin. He was equally controversial as Trump, with a group of faithful believers and a group of equally faithful critics. What’s more important, however, is that he is a character of history often judged for his character: the most famous example being the Soviet’s 20th Congress, which, instead of taking a deep dive into the ramifications of Stalin’s rule, focused solely on denouncing Stalin as an evil, stupid dictator.

Should this be the move? Should the debate surrounding figures like Trump (and, on the other side, Biden and his team) be the center of political debate?

Perhaps the answer lies in Lefort’s analysis of Stalin, a character who found himself in a similar situation. The denunciation of Stalin during the 20th Congress, to Lefort, served to protect the militants behind the curtain: it failed to unveil the real question—why had the Soviet system allowed someone like Stalin to rise to power, and to even hold power?

This focus on the figure, rather than the broader question, necessarily conceals a “shadow” of the discussed state. With this narrative focused on figures, the state effectively blinds people to the real symptoms of society. For the Soviets, this was the danger of their authoritarian system and the desperate need for vibrancy.

Therefore, the question we should ask about Trump is, “How did he rise to power?” And I think the answer to this question reveals the “shadow” of America, just as the question of Stalin’s rise to power reveals the Soviet Union’s “shadow.”