Reality Strikes Back
Trump is predictably finding it hard to define the terms of what we're experiencing
A central tenet of the MAGA movement is devotion to a world view of their creation. The Biden economy was the worst in history. Biden opened the borders and let crime run rampant. The 2020 election was stolen. The January 6 insurrectionists were freedom fighters. Vaccines are harmful. Alliances make us weaker. Tariffs are paid by other countries. Trump is restoring America.
All of these assertions can be challenged and most can be factually disputed, but in MAGA world, they are gospel.
During the campaign, Donald Trump was able to persuade enough people to accept MAGA-friendly views on the economy, crime and immigration to win a narrow victory. However, I contended that Trump would struggle to impose his fake reality on the country once he was in charge and had to confront the hard truth of his actions. Specifically, I wrote:
I think there is sufficient reason to consider the possibility that Trump will be subjected to some version of the restraints experienced by other presidents. We may be about to jump through the looking glass, but reality is not likely to be suspended entirely.
This is now coming to pass.
During the campaign, even though an objective case could be made that much of the economy was pretty good, people were primed to accept that things were historically awful. America may have had a stronger economic recovery than its peers, but if you just lived through the first real bout of inflation in four decades and you’re still paying more at the supermarket, you may not care that the rate of inflation was falling, jobs were being created at a record pace, or the situation elsewhere was worse.
But now, during the second Trump presidency, people are experiencing conditions that are far worse than what they endured during the Biden years. Trump again has to convince people that what they are experiencing is not what they are experiencing, only now that he is in office he has to get them to believe that things are great when they are not.
He needs Americans to believe that the hit they’re taking to their personal finances is not a big deal, that the tariffs he’s imposing will not cause endless pain, that the destruction he’s doing to programs they depend on is making government more efficient, that he’s in complete control even though things feel chaotic.
This is an immense challenge even for the most skillful and natural of liars. It’s possible to persuade people that things are bad when they are good. It’s much harder to persuade people that things are good when they are bad.
And because Trump is failing to sell the central MAGA premise that he is a savior sent to repair a collapsing country, the entire MAGA project is teetering.
Hard reality is inconveniently intruding on Trump’s fake reality and dashing his attempts to define the world on his terms. It is intervening to sink Trump’s public standing, forcing him into a defensive crouch, undermining his perceived strength in Washington, and jeopardizing his legislative program.
Reality is sinking Trump’s public standing
The stunning fall of Donald Trump’s public support from its initial mediocre level has been well documented here. The reasons why speak to the enduring importance of reality in people’s lives.
Politicians promise lots of things and are evaluated on whether they deliver. It’s pretty straightforward. If the public thinks you’ve made good on your core promises they will reward you with their support. If they aren’t sure, they will withhold judgement until they see more evidence. They will express their disapproval if they conclude you tried and failed. They will express their strong disapproval if they think you didn’t try, or don’t know what you’re doing, or lied about your intentions.
The public has issued a quick verdict on Trump—they believe he falls into that last category. Trump was elected to tackle inflation. He promised that prices would come down on day one. Whether he didn’t care what happened (likely) or lied about what he would do (certainly) or is economically illiterate (absolutely) or just generally incapable of governing (unquestionably), people caught on that they didn’t get what they thought they were voting for.
In the real world, this kind of thing makes people angry, especially when it affects their everyday lives in a fundamental way. There is no way to avoid the rising prices, plunging retirement accounts, growing scarcity, job losses, and business failures that have visited or are about to visit everyone to some degree.
When people get angry, they turn against the perceived source of their anger. Because Trump moved so swiftly and so destructively, there is no question where the blame rests, and people are expressing it through their strong and growing disapproval of the second Trump presidency.
And it matters. As Trump’s approval falls into the low 40s and heads toward the danger zone for politicians, he is being pushed on his heels and his clout in Washington is starting to get wobbly.
Reality is forcing Trump into a defensive posture
We assumed it wouldn’t be long before Trump started blaming his failings on Joe Biden. And it wasn’t. On Meet the Press last week, Trump was asked “When does it become the Trump economy?,” and he said: “I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy.”
That’s absurd, of course, but note that Trump concedes there are bad parts to the economy. He may blithely lie about prices going down and tariffs helping trade, but he knows there are problems. And when confronted with the largest of those problems—the reality of prices going up and supplies being choked off—Trump resorts to an argument that makes you wonder if he hired Ebenezer Scrooge as a political consultant:
You know, somebody said, “Oh, the shelves are going to be open.” Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of thirty dolls, you know, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. But we’re not talking about something that we have to go out of our way [to address]. They [China] have ships that are loaded up with stuff much of which, not all of it, but much of which we don’t need.
So kids, you don’t need thirty dolls (as if you had them). I’m telling you to make do with two. And parents, you’ll pay more for those dolls. But so what? When you think about it, who needs dolls anyway?
That’s one winning Christmas message right there. And it’s a far cry from the bombastic rhetoric of the campaign, when the hellscape that was America would be miraculously transformed on day one.
Reality is undermining Trump’s perceived strength in Washington
Last Saturday, Chris took note of how Thom Tillis withdrew his support for Ed Martin, Trump’s nominee for the important U.S. Attorney position in the District of Columbia. Tillis quietly announced his opposition to Martin, whom Chris accurately describes as particularly odious, stating he would vote against Martin in committee, thereby preventing his nomination from coming to the floor.
Instead of fighting, Trump withdrew Martin’s nomination. He conceded defeat.
And who is Thom Tillis? He is a Republican Senator from the politically divided state of North Carolina who is up for re-election next year. Thom Tillis is perhaps the most vulnerable Senate Republican incumbent. It’s instructive that he was the one to oppose Trump on a consequential nomination. It appears he didn’t want to have to defend a vote in support of Martin during the upcoming campaign.
But this is not the first controversial Trump nominee that Tillis had been asked to approve. Where were his objections to Pete Hegseth? RFK, Jr.? Tulsi Gabbard? Kash Patel?
Here’s what Tillis posted on Facebook or through his office about those nominees:
I am proud to have voted for Tulsi Gabbard to be our next Director of National Intelligence.
What changed in the weeks since Tillis was enthusiastically on board with these unqualified nominees? Donald Trump’s public standing.
Suddenly, it’s a risky proposition to offer enthusiastic support for whatever Trump does. Looking ahead to next year, it’s not hard to imagine some of the above quotes surfacing in ads for Tillis’ Democratic opponent.
In the real world, politicians are reluctant to embrace unpopular party leaders. Tillis appears to be operating in that world, where plummeting public support makes a president vulnerable to opposition and emboldens members of their party to resist rather than blindly comply with their wishes.
While this may be only one small fissure in the fortress of support congressional Republicans have constructed around Trump, it’s a new and important development.
Reality is jeopardizing Trump’s legislative program
In MAGA world, government programs are filled with waste and fraud, and tax cuts are the answer to all problems. Their objective is to slash government spending and taxes dramatically. This is the blueprint behind the Republican budget that’s being negotiated in Congress right now. Specifically, the plan anticipates $880 billion in Medicaid cuts to pay for the Trump tax cuts.
None of this works in the real world, where there are political costs to doing something this unpopular to a program so many people need. Republicans are finding that out. It’s why they’re struggling with the details of the bill they’re trying to push through the reconciliation process as their leaders try to find terms that will satisfy the MAGA reactionaries without sacrificing the political careers of Republicans from swing districts.
Here’s what reality tells us: If you want to make dramatic cuts to government and cut taxes on the wealthy, you have to implement deep cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security because that’s where the money is. Cutting Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security is incredibly unpopular. Cutting taxes on the wealthy is also unpopular. Doing things that are incredibly unpopular makes people angry (see the reason for Trump’s sinking poll numbers, above). Making people angry makes them want to vote against you. To avoid that fate, you shouldn’t cut Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security. But—again—in order to make dramatic cuts to government you have to do it. And a portion of your conference wants to do it.
Reality doesn’t give Republicans an easy way around this dilemma. They can try cutting popular programs while pretending they aren’t doing it, but people will see through that as soon as benefits start to dry up.
Of course, the ultimate way to square this circle is to circumvent the electoral process—to take from voters the mechanism they could use to hold Republicans accountable for their actions, allowing Republicans to do what they want. That’s why it’s noteworthy that Republicans are struggling with the budget process. They are acting as if they expect what they do to be brought before the voters in fair elections next year.
In other words, reality is holding. Republicans would not be scaling back their plans and desperately looking for ways to bridge their differences if they thought voters wouldn’t have their say in the end.
Back in December, I speculated that Trump would struggle to impose his fake reality on a resistant public:
Of course Trump will fabricate. He will lie. He’s not capable of doing otherwise. The question is how much success he will have. Trump can’t be stopped from doing a lot of harm by abusing the executive powers he will inherit, but there are many junctures where reality could seek to impose its limits, and the more hard reality pushes back the better our chances for pushing back as well.
We now have evidence that this is happening. Reality is pushing back. In fact, in the quest to make the Trump administration an aberration, reality is proving to be one of our most important assets.
Matt: The full (unedited and unaired) version of the Meet the Press interview with Trump should be required viewing for everyone. It's as if he is in some sort of fugue state, rather than being the nation's chief executive. And we thought George III was insane...
Republicans meet up with reality! Even if T and China are reducing tariffs to avoid empty retail shelves, there is still the matter of his reconciling reducing benefit programs to fund billionaire tax cuts. That will bring out more than the 3.5% resistance said to be the threshold for bringing a dictator down.