To the Editor:

I

n reading John Podhoretz’s explanation of Donald Trump’s popularity, it occurred to me that those who write for a living believe themselves to have some superior knowledge of a society’s beliefs while managing to be so wrong in so many ways [“A New Theory of Trump,” April]. The reason for Trump’s rise is simple. Voters gave the Republicans congressional majorities in 2010 and 2014, and those Republicans wasted it. They ignored those who put them in power and acted collectively as little more than an extension of the Democratic Party. I understand that Barack Obama is likely to veto Republican-backed legislation and I understand that there is not a sufficient majority in the Senate to override his vetoes. But when the Republicans do decide to fight, they sometimes get concessions. It appears, however, that they haven’t even tried to fight, and instead have bent to every one of Obama’s whims. This is the real reason for the rise of Trump.

John Warner
St. Petersburg, Florida

To the Editor:

J

ohn Podhoretz’s new theory of Trump seems to be that there is no theory of Trump. That it is all chaos, driven by excessively emotional reactions to trends, events, and frustrations that have been going on only since the financial meltdown of 2008. I believe that theory is only half correct but entirely misleading. It misses (and likely intentionally so, given that Mr. Podhoretz is the editor of Commentary, after all) the effects of foreign misadventures that occurred many years earlier. These foreign misadventures were committed by a George W. Bush administration that ignored both domestic issues such as the economy, financial markets, and immigration, and national defense threats such as Russia, China, and especially Iran, when it enmeshed itself in the futile overseas wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those Bush 43 misadventures, not coincidentally, drove a huge wedge through not only the general American electorate but also through the Republican Party. Republicans’ feelings of powerlessness, rage, and frustration are not merely the result of a poor economy. They are upset about a poor economy that came as a result of Bush’s neoconservative yearnings to remake the Middle East into a neo-American enclave. There is no denying the power of the emotional reaction to the neoconservatives’ wasting the resurgence of the Republican Party, after two terms of Bill Clinton, and turning it into a massive, embarrassing fiasco. Bush himself eventually (in late 2006) recognized the hole he was in, stopped digging, fired his neoconservative advisers, and neutered his vice president (by allowing a political prosecution of Cheney’s chief of staff to result in a conviction and prison sentence). That repudiation of neoconservative policy in turn earned Bush the enmity of many in the neoconservative community. They went on to detest the candidacy of George’s younger brother, Jeb, who dared to suggest that his older brother did the right thing at least in his second term, if not his first.

Trump’s rise really begins with Bush’s bad error of judgment in making his vice-presidential search committee chair his pick for vice president in 2000. Cheney soon filled the Bush administration with neoconservatives eager to wage war in the Middle East after the attacks of 9/11. The errors continued and were vastly amplified by the Bush administration’s ill-thought-out attempt to nation-build its way into a new Pax Americana. All of it, including the trillions of taxpayer dollars wasted, more than 7,000 American war dead, and hundreds of thousands of maimed-for-life wounded warriors produced nothing but chaos, death, and a resurgence of both Russia and Iran in the Middle East. These problems begat Bush’s neglect of the economy and financial system, which begat the 2008 meltdown, which begat Barack Obama’s election, which begat the rise of Donald Trump.

That is the more accurate and complete theory of Trump, one that does not attempt to whitewash a Republican president who chose bad advisors and virtually destroyed the GOP’s reputation for thoughtful, principle-based leadership in both domestic and foreign affairs. The Bush presidency produced obvious social chaos, and people are now reacting with emotions instead of intelligence. If Donald Trump hadn’t already existed, somebody would have invented him. Loki, the God of Chaos (as Mr. Podhoretz has elsewhere described Trump) would have arisen in any event.

Duane Truitt
Naples, Florida

To the Editor:

I

s John Podhoretz’s theory of Trump really so new? Yes, Trump supporters want to punish the people with whom they disagree. But angrily reacting against the perceived sins of the other side has defined American political polarization for decades now.

I suggest a different hypothesis. Trump speaks for conservative voters who are not excited by conservatism as it stands. They especially have a problem with free-market capitalism, the blind trust placed in a highly educated meritocracy, and activist foreign policy. Trump supporters are people who believe that restricting immigration and free trade, downgrading the influence of technology and financial elites, and limiting foreign military engagements will make America a richer and better place.

Trump’s support base includes those hurting economically but also plenty of upscale folks, especially small-business owners and retired executives. Based on my anecdotal evidence, the affluent Trump supporter is white, often ethnic but not Jewish, and typically not an intellectual (no academic or professional graduate degree other than an MBA), and he has minimal foreign-policy knowledge—hence, their willingness to believe that Vladimir Putin is a benign or even positive force in the world.

Conservatives who are Jews, intellectuals, professionals, and business elites rarely support Trump not because they are affluent but because they think Trump’s policies would hurt their interests. Historically, many Jews owe their lives to relatively open American immigration polices. They are not turned on by immigration restriction and support an aggressive U.S. foreign policy to protect Israel. Professionals and active business executives are quite naturally wary of the economic ramifications of trade wars, immigration restrictions, and demonization of the financial system.

Trump voters are voting based on their understanding of economics and foreign policy. Their beliefs happen to run counter to the understanding of most of the intellectual conservatives who dominate the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Peter Blau
Weston, Connecticut

To the Editor:

I

n reading “A New Theory of Trump,” I realized that elites still don’t get it. The American people and the Tea Party turned to the Republican Party to represent them. But instead, it gave them a futile presidential candidate who couldn’t win a winnable election. They gave elites the House and Senate, but the elites just cowered in fear of Obama and the media. The Republican elites turned their backs on the American people, and you wonder why they turned to Trump?

Jeffrey Schmidt
Clarkston, Michigan

To the Editor:

J

ohn Podhoretz has written an interesting article. What’s more interesting, however, is that he criticizes Trump for his lying and then tells a lie himself. Mr. Podhoretz comments on “the continuing high rate of abortions,” but abortion rates in America have been dropping since the mid-’80s.

Michael Kelley
Burlington, Vermont

To the Editor:

M

ost commentators on Donald Trump, John Podhoretz included, fail to consider the canvas (the current state of American governance) on which the Trump phenomenon is displayed. The founding governing principles of the American Republic may have indeed been exceptional, but what we have now is not. The characteristics of virtually all aspects of our modern politics, law, and finance have little in common with our political past. They do, however, have a great deal common with the history of other nations.

Considering Trump through the lens of our own two-party political process of yesteryear excludes too many inputs to be of much use.

One would hope that a writer, possessing a modicum of curiosity, might explore the universal and vehement opposition to Trump by every player who has a vested interest in the status quo; but one is likely to be disappointed. In the meantime, there is always the low-hanging fruit of personality, political calculation, electoral machinations, and amateur psychology, as evidenced by this latest theory.

Brad Lena
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

To the Editor:

I

would point out to John Podhoretz that Donald Trump’s supposed hostility and rage are largely the characterizations of the media. People who have dealt with him personally do not report these traits. If the Republicans were smart, they would support the candidate who wins the primaries. There are millions of people in this country who have become totally disgusted with the mismanagement of American affairs for the past 20 years (not eight). They will come out of the cold, outnumber Hispanic voters, and produce a win for the Republicans. That is, if the Republican establishment is willing to allow it.

Stanley Bernstein
South Kingstown, Rhode Island

To the Editor:

I

think John Podhoretz has missed the main reason for the broad appeal of Donald Trump. It comes first from the seething anger at Barack Obama and the Clintons, who all seem to be above the law. There is an ongoing criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, and Obama has already declared that national security was not harmed by her actions. We have had eight years of a fawning press that has given Obama a pass on every one of his scandals and misadventures. Similarly, we will never know what happened in Benghazi or, for that matter, how our naval patrol surrendered to the Iranians without a fight. Will we never know what secret deals were made with the Iranians. The list of what we don’t know goes on and on.

Obama wants to maintain his legacy by releasing the prisoners of Gitmo even as he knows that some are back on the battlefield killing Americans. Can anyone imagine how demoralizing this must be to soldiers who risked their lives to capture these people? Why do the media ignore all of Obama’s misdeeds? They are completely infatuated with him, so they never ask tough follow-up questions that would put his decisions in doubt. So when Trump launches his attack on the press, his followers completely identify with him. Just as Obama’s supporters have placed him on a pedestal free from criticism, Trump’s supporters are willing to ignore his excesses because of his fearless attacks on Obama’s fiascoes.

Stephen Klein
Raanana, Israel

To the Editor:

I

see Donald Trump’s popularity differently than John Podhoretz does. Trump has been better than any other candidate at accurately and clearly identifying the major problems we are facing: unmanaged immigration, a half-hearted response to terrorism, and a stagnant economy. Moreover, he says—with his alpha-male delivery—that he will fix these problems. There’s no waffling and no distractions. He has committed to addressing the issues that most Americans are worried about.

Regarding his electability, the current polls are meaningless. Hillary Clinton is a lousy candidate with a checkered (if not criminal) past, who has never been in a hard-nosed election campaign. With someone willing and able to aggressively and cleverly attack her day after day, as Trump will do, her image and electability will crater.

James Martin
Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania

To the Editor:

W

hile John Podhoretz’s theory on the rise of Donald Trump has some merit, I believe he’s wrong in supposing that Trump voters generally want a “punisher.” Sure, some of them probably do. But Trump voters are not solely concerned with an economy that has left them behind. Part of their concern is a culture that has left them behind.

Conservatives have been losing the culture wars pretty decisively for the last couple of decades, and I think Trump is winning among conservative voters because they believe they finally have a candidate who will fight back against liberal values (like, say, the legalization of same-sex marriage). Traditionalists have not merely lost the battle; Republican leaders have not, or cannot, fight against the larger liberal movement. Did anyone come to the defense of Jan Brewer in Arizona? Did any Republicans come to the defense of Mike Pence in Indiana? An Oregon baker named Melissa Klein has had her livelihood destroyed and her life savings stolen by the work of gay-rights activists. Did a single Republican leader or office holder protest this? Did any of them travel to Oregon to meet her? Did they voice solidarity with Christians? The answer is no to all of these questions. Or if anyone did any of these things, they were very low-key and I didn’t hear about it. Trump, at least, has promised to fight for conservatives.

Andrea Walden
Colorado Springs, Colorado

To the Editor:

W

ith all due respect, I think John Podhoretz’s theory is missing the larger point. Americans are engaged in a fight. We can keep some form of capitalism in place, no matter how reduced, or embrace outright socialism. Is Donald Trump perfect? Not even close. He is at the very least, however, pro-business, pro–economic competitiveness, pro-defense, and pro–Second Amendment.

This election is a showdown. I don’t want people punished. I want someone who can stand up to the people who want others punished. I loved Mitt Romney, but he plays fair, and unfortunately we’re not playing against people who play fair. I don’t agree with everything Trump says. He is my compromise. I understand he’s not a pure conservative, but he certainly is conservative compared with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Trump is able to fight back and to establish the media narrative. Democrats want to force people who didn’t go to college, who worked 80-hour weeks, and who have managed to make a good life to pay for trigger-warning-studies degrees forever. Trump understands hard work.

Like Rick Santelli, who called for a new Tea Party, the responsible, hardworking people who have played by the rules are tired of being taxed to death for frivolous matters, talked down to, and called ignorant by folks who have never had a callous on their hands.

One final note, Trump would not be in the race had he not backed his own campaign. Imagine if Marco Rubio had said the things Trump has said. All of his donors would have been gone within hours. I respect the fact Trump doesn’t ask me for money. He’s putting his money where his mouth is. For all the talk about what is and isn’t American, that’s American.

Phillip Martin
Minneola, Kansas

To the Editor:

I

n his editor’s letter, John Podhoretz offers some interesting ideas. Perhaps he is generally right. But, in his conclusion, he comes up just a little short. Trump’s ascendency will not just punish his voters or the Republican Party. By installing Hillary Clinton in the White House, he will punish all of America and the entire world. She will wreak greater havoc on America and the world than even Obama has. America may not survive her tenure intact. And the worst actors in the world will have carte blanche. And, contrary to Trump’s being Loki, (as Mr. Podhoretz described him in a Commentary blog post), Barack Obama has played that role to the hilt. Hillary Clinton will finish the performance in bravura style.

Kent Lyon
Ormond Beach, Florida

To the Editor:

J

ohn Podhoretz wrote a thoughtful article, but it still misses a larger point. He fails to ask: Where did the 2008 collapse come from, and why are its effects are so persistent? Economic declinists are more right than Mr. Podhoretz gives them credit for. The simple fact is that you cannot run a market economy without markets. If you try to replace economically participatory income with mostly fraudulent debt, your economy might briefly boom, but it stops and fails to recover when it becomes saturated with said debt. This is where we are.

Barack Obama, aided by the Fed, largely continued with business as usual and tried to restart the debt carousel, but it’s impossible. A broad cross section of the population, including the economically literate part, feels this instinctively. People look at the establishment and say, If we continue to support them, we are continuing to support a dead end.

Then there is the propaganda to which, unfortunately, your magazine has contributed. Such propaganda involved portraying the left as a mortal threat to the Republic. Pundits make wild accusations of creeping socialism against a fellow who is really just a corporatist trying to preserve the status quo. You, at Commentary, are not the worst offenders, but you are unfortunately a part of the spectrum.

So if you want to explain Donald Trump, try looking into the mirror first. Repent and recant. Progress begins with the so-called right-wing press.

Mirek Fatyga
Cave Creek, Arizona

To the Editor:

‘A

New Theory of Trump” explains Donald Trump’s popularity in terms of a Weimar-like moment and a candidate reminiscent of George Wallace. I would add a third element to the mix: a crisis of political displacement.

Democrats have spent decades purging their party, first of conservative and then moderate voices. That effort has yielded one radical progressive and one self-avowed socialist as the current Democratic presidential choices. Droves of political and economic refugees are fleeing the party. Unlike actual refugees, however, they are allowed to vote immediately in their new home and skew its political landscape. They are flocking to the only moderate Democrat in the Republican field, Donald Trump.

Thus, the dilemma for Republicans is assimilation. The new arrivals may not be converts to the principles of smaller government and greater freedom. They may retain their cultural proclivities toward an expanding, authoritarian government and thus drive long-suffering conservatives away from the GOP. This is not a civil war within the GOP; it’s a center-left tsunami of displaced Democrats.

Paul Johnson
Houston, Texas

To the Editor:

T

wo quotes from Abraham Lincoln can explain at least some of Donald Trump’s appeal.First: “You can fool some of the people all of the time.” Second: “I can’t spare this man; he fights.”

I think a lot of Republicans are tired of candidates I call polite losers: Mitt Romney and his toothless campaign; John McCain, who criticized other Republicans for using Barack Obama’s middle name; and Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush, who refused to attack the Clinton scandals.

While I hope Trump is not the Republican candidate, he’s not likely to let Hillary Clinton walk all over him. Unless, that is, he turns his coat again, once he has the nomination safely in hand.

Taras Wolansky
Kerhonkson, New York

W

hile I agree with John Podhoretz’s conclusion that the right is looking for someone to punish, I don’t agree with his the argument that gets him there. He paints the Obama ascendancy and the disintegration of the Republican Party with too broad a brush. Plenty of the Republican contenders want to punish immigrants, gays, Muslims, and nonwhite groups. Why, then, Donald Trump and not Huckabee or Fiorina or Carson? Mr. Podhoretz’s contention that the left is rising by some weird alignment of the political stars while the right is falling as a result is beautifully and succinctly explained, but, like everything Trump says, it mostly begs the question. I believe our television culture and our preference for magical thinking play a huge part in the attraction of Trump’s bully mentality. Just as it is too neat to blame our current economic predicament on the 1 percent, the current success of demagoguery is also not so neatly explained.

Brooks Johnston
Dallas, Texas

To the Editor:

J

ohn Podhoretz’s article “A New Theory of Trump” is well written and thought-provoking. I have a different take on Donald Trump, and on Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. Much is said about voters being “angry,” but there’s not much follow-up analysis. One of the principle ways that people mismanage their anger is by playing the role of victim. Other articles in the April issue of Commentary, such as “Welcome to Herland, 2016,” by Christine Rosen, and “The New Dark Ages on Campus,” by KC Johnson, describe different aspects of people who play the victim game, wherein if you can claim the title of “victim,” you win. People who become mired in feeling victimized tend to view events in their lives as happening to them. They feel ineffective and overwhelmed and angry. Trump, Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders are each pandering to that dysfunctional mindset by setting up straw-man victimizers (“government as we have it now,” in the case of Trump; the “establishment,” in the case of Cruz; white men, in the case of Clinton; and big business and the wealthy, in the case of Sanders), and each is offering to be the champion who will conquer the victimizers for the downtrodden victims. In my view, the voting public of all sectors is a sucker for this nonsense.

Gary Weinberger
Boynton Beach, Florida

To the Editor:

J

ohn Podhoretz’s “A New Theory of Trump” gets things exactly right. I had seen his support base as a mix of declinists and the rural poor, but the idea of Trump as a perceived “punisher” brings it all together. It explains why his vague and shifting policy statements make no difference. Someone has to pay, and therefore only a tough guy will do. Period.

I watched interviews with two Trump supporters from Florida. One was a nurse working with elderly patients, and she complained they could not afford all their co-pays. When asked if she thought Bernie Sanders’s national healthcare plan would be better than what Trump was offering, she simply said that she didn’t really want a socialist president. The man who was interviewed said that Trump would assemble a team of crack negotiators to solve our problems (whatever problems there may be).

Trump supporters clearly do not feel they have to do anything other than enable their strongman. It’s all vague and emotional. The same feelings elected Governors Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and their lack of accomplishments in office have been quickly forgotten.

David Moelling
Simsbury, Connecticut

To the Editor:

I

read “A New Theory of Trump” while watching The Big Short, the recent movie about the 2008 financial crisis. The two works complement each other. Both offer superb insights on the same phenomena, while making matters readily understandable and engaging.

Since the beginning of Trump’s campaign, I have said two things: First, people respond to him because they think he is a success; and, second, he serves as a willing and ugly middle finger to everyone and everything the American people blame for their fear and misery. Trump is part and parcel of both a party and a people in decline. His rise shows that we are without a moral compass and merely filling the moral void with noise.

Deanna Cheney
Santa Fe, New Mexico

To the Editor:

J

ohn Podhoretz’s friend Steve complains that big employers have their employees sign unenforceable non-compete agreements and then threaten legal action if employees try to quit. How did he react when he learned that the Trump campaign makes its unpaid volunteers sign contracts that not only prohibit them from working for another campaign, but also say that they can’t ever disparage Trump or any of his companies or products—or allow any of their employees to do so? That is the most unbelievably egregious “employment” contract there is. Of course, no court would enforce that contract, but Trump has spent decades suing people who’ve said critical things about him. He has perfected using the institutions of the elite, such as high-priced legal teams, to crush the little guy. He does things the exact same way in his campaign.

While Trump’s followers believe he will stand up for the little guy, he has done the exact opposite. He has crushed the little guy, whether through his non-compete agreements, his vitamin pyramid scheme, his “university” fraud, his failed condominium projects, his grotesque harassment of householders near his Scottish golf course, his exploitation of illegal immigrants, or his abuse of eminent domain.

If someone can know these things about Trump and can still support him believing he’ll fight for the little guy, it only shows a willingness to be conned. Give him what he wants (your vote), and he’ll give you everything you want (whatever it is). The details aren’t important. The important thing is that he’s successful and he will use a little of that success to win for you. But we all know how that ends. I suspect, deep down, most of his followers do, too. But, well, someone wins the lottery, right?

Aaron Nagano
New York City

To the Editor:

J

ohn Podhoretz hits the nail on the head. The failure of establishment politicians to solve the problems affecting many Americans has opened the door for both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

The idea of offering simplistic solutions to complex problems appeals to many who just want to see something done. Both Trump and Sanders give voice to the voiceless and resonate with an electorate that has largely felt ignored by establishment politicians.

The country is so polarized and angry that supporters on both the extreme left and right have adopted a scorched-earth policy that would harm the country. It has gotten so bad on the Republican side that it may irreparably harm the two-party system, and the country, for years to come.

Ralph Cicirelli
Naples, Florida

To the Editor:

J

ohn Podhoretz makes nothing but good points in his analysis of Donald Trump. But there is one thing about candidate Trump that we’ve never seen before in a politician: a public persona of happy success and wealth. He has been in the public eye forever and is known for his wealth and success. He is rich and obnoxiously proud of it. And many Americans appreciate that! Mitt Romney seemed ashamed of his wealth. He ran from it. We all aspire to be wealthy and successful, and Trump validates our desire. Some are turned off by success and wealth. They despise it because they believe they will never have it, so they support a Democrat who preys on class resentment.

Yes, Trump says a lot of incredible things. That is, he says things that lack credibility. And civility. But voters have learned to discount the words of politicians. All politicians. They look instead to results. Trump lives at Mar-a-Lago and in a gleaming tower. Democrats preside over the slums of America. Some voters are willing to take a chance hoping that Trump will make the country look more like his world.

Ronald Reich
Park City, Utah