Trump isn't unusual because he's factional, he's unusual because he's so far outside the political process and the political norms. Factionalism, as you call it, has been with us quite a lot longer than the United States. And more accurately racial politics was planted in the system so long ago that it's been virtually impossible to pull it out. It's so common it's normal, sadly. Aside from the "factional" issues Robertson isn't a good parallel to Trump, but rather to Sharpton: He's the son of a Senator. He's a quasi-religious figure. He's long been politically active without holding political office. Pat Buchanan worked as a opposition researcher for Nixon. He served as a part of the Nixon and later Reagan administrations. It doesn't get much more insider than that, even if he never held elected office. Ron Paul was a long serving US Representative from Texas. It's a bit rare for Representatives to run for the presidency, but hardly unheard of, if they have a national presence. (And to be fair, he ran as a Libertarian first, and a Republican later.)
I will agree with you that the factionalism and hate Trump is preaching are far from unprecedented. But never in our lifetimes has someone so far outside the political mainstream gotten so close to the presidency. Buchanan couched his awful in code because he believed that's what you needed to do to get elected. Trump isn't bothering. He's not bothering because he's realized that he has a large media following independent of party, and because he has been able to use populist political ideas in a way a conventional Republican could not. (Seeing as the big donors don't like populist economics much.) He's used the language of class warfare in a way none of the folks you mentioned dared. That's what's nearly unprecedented. (And it probably has almost as much to do with his success as the ethnic and religious scare tactics.)
In the end, I don't think we really disagree, save that I find Trump a bit more scary than the other folks you mention. (Slightly. Buchanan and Robertson are both pretty nuts.) Trump is less predictable and would probably see himself as less beholden to the party machine. (To which he largely ran in opposition.) I don't actually think he would be terribly likely to intentionally trigger Armageddon. I don't think he'd single handedly destroy the economy any more than other presidents already have. But I do think he'd be a disaster for policy both foreign and domestic; damaging alliances, screwing up the tax code, imperilling social security, And I do think he's just unhinged enough to try something virtually as foolhardy as Andrew Jackson. (But with less tactical or political acumen.)
All that said, I'm not sure this sort of argument is really the point to this thread. You're welcome to disagree with me if you wish, of course, but If you want to continue the discussion might I suggest we do so by PM? (Or perhaps a private e-mail server.)
I will agree with you that the factionalism and hate Trump is preaching are far from unprecedented. But never in our lifetimes has someone so far outside the political mainstream gotten so close to the presidency. Buchanan couched his awful in code because he believed that's what you needed to do to get elected. Trump isn't bothering. He's not bothering because he's realized that he has a large media following independent of party, and because he has been able to use populist political ideas in a way a conventional Republican could not. (Seeing as the big donors don't like populist economics much.) He's used the language of class warfare in a way none of the folks you mentioned dared. That's what's nearly unprecedented. (And it probably has almost as much to do with his success as the ethnic and religious scare tactics.)
In the end, I don't think we really disagree, save that I find Trump a bit more scary than the other folks you mention. (Slightly. Buchanan and Robertson are both pretty nuts.) Trump is less predictable and would probably see himself as less beholden to the party machine. (To which he largely ran in opposition.) I don't actually think he would be terribly likely to intentionally trigger Armageddon. I don't think he'd single handedly destroy the economy any more than other presidents already have. But I do think he'd be a disaster for policy both foreign and domestic; damaging alliances, screwing up the tax code, imperilling social security, And I do think he's just unhinged enough to try something virtually as foolhardy as Andrew Jackson. (But with less tactical or political acumen.)
All that said, I'm not sure this sort of argument is really the point to this thread. You're welcome to disagree with me if you wish, of course, but If you want to continue the discussion might I suggest we do so by PM? (Or perhaps a private e-mail server.)
