On Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, DC, then-US president Donald Trump, the loser of the 2020 election, famously addressed a gathering of followers who then joined the mob that attacked the US Capitol. While rambling and incoherent, Trump’s speech nonetheless made a few things clear: Leftists had conspired to steal the election by fraud, and the mobs summoned to Washington on his behalf would need to “stand strong.” The implication was that violence might be necessary, because “you’ll never take back your country with weakness.”
Trump then made then-US vice president Mike Pence the target of collective scorn for refusing to send the Electoral College process back to the states. If “weak Republicans” would not step up and participate in overturning the results, Trump vowed, “we will … never ever forget.” For the next four to five hours, in the most recorded event in US history, the world watched as a new Lost Cause was born in violence and spectacular lies.
There have been numerous Lost Causes in modern history, usually following defeats in war, where the vanquished glorify their loss as a source of pride and shared animosity toward the victors. Three big Lost Causes have plagued world and US history. Following their bloody defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, the French exhibited an intergenerational cultural need to avenge the loss.
Following Germany’s defeat in World War I, the Nazis gained traction by blaming Jews and leftists, who were depicted as “poisons” in the blood of the body politic. Another example is the US South after the American Civil War, when the narrative of the Confederate Lost Cause yielded a potent brew of twisted history and white supremacist ideology.
Lost Cause narratives sometimes have been powerful enough to build or destroy political regimes, shape national and ethnic identities, and fill landscapes with monuments. They work primarily as powerful new founding myths, always advancing a politics of grievance that turns into retribution, and sometimes victory.
Immediately after the military surrender in 1865, forms of the Confederate Lost Cause took root in a Southern society marked by physical destruction, the psychological trauma of defeat, resistance to the victors’ policy of Reconstruction, racial violence and — with time — carefully constructed sentimentalism.
Specifically, the Confederate Lost Cause claimed that Southern soldiers had shown unfailing valor, and that the South had not really lost, but merely succumbed to superior numbers and resources. Southern white women allegedly supported the cause to the bitter end and helped preserve the “truthful” memory; the Confederacy’s enslaved black population supposedly remained loyal to their owners; and, finally, the Confederates had never really fought for slavery, but rather for “home,” national sovereignty and states’ rights.
To be sustained as public propaganda, Lost Causes need a pure narrative with clearly identified villains and heroes. Sometimes, they are havens of sick souls; other times, they are the means to power for a disciplined political movement. Trump’s Lost Cause, now newly virulent as he campaigns for a second term despite multiple indictments, draws on a menu of grievances among the disaffected, energizing those who believe that a “diversity”-obsessed multicultural US has veered out of control, especially in relation to immigration at the Mexican border.
Some are also staunch believers in conspiracy theories about “fraud” allegedly committed in the 2020 election, as well as other dark notions of leftist machinations in US universities, on school boards, and in the US Democratic Party. Unlike the Confederate Lost Cause, the Trump version is a kind of gangster cult, full of loyalty rituals to a single man and his plans to fashion an authoritarian US government that would use executive power to achieve his followers’ preferences.
Trump’s Lost Cause also has its martyrs, including the hundreds of convicted insurrectionists — known in the movement, and by US Republican Party politicians such as Elise Stefanik, as “hostages” — now in prison. Above all, it peddles a model of politics and society according to which facts and evidence are irrelevant. At Trump rallies, constitutionalism is for losers, history is little more than a useful weapon and US civics is mere entertainment, deployed for attendees eager to indulge their hatred of liberalism, representative democracy and — in many cases — of non-white US. The Trump Lost Cause is thus a platform, one that the US Republican Party has adopted to convert these stories, lies and entertainments into votes. Win or lose, it would not die.
Many writers are trying to help us navigate these fraught times. In Tim O’Brien’s new novel, America Fantastica, a ragtag collection of misfits and down-and-outs embark on a series of lawless escapades, including bank robberies and various other forms of larceny. The reader gets a glimpse of a society where lying is utterly ubiquitous, and where a “mythomania” has swept the country, led by a “monster” of a US president.
At least in the Confederate Lost Cause, white Southerners truly had to endure colossal mourning: Nearly 300,000 people lay in graves across their landscape, and much of their society lay in ruins. Trumpian mourning seems rooted in social-media-driven nostalgia for an ideal past that almost no one experienced. The movement’s supporters long for a vanished racial order, for a world of secure social identities preserved from unknown but hated elites and for communities that have not been drained of cohesion by the internet, the pandemic and economic displacement. They need their story to be great again.
Lost Causes can turn lies into common coin and forge deep and lasting myths. We are a long way from knowing how much staying power the Trumpian Lost Cause would have, regardless of whether he survives his criminal charges and the election campaign. What we do know is that we have already witnessed its formative years.
David W. Blight is the Sterling Professor of history at Yale University and author of the Pulitzer prize-winning Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS