An article appeared in The Guardian on Thursday: A critique of pure stupidity: understanding Trump 2.0. The piece by William Davies attempts to explain the madness gripping The White House as Trump's second term gets underway. It’s a shortened version of his piece from N+1, an online platform, that you can read HERE, and it's well worth a read. Davies references a book published in 1951 by the German-born author Hannah Arendt: The Origins of Totalitarianism. I bought the book earlier this year, although I confess I haven’t read it, mainly because the academic style makes it (for me) very hard to read. I have to go over each sentence several times to get what she's driving at, and some are very long indeed with multiple sub-clauses. A page-turner it is not. Nevertheless, it's seen as one of the definitive texts on totalitarianism, in whatever shape it comes, after all, she had Hitler and Stalin as recent archetypes.
I ought to say that what’s happening in the USA is not (yet) Totalitarianism, but it’s getting there. What Trump and Co are engaged in is Authoritarianism, a slightly softer version, lacking any sense of an overriding ideology. Authoritarians are in power simply to exercise control, and nothing more. They have no deep political motive or convictions, beyond staying where they are, and making money of course.
The Guardian's article is the first I've seen in the mainstream media to unequivocally use the word ‘stupid’ to describe Trump and his administration. This is a quote:
"Such speculations [that it's all been planned] are often met with a retort that leans even harder into the stupidity allegation. No, Trump and his people are not playing four-dimensional chess, the response goes – we are simply witnessing the consequences of allowing a deranged man into the highest office, backed by a coterie of dim and unqualified cronies."
What we are seeing now isn't the result of some grand master plan. Project 2025, with its 900+ pages, may have appeared a serious work, but it wasn't. You can't 'dismantle the administrative state', which is the project's aim, without dismantling the state. And when that's gone, what are you left with?
But while the administration is stupid without doubt, what about the people who voted for him? Arendt argues that Germans weren't duped in the late 1930s and early 1940s. They well knew about the concentration camps and still supported Hitler. They were, like present-day Americans, extremely gullible. It's no surprise to me that these vast, global, multi-trillion-dollar 'unicorn' companies are often American; consumers there are mainly willing dupes with more money than sense.
And while we may not yet see totalitarianism in Washington, we are certainly well on the way and close enough to make much of Hannah Arendt's 1951 book ring true. In particular, what happens when totalitarianism collides with reality. She says that gaining power is not necessarily a good thing for totalitarians.
"Practically speaking, the paradox of totalitarianism in power is that possession of all instruments of government power and violence in one country is not an unmixed blessing for a totalitarian movement.
"Its disregard for facts, its strict adherence to the rules of a fictitious world, becomes steadily more difficult to maintain, yet remains as essential as it was before. (my emphasis)
"Power means a direct confrontation with reality, and totalitarianism in power is constantly concerned with overcoming this challenge. Propaganda and organisation no longer suffice to assert that the impossible is possible, that the incredible is true, that insane consistency rules the world; the chief psychological support of totalitarian fiction - the active resentment of the status quo, which the masses refuse to accept as the only possible world - is no longer there; every bit of factual information that leaks through the iron curtain, set up against the ever threatening flood of reality from the other, non-totalitarian side, is a greater menace to totalitarian domination than counterpropaganda has been to totalitarian movements."
You can relatively easily create and maintain this fictional world, where all our problems are over and all is sweetness and light, until the moment you arrive in office and have the means of delivery. Then it all starts to fall apart. Farage will find out if he ever gets into Downing Street.
Arendt didn’t foresee (and Davies doesn’t mention) the rise of the internet and social media, which must be one of the main tools available to any autocrat who is attempting to maintain a fictitious reality, and it may be able to delay the moment when your gullible supporters realise they have been conned. But reality will never be denied permanently.
She said that “the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction … no longer exists.” You can tune into any right-wing news outlet in today's America to see just how the difference between fact and fiction has been all but erased for both hosts and viewers.
Arendt also notes that totalitarian regimes don’t become less violent once they’ve imprisoned or tamed their political opponents. Hitler and Stalin had eradicated all serious political opposition within the first year or two. But, having created the infrastructure and tools needed for state repression, and as reality constantly threatens to break through the lies, they needed to use every means at their disposal. More and more enemies of the state (Stalin's 'wreckers for example) needed to be uncovered to explain the failures and feed the monster they’ve created, and that is exactly what they do.
Maintaining power once gained requires an awful lot more effort, particularly when the policies you intend to follow are wildly unpopular.
Portland
If you don't think the US is on the road to totalitarianism, have a listen to Trump's press secretary Karoline Leavitt talking about Portland, Oregon:
Leavitt: "President Trump will end the radical left's reign of terror in Portland once and for all. The president has directed Secretary Hegseth to provide all necessary troops to protect war-ravaged Portland."— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 3 October 2025 at 18:18
Finally, this exchange between Mike Johnson, Republican speaker of the House of Representatives (and third in line to the WH), and Senator Madeleine Dean is fascinating if only because Johnson doesn’t deny the president is unhinged!
MADELEINE DEAN: The president is unhinged. He's unwell JOHNSON: A lot of folks on your side are too D: Oh my god, please. That performance in front of the generals? J: I didn't see it D: It's so dangerous! Our allies are looking elsewhere. Our enemies are laughing. You have a POTUS who's unwell.— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2 October 2025 at 01:40
Instead, he resorts to the old 'whataboutery' and suggests people on the Democrat benches are also unhinged. When your own team can't defend you against charges that you're unhinged, you know you're in trouble.
