Trump Is Not a Revolutionary: Understanding Political Transformation in America

Introduction

The return of Donald Trump to the White House has sparked intense debate about whether his administration represents a genuine revolution in American politics or something else entirely.

While dramatic policy shifts and institutional challenges have led many to describe Trump’s approach as revolutionary, a closer examination reveals essential distinctions about the nature of political transformation.

Not all political upheavals follow the same pattern, and these differences matter in understanding Trump’s agenda and its potential consequences.

Defining Political Revolutions: Form and Substance

To understand whether Trump represents a revolutionary force, we must first consider what constitutes a genuine revolution.

Classical revolutions typically involve the complete overthrow of existing systems, often through popular mobilization, followed by the establishment of fundamentally new political orders.

Political scientist Branko Milanovic notes that Trump’s approach in his second term differs significantly from his first, with a “deluge of decrees and decisions that have changed affairs internationally and domestically.”

The administration’s actions, including dramatic withdrawals from international regimes and challenges to established institutions, have led many observers to use revolutionary language when describing Trump’s governance style.

However, Foreign Policy argues for a more nuanced understanding: “It is more accurate to think of Trump not as a revolutionary leader advancing a radically new and potentially contagious model for the world, but as a reactionary leader seeking to turn the clock back.”

This distinction between revolutionary and reactionary leadership is crucial, as it helps contextualize Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda as fundamentally backward-looking rather than innovative.

Types of Political Transformation

Political upheavals can be categorized in different ways, each with distinct characteristics and consequences:

Mass revolutions “from below” tend to arise from popular mobilization against elites, led by longtime dissidents like Mao Zedong or Vladimir Lenin.

These typically lead to profound societal transformations and often result in conflicts with other nations that fear the spread of revolutionary ideals.

By contrast, “revolutions from above” involve disenchanted members of the elite, frequently the military, replacing key elements of the old order.

Trump’s movement bears more resemblance to this model, making it “more like the Turkish revolution led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk or the Meiji Restoration in Japan.”

Trump’s Approach: Revolutionary or Reactionary?

The Case Against “Revolutionary” Trump

Several factors undermine the characterization of Trump as a revolutionary leader in the classical sense:

First, Trump is not advancing novel political theories or systems. Instead, he’s “following the playbook for democratic backsliding and self-dealing perfected by leaders like Orban or Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan.” We also see a light of governance style from Saudi’s and Putin's Russia.

His methods have precedents in other contexts, even if their application in America seems unprecedented.

Second, the content of Trump’s agenda consists mainly of reversals rather than innovations. Instead of creating new structures, he seeks to dismantle the liberal international order built over decades.

Where true revolutionaries typically look forward to new societal models, Trump’s vision explicitly looks backward to restore an idealized past.

Third, unlike classical revolutions, Trump’s movement lacks a coherent, forward-looking ideology.

As one analysis notes, there’s a tendency toward “ideological opportunism” where Trump “frequently changed positions, for example, from supporting the Democrats to standing as Republican presidential candidate.”

Finally, true revolutions typically involve sustained popular mobilization, whereas Trump’s transformation relies primarily on institutional control and elite support.

His approach represents what some scholars call a “revolution from above” rather than a mass movement from below.

The Case for “Revolutionary” Trump

Despite these counterarguments, several aspects of Trump’s approach do exhibit revolutionary characteristics

Trump’s administration has dismantled “parts of the American State” and “dramatically withdrawn from international regimes and global development assistance commitments.”

The scope and speed of these changes have been remarkable, with Trump boasting, “In 17 days, we’ve accomplished what some people haven’t accomplished in eight years”.

Amir believes that the developments in the US represent more than merely a change in leadership; they signify a significant transformation aimed at fundamentally redefining the fabric of post-war America.

This characterization acknowledges the depth of Trump’s challenge to post-1945 liberal norms and institutions.

Trump has also been revolutionary in foreign policy, initiating “the normalization of Arab-Israeli relations” through the Abraham Accords and decisively breaking “from the US’s longstanding policy of engagement with China.”

These represent significant departures from decades of American diplomatic practice.

The Significance of Distinctions: Why It Matters

The debate over whether Trump is revolutionary isn’t merely semantic—it has important implications for understanding his potential impact and limitations.

If Trump’s movement is correctly understood as reactionary rather than revolutionary, this suggests it lacks the forward momentum and ideological coherence that sustains true revolutions.

One critical assessment argues, “Trump’s revolution will fail because rapid, comprehensive, and fundamental change is too complex, with too many imponderables and unknowns to succeed.”

Moreover, understanding Trump as following existing authoritarian playbooks rather than creating novel approaches helps place his presidency in a global context.

His methods resemble those of illiberal leaders elsewhere, making his presidency part of a broader pattern rather than a uniquely American phenomenon.

Perhaps most importantly, recognizing the reactionary nature of Trump’s agenda clarifies that his primary goal is to reverse progressive changes rather than to build new institutions.

Trump aims to restore a conception of American greatness rooted in the past, not to create new forms of governance for the future.

The Global Context: Contagion or Containment?

A key feature of true revolutions is their tendency to inspire similar movements elsewhere. Yet Trump’s approach shows limited evidence of such contagion.

While Trump has “made common cause with autocrats or illiberal democrats” worldwide, these movements “predate Trumpism and was not inspired by him.”

Trump’s election has sometimes strengthened mainstream parties in countries like Canada, Germany, and Great Britain rather than empowering similar movements.

The nature of Trump’s political transformation also affects how other nations respond. Classical revolutions often provoke interventions by threatened foreign powers, but a revolution from above, like Trump’s, is less likely to generate such responses.

This helps explain why other nations have primarily responded with caution and adaptation rather than direct opposition.

Conclusion

Understanding the Trump Phenomenon

The debate over Trump’s revolutionary status illustrates that not all political upheaval follows the same pattern or carries the same significance.

While Trump’s presidency represents a profound challenge to post-war American politics and international relations, it lacks key characteristics of classical revolutions.

Rather than creating new institutions or advancing novel ideologies, Trump primarily seeks to dismantle existing structures and return to earlier practices.

His approach resembles what scholars call a “revolution from above”—an elite-driven change that, while significant, differs from mass revolutions in both processes and potential impact.

This distinction matters because it helps us understand Trump’s methods and their likely consequences.

As one analysis notes, “On the eve of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it would be tragic indeed if what we end up celebrating next year is not the revolutionary principles contained in that document, but rather their demise”.

The true significance of Trump’s political transformation may lie not in what it creates but in what it seeks to undo.