All happy liberal democracies are alike; each unhappy one is unhappy in its own way. Think of the former and you arrive at Nordic countries with universal healthcare and education, high GDPs, progressive policies for women, low GINI, widespread childcare, openness, tolerance, and low levels of corruption. Then think of the opposite: some are brutally corrupt, others merely unstable, many have high levels of inequality, while still others are oppressive of political dissent. And here we are in the late stages of the Trump presidency in America, and it remains a central question how we got here to this unhappy state. Sure, inequality is comparatively high, but corruption is only moderate to light (I know, I know, emoluments and all that, revolving doors, etc. but still, the government is not beholden to drug cartels or warlords, for instance), political dissent is mostly tolerated and condoned by the justice system, and GDP remains stubbornly high even in the face of that inequality.

So what is it, then, that is making us so unhappy? Drawing from history, some suggest a parallel model to fascism latent in Trump’s narcissism and authoritarian urges. And fascism may have roots in strong personalities who blame the problems of the nation on outsiders or others within the country. We certainly see this in dog whistles and border walls and strange antagonisms towards America’s historical allies. But fascism is also a kind of aesthetic, it is argued, that builds on a collective artistic urge by the masses to express themselves. The great leader then exploits these grievance expressions to obtain control.

But Trump’s aesthetic appeal hardly seems to rise to the level of the grand solidity of the Oympiastadion.… Read the rest