Trump’s Impact: The Clash of Institutional vs. Anti-Institutional Mindsets

Trump’s victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election on November 5th represents a significant clash between two contrasting groups deeply entrenched in the American political landscape. This article explores the ideological divide and the implications of this election on the future of U.S. governance.

The first group is characterized by a strong commitment to human dignity and values that emphasize integrity and accountability. They:

• Avoid lying and adhere to the law.
• Maintain discipline and loyalty to family.
• Uphold ethics and traditional values.
• Participate in governance through roles such as governors and senators.

Members of this group perceive themselves as stewards of established institutions, having been shaped by them throughout their lives. They strive to meet the standards set by these institutions, which include the Constitution, religious organizations, corporations, and reputable media outlets like The New York Times. Their goal is to operate within the frameworks these institutions provide, acknowledging that while imperfections exist, reform is necessary without discarding their legitimacy.

In stark contrast, the second group disregards ethical breaches exhibited by figures like Trump, viewing their actions as justified in the fight against institutions they consider corrupt. Their belief system includes:

• A dismissal of norms and structures as mere complicity in corruption.
• A perception of Trump as a champion against these corrupt systems.
• A focus on the failures of financial, health, and media institutions that they believe have failed the public during crises, such as the COVID pandemic.

For this group, Trump’s moral shortcomings are deemed forgivable because his primary goal—being anti-institution—is seen as more important than ethical conduct. They idealize a figure who is:

• Self-centered and combative.
• Unafraid to break the law for personal gain.
• Willing to dismantle institutions and humiliate elites.

In their worldview, if the system deems you reckless or immoral, it is likely an indication that you are on the right path. Legal accusations against such individuals are interpreted as signs of virtue, with some even framing Trump’s scandals as acts of subversive lawbreaking that are admirable.

This anti-institutional sentiment was prominently displayed at the 2024 Republican National Convention, which notably lacked the presence of former presidents, vice presidents, or even Trump’s previous vice president. Only Trump and his family were present, embodying the anti-establishment ethos. Within this context, the ethical failings of Trump and his associates are reframed as strengths, suggesting that they are simply being authentic, thereby shifting the philosophical standards of value.

This anti-institutional mindset is not limited to the Republican Party. Over the past four decades, two opposing factions at the extremes of the political spectrum have united in their challenge to the established order in America. The anti-establishment movement initially gained traction in the 1960s within the left wing of the Democratic Party, while the MAGA movement emerged during Reagan’s tenure and reached its zenith with Trump. This movement has demonstrated a greater effectiveness than its leftist counterpart in shaking up the system.

Traditionally, U.S. presidents have considered themselves institutionalists, often having backgrounds in the military, CIA, or other governmental bodies. They viewed the presidency as a position integral to the broader governmental structure, one that required careful management and succession. Conversely, Trump does not identify as an institutionalist and has never been part of these established systems. His brand of politics, often referred to as Trumpism, advocates for a revolutionary shift in values, turning traditional conservative morals and institutional liberalism on their heads.

This ideological inversion has led to a scenario where once-cherished rules and norms emphasizing moderation and respect for authority are now considered vices, while transgressing these rules is celebrated as virtuous. As we look to the future, it is anticipated that the next four years will witness a persistent struggle between institutional mentality and anti-institutional sentiment within key governmental bodies such as the Department of Justice and intelligence agencies.

This ongoing conflict is likely to generate unrest and chaos, as Trump’s approach to institutional reform challenges the very foundations of these institutions. The political landscape in the United States is poised for a turbulent period, with the ideological divide growing ever wider as supporters and opponents of this anti-institutional philosophy continue to clash.