Given our hypersensitive times, I first have to get the obligatory disclaimer out of the way. No, I am not making the claim that Donald Trump is morally equivalent to the violent psychopath who tried to take over the world. Furthermore, I would vigorously oppose anybody who made such an obscene claim. In a time less prone to moral panics than ours, this disclaimer would be unnecessary, as any rational person would see that I am only drawing a limited comparison. But we do no live in such times, so this legalistic boilerplate is required.
Having gotten the formalities out of the way, let’s get on with the analogy. It strikes me that Hitler’s initial success and Trump’s have a few things in common. Both threw away the rulebook, and flummoxed their enemies by being unpredictable. Because the established players only knew how to counter conventional strategies, they couldn’t respond.
Take the Rhineland crisis of 1936, when Hitler reasserted German control of the Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler crossed the Rhine with a mere 19 battalions at a time when France could mobilize 100 divisions. Making the move even bolder, Germany had no military reserves because it had only recently reinstated the draft. The first group of conscripts hadn’t even graduated. The odds were so lopsided that a routine French training exercise almost stopped the Germans. They thought it might be a counterattack. Bill Whittle, in one of his Afterburner videos, claimed that a single French policeman standing resolutely on a bridge might have been able to prevent World War II. While this is surely an exaggeration, it is not much of one. In spite of all this, Hitler got away with it through bluff, audacity, and surprise. Everybody was caught flat-footed, even though they had ample means to stop him.
So far, Trump has been getting away with everything for the same reason: audacity, boldness, and novelty. Everybody hates Political Correctness, and everybody distrusts the bland, focus-grouped slogans mouthed by conventional politicians. Along comes Trump with his insults, his bold images, and his unscripted speeches. He is a breath of fresh air. Except to the consultant class, who are presented with an insoluble puzzle.
But with both, it is not just a willingness to roll the dice. Each has displayed genuine strategic skill. While it is commonplace to think of Hitler as a strategic nut, this was not initially true. As Sir Basil Liddell Hart points out, early on Hitler often outthought his generals - who were the best of the war. Take the Invasion of France. The generals planned to repeat World War I: go around the Maginot Line via Belgium and invade France from the north. But there was a junior corp commander, Erich von Manstein who proposed a brilliant twist. Pretend to do that by sending all the infantry up north. When the allied armies are invested there, push the panzer divisions through the undefended Ardennes forest. The general staff dismissed his plan because the Ardennes is completely unsuited to the tank warfare. But when von Manstein got a 30-minute audience with the Fuhrer, Hitler instantly saw the plan’s brilliance - which involved a double-bluff that would cut the allied armies off from Paris - and that the Ardennes move would work precisely because the path would be left unguarded.
In just the same way, Trump realized that the key to Republican victory was the immigration issue. He saw that immigration animates both core Republicans (who are enormously frustrated by their leaders) as well as many independents (like blue collar workers - also called Reagan Democrats). Like the German general staff, the GOP leadership was too immersed in details (in their case, catering to the donor class and their lobbyists) to see how the issue could blow the election wide open.
Interestingly, Hitler’s strategic sense turned sour over time. Why?
First, much of his early success was due to his willingness to roll the dice. But if one keeps on doing that, eventually the odds turn against you. While he could outperform his generals for a while, their measured competence and professionalism would win out in the long haul.
Take the Battle of Kursk, the world’s greatest tank battle. The Germans planned to encircle the Soviet’s Kursk salient with two pincer movements, one from the north and one from the south, and achieve a super-Stalingrad in reverse. The plan was sound but compromised because Russian intelligence knew all about it. Nevertheless, the southern pincer force, led by the same von Manstein almost broke through. I say almost, because at the decisive moment, a certain corporal in Berlin transferred von Manstein’s reserves to Sicily, which the allies had just invaded.
This decision was complete strategic folly. Sicily was a sideshow. Kursk was a must-win battle of gigantic proportions. In contrast, Sicily was at the end of a long mountainous peninsula, the ideal place to mount a protracted defence. His generals told him this, but by this point, Hitler was in la-la land. He had rolled the dice too often to remain lucky.
Both Hitler and Trump operate via emotional hunches rather than logic and reason. This can work brilliantly, but it depends heavily on your state of mind. When things are going well, your boldness can be innovative. But when your luck runs out, the emotional funk might inspire counterproductive lurches. Take Trump. A key part of The Donald’s selling point are his poll numbers, which he likes to trumpet. But what if they turn south? Will he then start to lash out unproductively (like Jeb)?
Another danger for Trump is that his bombastic style, once refreshing, begins to grate. The meme - that he really isn’t presidential - can quietly metastasize before springing to the fore, seemingly out of nowhere. Think Howard Dean.
Another crucial factor is that the enemy learns. They adapt to the new rules and get better leaders. As a result, the tactic of unpredictability brings diminishing returns over time. Chamberlain was replaced by Churchill, unconditional surrender replaced appeasement as the policy, and maximum effort - regardless of cost - became the method.
The implications for the Republican Party are obvious. In a not-to-be-missed interview by Breitbart on Sirius XM, Pat Caddell points out that it is no accident that the two leading GOP candidates do not employ beltway consultants. In contrast, Caddell points out Governor Scott Walker, an initially strong candidate, whose campaign was destroyed by Washington consultants who didn’t get him. Caddell asserts that the beltway strategists have no pulse on the people, and that their only tool is the attack ad. As Glenn Reynolds points out, all they do is copy what Lee Atwater did a quarter of a century ago, only with less skill. To beat Trump, Karl Rove, Steve Schmitt, Mike Murphy, and Mitt Romney’s etch-a-sketch guy have to go. The GOP needs new generals. They will get them (eventually).
Initially I liked Donald Trump’s candidacy for this reason. I thought (and still think) that his creative destruction will be good for the party in the long term. The GOP really needs to remove their corporate climbers. Real strategic acumen and a pulse on the body politic is more important that a pat on the back by Reince Priebus at the RNC cafeteria.
Will a more conventional – but not too conventional – candidate like Ted Cruz beat Trump in the end? I dunno. It may be too little too late. But I do think that while Trump’s critics have been wrong in underestimating him (as I have previously argued), his fans (such as Scott Adams) may be overestimating him.
Iowa turned out to be a three-way draw, not the Trump romp that was more feared than expected. If GOP primary voters show similar fracturing in a few more states Trump may well take his ball and go home, leaving the Democrat yellow dog more likely to win the big one. Old party conservatives just won't stop shooting themselves in the foot.
Posted by: Dolleric | February 02, 2016 at 12:52 PM