Alienation, autonomy, and ideology
Journalist Oliver Eagleton begins a recent article in Jacobin by warning us against “sanewashing” Donald Trump. The idea? We shouldn’t attribute any deeper strategy or long-term plan to Trump, because that’s not how he thinks. Rather, short-term gain and perceived self-interest drive him.
Naturally, Eagleton goes on to disregard this warning. We wouldn’t have it any other way.
I’ll say a brief word here about the web Eagleton thinks the Trumpists are spinning.
Due to problems with a distributor, my local library took awhile to get Kamala Harris’s 107 Days. With that resolved and book finally in hand, I sat down this month to read it.
Harris wrote the book, in theory, as a journal of her brief 2024 campaign. And she captures the feeling of a whirlwind race to the presidency. But along the way, Harris also does the work of a traditional political autobiography. She just introduces herself more briefly and compactly than usual.
In a way, I found this refreshing. I read a lot of political autobiography. Much of it ends up as fluff. Harris comes off as more honest than most politicos. Yes, in part 107 Days makes her case for running again in 2028. That’s clear enough. But that case is short(er than usual) on cliches. And I think she stays upfront about her decisions and motives.
But the book irked me in many ways. What, then, is its problem?
Harris centers the book on an argument: if she had had more time to make her case, she would’ve won. But this is transparently a bad argument. To cite one obvious problem, Harris’s standing didn’t improve as the campaign wore on. If anything, her numbers regressed after a brief honeymoon phase in the first month or so.
But let’s take a closer look at 107 Days and see for ourselves.
As of late, I’ve been trying to steer clear of the ‘Great Fascism Debate.’ I’m referring, of course, to the question of whether Donald Trump is a fascist and Trumpism a fascist movement. I’ve written about the topics extensively. For a quick review, readers should check out my original 2018 post arguing for a nuanced ‘no’ answer, as well as two additional posts proposing a fuller account of Trumpism.
In short, Trumpism sucks. But it sucks in a non-fascist way.
However, I’m not here to rehash all that.
This time, we’ll take a look at a brief analysis by Matthew Karp over at New Left Review. Karp brings to the table some insights about what people miss about the second round of Trump.
DSA held its 2025 National Convention earlier this month, and the ‘DSA Left’ landed another series of wins. From anti-Zionism to a new NPC with a larger ‘left’ majority, the DSA Left built and expanded on its work at the 2023 Convention. In response, a variety of people claimed that ‘entryists’ have taken over DSA and held its members hostage to their ‘revolutionary socialist’ demands.
But they ground these claims in a misunderstanding of DSA. They miss how and why DSA grew around the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries and general election.
Let’s take a closer look at the details.
Iowa Democrats have spent nearly a decade and a half in the wilderness. The trip started around the time Chet Culver lost his bid for re-election in 2010. It never stopped.
From that point, Democrats lost statewide races from the top of the ballot to the bottom, with Obama’s 2012 win one of the few successes. State Auditor Rob Sand, who we’ll talk about shortly, is another.
Why?
It’s a long story. That story runs through the decline of unions, political shifts in the 2010s, and partisan realignment by educational attainment. Every left of center Iowan has their own (usually self-serving) story to tell. But each one ends the same way – Iowa Democrats are left playing for a firm minority of the electorate.
They’ve done little to solve the problem.
Several years ago, I called for Iowa Democrats to build a 2030 coalition. Why? With Iowa’s hard turn to the right, it’s unlikely their current coalition will win. So, they should build a future coalition that can win. That coalition rests on the strength of young people, political independents, non-whites (especially Latinos), and immigrants. These are all growing populations who often don’t vote for Democrats.
But Iowa Democrats weren’t interested in a 2030 coalition. They wanted to win now.
© 2026 Base and Superstructure
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
