Why Trump won

Trump won in 2016 because he promised Protectionism & tight Migration Control just as he had in 2000 when he ran for the Reform Party ticket or, further back, in the late Eighties when he first conceived of the notion of running for President.

  It greatly helped Trump that, in the intervening years, he had become a popular Reality TV star and thus his campaign attracted two billion dollars worth of free publicity from the mainstream media. This significant advantage meant that he was easily able to see off his Republican rivals and unite his party.

 By contrast, Hilary who had supported NAFTA & TPP (which Obama was still pushing) was vulnerable to Bernie Sanders (who had proposed a bill in 2005 to revoke China's PNTR (permanent normal trade relationship) status. He had performed very well against her and this did cause Hilary to change her stance on Trade but it was too little too late. Still, most people thought Hilary would win. Surely, women would vote for her in overwhelming numbers? They would scarcely cast their vote for a 'pussy grabber'. 

Sadly, it turned out that voters act rationally on the basis of their expected economic gain or loss. They don't care about whether the candidate has a dick or a vagina. Since enough of them wanted Protection from low wage competition, that's what they got. 

Under Trump, the economy was initially doing quite well and many thought he would win re-election. Then came COVID.  Biden gained by not having to campaign in the normal way. Previously, his propensity for gaffes had sunk his Presidential aspirations. This time, pre-recorded messages were aired. Trump attacked 'hidin' Biden', but many voters were impressed by the care Biden took to maintain social distancing, wear masks, etc. The Democrats were able to raise more funds than the Republicans and relentlessly hammered home an 'anyone but Trump' message. People wanted 'normalcy' and avuncular, 'sleepy', Joe appeared the candidate who could deliver that. The other aspect was that Democrats tend to be more generous when it comes to distributing federal largesse. In other words, financial help to cushion the economic effects of COVID were likely to be more generous.

 The question now became could you have Trump style populist policies without Trump? Biden's political comeback benefitted the Democrats but the 'woke' fringe, fired up by 'Me Too' & 'BLM', caused him to take one hostage to fortune too many. That hostage was Comatose Kamala. Add in inflation, the foreign policy shambles (Afghanistan, Ukraine, Gaza) &, most importantly, the Migration debacle and, though Biden had stuck with a lot of Trump's tariffs, the return of the Donald became inevitable. Like Biden, Kamala wasn't a good campaigner. Extraordinary circumstances had enabled the rise of two very mediocre candidates. 

 Since taking office, Trump- determined to take full advantage of his Party's majority in the Legislature as well as the favourable attitude of SCOTUs- is using every trick in the book to expand the power of the Executive. This satisfies his core constituency who feel that all sorts of vested interests had gained the upper hand in the corridors of power. Unlike 'no drama Obama', Trump is keen to show that, whatever it is possible for him to do to keep his election pledges, he will do. The problem is, his economic and diplomatic policies may backfire. This time next-year, you may have 'stagflation' in which case the Republicans lose the mid-terms. Trump may face impeachment and other such hearings. He may resign to avail himself of a Presidential pardon. The Democrats win big in 2028. What happens next? My guess is that a decline in US relative economic and geopolitical standing will translate into a weaker Federal Government and more emphasis on 'States Rights'. That way different states can pursue their own preferred fiscal & policy mix or 'Tiebout model'. People can 'vote with their feet' rather than waste their time squabbling with their neighbours.

It seems writers for 3 Quarks take a different view. America is undergoing what Germany and Italy  underwent during the inter-War period. 

It is customary to compare Trump's America or Modi's India, to Nazi Germany. Michael Liss, however, casts his net wider. In a post titled 'A new Marshal in Town', he refers to Marshal Petain & Vichy France. 

… I watched with increasing apprehension the Third Republic

which began with the French defeat in 1870 and ended with the French defeat in 1940. It did defeat the Germans in 1918 but lost 1.3 million soldiers out of a population of less than 40 million. If it couldn't ally with Poland and Germany's other Eastern neighbours to contain Germany, then its best option was surrender. 

go downhill, its strength gradually sapped by dissension and division,

It didn't have much strength to start off with. Still, at least it didn't allow women to vote.  

by an incomprehensible blindness in foreign, domestic, and military policy,

Clear sightedness can't magically increase your population by 50 percent.  

by the ineptness of its leaders, the corruption of its press, and by a feeling of growing confusion, hopelessness, and cynicism (Je m’en foutisme) in its people. —William L. Shirer, The Collapse Of The Third Republic.

France did have treaties with Poland & Czechoslovakia. But the former was underdeveloped and the latter was internally divided. Thus France had no allies except England which, too, was weak and had decided to rely on its air-force . Don't forget, in 1914, the French could pin its hopes on the Russian 'steamroller' marching into East Prussia. In 1939, the Allies had no offensive doctrine. Britain had the Channel and the RAF. France had the Maginot line- which wasn't much use once the Germans went around it.

With hindsight, France chose defeat because that saved lives. Only about 220,000 military deaths were recorded in the Second War. That's one fifth of the figure for the Great War. 

“Do you think America’s political system can still address the nation’s problems or is it too politically divided to solve its problems?” 33% said “can still address”; 64% “too politically divided.”

Sadly, people differ as to what America's problem is. Is it Migration? Or is it evil bastards who use the wrong pronouns?  

—Results of a nationwide New York Times/Siena poll of 1,313 registered voters conducted from Sept. 22 to 27, 2025.

Some problems fade over time. Migrants assimilate. Bigots mellow with age.  

Let me take you back 10 years, to the fall of 2015. An email from a good friend, the type of person America doesn’t manufacture anymore—both a scholar and an international businessman, multilingual, connected to an array of influential institutions and people, and a moderate Republican.

This is a description of a guy who understood that 'Globalization' had hurt a large section of the voting public. Buchanan/Perot/ Sanders had been right to voice concerns about jobs being 'off shored'. Also, even Jimmy Carter couldn't pretend China was going to turn into a multi-party Democracy some day soon. 

He was writing just after the November 2015 Islamic State-sponsored Paris and Saint-Denis terror attacks, which left over 100 dead and 400 injured.

Obama was blaming Sarkozy & Cameron for Libya & Syria.  

The breakdown in civic culture was part of his concern,

Obama was very civil but lots of people had hoped he'd be the 'Niggah in the White House' who'd go ape-shit and thus scare Wall Street straight.  

but it wasn’t the only one. He was profoundly worried about the startling rise of Donald Trump.

Not so startling. Trump had run for the Reform ticket in 2000, with the backing of Jesse Ventura, a former professional wrestler. Thus, he was already associated with Protectionist trade policies. Bernie Sanders, in February 2005, had sponsored a bill to revoke China's PNTR status- i.e. permit protectionist measures to safeguard American jobs. The fact that Sanders was a significant challenger to Hilary was enough to show which way the wind was blowing. I suppose, the War on Terror meant both the Bush & the Obama White House took their eye off the ball with respect to China's rise and rise.  

He wondered if we in the United States weren’t also turning toward the anger, the xenophobia, and the dysfunction that characterized the discourse in 1920s and 1930s Europe.

There's plenty of anti-Semitism though it pretends to be anti-Zionist.  

That was the atmosphere that brought then to a Hitler and a Mussolini, the “confusion, hopelessness and cynicism” in France that Shirer wrote of.

Mussolini, Hitler & Franco came to power because of a very militant type of revolutionary Communism. The French Left was more cautious and Trade Union based. 1936 was the year of strikes and factory occupations- over two million workers were involved- but the aim was reform, not revolution.     

Could it happen here?

No. America is rich and powerful. If voters want Protectionism, they can have it. If they want harsh measures against Migrants- that too is a long-standing tradition as 'Operation Wetback' in the Nineteen Fifties showed. Different States may choose to follow different paths when it comes to Transgender rights. It may be that some Cities will ban Israeli products out of solidarity with the Palestinians. The Federal Government does not have to get involved in such issues. 

For context, Trump had entered the contest for the GOP Presidential nomination on June 16, 2015.

Sanders had entered the race in April/May.  

In his announcement speech, he mentioned economic themes like deficits and offshoring of jobs, but also pounded (with explicit, highly charged language) on illegal immigration and the threat of Islamic terrorism. Deficits and immigration were standard topics for any Republican, but Trump wasn’t “any Republican”—

he was a former Reform Party candidate with a track-record of supporting Protection. As a reality TV star, he had more traction than Perot or Buchanan had done at an earlier period.  

he was on his own island, launching what seemed a vanity candidacy by a man with a potty-mouth who sprayed people and entire ethnic groups with insults.

Perhaps, Reality TV and Social Media had changed expectations about what could or couldn't be said. Trump's advantage was that he was repeating things he had always believed. Hilary, who had previously been committed to NAFTA & TPP, did a U-turn. But she was talking about opposing further trade liberalization rather than reversing it altogether. Still, at that time, people thought 'pussy-grabber' Trump was bound to lose. Surely, the vast majority of women would vote for Hilary? She was highly qualified whereas Trump had never previously held any elected or other public office. 

His opponents scorned him, advertisers distanced themselves from him, and odds-makers were positive he had almost a negative chance of winning. Public polling seemed to bear them out. A June 2015 NBC/WSJ Poll had Jeb Bush in the lead at 22%, Scott Walker at 16%, Marco Rubio 14%, Ben Carson 11%, then six others (Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie) …. and, in 10th, the last position to qualify for the first GOP debate, Carly Fiorina. Not a Trump amongst them. There was something Trump did excel at—he was soundly rejected by the Republican public—16th out of 16 to the question of “Could you see yourselves supporting this candidate or not?” at a formidable minus 34%. It wasn’t that the Republican voter didn’t know Trump. They did know, and what they knew they didn’t like.

I think it is fair to say that Republican intellectuals were appalled by Trump. But their party appeared divided on issues like abortion. The assumption was that Trump could not appeal to Evangelicals because of his flamboyant personality and past life-style. However, once they were convinced that Trump was serious, they understood that he would have to deliver on SCOTUS picks if he wanted a second term. In other words, the Evangelicals acted rationally. After SCOTUS reversed Roe v Wade, this became clear to everybody. 

But Trump had found something most of the major Republican candidates, conservative commentariat, and the media, had missed. His inflammatory language, which they saw as crude, un-Presidential (and they hoped) disqualifying was heard as a beat to quarters by others.

In other words, as Biden would say after Hilary lost, Trump was mobilizing those whom the Democrats had gotten into the habit of ignoring- ' What happened was that this was the first campaign that I can recall where my party did not talk about what it always stood for – and that was how to maintain a burgeoning middle class. You didn’t hear a single solitary sentence in the last campaign about that guy working on the assembly line making $60,000 bucks a year and a wife making $32,000 as a hostess in restaurant.” He didn't add that even the assembly line job might disappear because of 'offshoring'. Migrants might drive down wages in the service sector. Trump and Sanders were addressing these anxieties. The mainstream candidates weren't. 

Trump might be a blowhard, but at least he didn’t sound like a lawyer or a professional politician. All those guys did was talk, and for all the rounded, consultant-tested phrases they laid out like tapas on a tasting menu, it was Trump,

& Sanders 

with his ill-mannered vitality, that got through.

People believed him when he said he'd deliver on Protectionism. After all, an International Trade Treaty is still just a fancy sort of business deal. Trump was the self-proclaimed King of the Deal-Makers. If American workers wanted to be protected from foreign competition, there was only one candidate who would make it his priority. 

In this matter, Trump has been very consistent. What remains to be seen is whether his tariffs harm the economy and cause his party to lose the mid-terms. But even then, he seems unlikely to reverse course. Obama kept trying to pass TPP till the bitter end.  

The narrative began to move, and the polls followed. By early September, the 150-1 shot was the frontrunner. A CNN/ORC poll had Trump at 32%, Carson at 19%, Jeb 9%, Cruz 7%. Huckabee and Walker at 5%, and everyone else, including Rubio, below 3%. What’s more, 51% of Republican respondents called illegal immigration the most important issue facing the country, and, having made the issue his own, Trump dominated among that group.

American workers wanted protection both from foreign manufacturers and also from migrants who might drive down wages- more particularly for less skilled people. Still, it seemed bizarre to suggest that Mexico would be willing to pay for a wall along the very long border it shares  with the US. 

Trump could win.

Trump saw off Cruz with greater ease than Hilary saw off Sanders. By the time Hilary changed her tune on Trade, it was too little too late. 

It was crazy: Republicans had some hard-boiled talkers amongst them—shock-jocks like Rush, serious men like Pat Buchanan, but this was the team that usually nominated accomplished, mainstream adults. That fling with Goldwater in 1964 was … a summer thing, and then back to dating the Rotarian set.

George W Bush connected with voters because he was a 'boomer' who had grown up in the shadow of an over-achieving Dad from the 'greatest generation'. Obama too connected with voters. But, as time went on, it was discovered that he was a 'policy wonk' who 'sweated the small stuff'. The truth is, those without health insurance weren't a significant voting block. The Republican 'Tea Party' was able to capitalize on discontent with 'no drama Obama'. Voters wanted red meat. Mitt Romney wasn't the man to deliver any such thing. Then, along came Trump. Ordinary people understood how he had made his money. He put up shiny buildings. They understood and appreciated his taste for glitz and glamorous super-models. The TV show- 'The Apprentice'- showed him as a family man willing to help young people rise up by taking them under his wing. The odd thing was Trump did not try to appeal to voters as an avuncular, Reagan like, older man. He continued saying the rather crude and shocking things he'd been saying in the Eighties. This was a case of 'What you see is what you will get.' Trump did deliver tax cuts and protection and conservative Supreme Court appointments. Now, he appears to be giving America a taste of what an actual Dictator might do. The fact is the law is a two edged sword. If it can be used by Liberals in one way, it can be used in the opposite way by their opponents. All the more reason to stick with effective 'checks & balances', dual sovereignty, etc. 

Still, I thought my friend was overstating the risks. The American political system has almost always shown a type of awkward agility in dealing with fringe movements. It incorporates them, shaves the edges off them, feeds them a few crumbs (or sometimes a part of a loaf), and moves on.

Arguably, 'wokeness' was fringe. The Biden White House was seen as bowing down to it. However, it was Migration which was its biggest problem. Nobody was willing to take ownership of the issue- quite understandably because it is heart breaking- and thus Trump, once again, emerged as the one candidate willing to take on the dirty jobs which the professionals were loath to touch.

The same has been true with fringe candidates. They may develop a following—George Wallace, Henry Wallace—but ultimately voters tend to come home.

Parties change their platforms as voters change their preferences. The Republicans have done so. Will the Democrats follow suit? Perhaps not. It may simply be that some States are moving in a different direction to others. The answer is to allow 'dual sovereignty' to work its magic. Leave a place whose policies you don't like. This is 'Tiebout sorting' and America is certainly big enough to support a variety of 'Tiebout models'.  

So do the ultimate nominees, as they adjust their message to a broader audience. Only in times of real duress (since Lincoln, that would be Reagan from Carter, and FDR from Hoover) do fundamental policy and tonal changes come.

Carter was a bit of an outlier. His policies, however, were quite conservative- indeed 'hawkish'.  

That was my framework in 2015 and early 2016, and I watched with a bit of awe at Trump’s sheer skill in picking off one Republican candidate after another. He’d target an opponent, trash him (or her) while the others stood by silently, and move on to the next. Why did the others stay quiet? I suspect at least part of it was opportunism. They were so sure Trump would be rejected (if only the field were smaller) that they thought Trump was the 340-pound offensive lineman and they were the speedy running backs. Trump would plough the field; they’d spike the football in the endzone.

Surely, some blame should go to the mainstream media? Perhaps, Hilary's victory seemed inevitable and so there was less incentive to hammer away at Trump. 

What they didn’t get, and I didn’t see, was that Trump was well past that point—he was already in the locker room. Despite the literally hundreds of negative editorials and biting columns (many of them written by current Trump acolytes), the nomination was his, and, as would be seen, the Presidency was coming.

Why? I think it had to do with voters wanting Protectionist and anti-Migration policies. Evangelicals too had an agenda and saw that it was Trump's interest to actually deliver for them. Add in tax cuts and there was a good reason why some people held their noses while voting for Trump. 

My friend was right. Something had happened to not just the GOP, but also, more broadly, to the American electorate.

They wanted protection from lower wage competition- be it from migrants or factories overseas.  

A previously unrecognized passion created a new voting block of disaffected voters. Trump had tapped into it. Hot issues had brought hot language and (potentially) hot policy responses—and those hot policy responses were just fine with people who had accepted tepid “frameworks” before.

Had they been asked? Globalization had clearly been very good for highly educated people running big companies. What of those in the Rust belt or those struggling to get by on minimum wage? 

But was the implied threat of an American variant of 1920s’ and ‘30s’ European dystopia a likely one, or would we just muddle through, as we always had?

We still can't be sure that globalization is reversible. If the American economy tanks next year, it may be that there is a complete U-turn in voter preferences by the end of the decade. 

After all, Trump was a “businessman” who made “deals,” and, to many people, that meant “realist.”

As opposed to a guy hung up about Human Rights & Democracy and so forth.  

Again, let’s go back in time for context. The 1920s and 1930s had uncovered cracks in the foundation of democracies and enhanced the appeal of one-party or even one-person rule.

French politics was already dysfunctional before the Great War. Germany had never been a real democracy. Max Weber proposed to replace the Kaiser with a 'plebiscitary president' even if this meant Dictatorship. This doctrine was embodied by Hugo Preuss in the Weimar Constitution.

The King of Italy, too, wanted a strong leader, rather than a squabbling Parliament, and thus appointed Mussolini in the same arbitrary manner that he would later dismiss him. 

The Weimar-Era German experiment in democracy had failed miserably, collapsing under the combined weight of several economic and social factors it showed itself unable to address.

Weimar had a really shitty constitution. It was bound to end up being ruled by a President/Dictator.  

Look closely, and you can see how many might have felt the 1933 Hitler was inevitable.

The Germans believed that only the Army could gain them the land and resources they needed to survive as a nation. Weimar was based on 'extend and pretend'. When foreign loans dried up, there was no alternative to the Army maximal program. Oddly, it turned out that Corporal Hitler could better advance it than General Schleicher.  

In Italy, Benito Mussolini went from obscurity to being appointed prime minister by King Victor Emmanuel III in just a few years. We tend to think of Il Duce as a clown now, but that would miss his stunningly effective roll-up of existing institutions through legal means mixed with muscle.

Had Mussolini- whose army was crap- stayed out of the War, he- like Franco- would have died peacefully in his bed. 

By the late 1920s, Italy was a one-party state with a supreme ruler—with the cooperation of the other institutions of importance, including business and the Church.

In other words, people prefer an effective Executive which tackles 'collective action problems', to a deadlocked Legislature and an endless procession of impotent Chancellors or Premiers. Thankfully, the Anglo-Saxon tradition is to take a pragmatic attitude to 'checks and balances'. There is a capacious doctrine of political question. 

Fascism and Nazism offered not just order and jobs, but also modernity, a restoration of national pride, a participatory tribalism.

All governments do so for at least some of their people.  

Such are the things that can excuse in some minds and in some consciences some of humanity’s worst atrocities.

Sadly, this does not extend to some of the worst atrocities committed by panda bears. I think this has to do with pervasive panda-phobia  

What of France?

It was fucked. Germany had the demographic advantage. The only thing which could keep France safe was an offensive doctrine which 'front-loaded' sufficient pain on the Germans. That's why De Gaulle was so insistent on acquiring nukes and delivery systems. Living well depends on having weapons which can blow up the world. Pretending that 'consciences' have ever troubled greatly about 'atrocities' is simply silly. What matters is having a 'threat point' at least as atrocious as the enemy. 

Along with some of the same economic pressures felt elsewhere, it experienced class conflict, the appeal (and threat) of socialism, petty jealousies and big ambitions, a military class mired in the tactics and disciplines of World War I, and on it went.

Germany had 65 percent higher population. That's why France invested in the Maginot line and stuck its collective head in the sand. Oddly, this strategy paid off. French military fatalities were one fifth what they were in the Great War.  

The Third Republic mirrored some of the worst qualities of its political and military leadership—too much pride, too little focus on meaningful action and results, and seemingly no vision whatsoever beyond its borders.

Because, like I said, it was fucked. Sometimes playing to lose is the best strategy.  

So, when in September 1938 Hitler demanded a piece of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland,

where Germans were the majority 

France (and, notoriously, England) went to Munich and gave it to him. What followed is much less remembered, but the smaller sharks then circled around abandoned and betrayed Czechoslovakia and gobbled the rest of her up, with Hitler returning for one last bite.

The country was not viable. The Slovaks and the Czechs have parted ways.  

Munich proved out a central organizing idea of Hitler’s military and diplomatic strategy—the West was weak and unwilling to commit.

By then it was too late. German rearmament was an accomplished fact. France's pacts with the Soviets, Poland etc. were utterly worthless. All the 'West' could do was declare and then conduct a 'phony war' cowering behind fortifications till the Germans figured out a way to go around their defences.  

They showed it again when Germany signed a pact with Russia to divide up Poland, and, after a September 1 German invasion, they hesitated before honoring their treaty obligations.

By 1935, it was too late to go on the offensive. England had already decided on a 'limited liability' policy focussing on the air-force and the navy rather than building up a possible expeditionary force. Nobody wanted to repeat the trench warfare of 1915. France found it safer to surrender. The UK, thanks to the RAF,  was able to wait it out till the US entered the War. Thankfully, the cretin, Hitler had declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour though he was under no obligation to do so. Ultimately, Soviet manpower and American industrial power made mincemeat of the Axis. The big mistake of 1918 wasn't repeated. Germany was occupied and partitioned. In subsequent years, Hydrogen bombs and ICBMs preserved peace in Europe.

Hitler knew with whom he was dealing—and that he could pause without consequences after ingesting “his” share of Poland. An eight-month “Phony War” began without any meaningful repercussions being visited on Germany.

Because it was stronger. Why does this cretin not understand this?  

In April 1940, Germans took a medium-sized bite by attacking Denmark and Norway,

the one great service the Quakers performed during the War was to introduce Quisling to the Nazi high command.  

and followed it, on May 10, with a massive assault on Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and parts of France. In many places, they met minimal resistance, but, where they found it, the Wehrmacht armies, supported by the Luftwaffe, swept it aside.

Because they were stronger. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Planning and execution were remarkable. “Fortress Holland” fell in a week. By May 13, German forces crossed the Meuse River. On May 14, the Germans had breached the Meuse-Albert Canal line in force and entered France just west of Sedan. The next day saw General Guderian’s XIX Panzer Corps break through the French line and head west into open country, moving so rapidly that it seemed he was putting his forces at incredible risk—yet he continued to advance, freezing huge Belgian, French, and British Expeditionary Force armies.

The writing was on the wall for all to read. Either Europe could destroy itself or it could lie prone till the Americans and the Soviets invaded and divided it up. It chose to lie prone. The great achievement of the UK & France was to lose far fewer men than in the first war. The good news was that they got to say goodbye to their useless, smelly, Empires. Otherwise they'd have become as poor as Salazar's Portugal. 

The Dunkirk “miracle” rescued some of these men, but would also cause friction between the French and English leadership.

The French were shit. But, it must be admitted, the Brits weren't exactly displaying military genius.  

A lot more British soldiers than French were evacuated, feeding French suspicions that England was not a reliable ally, and perhaps making a deal with Hitler would be the better way out.

It was the only way out. German military doctrine was superior. But, like the Japanese, they were bound to fail. America and Russia had the demographic advantage. They would dominate the post-war world for decades. The question now is whether China's rise can occur peacefully. Trump has helped bring clarity to this. America doesn't really give a fuck about Democracy and Human Rights. A deal can be struck. What is going on now is 'discovery'. Trump has probably reinforced BRICS and promoted de-dollarization. But ending 'exorbitant privilege' isn't necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is increased uncertainty. Currently, that's what appears to be affecting employment and investment. 

The dizzying speed and technical brilliance of the Germans was enhanced by the utter unpreparedness of the French.

No. They were over-prepared. The trouble was that, unlike the Germans, they didn't have radio communications to the field. Instead officers had minutely detailed instructions. There was very little decentralization or discretionary power. To a great extent this was because of France's demographic inferiority which meant the general stuff was planning for a war fought with half-trained conscripts who would have to be micro-managed. To be fair, many of the early British operations were badly bungled.

 Oddly, the Americans learnt quickly and soon had very fine officers and fighting men. Perhaps, the early adoption and spread of a universal High School system meant that America simply had higher quality recruits with greater potential to learn and apply new techniques. The American general did not have an aristocratic contempt of 'intellectuals' or those who had done well in 'trade'. War was part and parcel of Management Science & Operations Research. 

Their military crisis became a political one (the French Army was extraordinarily adept at avoiding blame), and, on May 18, they brought into the government Marshal Philippe Pétain, the 84-year-old “Lion Of Verdun” to give confidence and show solidarity. Whatever message it sent did nothing to slow down the Germans, who followed success with more success.

The French had avoided the great bloodletting of the Great War. This was the least bad alternative. The big question, for the Right, was 'would Hitler really be better than Blum?'  The answer was no. Hitler was a cretin. But this was a mass delusion the Germans had shared for four decades. The days were long gone when French reparations could put you on the Gold standard while your generals acquired agricultural estates to the East. 

Thomas Mann, writing during the Great War, explained that German 'Culture' was quite different from Western Civilization. For the Germans to be happy, that Culture must prevail. Sadly, it wasn't culture at all. It was shit. 

On June 14, 1940, Paris, having been declared an Open City, fell to the Germans. June 16, with the coming Fall of France obvious, and both the military and government desire for an armistice insatiable, Prime Minister Paul Reynaud resigned, recommending to President Albert Lebrun that he appoint Pétain in his place.

I suppose the Ukrainians could have surrendered. It appears there was a spontaneous element in their resistance to Putin. But it is also apparent that the Russians made a lot of mistakes.  I suppose one could say Hitler had the luck of the devil- initially. But it was only so Germany could be so comprehensively defeated, partitioned and occupied, that it completely gave up militarism. 

What could the old man do? The Germans already occupied roughly 60% of the country. There would be no escaping their vise of steel, no way Hitler couldn’t take whatever he wanted. The French military and civilian leadership had put themselves in a box. The Generals wanted to stop the fighting, but didn’t want the dishonor of asking for it—and some of them convinced themselves the army was essential to maintain domestic “order.” The politicians wanted to maintain their power—but what power could they possibly have in a country dominated by the Germans? The astounding collective responsibility for an incomprehensible collapse was accepted by no one, except by the one person whose reputation was intact—Marshal Pétain.

France had had two Napoleons both of whom surrendered. The odd thing about the Second World War was that, it turned out, surrendering to the Americans tended to be good for one's country. Peter Ustinov's 'the mouse that roared' is about a bankrupt European principality which declares war on the US so as to surrender to it and gain prosperity.  

He went on national radio and announced, “I make France the gift of my person,”

& Hitler the gift or my arse.  

and asked the Germans for an armistice. The Germans gave one—an armistice without honor in the very railcar where Germany had to accept its own defeat in 1918— but an armistice, nonetheless. For the French, General Charles Huntziger headed the signing team. Huntziger insisted that he not merely be authorized to sign, but ordered to by the French government.

There is a lesson here. Get nukes. Lots of nukes. Ukraine would be at peace if it hadn't given up its nukes.  

If the story had ended there, a great deal of moral damage (and post-war self-examination and recrimination) might have been avoided.

Nope. People who like wasting time on 'self-examination and recrimination' would have done so anyway. One way or another, a lot of 'collaborators' would have suffered after the Liberation. France was fortunate that the Communists in the Resistance preferred to restore material standards of living rather than provoke a class war.  

The Germans would have occupied all of France, taken what they wanted from it,

which is what they actually did

and made it a vassal state like other European countries that had been brought under the yoke. It would have stayed that way until D-Day led to liberation, but perhaps French honor and integrity—and that of Marshal Philippe Pétain—would have remained intact.

Nope. There would still be collaborators.  

Instead, the Third Republic had a second collective failure, and the Marshal made an unforgivable choice.

Only shitheads gas on about honour and what is unforgiveable. The Second World War cured Europe of that foolish habit. Once your offensive doctrine consists of blowing up the fucking world, you don't get to gas on about chivalry & honour and so forth. Genocide is nothing compared to the extinction of any species more advanced than the cockroach. 

Under the influence of Pierre Laval,

a Socialist 

twice a former Prime Minister carrying a grudge for having been kept out of high office since 1936,

he resigned over the Abyssinia crisis. Sir Samuel Hoare too got into bad odour for the 'Hoare-Laval pact'. Labelled an 'appeaser', he had to spend the War as Ambassador to Franco's Spain. 

the National Assembly almost unanimously voted itself (and the Third Republic) out of business, but not before vesting in Pétain the unlimited authority to draft a new Constitution in such manner as he desired. Of course, Pétain was not exactly a draftsman, nor did he have relevant legislative experience, but there was a man who did—the very same Pierre Laval, who would be Deputy Prime Minister to Pétain’s Prime Minister, and later Prime Minister to Pétain’s Chief of State in the new form of government. Suffice to say that the relevant adjective in describing the grant of authority was “vast.”

Whereas everybody understood it was 'just as little as the Germans think it convenient to delegate'.  

A collaborationist regime was set up in Laval’s hometown of Clermont-Ferrand, and later in Vichy, with Pétain nominally in charge, and Laval acting as the true head of the government.

OMG! Now I understand! Trump has set up a puppet regime in Mar-a-Lago.  Guess who is the real head of government? That's right! It is Donald Duck! 

Our democracy has survived politicians from across the spectrum,

 but not a POTUS who has to sit down to pee

blacklists, boycotts, terror bombings, even a Civil War. It would, in my opinion, rise once more and unite to defeat a Hitler.

Not if he can blow up the world. Then there may be 'proxy wars' but no direct confrontation.  

It would, I think and hope, find a way to put aside the differences that 64% of Americans say our current political system cannot address and find a way.

America has the problems of a rich country- e.g. it can keep doing stupid shit a bit longer than other countries. But there is always an opportunity cost to doing stupid shit. You are missing out on what you could have gained by not doing stupid shit.  

But can it survive the thirsts of ambitious men and women who, like Pierre Laval, just don’t care about the price others may pay to fulfill those ambitions?

Yes. It can also survive the stupidity of those fixated on Hitler and Mussolini and so forth.  

Can it endure the turning away from the sight of injustice done to others,

Absolutely.  

or, worse, fail to resist the urge to pile on when you don’t like those others?

If that's what you get paid to do- why not?  

That will take courage, and soul.

No. Stuff like this is easy. Everybody does it all the time.  Still, if you can make a little money saying that Trump is Hitler or the Antichrist or whatever, just do it already. It's not like anybody expects you to say anything true or useful.