• How Did We End Up With Donald Trump?
• John McMillian (bio)

Hillary Clinton was likely in an upbeat mood on September 9, 2016. Earlier that day, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur had pledged $20 million to Democratic groups backing her presidential candidacy. Later that evening, she spoke at an LGBT fundraiser in Manhattan, before a large crowd that had just been warmed up by Barbra Streisand. Naturally, Clinton's remarks were recorded.¹ When she quipped that you could fit "half" of Donald Trump's supporters into a "basket of deplorables," her supporters responded with laughter, cheers, and applause. Clinton was seemingly so pleased by the crowd's laudations that she extemporized her next sentence, which also was about Trump supporters: "They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it."²

Trump pounced on her statement via Twitter, and Clinton apologized the next day. But her gaffe was not soon forgotten. It did not help Clinton's cause when a group of celebrated left-of-center columnists amplified her remarks. Armed with polling and research data, Ta-Nehisi Coates (The Atlantic), Jamelle Bouie (Slate), Charles Blow (the New York Times), Jonathan Chait (New York), and German Lopez (Vox) argued that Clinton had no reason to apologize. A few of them went further. If Clinton had erred at all, they said, it was only because she had downplayed the portion of Trump supporters who were, indeed, hateful bigots.³

There was no gainsaying that the GOP had taken a dark turn. The 2016 presidential campaign should have made clear that Trump was not fit for the Oval Office. He was vain, vicious, and vulgar. No one had ever seen a candidate so childish, so eager to put his base motives and epic resentments on proud display. Trump was picking at the sores of a wounded nation, and he seemed delighted to do so.

Still, the situation required deeper understanding. Scholars, analysts, and political professionals weighed in on the big questions of the day: What foul forces were feeding Trumpism? What knowledge from the past could shed light on our current problems? In June of 2016, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a syllabus for a course titled, "Trump 101."⁴ This was a collaborative [End Page 310] project involving twenty accomplished scholars from a range of disciplines, but most of them were historians.

The syllabus's authors left no doubt that they regarded Trumpism as a baleful phenomenon. Among the classic works they recommended were Theodor Adorno's (et al.'s) The Authoritarian Personality (1950), Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), and Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1966). Harvey Mansfield, the conservative political philosopher, urged readers to turn attention to such ancient thinkers as Plato, Thucydides, and Aristotle, who warned that when demagogues attain power in democracies, the demagogue is not chiefly to blame; the blame rests with those who elect him.

None of the arguments or ideas embedded in the "Trump 101" syllabus are controversial in academic circles. Still, "Trump 101" was not well received. The problem, according to 349 humanities scholars who signed an open letter that appeared on the African American Intellectual History Society (AAIHS) website, was that the syllabus did not recommend any works by "scholars of color" or "LGBTQ people."

That was true. Although numerous books on the syllabus examined the perniciousness of racism and ethnocentrism, those books were written by white authors. The oversight led the letter's signatories to conclude that Trump 101's authors were "committed to presenting a 'whites only' portrayal of American political history." The letter's 349 signatories took the lack of nonwhite authors on "Trump 101" as evidence that the syllabus was "inappropriate," "highly offensive," "intellectually dishonest," "irresponsible," "racially illiterate," and "an artifact of racism."⁵

Within a week, two historians who critiqued "Trump 101"—N.D.B. Connolly, of Johns Hopkins University, and Keisha N. Blain, of the University of Pittsburgh—had crowd-sourced an alternative document, "Trump Syllabus 2.0." This new syllabus was five times larger than its predecessor, partly...

• 我们是如何结束唐纳德特朗普的？
• 约翰·麦克米兰（生物）

希拉里克林顿可能在 2016 年 9 月 9 日情绪乐观。当天早些时候，一位硅谷企业家承诺向民主党团体提供 2000 万美元支持她的总统候选人资格。那天晚上晚些时候，她在曼哈顿的一场 LGBT 筹款活动上发表了讲话，当时一大群人刚刚被芭芭拉史翠珊热身。克林顿的言论自然被记录下来。¹当她打趣说你可以将唐纳德特朗普的“一半”支持者放入“可悲的篮子”中时，她的支持者以笑声、欢呼和掌声回应。克林顿似乎对人群的赞美感到非常高兴，以至于她在下一句话中即兴发挥，这也是关于特朗普支持者的：“他们是种族主义者、性别歧视者、仇视同性恋者、仇外者、仇视伊斯兰教者——随便你说。” ²

特朗普通过推特猛烈抨击她的声明，克林顿第二天道歉。但她的失态并没有很快被遗忘。当一群著名的中左翼专栏作家放大她的言论时，这对克林顿的事业没有帮助。凭借民意调查和研究数据，Ta-Nehisi Coates（大西洋）、Jamelle Bouie（Slate）、Charles Blow（纽约时报）、Jonathan Chait（纽约）和 German Lopez（Vox）认为克林顿没有理由道歉。他们中的一些人走得更远。他们说，如果克林顿真的犯了错误，那只是因为她淡化了特朗普支持者的部分，他们确实是可恨的偏执狂。³

毫无疑问，共和党已经采取了黑暗的转折。2016 年的总统竞选应该明确指出特朗普不适合担任椭圆形办公室。他虚荣、恶毒、粗俗。没有人见过一个候选人如此幼稚，如此渴望将他的卑鄙动机和史诗般的怨恨表现出来。特朗普在一个受伤国家的疮口上挑刺，他似乎很高兴这样做。

尽管如此，这种情况需要更深入的了解。学者、分析师和政治专业人士对当时的重大问题进行了权衡：是什么邪恶势力助长了特朗普主义？过去的哪些知识可以阐明我们当前的问题？2016 年 6 月，《高等教育纪事》发布了名为“特朗普 101”的课程大纲。⁴这是一个合作[End Page 310]项目，涉及来自不同学科的 20 位有成就的学者，但其中大多数是历史学家。

教学大纲的作者毫无疑问地认为特朗普主义是一种有害的现象。他们推荐的经典作品包括西奥多·阿多诺（等人）的《威权人格》（1950）、汉娜·阿伦特的《极权主义的起源》（1951）和理查德·霍夫施塔特（Richard Hofstadter）的《美国生活中的反智主义》（1966）。保守派政治哲学家哈维·曼斯菲尔德 (Harvey Mansfield) 敦促读者将注意力转向柏拉图、修昔底德和亚里士多德等古代思想家，他们警告说，当煽动者在民主国家获得权力时，煽动者并不是主要的罪魁祸首；罪魁祸首是那些选举他的人。

“特朗普101”教学大纲中嵌入的论点或想法在学术界都没有争议。尽管如此，“特朗普101”并没有受到好评。据 349 位人文学者签署了一封出现在非裔美国人思想史协会 (AAIHS) 网站上的公开信，问题在于该课程大纲没有推荐“有色人种学者”或“LGBTQ 人”的任何作品。

那是真的。尽管有关教学大纲的许多书籍都研究了种族主义和民族中心主义的危害，但这些书籍都是由白人作者撰写的。疏忽导致这封信的签署人得出结论，特朗普 101 的作者“致力于呈现美国政治历史的‘纯白人’写照”。这封信的 349 名签署人将“特朗普 101”缺乏非白人作者作为证据，证明该教学大纲“不恰当”、“极具攻击性”、“智力上不诚实”、“不负责任”、“种族文盲”和“种族主义的产物” .” ⁵

一周之内，两位批评“特朗普 101”的历史学家——约翰霍普金斯大学的 NDB Connolly 和匹兹堡大学的 Keisha N. Blain——已经众包了一份替代文件，“特朗普教学大纲 2.0”。这个新的教学大纲比它的前身大五倍，部分...