Hatred as a factor in presidential politics

Make what you will of this. In the modern era of partisan polarization, which can be dated back to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, only the president who was arguably the least hated, George H.W. Bush, was denied a second term. The others overcame intense hatred and were returned to office. Why should this be? Probably it's because the hatred of some groups for a president, or maybe for anyone, signals to other groups that that person deserves their love. You could take this idea further back in time. Who were the most hated presidents before Reagan? Lincoln? FDR? Nixon? All were reelected, Roosevelt three times. It was he who said of his bitterest and most entrenched critics, "I welcome their hatred." The current President may be too thin-skinned to echo Roosevelt, but he may yet find solace in FDR's example.

Some might ask, "But aren't the incumbents who lose obviously the most hated?" They shouldn't mistake disdain or contempt, which have undone their share of incumbents, with the passionate hatred so many modern presidents inspire. Presidents who seek reelection and fail have been judged for what they've done, not who they are. The haters try to convince voters to see the incumbent as they've see him all along, as they think he has always been, when the important thing is to convince people that the incumbent is a failure. Haters will say, "Of course he's a failure," but the rest can tell what they really mean.

Of course, failure these days depends on the eye of the beholder, and it's less certain than ever that passionate partisans can be convinced that their favorite has failed. But it's still the wiser course to try to prove the incumbent a failure than to try to prove him a menace. Since everyone is presumed to speak only for himself and not the country, calling the incumbent a menace will only show that he's a menace to you. Worse, it may only reconfirm a belief that you -- whoever or whatever you are -- deserve to be menaced or humiliated or simply defeated. The opposite approach might have better results: don't take the incumbent so seriously, and -- just maybe -- neither will his supporters. In short: 2020 could use more laughter than it'll probably get. 

What is it about Trump?

Part of it is this: millions of people who'd never want Donald Trump to be their boss now feel that he has become, or is becoming, exactly that. Something like this, I suspect, accounts for the great fear of his "authoritarian" tendencies, which in reality amount to the sort of insults and threats many expect from a disrespectful if not downright cruel employer. Unfortunately, the choice of this employer is nobody's own, unless someone is willing to leave the country rather than live under his rule -- an option few who feel this way about Trump will want to accept. The opposition to Trump thus becomes a metaphorical, almost spiritual general strike. It certainly isn't one in any material sense, or else the President might give it more attention than his usual spite. It remains true, of course, that Trump can't "fire" American citizens, as some no doubt fear he wants to, but that fear will persist as long as Trump does. Fear of the Trump movement is something else, to the extent that they want something more than Trump, but it's difficult to address that movement on its own terms while Trump himself remains on the scene. For that reason, 2024 could be an even more interesting year than 2020, but next year will be interesting enough in the proverbially Chinese sense of the term....