By continuously vilifying him, Trump’s critics elevate his successor by default. Their intensifying and increasingly irrational attacks make them look extreme. Solely focusing on Trump also eclipses the development of any positive agenda to counter his. Finally, their continuing attacks will make his successor look good in comparison to the caricature they have created.
Donald Trump’s critics have attacked him relentlessly for a decade. Increasing in intensity and virulence during his first term, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of his State of the Union address on the podium behind him; his administration was investigated continuously, and he was impeached twice. By 2024, Trump was being called a fascist — not just by backbencher attack dogs, but by President Biden and then seconded by Kamala Harris when she became the Democrats’ nominee.
Still only in his second term’s first year, Trump is the object of “No Kings” rallies and calls from congressional Democrats to members of the military for disobedience to the orders of their commander in chief. Recently, the New York Times ran a piece about Trump’s age and its impact on his schedule: This from the flagship of establishment media that ignored the obvious frailties of the older Joe Biden, until these could no longer be denied, and now fall over themselves confessing they knew about Biden’s failures all along. (RELATED: ‘Don’t Give Up The Ship’? Seriously?)
As Trump’s critics spiral ever deeper into their invectives, they court mounting collateral damage from their exercises in self-gratification.
For one, Trump’s critics give increasing credence to charges of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Ever more emulating their accusation of extremism, histrionics cast them as ideologues with only a single goal in mind: Destroy Trump.
Voters want to know more than where you are not going; they want to know your intended destination.
For another, excessive focus on Trump eclipses focus on anything else — including formulating a positive agenda. Recent gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey showed Democrats running more against the president in Washington than their opponents in the state.
However, running exclusively against Trump — as they undoubtedly will in 2026 and 2028 — means not articulating what his critics are for. National races, especially the presidency, are about steering the ship of state. Voters want to know more than where you are not going; they want to know your intended destination. Absent that, they are unlikely to get on board.
For Trump’s critics, their attacks’ most important fallout is the most unintended: the de facto elevation of Trump’s successor. By demonizing Trump down to caricature, they make anyone else look good in comparison. Having made “not Trump” the standard, any Trump successor will meet that, solving the primary problem Trump’s critics have defined.
Trump’s critics fail to realize that the president’s successor is more important to their future than Trump is. (RELATED: The Curious Candidacy of JD Vance)
Trump’s successor has a good chance to appeal to a wider group of voters than Trump does now. In 2024, Trump’s divisiveness cost him 9 percent of conservatives, 40 percent of moderates, and 49 percent of Independents. Trump’s successor has ample room to grow in all three groups, adding significantly to Trump’s 2024 vote total — a vote total that swamped Harris in the electoral college.
If victorious in 2028, Trump’s successor could also hold the presidency for two consecutive terms, taking Republican presidencies into 2037. Such a scenario is hardly unusual.
Elected presidents winning second terms are the historical norm: Between 1933 and 2024, Carter (1976), George H.W. Bush (1992), and Trump (2020) are the only elected presidents to lose reelection. And holding the presidency for three consecutive terms is not out of the question; in the last century, both parties have done so: Republicans twice (1920, 1924, and 1928; 1980, 1984, and 1988) and Democrats once (1932-1948).
The animosity of Trump’s critics prevents them from seeing Trump’s comparatively high floor of support. According to Real Clear Politics’ December 1 average of national polling, Trump’s 42.6 percent job approval is higher than Obama’s in 2013 (40.1 percent) and George W. Bush’s in 2005 (40.4 percent). Yes, Trump’s favorability rating is just 43.2 percent; however, the Democrat Party’s is just 34 percent.
The upshot is: Trump’s successor could have an even higher ceiling of support. Trump critics’ virulent attacks only enhance that potential.
If Trump’s critics succeed in establishing “anyone but Trump” as the acceptable standard — something they are well on the way to doing — with Trump constitutionally term-limited, Republicans are guaranteed to meet it. Republicans can also do so with a policy agenda that got Trump elected in 2024, so long as Democrats refuse to go beyond their visceral anti-Trump opposition. And Republicans can do so as they look more moderate than Trump critics and Democrats, who now look like extremists in their blind pursuit of Trump.
READ MORE from J.T. Young:
The Price of Democrats’ Extremism
What Did Professional Sports Expect?
A Time for War and a Time for Peace
J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, from RealClear Publishing. Follow him on Substack.
