No way. Left and right are evolved ways of responding to reality that have worked over the centuries. Neither is disappearing.<\/p>\n
Mark Halperin writes<\/a>: “What would it take \u2013 honestly now – for the American left, and for the anti-Trump conservatives who have turned their exile into a brand, to admit that Donald Trump has delivered something real on the two oldest tests any leader faces: peace and prosperity?”<\/p>\n Halperin posits that American politics has moved beyond policy debate into a state of epistemic closure, where “success” cannot be acknowledged if it comes from the opposing tribe.<\/p>\n He sets a rhetorical trap for the Left and anti-Trump conservatives. By framing the potential success of 2026 in traditional, undeniable terms\u2014peace and prosperity\u2014he suggests that any refusal to acknowledge these gains is proof of bad faith.<\/p>\n If inflation is down, the economy is humming, and there are no new wars, then objective reality should force a concession.<\/p>\n If critics still attack Trump despite these conditions, Halperin argues it proves they care more about the narrative of Trump\u2019s failure than the reality of American success. He is diagnosing a shift from “loyal opposition” to “automatic rejection.”<\/p>\n A key tension in Halperin’s argument\u2014which he briefly touches on but doesn’t fully explore\u2014is that the “Left” and the “Right” are currently keeping score on different boards.<\/p>\n Halperin\u2019s Metrics: He focuses on “basics”: economy (inflation, GDP) and foreign policy stability (no wars). These are traditional, tangible metrics.<\/p>\n The Critics’ Metrics: Trump\u2019s fiercest critics often focus on institutional norms, civil rights, democratic processes, and rhetoric.<\/p>\n The Disconnect: Even if 2026 brings economic booms and peace, critics may not view this as “success” if they believe those gains came at the cost of judicial independence, social cohesion, or minority rights. Halperin calls this “blindness,” but critics would call it “prioritizing values over GDP.”<\/p>\n Halperin makes an interesting historical point about the loss of “grudging confession.”<\/p>\n He notes that Progressives eventually gave Reagan credit and Republicans eventually gave Clinton credit.<\/p>\n His thesis is that this feedback loop is broken. In the current media ecosystem, admitting the other side did anything right is viewed as a betrayal of one’s own audience or base. This leads to a scenario where “Trump equals failure” is a dogma that cannot be violated by evidence.<\/p>\n Notice how Halperin shifts the burden of proof. The article isn’t really about whether Trump is succeeding; it assumes for the sake of the argument that he might. The piece is actually an interrogation of the critics’ psychology.<\/p>\n He is asking: Are you capable of being happy for the country if the person making it better is someone you hate?<\/p>\n By posing this as a question of “democratic maturity,” he frames the opposition as petulant children refusing to look at the scoreboard.<\/p>\n Halperin is effectively arguing that we have entered an era of zero-sum reality. If 2026 is a good year for America, it is a bad year for the anti-Trump coalition because it destroys their central thesis. He is betting that, faced with a choice between their narrative and a booming country, the critics will cling to the narrative.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" No way. Left and right are evolved ways of responding to reality that have worked over the centuries. Neither is disappearing. Mark Halperin writes: “What would it take \u2013 honestly now – for the American left, and for the anti-Trump … Continue reading