Trump: Anatomy of a Monstrosity

by Nathan J. Robinson

This is the ultimate book for understanding what Donald Trump's election means for the United States and the world. Much more than just a book about Trump himself, it is about the forces that led to his existence, and it is a guide for how to create a Trumpless world. Anatomy of a Monstrosity looks closely at why progressives failed to stop his election, and develops a series of proposals for how ordinary people can fight back against Trumpism and win. Carefully sourced, comprehensive, witty, and biting, Trump: Anatomy of a Monstrosity is the single book everyone opposed to Trump should read.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Biography, American History

383 pages, Paperback

Published January 17, 2017

Reviews

[Grace Kao · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal. Not only is Robinson an incredibly fast writer, but he is an incredibly engaging one. The first half of the book dissects Trump through his life (who he is, Trump University, his treatment of women, how he emerged as a viable political candidate) - but even more helpfully, it looks at what Trump as a candidate stands for. The second half of the book is even more helpful: Robinson thoroughly discusses where the Democratic Party has fallen apart, how terribly they ran their presidential campaign, how myopic the focus on presidential campaigns has been (while support for down-ticket Democratic candidates has been severely eroded), and how one can become more politically engaged (hint: the answer is never "more social media"). Robinson calls for an empathetic, kind, and staggeringly simple vision of progressive politics, which works to develop real solutions to human suffering, and communicates those solutions clearly.

People are frequently turned off by political engagement because it is a daunting world to jump into. There are so many names and entanglements and historical contexts that one feels they have to understand before they're allowed to play ball. Perhaps the most helpful thing about Robinson's book is that it galvanizes the reader. It says, "Hey, you, over there, the one overcome by extreme hopelessness. Take hold. You're not alone, and also, this is how you translate impotent rage into action. Let's go." His suggestions are ones I'm starting to hear in echoes from my smartest friends: reformulate a serious progressive platform, offer a compelling narrative, move beyond presidencies to focus on state and local power, build independent media outlets, rebuild the labor movement, fix prejudice, refrain from continuing to put billionaires in seats of power, build a brand of radical democracy that gives people engagement and control over their lives, and a reminder that becoming more politically electable does not mean moving to the right, it means remaining steadfast to our progressive commitments.

I myself have been guilty of a few things Robinson points out: mistaking political awareness for political activism, strains of elitism mixed with being overwhelmingly wracked with guilt, and at times being unwilling to discuss further with people who disagree with me. This is a vow then, to stop allowing myself to go on passively believing that someone better, and smarter, and kinder than me will get out there and actually do something. Because maybe those people don't exist, or they won't, or they're already doing what they can to lessen human suffering in their corner of the world, and so should I.

So yeah. Crazy, but this book gave me hope, or at least a plan of action moving forward. And in these times... that's gold.

[Jacob Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Part of this is what you would expect - a review of Trump’s past offenses - and that’s certainly useful; but the more interesting part of the book is its analysis & criticism of the Democratic party’s behavior leading up to the election, and how its poor strategy (along with staggering and ongoing failures by the major news media) helped pave the way for Trump’s victory. It’s an insightful call for some serious self-reflection on the left.

[Gavin Esdale · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first have to admit that I come into this review biased: I love Current Affairs, of which Nathan Robinson is the editor-in-chief and one of its most prolific authors, and it was this pedigree that made me want to read this book.

But, even with that disclaimer, I still have to give this book five stars because reading it is truly a revealing trip into the evils of Trump and Trumpism (I didn't think I could have more distaste for him, reading this book proved me spectacularly wrong).

The lion's share of this book is the thorough, well-informed, and exhaustively researched dissection of the failures of the Democrats to win what should have been a no-brainer of an election, looking at their failures in outreach, their seeming contempt for the rural and lower-income population of their country, and their utter ignorance of the possibility that Clinton was not, in fact, a good candidate whatsoever.

These parts are stellar, but what ultimately elevates it is the fact that Robinson remains adamantly and pragmatically hopeful, and he channels this into a critical evaluation of what liberals must do in order to win voters and advance positive humane agendas. The book's message is one of tough love, especially for liberals who may still be baffled by the events of 2016, but it's incredibly necessary, both for the defeat of Trump, who embodies nearly every single despicable human trait, and for the eventual overturn of the systems and cultures that allowed him to ever rise above his pitiful stature in the first place.

Recommended for everyone, everywhere. It's a meditation of some of the worst human tendencies, but also on how we can all do better going forward.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm a subscriber to the author's magazine Current Affairs. The following "review" is actually copied from an email I wrote to him as the editor. I'm very impressed with what I read and had just a couple minor issues with his suggestions near the end of the book. I apologize in advance for the length.

--
Hi Nathan J Robinson,

Last year, you kindly gave away free PDF copies of Trump: Anatomy of a Monstrosity to Current Affairs subscribers. I didn’t have time to read it back then and it sat on my hard drive until about 2 weeks ago. With the midterm election coming up and the possibility of Trump winning again in 2020 appearing more real with each passing day, I decided now is the time to finally get to it.

The quality of writing and analysis is excellent as I’ve come to expect in the past year and a half I’ve been reading the magazine. I was worried the Trump biography at the start of the book would feel laborious given how much has been published about him since 2015, but it was actually equally engaging and horrifying. Throughout most of his campaign, I was a student narrowly focused on finishing up my degree so my perception of Trump was shaped by the media’s disproportionately high coverage of his vulgarity. Your compilation of stories about people who were preyed upon, stolen from, and had their livelihoods destroyed by him was illuminating to say the least.

My biggest (but still not actually big) gripe with the book is the chapter in Part IV titled “A New Approach”. I agree with the premise that news media spends way more time than it should on trivial matters while almost completely ignoring issues that impact millions. What I didn’t agree with was some of the examples. After providing a list of things the political left should prioritize (war, climate change, murder, prisons, rape and sexual assault, racism, ill health, ignorance and want, discrimination, cruelty, and mistreatment, and the meat holocaust), there’s the following paragraph:

“Notice what did not make the list. Donald Trump’s various remarks about Hamilton, Megyn Kelly, and China are not on this list. White people wearing sombreros are not on this list. The College Republicans inviting a Breitbart editor to campus is not on this list. Instead,we prioritize those things with the greatest tangible consequences in terms of the suffering of conscious beings. This means making questions of language use and culture secondary, and making questions of material deprivation and harm primary.”

During internal debates among the left there’s an underappreciation of how much questions of language use and culture overlap with questions of material deprivation and harm. Let’s look at your the example of the Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Your book was published months before Joseph Bernstein wrote “Here's How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled White Nationalism Into The Mainstream” for Buzzfeed so I won’t fault you for not including new details about his ties to white supremacists. The left ought to pay attention and protests his campus invitations because he actively seeks to harm people. In February of 2017 UC Berkeley cancelled one of Yiannopoulos’s speeches because they had credible evidence that he planned to reveal the names of students who were undocumented immigrants. It’s worth noting that he didn’t explicitly state he would do this, but he was working with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, an organization that is openly opposed to sanctuary campuses, wants them deprived of their federal funding, and would like the undocumented student to be deported. The group has also publicized the names and photos of their targets at other campus events. When the Berkeley College Republicans asked him not to expose any students, here’s what they heard back: “Milo was not in the habit of taking directives, and that he often did the very thing people asked him not to do.”

At an earlier speaking engagement at UM-Milwaukee, Yiannopolous used his time on stage to harass a transgender student while the event was being live streamed. He knew this would inspire further harassment from his fanbase. What he may not have know at the time is that the student, Adelaide Kramer, was in the audience. Luckily she wasn’t recognized, but the night could have gone much worse if someone did notice her. Surely these two examples are covered under your list of things we should probably dislike? What he planned on doing at Berkeley and what he did do at UMW is absolutely discrimination. At the latter he was cruel to and mistreated Kramer. Targeting students for deportation and attempting to reduce a school’s funding will eventually cause ignorance and want.

I found your criticism of the Everyday Feminism article on page 251 to a bit self-contradictory given how similar the author’s goal was to your own throughout Part IV of the book. You made a good case in Part IV about why democrats only hurt their cause when their messaging calls large swaths of the electorate prejudiced (regardless of how correct this is). You say that they’d be better off adopting a new message that doesn’t upset some of the very people whose support they could have won otherwise. Cody Charles, the author of the article does something similar. There are people who are turned away from activism when organizers use exclusionary language. Your example of how a “call to ‘end the insanity and brutality of the Saudi bombing of Yemen’“ is also needlessly exclusionary. There are people who are become less interested in supporting left-wing activism when its messaging trivializes mental illness. When you ask democrats to avoid calling potential voters racists and misogynists, you consider it necessary strategy adjustments that move the country forward. That’s true! Yet making similar easy changes in the language of activists is labeled in your own words as being “mired in divisive internal arguments”. I personally don’t have a strong opinion on whether it’s okay for people to casually describe bad things as “insane” or “crazy”, but I keep it out of my writing because I know it’ll lose a portion of my audience.

It takes minimal effort to rephrase “end the insanity and brutality of the Saudi bombing of Yemen” to “end the brutality of the Saudi bombing of Yemen”. The overall point is the same, the sense of urgency is retained and you’ll win more people over that way. You’ll have more support in ending senseless violence (war was the first item on your list) and improving the material conditions of Yemenis. You ask on the same page “what are we to conclude from this? If every call to arms is ableist (some people after all may not have arms), then are we trapped in permanent impotence?” I’d respond that pointing out ableism in protests is not the same thing as telling people not to protest. Criticizing language, as you did in regards to Hillary Clinton’s deplorables comment can help the left make more persuasive arguments and build support for our side of important issues. What’s a better way to phrase our opposition to the meat holocaust? “You’re making a bad decision every time you eat meat” or “Veganism is great for making people in the upper middle class and higher feel better about their individual choices, but a more effective way to reduce animal suffering is to restructure the food industry.”

There are a couple more points I intended on expanding upon, but I’ll keep them short since this email is already much longer than I wanted it to be and Current Affairs writers have already covered them better than I can.

Your categorization of the Advocate and NPR articles was unfair.

“spend less time talking about ... whether transgender men taking photos of themselves in women’s bathrooms ‘problematically erases nonbinary trans people,’ how eating certain foods from around the world may be a form of ‘cultural theft’”

The point of the article about bathrooms was that the discussion misses an opportunity question the very concept of gendered bathrooms. When Eli Massey and Yasmin Nair wrote Inclusion in the Atrocious for your magazine they made a similar argument about marriage equality.

“there are plenty of LGBT people who couldn’t care less about marriage, or who see it as a bourgeois institution they want nothing to do with. But it’s not just that the fight for marriage wasn’t a universally shared priority; it actually disadvantaged those LGBT people uninterested in marriage. One of the major arguments in favor of gay marriage emphasized equal access to healthcare. Yet as Forbes reports, since the legalization of gay marriage in the United States:

‘…growing numbers of employers have eliminated domestic partner health coverage and been requiring same-sex couples to be married before an employee’s partner can receive health care benefit… The rationale is that there’s no need to continue to offer domestic partner coverage now that same-sex partners can tie the knot.’

Since everyone could marry, they had to marry, meaning that gays and lesbians were forced to enter into matrimony if they wanted insurance coverage. In this way, the long-standing queer political demand for universal healthcare—one made constantly by queers during the AIDS crisis—was erased, in favor of a different demand: equal access to marriage as a route to health.”

The NPR article wasn’t purely about how patrons of restaurants with foreign menus should feel. It was also about the fame and wealth. The restaurant industry rewards white chefs for cooking food from other cultures much more than it does people who actually do come from those cultures. Briahna Joy Gray explained how the same phenomenon works in the music industry very clearly when she wrote The Question of Cultural Appropriation. It’s not that white artists aren’t allowed to create music rooted in Black culture (and listeners certainly shouldn’t feel any guilt for enjoying it). It’s that the music industry gives more money and publicity to white artists while leaving the Black people who inspired them to die penniless in relative obscurity.

That’s most of what I wanted to get off my chest. My beef was with a ten page passage from a 300 page book. It was very well done overall. I especially appreciated your optimism for the future of the country and the decision making ability of the average American voter. It feels unfounded at times, but is necessary if we hope to achieve real progress. I look forward to reading your book Superpredator eventually and in the meantime I’ll continue reading Current Affairs articles on a nearly daily basis. You and the rest of the staff have been doing a great job with the magazine since 2016. It’s quality has been peerless.

Best,
Matthew

[Kevin Spicer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve never read any ultra-current piece of political punditry before, but the events of november 9th 2016 seemed to demand some sort of explanation. Any process that allows a person as vindictive, power hungry and malevolent as Donald J. Trump our nuclear secrets, must by necessity be a long, complex dive down into some murky and nebulous nether universe of contradictions.

But Nathan J. Robinson refuses to give into despair and offers a refreshingly clear headed and thoughtful progressive lens by which to view this occurrence, the reasons it happened, and how a counter movement might begin shaping itself around some common values.

What really rang true to me is just how much ineffective and self defeating political strategies seem to be woven into the heart of the left's identity. For example, much leftist thought comes out of the universities and the pop culture entertainment industry; as such democrats have largely lost the connection to ordinary working folks, the language of leftism becomes obscure, abstract and academic, and the main form of political dialogue becomes making fun of the other side.

All of this is bad.

As much as Trumps agenda is dangerous and fool-hardy, he connected with a large swath of American's who were overlooked, and openly mocked by the Democratic party. The left needs to do some hard work soul searching and spend some time reforming itself before it can deal with any kind of large scale effort to reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world. I just hope the leadership is capable of such self reflection.

[Emaan Khan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book really shows how Donald Trump has been sensationalized by the media and shows his reign of a white nationalist campaign. Everything he does is to separate black and white, he pushes every white person to his side by saying "you’re going to lose your privileges" if multiculturalism comes around.
He's part of what we call the 'alt-lite', meaning he agrees with (and relies on) the alt-right but just codes his language.

For example, on page 86, we see him say, "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best...They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us." He uses polemics to promote racial intolerance then he tries to fix what they're scared of even though he just exacerbates the very problems he seeks to solve. Saying things like that, just riles up people to think through fear and his comments will then be rationalized by saying, 'he is not racist, he is concerned'. So, he can say the most vile things, but he cannot cross the line of being explicitly racist. I guess it’s a vote-killer in the US.

This book answered my question: Knowing how awful of a person he is, why do people vote for him?
They’ll downplay all of his liabilities because he offers more money in tax breaks and more opportunities for prestigious institutions (AKA the path to power). Economics is a driving force for conservatives that makes them forgive everything he does. This is part of an authenticity hoax where he tricks people into thinking his liabilities are actually assets. BUT this is just ridiculous to me, how on earth do people think he will help them save money? I mean, "Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data." (p. 218). So the promise of broader economic growth or tax benefits outweighs individual instances of corporate malpractice. Many of his supporters view him as a successful businessman and believe his policies will stimulate economic growth. Tax breaks, deregulation, and pro-business rhetoric align with their priorities even if they don’t always benefit directly.


*Shoutout to my media ethics prof for recommening this book

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

I put this one off for a while, despite it being by Robinson, because the last thing we need more of is Trump, right? Not only that, but the book also examines the 2016 primary election and general election. Yikes. All subjects I've heard enough of in my lifetime. With that said, Robinson is probably my favorite writer, and I was confident he could make reading about the subject bearable and worthwhile.

I wasn't wrong. While the conclusions he comes to are fairly predictable after reading his writing for two years, it's all very well put. Only the first third of the book is Trump biography; to be honest, this is my favorite portion of the book, because much of this was either new information to me or the first time I had seen it gathered into one place.

Robinson, who predicted a Trump win as early as March of 2016, paints a picture of the man and explains why the media and political establishment failed to stop him, while painting a better picture of how to criticize him. We all know Trump is a crappy human being. But Robinson compellingly lays out that it's not because of the reasons that the media often pushes: that he's vulgar, uses bad language, or is a shitty businessman. Rather, he is a horrible human being because he is an actual assaulter of women — even a rapist — (not because of crude use of language about women or "locker room talk"). Also, he frequently did not pay contractors he employed, often resulting in significant effects to their lives (he made a good amount of money ripping people off, contrary to the popular myth that "he's not as rich as he says he is", which seems to be a self-defeating argument). Things like this seep into the media discourse, but get muddled by other, more arbitrary or bad-faith criticisms of Trump.

If nothing else, give this book to every single person you talk to who plans to vote for Biden in the Democratic primary.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an excellent and well written book, IF you want to understand Donald Trump, his motivations and how to fight against him, both what to do and what to not waste your time on. The author is persuasive that his subject is dangerously good at getting what he wants and he has no scruples about how he does it. However, the book falls way short, in my opinion, as an analysis of the election in general by, firstly and bafflingly, refusing to acknowledge the historic and widely recognized involvement in our electoral process of Russians at the highest level of their government and, secondly, by making the all too common mistake of validating the negative propaganda about Hillary Clinton. Clinton, love her or hate her, won almost 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but lost the Electoral College by less than 100,000 in three states. I'll leave it to the historians to assess the Russian responsibility and to the political scientists to weigh all of the factors, not to young Nathan J. Robinson. The author urges liberals and progressives and Democrats of all persuasions to unite to stop this literal monster, but then immediately after the February 25 DNC selection of Tom Perez he tweets that they just signed their suicide note. Despite the hard fought DNC race, the leading contenders resisted the Clinton-Sanders division that Robinson apparently promulgates, with Keith Ellison agreeing to accept Perez's motion to appoint him as DNC vice chair, to unite the party, stop Trump and win elections. I'm left concerned that the author makes such a persuasive case against his subject but may end up serving his purposes by dividing the opposition. Recommended, but with salt.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an invaluable guide for any progressive (still!) coming to terms with Trump's victory and wondering where to go from here. It breaks down just what the hell has gone wrong with the Democratic party and provides very specific advice on how we can move forward. Some examples:

-Obama had about 14 million people ready to fight for his agenda soon after the election. But Plouffe basically just sent out a bunch of vague emails without any real concrete ideas for action. Obama for America only thought to use the volunteers when it realized a Senate seat was about to be lost -- of course, by then it was too late.

-Clinton's entire platform was basically, "I'm not Trump." While there were a few policy ideas squished in, very few people, if asked to name any policy Clinton would fight for, could say a single one. Trump's own speeches often resembled a progressive agenda far more than Clinton's.

-The Democratic has no winning message at this point other than "We're not Trump."

Much of this is well-known. But the book goes into great detail examining how it all happened and how we can prevent it from happening again. Like many Current Affairs articles, it's longer than necessary (particularly near the end), dwelling on points that have already been proven extensively. But Robinson rambles for as long as he does 1) because he's thorough 2) he can't let you get away without having made an impression. That's why progressive readers will be keeping this in their pockets for years to come.

[Wes Townsend · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nathan J. Robinson, founder and chief editor of Current Affairs, is a wickedly smart and funny political writer, and Trump: Anatomy of a Monstrosity is a worthwhile left-wing perspective on our current presidency. After a scathing opening chapter which will fill you with disgust for Donald Trump, much of the book is in fact highly critical of Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign, who (Robinson argues) are complicit in Trump's victory due to their ineptitude and complacency. This is the strongest and most convincing section of the book. The closing chapter, on suggestions for the future, is unfortunately the least convincing part of the book, as Robinson puts forth a call for unity on the political Left without much in the way of concrete ideas.

[George L. Reading · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good read. A great insight into the the campaign that resulted in a mad man becoming President of the United States. Also a very insightful look at why the Democrats and Hillary Clinton could not beat the worst presidential candidate in the history of our republic and how the unthinkable became a reality. I think the real problem is the far right and the far left. We must get back to a centrist government.

This is a very good read I highly recommend. It really shows insight into the 2016 election and how it ended the way it did

[Marc Wojciechowski · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author is a sham

The books title and first chapters are meant to lure the democrat in. But he quickly turns into William Buckley in his disparaging of the democratic party. The book is a diatribe of bashing democrats under the guise of a dispassionate analysis. I kept asking myself the question: was he in the same country that I was during the election. His analysis discounts the rampant racism that I, as a Wisconsinite, run into every day and that trump stoked. A particularly bad read.

[Miss Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

well argued although i think he is unfairly dismissive of the role cultural issues should play in leftist platforms. sure, some of this stuff can seem a little abstract but, to give just one example, media portrayals do have tangible effects on dominant policy views in this country -- why else would the DoD spend so much on getting their propaganda all over hollywood?

a minor point though in comparison to a strong overall argument on the problems with trump and what's needed to counter his appeal. i hope democrats take note for 2020!

4 stars

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Up to a point the book is hilarious. Robinson is an English major. Meaning all he could muster was snitching on school mates and being able to spell fairly well. If he would have been smarter he would have had a real job, say engineer, or plumber. Now Anatomy is for the guys and girls who could not only enter Med School, but also, hopefully, graduate. And in this volume, Robinson is going to show he has equally strong opinions about the things done in other Faculties he could frequent as a janitor.

[Gabriel Kokoszka · Rating 5 out of 5]

Robinson delves into the towering question of “how to deal with Trump” with his usual precision, even-handedness and wit. This is a must-read for anyone who considers themselves nominally on the Left.

[Assya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easy to read and comprehensive look at Trump the man, Trump the businessperson, and Trump the politician. I found Robinson's analysis of why Trump is so good at communication and media particularly fascinating.

[Joseph Denby · Rating 5 out of 5]

incisive analysis of the 2016 clinton campaign and what its ineptitude augurs for 2020. forceful arguments for what ought to focus and motivate the left moving forward

[Cristina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting reading material to anyone with more than one brain cell.

This book offered a great insight not only on what Trump stands for and why he was elected but why the democrats lost the elections as well. Robinson could have offered a sociological approach on why *people* voted for Trump and focus on political discourse more but then the book wouldn’t be that easy to digest, I guess. I also found it unnecessarily repetitive at times- overall a very interesting book.

[D.B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Trump is an odious figure and Nathan Robinson hammers this point home with relentless zeal and a smidge of humor. Trump has dominated headlines for the past decades so you won't find much new here, but the volume of Trump's misdeeds still make an impact when aggregated. The book is fine, the footnotes are meticulous. I'm just not sure why I read it.

[Javier Anderson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Part investigative piece, part Freudian evaluation, Nathan Robison (Editor; Current Affairs) offers unique and original insight into one of the most surprising people to ever become president of the United States. From his upbringing to his family relations, we see a man driven by his fathers withdrawal of love and affection. A trait passed down to his own children, we see a person with little regard for anything or anyone other than himself. The second part of the book explores the dawning implication of a person such as this in charge of a nation so vast and varied as the U.S. and why millions of Americans had been primed for such a task. In the end, the author urges the reader to reject these amoral qualities and traits toward those more bent toward humanitarian aims and goals.

[Steve Hill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thule name of the book is somewhat of a misnomer. The book does indeed make the familiar case against Trump’s atrocities but it also gives Trump credit for his skill, if not genius, as a communicator.

More importantly, however, the book demolishes Hillary Clinton as a candidate and lays out the idiocy of her campaign and the arrogance that resulted in horrible decisions. It is equally harsh on the web and the inability of the MSM to see what was there to see.

The final section of the book provides a recommendation for what to do. It offers a clear message for the Democratic Party, one some candidate should actually try.

[Ted Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great work demonstrating that it was as much the Democratic campaign and Hillary's supporters that handed Trump the election win. It also points out that treating the man like a clown plays into his power, the man is a thug but he is a not stupid thug; his various phrases are designed to garner him attention. Concurrently anyone that believes responsibility matters should come with an alternative not just lambast Trumps voters which will only preserve Trumps power, The Democrats had almost nothing to offer anyone under Hilary so they lost. Read this book.