Guest post: Trump as Che Guevara

What if Trump isn't Hitler? 

What if he is more like Che Guevara, a revolutionary disrupter taking on entrenched elites on behalf of oppressed people?

I received an unsolicited guest post from Alan DeBoer, the former mayor of the liberal college town of Ashland, Oregon. He served on the Ashland school board. He was a Republican state senator representing a light-blue district that mixes all of Ashland with some of the mostly-red county outside of Ashland. He is a civic-minded and philanthropic figure. He owns investment properties and car dealerships. 

In conversations with him, I hear frustration with Oregon's Democratic dominance in statewide offices and a legislature with a Democratic supermajority. He makes large political contributions to Republican and Independent candidates who challenge that Democratic majority.

He said that artificial intelligence helped him write his guest post, but that the text 100-percent reflects his point of view. My own suspicion -- with which he disagrees -- is that the smoothness and grace of AI-generated text distracts him from what the text in fact asserts. It describes Trump as primarily a disruptive leader doing the good work of protecting democracy, dislodging the elites, reducing the intrusion of government into business and personal matters, and that Trump represents an affirmation of elections as the source of legitimate power.

Say, what?

Trump put the richest and most powerful elites in the world, the owners of the world's primary communication systems, on stage at his inauguration. He vigorously expands government influence on businesses via tariffs and direct ownership. He is expanding government intrusion over people's bodies with abortion controls, and over people's thoughts by attacking federal employees, law firms, and media that reveal unwelcome opinions. He worked to overturn the 2020 election by creating fake electors in the states, bullying Georgia officials to "find" votes, and by encouraging a mob to intimidate his vice president and Congress into blocking transfer of power to his opponent. 

But this guest post is a useful and important point of view to contemplate. It shows that, if the case is presented well, Trump can be viewed as a radical reformer and not dangerous, and as someone draining the swamp on behalf of democracy, not someone chest-deep in it, as I describe him in this blog. The objections to Trump can be interpreted not as objection to crony capitalism and autocracy, but as the predictable effort by the existing power structure to hang on. Disruption -- however it is done -- is an enticing prospect for people frustrated by the status quo, particularly for people who perceive Democrats to have undue political and cultural power. This guest post argues that Trump advances democracy by promoting policies that benefit working people and get their support. DeBoer says he doesn't agree with Trump's personality, name-calling, and appointments, but says "No one else could attempt to change the status quo."

The photograph is of Alan DeBoer holding a town meeting in 2017 while serving as a state senator.

Guest Post by Alan DeBoer

Democracy, Power, and the Question of Who Writes History

When critics draw comparisons between Donald Trump and authoritarian figures of the past, it is worth asking whether that rhetoric itself serves a deeper purpose: the preservation of the status quo. For decades, political elites and entrenched bureaucracies have benefited from policies that favored globalization, rising regulation, and increasing government reach. A disruptive leader like Trump, who challenges these trends, naturally provokes fierce resistance. But the intensity of that resistance raises the question: is this truly about “protecting democracy,” or is it about protecting those already in power from accountability?

History reminds us that narratives are often written by those who prevail in the short term. Yet over time, truth has a way of surfacing. Decades from now, historians will look back and weigh not only Trump’s rhetoric but also his policies. Among these, his tax reform is likely to stand out. While critics often characterized it as a gift to corporations, the reality is that millions of lower- and middle-income households saw relief through reduced income tax rates, a doubled standard deduction, and expanded child tax credits. For working families, this meant more money in their paychecks and greater flexibility to support themselves — hardly the mark of a leader indifferent to ordinary citizens.

Equally important is the fact that Trump’s rise did not dismantle democracy. Unlike regimes of the past, the United States retains its institutions, its free press, and most importantly, its elections. Trump’s policies — whether on trade, immigration, or taxation — remain subject to debate and can be endorsed or rejected by voters. This is the essence of democracy: Leaders are accountable to the people, not the other way around. Casting every unconventional candidate as a dictator risks distracting from the real question: Do their policies help ordinary Americans, or do they only serve entrenched elites?

In the long run, history will reveal whether the louder voices of fear were correct, or whether Trump’s challenge to the establishment reflected a healthy rebalancing of power between government and the citizens it serves. The lesson should not be that democracy is under siege every time a populist emerges, but that democracy’s strength lies in allowing citizens to decide for themselves. Whether one supports Trump or not, the truth is that the ballot box — not the narrative of the powerful — determines the nation’s future.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]