But some context is needed. Judging by mainstream journalism and social media postings, it seems that most liberals reckon a Trump presidency to be a worse outcome than a Clinton one would have been. I am not so sure. While Trump is undoubtedly a monstrously vulgar reactionary, Clinton is a thoroughgoing neoliberal and a corrupt sadist (recall her cavalier quip on the demise of Gaddafi: 'we came, we saw, he died') who, as Secretary of State, has actually been responsible for spreading death and destruction across the globe. There is no reason to assume that she represented the 'lesser evil' in the recent election.
A similar point could be made about the relationship of Trump to his predecessor, Obama. Throughout the election campaign, many liberals bemoaned Trump's every racist remark and lewd confession - and even seemed to derive a perverse enjoyment from relating them. And when Trump emerged victorious, some of these liberals even expressed a desire to emigrate before the Orange Thermidor gets under way (I'm a cosmopolitan individualist, get me out of here). But while liberals have revelled in the daily reports of Trump's bigotry, they have generally been silent on the crimes of the man who has been US president for the past eight years. Check out the guy's track record: Obama has implemented and defended an unprecedented surveillance campaign against his own population, has deported more immigrants than any previous president, and, in reference to his global drone murder programme, is reported to have made a typically creepy joke to his aides: 'it turns out I’m really good at killing people' (an example, perhaps, of what psychoanalysts call 'defence through admission'). During the financial crisis, meanwhile, Obama proved himself to be the friend of the bankers and the hammer of the working class, bailing out the banks and opposing a moratorium on home foreclosures. Trump, should he actually manage to survive as President, will bring misery to the working class at home and abroad; but Obama, the slick desk-bound assassin, has been doing precisely that for the last eight years, even if the US liberal-left, hopelessly lost in the labyrinths of identity politics, largely proved unwilling or unable to criticize his administration. Whatever else it stands for, then, Trump's triumph does not represent a rolling back of eight years of enlightened governance.
Yet Trump's victory, like the Brexit vote in the UK, certainly does signal something new - or perhaps one should say resurgent - in the Western political landscape. It is not fascism. As Primo Levi put it, 'every age has its own fascism' and some ultra-right elements in the US have certainly been emboldened, even empowered in the wake of Trump's success; but this is not the 1930s. It is rather right-wing populism that is in the ascendant. This populist turn has preoccupied many mainstream journalists recently, but it is only really communist analyses that have registered its deeper political and historical significance. They point out that the populist surge operates against the interests of dominant ruling class factions and thus represents a certain strategic impasse and even a loss of control among the bourgeoisie in the established democracies. Given the current absence of almost any serious working class struggle (or even, let's be honest, basic organization), this destabilization is a dangerous development.