Whether or not Donald Trump wins this election, his candidacy will have added several new words to the nation’s vocabulary.
From Trumpnik to Trumpista, Trumpian and Trumpism, words to describe Trump’s followers, ideology, and movement have popped up in print, on the air, and on the internet. There are trending Twitter hashtags such as #Trumpkin, which could alternately mean a Trump devotee or a Halloween pumpkin in the likeness of the orange-haired GOP nominee. There was also the #NeverTrump movement, and talk of the “Trump Effect.” Here is a brief glossary of the Trump-inspired words that have, for the moment at least, entered the political lexicon:
The popularity of the term Trumpkin caused some consternation on the right, prompting The Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn to chide that it was “meant at once to describe and demean” Trump’s backers. Rhyming as it does with Munchkin, Trumpkin does evoke something small, possibly ridiculous, and not to be taken seriously. Munchkin, in turn, calls to mind the Wizard who created a fantastic but deceptive show in the Land of Oz, giving Trumpkin added resonance. Trumpkin also took on a second meaning last month, as jack-o’-lanterns carved to look like Trump became the rage, and some noted with glee that pumpkin pulp made the perfect hair.
If Trumpkin ruffled feathers, Trumpnik struck some conservatives as even worse, evoking as it does a Communist apparatchik—an arguably fitting moniker for fans of a candidate who likes to flatter Russian President Vladimir Putin. In one Twitter exchange about the proper moniker for Trump followers, Commentary Editor John Podhoretz declared: “It’s TrumpKIN not TrumpNIK.”
Trumpist is the mainstream shorthand to describe the quintessential Trump follower, who by varying accounts is a non-college-educated white male, an unemployed factory worker, a reactionary with racist inclinations, or any American who’s angry, worried, and economically insecure. Thus The Economist wonders, “What might a Trumpist Republican Party look like?” And Ross Douthat, of The New York Times, warns that it’s not hard to imagine post-election “armed clashes between Trumpist militias and left-wing protesters.” Douthat also wins a wordsmithing prize for referencing, in the same story, the possibility that some Trump supporters will cheer a “Trumperdammerung” should he lose.
For those who don’t refer to Trump followers as Trumpers, Trumpniks, or Trumpkins, Trumpistas has emerged as an alternative. Trumpistas sound a bit revolutionary, like the Sandinistas who belong to Nicaragua’s democratic socialist party. When Kathleen Parker described the genteel shock that followed Trump’s crass comments at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner last month, The Washington Post fittingly headlined her story: “Elites booed, Trumpistas cheered.”
Trumpian describes all things Trump, good or bad. When The St. Louis Post-Dispatchendorsed Democrat Tammy Duckworth over GOP incumbent Mark Kirk for U.S. Senate in Illinois, the paper referenced Kirk’s attempt to insult Duckworth’s Thai parentage as “a racist comment of Trumpian proportions.”
The movement spawned by Trump is best known as Trumpism, by some accounts an uprising of Americans who think the system is “rigged” against them. “Win or lose, the Trump effect will be felt long after the election,” Showtime President David Nevins recently told The Washington Postin an article titled: “Trumpism isn’t going away.”
Such Trump-inspired words’ staying power will hinge entirely on whether he wins or loses. A Trump win would no doubt enshrine these and many other Trump variants in the dictionary forever. A Trump loss would give them less cachet. One word that will stick around no matter what—a word that existed long before “the Donald” came along, and that may capture him best of all—is trumpery. On October 20, the word-lovers’ website Wordsmith circulated trumpery as its “Word of the Day” with the following definition:
trumpery (TRUHM-puh-ree) noun 1. Something showy but worthless. 2. Nonsense or rubbish. 3. Deceit; fraud; trickery.
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images Democracy Spring protesters calling for the end of big money in politics march to the Capitol steps on the East Plaza of the Capitol on Wednesday April 13, 2016. N ow that Georgetown constitutional law professor David Cole has been named the American Civil Liberties Union’s next national legal director, his April article in The Atlantic on “How to Reverse Citizens United ” delivers a second punch. Cole’s article gives campaign-finance reform advocates a blueprint for how to overturn the Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 ruling to deregulate campaign spending, which has ushered in a flood of secret big money unseen since Watergate, and has fueled mounting public anger over political corruption. Yet Cole’s new employer sided squarely with the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC , arguing as it has in a string of cases going all the way back to Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 that limits on political spending trample on the First Amendment. So what...
AP Photo/Evan Vucci People stand outside the Supreme Court before the start of a rally during arguments in the Shelby County, Alabama, v. Holder case on Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013, in Washington. I n the face of Donald Trump’s declarations that this election is “rigged” and his requests to his backers to watch the polls in “certain areas,” voting rights advocates have labored to set the record straight that voter fraud is a myth and that “ballot security” often adds up to intimidation . But as early voting gets under way in states around the country, the election is starting to look rigged after all—against voters of color. From Georgia to Texas and Wisconsin, election officials are asking voters for IDs where none are required, failing to process thousands of voter registrations, and limiting early voting so drastically that voters are standing in line for hours. Invariably, the voters affected are African Americans or Latinos, who tend to be more likely to cast their ballots in favor...
AP Photo/Frank Franklin II Protesters organized by the National Organization for Women gather near the Trump International Hotel and Tower on Wednesday, October 12, 2016, in New York. T wenty-five years ago this month, a young lawyer and federal worker named Anita Hill publicly accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Hill’s allegations during Thomas’s televised confirmation hearings transfixed the nation, not only because they were graphic and controversial, but also because the Senate Judiciary Committee’s all-white, all-male composition hit female viewers like a lightning bolt. Back then, the Democratic women’s PAC EMILY’s List was a fledgling shop with about 1,200 members and a 1990 campaign budget of just $3 million, money the group had both donated to and raised on behalf of women candidates. By the time Election Day 1992 rolled around, membership had exploded to 24,000, candidate fundraising had hit $10 million, and EMILY’s List—along with...
J. Scott Applewhite/AP Images Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton huddles with Senator John McCain on Capitol Hill in Washington, 2013. This article appears in the Fall 2016 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here . W hen the market research firm YouGov asked Donald Trump supporters in August what they thought of Hillary Clinton, 93 percent said she was “corrupt,” 92 percent called her “dangerous,” and a striking 84 percent branded her downright “evil.” Such visceral GOP hostility spells gridlock on Capitol Hill should Clinton win the White House. Republicans are almost certain to retain control of the House—which may well tilt even further right, as moderate Republicans retire or struggle to retain their seats. Predicts David Wasserman, House editor of The Cook Political Report : “Calls to impeach Hillary Clinton will begin well before she takes office.” This gloomy scenario bodes poorly for the ambitious policy agenda Clinton has pledged to enact with Republican...