THE SHAPE OF THE POPULISM TO COME?

Matthew Continetti asks, "Is Erika Kirk the Future of MAGA?"

That’s why Erika Kirk is now at the summit of American politics and culture. The size of the platform mattered less than the character of the messenger. Even as one laments the promise of a life cut short, never knowing what Charlie Kirk might have accomplished, one must also recognize Erika’s potential.

She’s bound to have a lasting and wide-ranging influence on the country. With her powers of communication, moving story, and personal connection, Erika Kirk could end up the next Billy Graham. She could lead a generation to Christianity. She could be the first woman president.

This isn’t idle speculation. The future of MAGA is up for grabs. There’s a widespread desire for God, for meaning and purpose and a return to tradition. Who will channel it after Trump?

That is a bit of a stretch.  Reason's Nick Gillespie takes stock of the heightening contradictions.

Taking the stage after Erika Kirk, Trump averred, "He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them." While some Trump supporters insist that the president was engaging in a self-deprecating display to honor Charlie Kirk's memory, even they show discomfort. As PJ Media's Tim O'Brien grants, "On paper or online, this is an easy line to misread. A short video clip of it may also remove tone and context. To be fair, Trump's patented deadpan delivery doesn't help with some people, who, even when they watch him say his words, still aren't able to pick up his self-deprecation. Then, of course, is the fact that there is a certain degree of truth in what he says."

Indeed, Trump is nothing if not vindictive to opponents big and small, real and imagined.

The correlation of forces, he goes on to note, do not favor the president.

By politicizing every aspect of everyday life, Trump and MAGA have exhausted more and more of us. Coupled with policy failure, the result is falling support for a candidate who captured just shy of 50 percent of the popular vote against arguably the worst Democratic candidate of the past 50 years. It's meaningful that Trump gained voter share among young people and many ethnic and racial minorities—that's a testament to the awfulness of Joe Biden's presidency and the public's interest in reversing course.

But Trump's collapse is on his hands, not those of any conspiracy. Per RealClearPolitics' average of polls, the last time Trump's approval rating was higher than his disapproval rating was back in March. Currently, his disapproval is at 52.6 percent, just 0.1 of a point below his worst ever rating since January.

His conclusion?  "But to the extent that the broader MAGA movement doubles or triples down on its policies and rhetoric on display, it will only become even less popular."  It's also possible, as Outside the Beltway's Steven Taylor suggests, that the religious will give up on the Trumpism.

For Christ-followers to so deeply cleave to Trump, who brazenly proclaims his hatred of his enemies, is pretty hard to take. In some ways, it is harder to take the obviously opposite of Christ’s lifestyle that Trump has led (you know, the greed, adultery, and whatnot).

Christians have a way of being able to tell themselves that the past is the past if a profession of faith is made, and hence, we know that cover of this type was provided for Trump by people like Franklin Graham and James Dobson, who told the masses back in the first term that Trump had accepted Christ as his personal savior.

Christians, like any other voters, can decide for themselves which policy bundle they'd rather support.  As bad as Our President might appear to Professor Taylor, it's possible that voters find competing bundles more repellent.  "Part of me hopes that someone will read this and, to stick with the biblical theme, have the scales fall from their eyes and realize what a threat Trump is to the very fabric of their country, and to the souls of those who follow him."  A Kat Rosenfeld observation, in a different context, seems on point here.

[T]he criticism directed at Erika is also a stunning example of how alienated some of the most strident members of the left have become not just from reality, but from any sense of how such commentary is received by the average normie American who may not agree with Erika’s politics but are nevertheless impressed as hell by her as a person.

As divided politically as this country is, we still share an admiration for resilience—particularly in the wake of a devastating event. And to virtually anyone who wasn’t already determined to hate her, Erika’s battle cry does not register as shamelessness, opportunism, or grifting. It makes her look like a superhero. When she stands onstage and vows that she’ll carry forward her murdered husband’s legacy, she’s demonstrating the same unstoppable spirit that animates our history, our most beloved narratives, and our proudest moments as a nation.

"Normie Americans" might find in Professor Taylor's use of that "threat to the fabric" an example of that alienation from reality Ms Rosenfeld mentions.  And Trumpian populism, Pajamas Media's Eric Florack suggests, might have more in common with Christ-follower principles than the professor would grant.

I suggest further that continuing down that path is a threat to the rights that philosophy affords us. If the cultural values we hold dear find their basis in the Judeo-Christian ethic, then what happens to our rights, which find their basis in that ethic, are abandoned in the efforts we see to eliminate that ethic and remove those religious philosophies and their expression, not just from our government but from our society as a whole? Put another way, what happens to a building when you remove the foundation? Can anyone honestly say that the unsuccessful attempts on the life of Donald Trump and the successful attempt on the life of Charlie Kirk were performed in support of the values we’ve discussed here?

I submit we are on the leading edge of the answer to those questions. I suggest further, the reaction to those attacks (and of course, much more) is an estimated 200,000 people who showed up from all over the country and around the world on short notice, to squeeze into a stadium designed for 70,000 people, for Charlie Kirk’s memorial service, and the multiple millions more who streamed that same event, as evidence of widespread recognition of that cultural relationship and the need for returning to that basic philosophy. That response heartens me, and I see it as evidence that the move back to those basics is already well underway.

But if the cheering section for Norms and Institutions is right, and Trumpian populism a bundle of contradictions, what will follow?