Op-Ed by Southwick written on the 10th of November 2026

Perhaps, like many of you, I stayed up to watch the results of the all-important midterm elections in my bedroom in the UK, eyes glued to the BBC. The result of this night would prove historic, and so exhausted and filled with the cold, I watched on to be a part of it. My personal disdain for the man they call the ‘President ’, Donald Trump, is deep and profound; he represents the very worst of politics and discourse. He is an agent of chaos and destruction and the antithesis to good and effective governance. I write this about Trump to communicate my own perspective, but that does not mean I disregard his political successes, many of which are difficult to dismiss. For the past ten years, Trump has captured the imagination and the frustrations of the American people in the palm of his hand. His ability to rally previously non-political voters or energise the American public, those who either support or despise him, must be remarked upon. Very few people in politics become legends; most, if they are lucky, fade into irrelevance or perhaps have enough profile to retain an after-dinner speaking role or perhaps even lead an NGO, but Trump is modern American politics; he is where the debates begin, and the lines are drawn. In America today, it’s not Republican or Democrat; it’s pro or anti-Trump. That is a true political legend. Cults of personality have been described by scholars as a multifaceted form of personal influence which aims to capitalise on the personal qualities of a leader over their political agenda; throughout time, there are endless examples of how individuals, in order to retain a form of political control, have used this technique. From Napoleon to Stalin to FDR and JFK and perhaps to a more subtle extent Tony Blair, while the personal philosophy may differ in each, for these people they were the policy, they were the ideas, and they were the institution. Donald Trump is a cult of personality; no matter his utterance, his base and many more will follow. Why? Because he’s different; he isn’t some grey-haired, suited and booted civil servant lecturing the public on why they know best; he is, in many ways, the essence of a political commentator on Fox News; he reacts, he holds his finger up to test the direction of discourse, and this informs his decisions and tells the audience what they want to hear, the essence of a populist. Trump, in many respects, is the reverse of a traditional political figure: most form policy, ideas and philosophy and then present this to the public; he instead presents himself to the public and makes policy. This is both genius and very destructive. It’s genius because in this modern age trust for political leaders is at an all-time low across the West, governments are collapsing at a rate of knots and obscurity for political figures is rising. I think of Sir Keir Starmer; in many ways, he is the ideal political leader. Deliberate, cautious and thoughtful with lots of public service experience; however, he was not charismatic by any measure. He could not tell the story of his agenda or communicate his vision because that’s just not who he was or even what he was ‘designed’ to do. He was a board member of a football team, not the captain on the pitch, and that was one of the factors in his downfall. But that’s not what events demand; events demand a leader on the front line, saying things that no civil servant would, and that’s exactly what Trump captured; he didn’t let events control him, he controlled events. For ordinary Americans, the civil servants have failed them, and so when Trump appears, why shouldn’t they pick a man who feels more like an outsider, who says what they want to hear? But that is a problem in politics for leaders and ultimately what has resulted in Trump’s downfall: he could talk the talk but couldn’t walk the walk.

In the past few weeks, much was dwelled upon on the key issues of this election, the pocketbook issues. Gas, inflation and war are historically good motivators for change, but the United States is not like any standard Western European democracy; it sets the agenda, and others orbit around it. In Europe, elections and Politics have a formula, supported by centuries-old conventions and institutions. Often, coalition building and bureaucratic processes, and old political norms determine the policy direction until the next election, but unlike in Europe, the modern US sits in its own bubble of relevance and its own sense of politics, in which the president is the government. This can make electoral arithmetic difficult, less about whether the agenda meets the occasion and more about whether the president lives up to the expectations. Many of us can name the US Presidents over the past 20 years, but the EU commissioners? French Prime Ministers? Or Dutch foreign ministers?. While these roles are important, they centre much less around one person. This is what makes Presidential elections so important and consequential. For this reason, on that fateful night, I was sceptical of the polls; many predicted a democrat win, but the polls have been wrong before, and at this important turning point in the history of the West, optimism is a fool’s game. I had made my personal predictions publicly online; ‘Democrats win the House, but not the Senate’ was the gist of my expectations, because somewhere inside I feared that Trump was unstoppable, almost messianic. I felt Trump had captured politics so deeply that nothing could stop him. Then, as the long night began, the realisation set in that Trump was not God; he was vulnerable like every other leader, to the people. Georgia, North Carolina, even Texas were abandoning Trump. One by one, vote by vote, Trump became weaker and weaker. One could almost feel each ‘Power’ being taken away from him, like a child stealing sweets from the cupboard, gradual and then absolute. I have something of an obsession for the art of elections; Sir John Curtice, the BBC’s election numbers man, is a hero of mine. I’ve seen the fate of nations change in an exit poll or a referendum, but this was like no other. The stakes could not be higher and the defeat no more consequential for the whole world. Trump’s recklessness and vanity were being tested and rejected in front of the world. Not necessarily the Republicans’ policy, but Trump, the man himself, because he is the modern Republican Party. One by one, the true believers on Fox News and others realised that Republican grandees, and those most punished by the electorate, were Trump’s hand-picked: Paxton in Texas, Ramaswamy in Ohio and Jon Husted. Could Trump be Wrong? Could they have got it so wrong? The political knives would be out and pointing fast; first it was the chief of staff Susie Wiles, who was replaced by the, in my view, extremist Stephen Miller; now it’s the macho war secretary Hegseth, who faces a Republican-led impeachment effort for his chauvinistic rhetoric and potentially unlawful actions over the wars in Yemen, strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the capture of Maduro from Venezuela as well as his general behaviour as ‘war’ secretary including a ‘Crusade’ over the military’s top brass. This is likely to fail; the new generation of Democrats are yet to sit in Congress and yet to flex their power. While Trump remains president, over the next years, the microscopic lens will be on him; a form of reckoning, perhaps retribution, simmers beneath the seats of Congress and is whispered in its halls. In January 2027, he will no longer be protected by the political process of a congressional majority, as the hungry new generation takes their seats.  Trump’s future is as unpredictable as his past.

Politicians have one motivator which ranks above all else: ‘Re-election’. Trump’s loyalists have been punished, and republican grandees will begin to break ranks to save themselves. Trump is the Political Titanic; who jumps first?. Ron DeSantis, Former Trump loyalist and governor of Florida, was one of the first out, describing the extinction-level event which just unfolded in front of our very eyes. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, though not a Trumper, now feels he has the confidence and mandate to impeach one of his own in Hegseth. As we approach 2028, the question becomes: will support for Trump be a political liability or an asset? I’m sure the Republicans who see themselves in the Oval will be contemplating this. What we are experiencing is a political tale as old as democracy itself: Margaret Thatcher became a liability, and her party extracted her; Joe Biden became a liability, and the democrats changed tack, although too late. We have all seen this film before, but this is unpredictable. Because he is unpredictable and does not conform to political norms, Trump as an all-powerful executive still has his cards to play; a Trump under pressure could be a dangerous beast, almost comparable with the confines of a police kettle, backed into a corner in an attempt to control, nowhere to escape and perhaps primed to boil over. So the ball is in the court of the victors. Can the democrats unite and form up effectively to really stop him? Will Trump become even more consumed with himself and his power that he ramps up his agenda?. For Republicans, one thing to consider is the old adage, ‘He who wields the knife never wears the crown ’; I’m sure this phrase haunts Michael Heseltine to this day. It describes the discomfort with open disloyalty, but for Republicans, what choice do they have? Reject Trump or remain on the ship as it is slowly swallowed by the waves.

The cult of personality is not leadership; it’s an act. This election shows that with all the charisma a leader can muster, if they can’t deliver, their shield begins to crack. If they cannot meet expectations, no matter how funny they are, they can become irrelevant, and no matter how loyal one can be, the fear of rejection tests the loyalty in us all.

Southwick