There was plenty of evidence of Trump’s corruption that Democrats could have wielded effectively during the election—most notably, the fraudulence of Trump University (which last week resulted in Trump paying a $25 million settlement and a $1 million fine) and the myriad examples of self-dealing at the Trump Foundation—for instance, spending more $258,000 of the money donated to his charity to pay off lawsuits and legal fines.



Democrats could have used such examples to paint Trump as the opposite of a populist. President Obama showed the way when he said in a September speech, “This is the guy you want to be championing working people? This guy who spent 70 years on this earth showing no concern for working people” Unfortunately, Obama’s attacks on Trump as a phony populist weren’t taken up by the Clinton campaign, which instead tried to paint Trump as a violator of norms.

The Clinton campaign used Trump’s shocking language to argue that he was beyond the pale—an approach epitomized by its “Role Models” ad, which shows children listening to Trump’s wild rhetoric. The problem with this appeal was that it was fundamentally apolitical—Donald Trump is a bad role model for kids; do we really want a president like that? This emphasis on bad, dangerous Trump failed to link his shocking words with his actual harmful policies; the Democrats didn’t give people who preferred Trump on the issues, or who liked the idea of having someone dangerous in the White House, a substantial reason to vote against him.

Trump easily countered the Clinton campaign by tarnishing his rival as “corrupt Hillary,” and making hay with her alleged “pay-for-play” misdeeds at the Clinton Foundation and the state department, along with her questionable handling of classified email. Democrats were frustrated at the power of the “corrupt Hillary” meme, since by any reasonable measure Clinton’s minor infractions paled in significance to Trump’s history of large-scale fraud. What they failed to realize was that Trump had neutralized accusations of corruption against himself by invoking “corrupt Hillary” to bolster his credentials as a norm-breaker who would fight against a corrupt system. The “Trump is a bad person” line of attack only made him look more appealing to those who want to blow the system up.

The meme was part of a larger argument Trump made when he boasted about buying politicians. Trump cast himself as the cure for Washington corruption—a strange cure, to be sure, but that was the appeal. “Yes, I’m a crook,” he seemed to say, “but that means I know how this crooked system works and I can fix it. I’m already rich, so the wealthy can’t buy me like they do other politicians.”

In response, the Clinton campaign was effectively making the same “good government” arguments before the election that are being made now. Democrats need to take a clue from Obama and make a whole different case about President Trump that goes like this: “Trump’s corruption is proof that he’s not looking out for common people. He’s betrayed his promise that he couldn’t be bought. The same Trump that ripped off students at Trump University continues to rip off America. He’s not making America great again, but continuing to enrich himself.”

As president, Trump’s corruption will be salient in a whole new way that Democrats can exploit. If Trump’s supporters were hoping that he was a smart crook who can’t be bought and would fight for the forgotten American, many of them will surely be surprised to discover that he’s continuing to focus on self-enrichment as president.



Creating wedges that separate Trump from his base is one of the Democrats’ most urgent tasks going forward, and a fresh argument about corruption is the way forward. A consistent, steady argument that Trump is using his office to benefit himself would have the merit of moving beyond the slogans that only appeal to those that didn’t vote for Trump (“Not My President”), and cut into his support from Trump voters who might feel betrayed. The fact Trump and the Republicans are about to pass tax cuts that benefit the very rich offers an initial opening for making that case. And once he’s sworn in, Trump’s conflicts of interest can be linked to his actual policies. (For example, the way in which Trump’s expanding business ties to countries like Saudi Arabia and India contradict his calls for American businesses to invest in jobs at home.)



Trump is unlikely to be impeached unless the Democrats gain control of Congress—a long shot at best over the next couple of cycles. But one of the ways to help the Democrats regain their strength in Congress—and ultimately the White House—is to start laying out the case that Trump is corrupt and anti-populist. The argument that Trump violates good-government norms failed in the campaign, and won’t work any better when he’s in the White House. What the opposition needs is a strong, ongoing argument that his corruption is integrally linked to policies that go against ordinary people.