It is clear that Donald Trump is not a republican and his followers are not republicans, though many republicans have tagged along hoping for some benefit. Trumpism fits Luhmann’s description of a protest movement, a protest movement that has accidentally congealed around a xenophobic, sexist, mentally unstable demagogue. In the section on Protest Movements in Theory of Society, vol. 2, Luhmann writes,
The rise rather than fall of protest movements probably has to do with the switch of society to functional differentiation. Following Talcott Parsons, we can assume that there is a link between greater differentiation and greater generalization of the symbolic basis, especially “values,” on which society seeks to formulate its unity. But what happens if generalized values can no longer be accommodated in differentiated society? If, although formulated and recognized, they are inadequately realized? It seems that social movements are in search of an answer to this problem, and that this answer takes the form of another paradox, finding expression in protest by society (and not just single actors or specific interests) against society. . . .
Our point of departure is . . . the observation that protest movements are to be understood neither as organizational systems not as interactive systems.
They are not organizations because they do not organize decisions, but motives, commitments, ties. They seek to bring into the system what an organization presupposes and mostly has to pay for: membership motivation. . . Unlike organizations, they have infinite need of personnel. If we were to understand protest movements as organizations (or as emerging organizations), they would display a long list of deficient characteristics: they are heterarchical not hierarchical, polycentric, structured as networks, and above all, they have no control over the process of their own change. . . .
The socialist movement of the nineteenth century . . . was . . . capable of organization, indeed of theory. For today’s “new” social movements, the situation is different. They have to do with strongly individualized individuals. . . .
Their potential for recruitment is based on the considerable weakening of the importance of affiliation . . .
The unity of the system of protest movement arises from its form, from protest. With the form of protest, it becomes apparent that, although participants seek political influence, they do not do so in normal ways. This eschewal of the normal channels of influence is also intended to show that the matter at issue is urgent, profound, and general, so that it cannot be processed in the usual fashion. Although protest movements proceed from within society–otherwise it would not be communication–it proceeds as if it were from without. It considers itself to be (the good) society, which does not, however, mean that it would protest against itself. It expresses itself from a sense of responsibility for society but against it. This does not, of course, hold true for all the concrete goals of these movements; but through the form of protest and the willingness to deploy stronger means if protest is not heeded, these movements differ from efforts at reform.
This last sentence is important. The protest movement, as a social system, is not interested in reforming what it sees as an irredeemable society. Trump’s hard-core followers (and they are followers, not supporters in the traditional sense) want a revolution, and they are hoping Trump gives it do them. But if he can’t do it (Even if he wins, politics alone can’t revolutionize society), his followers will look for other ways to overturn society.
Politics can play around with trade agreements, but that alone isn’t going to change the global economy. Nor can politics prevent women and ethnic minorities from accessing the education system and gaining social power.
Also, all the talk of a “rigged” election shows that this isn’t normal party politics. This is not a case of the opposition trying to win back the power to govern. Trump and his followers don’t trust the political system; they position themselves outside of politics, protesting against politics.