I dislike the saying “the wrong side of history.” History doesn’t have a side. It’s the study of the past, that’s it.

Granted, some historical narratives can seem like historians are choosing sides, but they aren’t. So, yes, I fully expect that the historical consensus on Trump will one day be, “The Trump administration weakened the foreign policy of the US by attacking traditional allies with strong democracies and siding with authoritarian leaders in Russia, China, and other places. His policies at home drove dissent, worsened inequality, sparked civil conflict, and saw a reduction in the US standard of living. He was also responsible for stalling global action about climate change which had disastrous consequences while worsening wars all over the world.”

But they are also going to say, “Trump one of the most important leaders of the 21st century – perhaps the most important – as his media-fueled rise to power charted the course for politicians all over the world for decades. There was no corner of the world where his influence was not felt. He reshaped global politics in his image.”

And, depending on how things play out, they’re as likely to say, “Trumpism, in various forms, was the dominant force in US politics for the next century, and Trumpist policies are wildly popular today” as they are to say, “It was a brief if dramatic force in American and world politics without lasting consequence.”

We need better metaphors!  This one should be put to rest, the sooner, the better.