The discussion surrounding Donald Trump's rise to prominence in American politics has led historians to reevaluate the historical context of the American right. Traditionally, many scholars believed that political liberalism was deeply entrenched in the United States, often overlooking the significant influence of far-right movements within conservative circles. Recent historiographical developments suggest that Trump’s emergence was not merely a historical accident but rather a culmination of long-standing trends toward illiberalism in American society.

As Trump celebrated his first hundred days in office, he hinted at ongoing changes that would disrupt established norms and beliefs about the nation’s trajectory. This shift became particularly evident during his 2016 presidential campaign, which challenged previous assumptions about America's political evolution. Historians expressed regret for not recognizing earlier what factors enabled such an unconventional presidency.

Rick Perlstein, an independent historian and journalist, articulated this sentiment by criticizing what he viewed as a narrow narrative surrounding the American right's history. He emphasized that historians had underestimated the potential for a figure like Trump to rise to power due to their constrained understanding of conservative movements.

This new wave of scholarship questions previously held notions about key developments such as Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and advancements in civil rights and feminism, suggesting these achievements may be more precarious than once thought. The prevailing narrative is being reassessed as scholars aim to understand how Trump's presidency fits into a broader historical framework that includes far-right influences on conservatism throughout the 20th century and beyond.

Original article

The provided text is replete with various forms of bias, manipulation, and selective framing that shape the narrative to favor a particular ideological perspective. One of the primary biases evident in the text is its overtly left-leaning and liberal stance. The author's tone and language convey a sense of regret and criticism towards historians who failed to recognize the rise of Donald Trump, implying that they were too narrow-minded or conservative in their understanding of American politics. This framing creates a narrative that positions Trump's presidency as an anomaly, rather than a culmination of long-standing trends.

The use of phrases such as "far-right movements within conservative circles" and "illiberalism in American society" serves to create a negative connotation around conservative ideologies, while implying that liberalism is inherently more progressive and desirable. This binary opposition between liberalism and conservatism reinforces a left-leaning bias, where one side is portrayed as more enlightened and forward-thinking. The text also employs virtue signaling by criticizing historians for not recognizing earlier what factors enabled Trump's rise to power, thereby positioning itself as more aware and nuanced.

The author's reliance on Rick Perlstein's critique further solidifies this bias. Perlstein's emphasis on the need for a broader understanding of conservative movements serves to reinforce the notion that conservatives are often misunderstood or underestimated by liberals. However, this framing neglects to consider alternative perspectives or potential criticisms from conservative scholars who might argue that Perlstein's own views are overly simplistic or biased.

Furthermore, the text exhibits cultural bias through its implicit nationalism. The author assumes an American-centric perspective, focusing primarily on domestic politics and historical developments within the United States. This narrow focus neglects global contexts and potential influences from international events or ideologies. The text also employs linguistic bias through its use of emotionally charged language, such as "disrupt established norms," which creates a sense of urgency and moral imperative around challenging traditional views.

In terms of racial and ethnic bias, there is an implicit marginalization of white working-class Americans who may have voted for Trump due to economic concerns or disillusionment with mainstream politics. The text does not engage with these perspectives directly but instead focuses on far-right movements within conservatism as if they were solely responsible for Trump's rise to power. This omission reinforces stereotypes about white working-class voters being inherently racist or xenophobic.

Regarding gender bias, there is no explicit discussion about women's roles in American politics during Trump's presidency; however, feminist advancements are mentioned briefly in relation to civil rights developments during Roosevelt's New Deal era. While this inclusion might seem neutral at first glance, it subtly reinforces traditional narratives about feminism being primarily concerned with social justice rather than economic empowerment or other aspects.

Economic class-based bias becomes apparent when discussing Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies as potentially precarious achievements due to far-right influences on conservatism throughout history. This framing implies that progressive economic policies are vulnerable to reversal by right-wing forces without acknowledging potential benefits from market-oriented reforms or alternative solutions proposed by economists across different ideological spectrums.

Structural institutional bias emerges when considering gatekeeping systems within academia; historians like Rick Perlstein hold significant authority over shaping narratives around American politics due to their expertise but may be subjectively interpreting data based on preconceived notions rather than objective analysis alone.

Confirmation bias becomes evident when accepting assumptions without question regarding far-right influences shaping conservatism without providing counterarguments from opposing viewpoints; sources cited support only one side while reinforcing existing narratives about liberal vs conservative dichotomies without engaging critically with complexities beyond these binary oppositions