Obama's ascent to the presidency was something quite remarkable, a party outsider "who was not part of the establishment and who would chart a separate course." He was not a complete outsider since he had still served a term as a U.S Senator, and he had been involved in the Illinois State Senate. But he was nonetheless an outsider, someone distinctly not part of the establishment. Still, for many reasons, he was elected nonetheless, and his changes in "modernizing" the campaigns of the Democrats were monumental. In it of himself he was a symbol, the first ever African American president, and one who pushed many controversial things, playing a role in legalizing legalizing gay marriage as well as his aggressive pushes for the Affordable Care Act.

By the time of Obama, America had lost many of its guardrails, and with the existential threat to conservatism, something had to give. As discussed in that piece, the establishment had lost its power to filter candidates through the democratization of nominations, mutual tolerance, and the rise of alternative media. But in this one, we're not going to focus on the system, but the players. As such, this will be a useful companion piece, showing the other side of the story.

To understand Trump's rise, we need to understand the movement that preceded him, embodied by the Tea Party movement. The name of the party references the Boston Tea Party, a legendary moment in American history when colonists defied their British overlords and dumped tea into the Boston Harbor, a powerful symbol of rebellion from repression against taxation without representation. With the fears of higher government spending rising during the Obama presidency, the T.E.A acronym (Taxed Enough Already) rose in popularity, and a reaction against the "revolution" of Obama grew in popularity.

Sarah Palin, who only two years earlier had been the vice presidential candidate alongside McCain became the "unofficial leader" of the Tea Party, in a symbiotic relationship that both returned her to the political spotlight, and boosted the credibility of the Tea Party as well. "The Tea Party Movement is not a top down operation, it's a ground-up call to action that is forcing both parties to change the way that they're doing business and that's beautiful! ... The soul of this movement is the people, everyday Americans who grow our food, run our small businesses, teach our kids, and fight our wars." She declared in the first Tea Party Convention as the keynote speaker, "You all have the courage to stand up and speak out, you have a vision for the future, one that values conservative principles."

Palin herself was an outsider, a controversial figure who lacked ties to the Republican establishment, the outcast governor from Alaska. Yet her image and populism made her a valuable pick as the vice presidential candidate in 2008, and the legitimacy she gained from it dramatically amplified her voice. The smaller story of the Tea Party and Palin as an outsider mirrors the larger scale story of Trump's own movement. The Tea Party criticized the establishment, proclaiming itself a grassroots movement that would empower the voters. And seeing the rise of the Tea Party through the lens of the demagoguery of Palin provides a hint towards where the Republican Party would go next.

Unlike the more moderate McCain, even as the 2008 election was ongoing, she advocated for a ban on same-sex marriage (not even sugarcoating it with the euphemism of states' rights.) She framed the Affordable Care Act's end-of-life counseling not as "bureaucracy" but as a "death panel", calling it "downright evil", and even weaponizing her own baby's Down Syndrome. Instead of focusing on notions like energy independence, she canted, "Drill, baby, drill," an "un-nuanced straight-from-the-gut approach that is such a large part of Palin's appeal to her supporters." She even framed opponents as "palling around with terrorists", dancing around the line of directly calling her opponents critical. And Palin used her bold, controversial and polarizing rhetoric and statements to generate massive media coverage and bypass the traditional media. She played uniquely Trumpian chords, only choosing not to take them as far as her successor would, perhaps inadvertently preparing for such a successor.

In many ways, Donald Trump was Palin, but more. Where Palin criticized Obama's "death panel" and hinted at connections with terrorists, Trump framed opponents as criminals who needed to be arrested. Where Palin emphasized her down-to-earth nature, Trump expanded on it, framing himself as the candidate against the Deep State who would tear down the "politically correct" establishment. Where Palin generated controversy and scandal to revitalize her reputation, Trump used it to create his reputation. And the two stories even intersected, with Palin calling the birther movement "fair game", and even discussing how she appreciated how "the Donald wants to spend his resources in getting to the bottom of something that so interests him and many Americans." In this way, while we can see how surprising the ascension of Trump was, we can see how brightly the signs shine in hindsight.

"Jeb is an embarrassment to himself to himself and his family," Trump explained in an interview on Meet the Press. "If he were president, it would just be more of the same. He's got money from all of the lobbyists, and all of the special interests that run him like a puppet." In the Republican presidential debate, he railed against Jeb, saying that "the donors, the special interests, the lobbyists, have very strong power over these people." But Trump? "I've turned it down," he says, "I understand the game, I've been on the other side all of my life," but he would never let interests buy him.

Against Jeb Bush, a symbol of the establishment as the brother of a previous president, Trump framed himself as a symbol of the people. When Trump attacked this connection, Bush's defense was that his brother "kept us safe", validating Bush in the moment but causing this subtle association that Bush was more of the same. Trump called Bush "low energy", not merely just an insult but a euphemism, "a bruising description from which Bush never truly recovered", a "perfect foil for Trump the political outsider." Bush had too little energy to fight against the establishment strings. Even his own brother spoke publicly, framing the label of the establishment as something you could "proudly carry." But the voters didn't want a proud establishment, they wanted the man who seemed to know the game from the inside, and chose to rebel against it for them, the people.

Like Jeb, Hillary Clinton also had establishment ties. She was the wife of Bill Clinton, herself closely tied to this same establishment, perhaps even more so, as the former First Lady. And as a member of the opposing party, Trump could dial up the rhetoric even more so by channeling the partisan divide. "This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction, terrorism and weakness," Trump spoke at the Republican National Convention, "The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First." He called her perhaps "the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency", "a world-class liar", who "ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund."

In the first Presidential Debate, his criticisms became even more direct. "And, Hillary, I’d just ask you this. You’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now? For 30 years, you’ve been doing it, and now you’re just starting to think of solutions." Trump was the symbol of change, and Hillary the symbol of complacency. Of course, responding to these allegations, she took the bait. "I think my husband did a pretty good job..." she responded, implicitly affirming the premise: that she would be an extension of the establishment symbolized by her husband. He painted Clinton "as the beneficiary of a 'rigged system', and the symbol of a corrupt status quo", attempting to "energize his populist base." In a rally in Green Bay, Trump vowed that he would "end the corrupt Washington establishment ... I'm an outsider, and I'm not a politician. I'm running for president to serve you, the people."

Against both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump was an aggressive debater. His focus was always on attacking his opponents, choosing not to defend himself but turn the conversation back on them. He forced them to react to its criticisms, defending himself and affirming the premise. This strategy is eerily familiar to that of Sarah Palin, focusing on provocative attacks and anti-establishment sentiment. She "may not answer the questions" from the moderators, but she would "talk straight to the American people", just as Trump vowed to.

Steve Schmidt, who helped run McCain's presidential campaign, reflected on it by calling her "the first of a generation of politicians who live in a post-truth environment", "a serial liar." She too focused on antagonizing opponents by focusing them on the defense as she did with Biden in the 2008 vice presidential debate. She called McCain "one of us", in contrast to Obama and Biden. And she constantly said aggressive statements that forced opponents to try to correct her, redirecting focus. These same notes have been played by Trump. In fact, she rallied in favor of Trump in 2016. "We are ready for a change," she said, standing next to Trump, "He is beholden to no one but we the people, how refreshing."

Palin may not have succeeded in the 2008 election, but she didn't need to. The legitimacy that being a vice presidential candidate gave her, and the voice further amplified by the symbolism of her as the one who would speak for the people as the informal leader of the Tea Party gave her a platform. That platform was arguably more useful than the vice presidency itself, allowing for her to influence the game from the outside. That platform was what paved the way for Donald Trump, transitioning from the era of Obama to something else entirely. Trump won the 2016 presidential election, and that victory is owed to how resonant his anti-establishment sentiment really was.

Trump and Palin were fierce reactions to the politics of yesterday, of the era of Obama that both achieved significant good and harshly polarized politics. The factions of Republican and Democrat were only becoming more and more isolated, and tolerating each other less and less. Their demagoguery resonated both with the fierce conservatives who saw the progressive attacks on traditional values as existential in nature, and with the popular voter who wanted a candidate who wouldn't run on strings, a grassroots supporter like Palin or Trump. In fact, it was the conflation of that bigotry with populism that set them apart. They didn't just tolerate controversy, no, they thrived on it. Like Palin before him, Trump promised to restore power to the people, to at long last "drain the swamp."

But in the end, Trump didn't speak for the people, only to the people.