Is Pete Buttigieg a beautiful angel beating his luminous wings in the void, or is he a hard rock pragmatist who could go to the White House?
He came to the Upper Valley last week asking a deceptively simple but profoundly significant question: “A day will come, sooner or later, when Donald Trump no longer dominates American politics,” he said to his audience at the Granite YMCA, Concord. “I’m asking you to picture that day to ask all of us a very challenging question: Then what? Then what? What are we going to do?”
What comes after Donald Trump? Not just after the man, but after a decade in which American politics has been wrapped around his blustering persona, his perpetual grievances, his grand gesticulations and theatrics, and his thirst for dominance, global dominance. Americans never asked this question before. Presidents come, and then they leave with halos of grandeur, massive presidential libraries, well-paid memoirs, and sumptuously paid speeches.
For a region like New England that cherishes civility and civic life, town‑meeting democracy, and a certain practical Yankee moderation, Buttigieg’s visit to Dartmouth and Concord offered a revealing test of his emerging post‑Trump pitch, and whether that pitch could become a tidal wave to carry him to the White House.
In Concord public spaces and on the Dartmouth campus, Buttigieg, a former cabinet secretary and Rhodes Scholar, tried to play a double role. On the one hand, he presented himself as a calm, humorous, rational explainer of the American condition, reflecting on “Law and Democracy: The United States at 250,” in the age of Donald Trump. On the other, he appeared simply a 2028 prospect, one of several Democrats tip-toeing to make the early trek to New Hampshire, hustling for campus talks, party events, and photo‑ops for a soft launch for the next presidential cycle.
As he hopped around the state, Buttigieg’s reaction to the imaginary “What after Trump?” was strikingly a matter-of-fact, bread-and-butter response. He talked less about constitutional collapse and more about the basics of ordinary life—people having food in the fridge, a safe commute, and a stable roof over their heads. “Our job is to deliver something as citizens and voters to make sure that our government and our country are going to bring us something better — not just better than today, but better than before,” he told the audience.
He linked Trump‑era tariffs, chaotic immigration policy, and attacks on public education to highlight how life has become harder and less predictable. At the same time, he insisted that simply restoring the pre‑Trump status quo—putting Humpty Dumpty back together again—won’t be enough. “We need a much better vision than to simply find all the pieces of what this administration smashed to bits and tape them back together and serve up something resembling the old normal,” Buttigieg said.
However, the overall impression of Buttigieg’s visit was not so much transformative or visionary but rather that of managerial competence in the sense that a more liberal version of the existing order could be made functional again. Whether this is good enough for the “What after Trump” era is the real question because the conditions that brought Trump to power—regional economic decline and job evaporation, Hillbilly Elegy cultural grievances, diffused economic insecurity, institutional distrust—remain. Any post‑Trump politics that do not confront the problem structurally and fundamentally will be fragile.
As Brookings expert Daniel S. Hamilton commented, “The new age of disruption is about more than one man, even a U.S. president. Trump’s contribution has been to make the United States government more problem than solution. He is better at tearing down than building up. But we should be clear-eyed that these challenges will continue after he is gone.”
Buttigieg and other hopeful Democrats who follow him to New Hampshire for testing the waters for the presidential primary need to step out of their comfort zone of incremental restoration of the Republic. They need to rebuild state capacity, strengthen guardrails on executive power and elections, and demonstrate the government’s ability to solve concrete problems in people’s lives, especially those related to economic insecurity and inequality.
Democrats should frame democratic decline in comparative, long‑term terms and build cross‑partisan coalitions to protect institutions, whoever is in power. That means combining institutional reform with civic mobilization by investing in local organizing, civic education, and community groups so that “after Trump” becomes an ongoing project of democratic and economic renewal and reconstruction, not a return to a fragile status quo.
It seems the US Supreme Court has shown the way. By reasserting Congress’s tariff authority, the 6–3 decision constrains unilateral disruption, anchoring post‑Trump reconstruction in institutional checks-and-balances and predictable economic governance. The whole world is waiting.
Narain Batra is scheduled to teach, in April, a 4-session weekly seminar, “India, America, and the Shaping of the Modern World,” in-class and Zoom, at The Osher Institute at Dartmouth. He lives in Hartford.