Stephen King, the master of horror, has often used his platform to comment on the real-life terrors of politics. Known for creating some of the most memorable villains and frightening scenarios in literature, King believes that the most chilling story of all may not be a work of fiction, but a tale of historical revisionism. He predicts that in the coming decades, many who voted for Donald Trump will pretend they didn't, a phenomenon he describes as the reverse of a classic baseball anecdote.
This article delves into King's perspective, exploring his reasons for speaking out, the parallels he draws from his work, and the broader context of a literary giant's role as a political critic.
A Historical Amnesia: The Reverse of the Bobby Thomson Home Run
Stephen King's central theory about Trump's legacy revolves around what he calls a form of historical amnesia. He draws a comparison to a famous moment in baseball history: Bobby Thomson's "Shot Heard 'Round the World." This iconic home run won the 1951 National League pennant for the New York Giants. Over the years, countless people have claimed to have been in the stands that day, far more than the actual number of attendees. The home run became such a legendary moment that everyone wanted to feel they were a part of it.
According to King, the opposite will happen with the Trump presidency. He suggests that in 20 or 30 years, as the history books are written and the political landscape shifts, many who supported Trump will be reluctant to admit it. They will say, "I never voted for Trump," or "I wasn't one of them." King believes that the sheer number of people making this denial will be a testament to how the era is viewed in hindsight. The desire to be on the right side of history will, in his view, lead to a quiet, collective denial of past political choices.
This prediction is rooted in a deep understanding of human nature—the same kind of understanding that allows King to craft believable characters facing unimaginable horrors. He sees a future where the political choice to support Trump will be viewed by a significant portion of the population as a source of shame or embarrassment, leading to this widespread disavowal.
An Obligation to Speak Out
As a prominent public figure with millions of followers, Stephen King is no stranger to criticism. His outspoken political views, particularly his fierce opposition to Donald Trump, have often drawn the ire of some of his readers. However, King has been clear about his motivations. He feels a moral obligation to say what he thinks and to be clear about it.
This isn't just about politics for King; it's about a fundamental question of morality and values. He famously asked, "Which side are you on?" This simple query reflects a belief that in a time of political polarization and what he sees as a threat to democratic institutions, remaining silent is not an option. He's aware that some of his readers are Trump supporters, and he's not looking to alienate them, but he also believes that his creative work and his public persona are intertwined.
King's horror novels often deal with themes of good versus evil, the fight against overwhelming darkness, and the importance of standing up for what is right. He seems to apply this same ethical framework to his political commentary. To him, the Trump presidency was more than just a political event; it was a "horror story" in its own right, and as a master of the genre, he felt compelled to provide commentary on the plot.
The "Horror Story" of Trumpian America
King has repeatedly described Trump's time in office as a "horror story." This label is not just a clever turn of phrase; it's a genuine reflection of his concerns. He views the political climate and specific events of the administration through the lens of the genre he knows best.
The Unbelievable Plot: King suggests that if he had written a story about a figure like Trump rising to power decades ago, it would have been dismissed as an allegory, or as too outlandish to be believable. He has pointed to the breakdown of norms and institutions as something that would have seemed impossible in a pre-Trump world.
The Unsettling Characters: He has often critiqued what he sees as a descent into political absurdity, likening it to a fictional world where things are "all dissonance and no music." The constant stream of what he perceives as misinformation and the disregard for political norms have, in his view, created a truly unsettling and terrifying narrative.
The Hope for a "Good Ending": When asked how he would write an ending for this "horror story," King suggested that impeachment would have been a "good ending." The alternative, a third term, he has described as a truly "bad ending," a nightmare scenario for democracy itself. This commentary reinforces his view that the political events of the last few years are not just politics as usual, but a fight for the soul of the country.
The Uncanny Parallels of The Dead Zone
One of the most interesting aspects of the conversation around Stephen King and his political views is the frequent mention of his 1979 novel, The Dead Zone. In the book, the protagonist, Johnny Smith, awakens from a coma with the ability to see a person's future by touching them. He eventually encounters a charismatic, seemingly populist politician named Greg Stillson who holds eye-catching rallies. When Johnny shakes Stillson's hand, he sees a vision of him becoming president and causing a catastrophic nuclear war.
This novel is often cited as a chillingly prophetic work that predicted the rise of a figure like Donald Trump. The book's villain, Stillson, is portrayed as a charismatic demagogue with a populist appeal and a dangerously unhinged personality. The parallels between the fictional character and the real-life political figure are, for many, too striking to ignore.
King himself, however, has expressed uncertainty about the "prophecy" of his work. While he acknowledges the similarities, he's also noted that such characters have existed throughout history. The fact that the book feels so relevant today is, for him, a testament to the timeless nature of political horror. He seems to be saying that while he may not have foreseen the exact outcome, he understood the type of person who could ascend to power in a troubled time. This idea is perhaps the most chilling of all: that the kind of horror story he wrote in 1979 is not an anomaly, but a recurring pattern in human history.
A Writer's Duty in a Divided Nation
Stephen King's role as a public critic goes beyond just his commentary on Trump. He has spoken out on a variety of issues, from what he sees as the erosion of democracy to the importance of reading and analytical thinking. He believes that a decline in reading has blunted the public's ability to spot "the unmistakable odour of bullshit."
He has also been a vocal critic of figures like Elon Musk, warning about the dangers of a tech billionaire's increasing influence over politics and the potential for the dissemination of "pro-Trump disinformation." This shows that King's concerns are not limited to one individual, but to the broader political and media ecosystem. He sees a fundamental struggle between truth and falsehood, and as a writer, he believes in the power of words to illuminate that struggle.
In a world where political debates are often reduced to soundbites and insults, King's willingness to engage with the big, messy, and terrifying questions of his time is a reminder of the power of a single voice. While he may be a horror writer, his most impactful works today might not be his novels, but his relentless and unflinching commentary on the real-world horrors he sees unfolding. He has taken the mantle of a cultural conscience, using his fame not to sell more books, but to call attention to what he considers a vital moment in history.
In the end, Stephen King's prediction about historical denial isn't just about Donald Trump. It's a statement about memory, accountability, and the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of the past. As a writer, he knows that stories, whether fictional or historical, are powerful. And he is determined to ensure that the story of this political era is not one that is quietly rewritten by those who lived it.
0 Comments