as for elective authoritarianism, the Founding Fathers determined to limit the scope and power and ability of any set of authorities or influential persons to gain control of the US government.
It is the Progressives you float with who have nearly destroyed that "balance".
It will stop Trump because he's not part of the cabal. It is my hope that it will also stop the "authorities" you believe in.
Just returning to an earlier mistaken assumption on your part, mistaken as I see it of course.
If I use the term "the wrong side of history", I am not referring to Marx or Hegel, or their interpretation of history. I am simply referring to the judgement of history, which often changes with the times.
History, as written, is always interpretive, when historians seek to explain causes and effects of historical events, for instance. Even the facts of history can and are debated, changing with the times as well, altered by new revelations. The past is immutable, but not our interpretation.
But, if I use that phrase, "the wrong side of history", I am thinking of the degree to which Trump undermines our democratic institutions, such as demonizing the institution of a free press, or eliminating as far as he can the independence of the Department of Justice. (I think there is a disturbance in the balance inherent there, and initiated by Trump. As well, his failure so far to understand separation of powers and the oversight role of Congress. In the latter case, he will simply ignore the House indefinitely. I surmise it is he who is undermining and helping foster what amounts to an elective authoritarianism. The trend toward an imperial presidency did not start with him, but he sure ain't helping).
On a far broader level, in terms of its impact on humanity at large, I can envision a harsh judgement by history of Trump's rejection of human caused climate change. So, for these various reasons, I judge strong supporters of Trump to likely be on "the wrong side of history", but not in the sense of a dialectic ala Marx, or an ever upward progressive trend.
And history is always open to interpretation, so of course I cannot extricate myself from my own background, or know with certainty the judgement pending in the future.
There is no constant but change, one cannot step in the same stream twice, and one era's condemnation may be replaced with another era's high praise. But you make a mistake confusing my use of that term with a Marxian interpretation of history, that's all. So, I am wanting to clear up that confusion you may have in my use of that phrase.