The most fervent Trump detractors will sometimes go as far as to intimate that he is in on it all, in league with the people he rails against. Meaning the last 10 years have been the biggest kayfabe in US history. This doesn't make sense when you consider that the pre-Trump Right was hopeless. Obama's election did invigorate the various factions on the right, which made some waves in the shape of the Tea Party, but as a political force it didn't achieve that much. Perhaps its biggest political achievement was getting rid of Eric Cantor in a primary in 2014, but by then the movement had been co-opted by the GOP establishment. Having seen off the threat from the right, they were preparing us for Jeb Bush vs Hillary in 2016, and some version of that for every election for the rest of time.
The theory of Trump as controlled opposition is at that he was introduced in order to placate an angry right wing. But in 2014 tip of the spear of right wing animus was Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly on TV every night playing footage of unrest in Ferguson and lamenting leftist cop hatred. Hardly revolutionary. Is the argument really that Fox News boomers were about to rise up and march on Washington DC, so the regime had to give them Trump to calm them down? The alt-right, or dissident right, whatever you want to call it, was still obscure back then, and very online, thus easily dismissed. In light of that, why would you then purposely introduce the most disruptive political figure of modern times? You could just roll with Jeb! and either the GOPe wins or suffers yet another principled loss to Hillary, who you could work with anyway.
The fact is Trump changed everything when he entered the race in 2015, both because of who he is as well as the message he was pushing. Because of his celebrity and universal name recognition he could not be ignored by the public, and because of his money he couldn't be brushed aside by the political class. His presence combined with the parallel rise of social media enabled dissident right views to leak into real world politics, which resulted in legitimate opposition to the regime for the first time in decades.
Despite strongly disagreeing with its implementation since, Trump detractors no doubt still agree with Trumpism/MAGA as written on paper, derived from 2016 rhetoric. I am sympathetic to criticism coming from that angle, but it does not negate the utility of Trump winning again, which is that despite unprecedented resistance from the US power structure, Trumpism becomes further established as legitimate. If Trump should win a second term, I will consider it success if he ends the Ukraine conflict quickly, stops war with Iran, and does something with immigration that will last beyond his time as president (like a real wall). Perhaps a low bar, but once again, he will operating in an environment with very few allies in any institution of power. Which is why legitimizing Trumpism is likely to be the most lasting thing he does, as the next generation of right-leaning leaders in business, law and politics will have been steeped in Trumpism for at least 10 years by the time his second term ends. So while Trump can't save America in 4 years, what he can do is create the conditions for a Trumpist faction of elites to wrest control at some point down the line.