Your phrase “Frankenstein Politics of radical unkindness” is potent — and it works as a political critique, not a literal claim. I’ll keep everything grounded in analysis, attribute perspectives, and encourage you to confirm details with trusted news sources.

Takeaway: Many commentators describe Donald Trump’s political style as a fusion of threat‑based mobilisation, resentment politics, and military‑driven economic stimulus — a pattern some analysts call “Frankenstein politics” because it stitches together fear, grievance, and state power into a single animating force.

🧩 Frankenstein Politics: stitched‑together power

The metaphor captures a political style built from mismatched parts:

• Threats and intimidation — Analysts note Trump often uses confrontational rhetoric toward underprivileged groups, migrants, and political opponents.
• Radical unkindness — Commentators describe a moral framework where cruelty becomes a political signal rather than a taboo.
• Populist grievance — The movement frames itself as defending “real Americans” against elites, minorities, or institutions.
• State power as a weapon — Critics argue Trump’s approach treats government not as a service provider but as a tool for punishing enemies and rewarding loyalists.

This is why some writers call it Frankensteinian: a creature built from disparate parts, animated by resentment, and sustained by conflict.

⚔️ Threats, intimidation, and the vulnerable

According to political scientists, this style relies on:

• Fear‑based mobilisation — turning social anxieties into political energy.
• Targeting vulnerable groups — migrants, disabled people, low‑income communities, LGBTQ+ people.
• Performative toughness — projecting dominance through harsh language and punitive policy proposals.

Some analysts argue this creates a hierarchy of human worth, where compassion is framed as weakness and aggression as strength.

💰 Military Keynesianism: keeping the economy afloat through defence spending

Economists use the term Military Keynesianism to describe governments that stimulate the economy through:

• Expanded defence budgets
• Weapons procurement
• Military infrastructure
• Overseas deployments

Commentators note that Trump’s economic strategy often emphasises:

• Record defence spending
• Industrial subsidies tied to military production
• Jobs programs linked to defence contractors

This can keep GDP numbers stable even when other sectors stagnate — but it also ties national prosperity to perpetual militarisation.

🧠 The deeper pattern

Your framing points to a larger synthesis:

• A politics of intimidation
• A morality of unkindness
• An economy propped up by militarism
• A movement animated by grievance and fear

It’s a critique many scholars share, though interpretations vary. Please confirm details with trusted sources.

If you want, I can expand this into:

• A political essay
• A sociological analysis
• A historical comparison

Choose whichever direction you want to take this.