Trumpism: Roots, Supporting Forces, and the Discourse of Nostalgia
Globalization has had its devastating effects on the national economies of the countries of the Global South. It seems that the poison maker has also tasted its flavor and rebelled against it. The sorcerer has turned on his master. Globalization has transformed from a tool for entrenching the American model across the world into an effective means of reversing the balance of American authority, guiding the tide toward multiculturalism, which ultimately led to profound problems within the American economy and culture. Rather than treating the rise of the far right as a product of the dominance of conservative worldviews in society, it is more appropriate to view this rise as a counter-response to deeply influential policies. As was the case at the beginning of the rise of globalization, the United States is experiencing the same problems. Initially, opposition voices emerged in intellectual circles in the Global South, denouncing the effects of globalization on national belonging, its impact on local cultural patterns, and its undermining of the sources of economic strength in weak societies. Despite the gains achieved by industrial and post-industrial societies, they lost their popular bases over time, suffering greatly from high unemployment and a longing for their old American homeland.
Trumpism is a nostalgia for that distant American past. Moreover, American elites feared the United States' inability to maintain its imperial presence, transforming from an empire with influence over peripheral countries into a nation-state with limited influence. Trumpism saw this preservation of its imperial status as a historic opportunity, one that could only be achieved by reversing the path charted by advocates of globalization, multiculturalism, and defenders of minority and immigrant rights and social justice, and moving toward advocacy of white American nationalism. Perhaps this ideological and political trend is part of a tidal wave sweeping the West like a runaway Trojan horse, beginning with the destruction of the European Union statue with Britain's exit from it, the rise of Marine Le Pen in France for a time, and other symbols of nostalgic right-wing movements in Germany and Italy, whose parties have been able to make a strong appearance in successive electoral arenas.
Roots: The Tea Party
The rise of Trumpism is tied to historical roots, waiting to be transformed into an effective political agenda capable of rising, spreading, and dominating. The white, conservative middle class was the dominant class throughout the 1950s and 1960s, a time later dubbed the "Age of American Greatness." The Republican Party itself, the ideological and political milieu of Trumpism, was comprised of this dominant class, alongside small business owners, conservative professionals (doctors, engineers, etc.), and corporate executives.
With globalization, everything changed. Factories moved outside America, reliance on imports increased, immigration increased, and diversity rose. America was no longer what it once was in the eyes of the upper and middle classes. The Republican Party was unable to capture the angry sentiments of the broad social strata of working-class and white middle-class people angry at globalization policies. It merely sided with capitalists and business owners through pro-capitalist measures, such as tax cuts, reduced benefits, restricted labor unions, and limited minority voting rights. At the same time, the anger of these groups was also directed at the Democratic left. This anger escalated dramatically with the subprime mortgage crisis in America, when the party bailed out banks and corporations while leaving these groups to suffer. These groups lost their job security, especially those living in industrial areas, their homes, and their social standing as the backbone of the country.
It was in this context that the Tea Party movement emerged within the Republican Party after the 2008 financial crisis. It was comprised of older whites, small business owners, professionals, and some elements of the big capitalists. Capitalists, of course, exploited this party, which attacked labor unions, opposed social welfare, and demanded market liberalization and tax cuts. Here, of course, there was a stark contradiction: between a white middle class, social welfare, and a pro-labor policy. These social groups saw these policies as solely serving minorities, such as Blacks and Latinos, and the undeserving. They distinguished between two types of welfare: legitimate welfare, represented by pensions and health insurance directed at whites, and illegitimate welfare, represented by unemployment benefits, which they believed were targeted at the lazy among minorities. These groups thus viewed immigrants as competitors in several respects: competitors in the free labor market and for the social services provided by the state. Therefore, they demanded greater restrictions on immigration and immigrants.
However, not all elements of this movement were anti-immigrant. Factory owners, technology companies, and all institutions that require cheap labor see the country as in need of migrant workers, a labor force that is domesticated due to its precarious situation. Meanwhile, restrictions are being imposed that make it difficult for these workers to obtain citizenship, further aiding their exploitation.
But the honeymoon between conservative forces (professionals, small business owners, executives, etc.) and big capitalists did not last. A major crisis occurred in 2011, which ended the Tea Party's presence in the Republican Party. This crisis was represented by the Tea Party's refusal to raise the debt ceiling to meet its needs. It pressed for this demand, in addition to demanding that some government social programs be restricted instead of borrowing. This resulted in the US government withholding some of its services due to a lack of sufficient funds. The crisis lasted 16 days and caused instability in the country. Both the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable opposed attempts to "shut down the government" as a threat to the American and global financial systems. The uneasy alliance between the Tea Party and the capitalist class ended in the fall of 2013. In 2014, it even launched primary campaigns against the Tea Party.
In her book, "Strangers in Their Own Land," American sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild portrayed the vision of Tea Party supporters, whose vision later crystallized into a rhetorical formula that combined a belief in individualism with a rejection of state intervention in the economy and public life. She conducted a field study in Arizona, where residents work for oil companies. Despite the residents' suffering from pollution caused by the oil industry, they direct their anger not at the companies but at the American government itself. Their ties to the government are severed; on a daily social level, they rely on the church as a source of psychological and emotional security, their local community, and neighborly relationships that save them in times of crisis. The author described the feelings of these people as those who stand in line for the American Dream and crowd it, while other strangers to the land are at the forefront, celebrated by the government (particularly left-wing governments), who push them to jump the line and gain access to sources of security and comfort.
Supporting Social Forces: Many Colors in One Cloth
These forces encompass diverse groups. The first is the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement. Its popular base is comprised of white working-class workers, junior employees, and less educated segments of the population, particularly in declining rural and industrial areas. The movement also includes:
- "Religious conservatives", including evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics, who link Trump's project to defending traditional Christian values and see it as a tool to protect religion from cultural liberalism.
- Anti-federalists: who reject the authority of federal cultural institutions (universities, national media, bureaucracy) and favor strengthening the authority of states and local communities.
- Anti-liberals: who view Trumpism as a means of implementing a reactionary revolution against liberal values (gender equality, minority rights, globalization, multiculturalism).
The second force is the techno-liberal movement, a movement based on a forward-looking vision that relies on technology to change the present and the future. Its supporters include capitalists, some old leftists, and advocates of absolute freedom of expression. The movement is concerned with solving humanitarian issues using technology, rejecting forms of indirect democracy and embracing direct democracy through social media.
The third force is the Country Club Republicans. This term is used in American politics to describe a traditional group of Republicans, often from the upper or affluent classes, belonging to the affluent suburbs or wealthy small cities, who frequent country clubs. Supporters of this group focus on pro-capital economic policies, such as tax cuts, reducing government restrictions on capital, and supporting large corporations. They are less extreme than the populist wing (MAGA), are more socially liberal, and often appear wary of loud populism. Overall, they formed the backbone of the Republican Party before the rise of the populist right and evangelical Christians, from the 1950s to the 1980s.