In November 2016, Donald Trump’s election into presidency came as a shock world-wide as his alt-right rhetoric had made him a controversial figure in twenty-first century politics. His nationalist, nativist and populist discourse primarily led to his inauguration, as he was able to utilize his targeted audience’s personal dissatisfactions in a way that idealized him into the solution to all their frustrations. We must ask ourselves how these ideologies correlate with each other in a way where they play into his rhetoric, his election having fundamentally changed American politics: America has shifted from a nation that has discarded extremism under the Obama era to one that has openly embraced it. Through populist, nativist and nationalist rhetoric; Donald Trump was able to shed light on issues of security, which led to profound division within the population.
In order to assess this essay, we must examine the nature of nativism, nationalism and populism to understand what they encompass in the realm of extremism. They share many attributes which can be found in their shared history with one another.
We must consider how populism may be encapsulated in extremist activity. The dictionary definition of populism is “a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups”. The main characteristic of this current, as established by Cas Mudde is that it splits society into “two homogenous…groups…the pure people versus a corrupt elite” (2004: 543).
To understand what Trump’s populist rhetoric encompasses, we must study this current’s origins in American politics: many ties can be drawn between populism and nativism, as populism is derived from anti-establishment sentiment originating from nativist thought. The dictionary definition of nativism “a political policy of promoting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants, including by supporting immigration-restriction measures”. This means that foreign entities would directly threaten these inhabitants. We can draw parallels between populism and nativism as they both promote this antagonistic divide within the population; populism dividing “the people” and “the elite”, and nativism dividing “the native group” and “the foreign group”.
Trump embodies American nationalism, seeking to cement an image of what America should be according to a nationalist perspective: that it belongs to native inhabitants of the nation; meaning minorities become a threat to its integrity. The dictionary definition of nationalism is the “identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations”, which can be found in most branches of extremism.
Trump’s nationalism is noticeable in the 74 speeches he has pronounced between March and November 2016, where he has mentioned the words “people” 1314 times and “country” 1105 times (Homolar, Scholz, 2019: 348), demonstrating his focus onto “the American nation and populace” (Homolar, Scholz, 2019: 348). This serves as the basis for his nationalist outlook, influenced by nativism- even referred to as “a xenophobic form of nationalism” (Mudde, 2018: 3), which provides the basis for right-wing populism. Nativism has become a “construction of nationalism that does not focus so much on ‘external’ constraints, but rather on internal minorities created by immigration” (Guia, 2016: 4). Nationalism here becomes an umbrella term that encompasses multiple branches in extremism- Guia has stated in her work that “nativists are nationalists, but not all nationalists are nativists” (2016: 4).
Now that we have defined these political ideologies, we may establish the relationship they have in correlation to Donald Trump’s rhetoric. To achieve this, we must ask ourselves this: what are the goals of such currents? For one, they seek to establish the idea that the security of a nation must be protected from heterogenous “threats”. Furthermore, they seek to divide the population to effectively install extremist sentiment through opposition.
Right-wing movements justify their existence on the basis that they are solidifying the security of their respective nations: these currents are exclusivist in nature, meaning they only include what they believe to be deserving of belonging in a framework; excluding what they consider to be a threat to society. As established previously, populism shifts this threat onto the political elite – working against the interests of “the American people” – whereas nativism shifts this onto immigrants – those who are heterogenous to a nation present a threat to its homogeneity and therefore to its integrity.
Both beliefs support Donald Trump’s nationalist ideal of belonging- implying that those who do not belong are responsible for a nation’s shortcomings. Having said this, we must ask ourselves the following question: how is Trump able to translate the idea that American security is being compromised?
Trump is skilled at manipulating Americans’ ontological security.
This term is defined as “security of being, the need to experience oneself as a whole” (Mitzen, 2006: 342). However, this is threatened when we are led to believe it has been tampered with. For reference, a survey was conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) in 2015, where 63% of Americans were insecure about healthcare, 62% stated the same for terrorism, and 60% were insecure about unemployment: we may infer from this that Americans feel that their sense of security is being affected by these issues, something that Trump utilizes (Homolar, Scholz, 2019: 350).
He plays into Americans’ anxiety by constructing “Crisis America” (Homolar; Scholz, 2019: 347), where he characterizes the United States as being in a state of decline at the expense of everyday Americans due to what he perceives as foreign entities weakening America’s state. His targeted audience is paradoxical in nature as they embody qualities from both majority and minority groups: “low-waged unskilled workers …poorer white populations living in inner-city areas with concentrations of immigrants” (Inglehart, Norris, 2016: p.2). Trump mostly aims his rhetoric at white Americans with financial difficulties.
His nativist discourse is apparent when he blames foreign bodies for Americans’ shortcomings: an example of this was during his 2016 campaign, where he blamed Mexican immigrants for occupying jobs that belonged to “actual Americans”. He stated that immigrants were “bringing crime” and were menacing Americans’ safety and wellbeing. Paradoxically, Trump criticizes foreign bodies as much as he commends them: he praises the leadership of world powers that he believes America is lacking, which only reinforces its flawed state as it is unable to secure itself both internationally and domestically. This has led to Trump’s “America First” policy, which aims to privilege American interests in social, political and economic domains.
Trump manipulates his audience’s insecurities using his xenophobic discourse as he threatens Americans’ sense of stability by villainizing foreign entities. Furthermore, we find that his nationalist rhetoric results in the divide of American society.
By identifying the culprits of “Crisis America”, Trump encourages hostility within the population: Americans become opposed to whomever he blames for America’s shortcomings. Here, his nativist, populist and nationalist discourse serves as a means of dividing American society; effectively permeating these extremist currents. He does this by affirming in “images of who gets to belong and who gets to be excluded” (Homolar, Scholz, 2019: 351).
We have previously established that his xenophobic discourse aims to separate “real Americans” from “foreigners” in order to protect what he perceives as the security of the nation-state: it is this desire for protection that leads to division. Donald Trump divides the population by manipulating what they consider to be a threat through the creation of antagonistic opposition between groups of people. Once this threat is set into place, he can utilize this by offering what he considers to be solutions that would alleviate this menace; which provides reassurance to the population. This inevitably had increased his popularity and chances of election.
Trump implements “a rhetorical line between ‘us’ and ‘them’” (Homolar, Scholz, 2019: 353), which establishes “a frontier between the ‘real Americans’ and their enemies” (Homolar, Scholz, 2019: 353). These “enemies” have two faces: the “weak, self-serving, detached establishment” and the “foreigners who either flow into the country or lead countries that want to exploit the US for economic and security reasons” (Homolar, Scholz, 2019: 351).
From Trump’s perspective, the average American is being undermined by the political elite; characterized as being consumed with self-interest, leading to its detachment from the very people it serves. This idea is key in his populist rhetoric. He distances himself from America’s failures by tearing down the pristine façade used by the elite to mask an incompetent government (Inglehart, Norris, 2016: 5). This anti-establishment sentiment is reinforced as Trump not only denounces the elite’s ineptness but their disregard for national security; as mass immigration continues to thrive under their governance. He further divides the nation by installing fear within American society: he encourages Americans to fear for their safety as immigrants present a threat to the national integrity of America. It is through division that his rhetoric can prosper, as the extremist stances taken by Americans influenced by Trump reflect his extremist discourse.
We may conclude that the relationship between populism, nativism and nationalism is solidified by these currents’ focus on security, causing division within American society: Donald Trump utilizes Americans’ insecurities to fuel his extremist discourse, which enables him to appear as a powerful leader able to resolve their anxiety. His alt-right rhetoric became the foundation of the political prowess he had acquired during his election campaign: he has set the course of American politics in the years to come.
Bibliography
Inglehart, R, Norris, P (2016), Trump, Brexit and the rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Faculty Research Working Paper Series, p.1-53
Homolar, A, Scholz, R (2019), The Power of Trump-speak: populist crises narratives and ontological security, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, p.344-364
Guia, A (2016), The Concept of Nativism and Anti-Immigrant Sentiments in Europe, European University Institute, EUI Papers, p.1-23
Mitzen, J (2006), Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma, European Journal of International Relations, p.341–370
Mudde, C (2018), How Populism Became the Concept that Defines our Age, The Guardian, p.1-4
Mudde, C (2004), The Populist Zeitgeist, p.541-563
Comments