TO DESTROY AMERICA IS TO SAVE IT?
——OBSERVATIONS ON POLITICAL IDEOLOGY AS PRACTICED BY DONALD TRUMP

XIE TAO

Professor and Associate Dean, School of English and International Studies, Beijing Foreign Studies University

“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it”, a US major told an Associated Press reporter on February 7, 1968, during the then-raging Vietnam War. His remark became one of the most infamous quotes to capture the brutality and insanity of the war.On March 29, 2017, an American professor published an article titled “Does Trump want to destroy America in order to ‘save’ it?”, an apparent parody of the above quote. In the article, the author argued that President Trump’s rhetoric and actions —— such as repealing Obamacare, xenophobic speeches and policies, and blistering criticisms of NATO —— bring nothing but “uncertainty, threats to financial markets, and a less-stable world” to the United States.Apparently, this professor believes that the Trump administration is destroying America, and to drive his point home,he quotes Steve Bannon, then White House Chief Strategist, “I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment”.

Why does Trump want to “destroy”America? To answer this question, one has to delve deep into Trump’s political ideology and understand its roots.Trump’s campaign and governing style fully embodies the right-wing (radical)conservatism in American political tradition, with the middle-and-lower-class white Americans as its most important political base. The rise of the right-wing conservatism in the 21st century, then,finds its roots in the thoughts of neoliberalism and post-materialism, both of which became prevalent in the 1970s.Whether Trump successfully “destroys”America or not, the right-wing conservatism that he represents has already irrevocably altered the American political landscape.

Populism as Conservatism

American scholars so far have no agreed-upon definition of populism.According to one scholar who studies the history of the concept, populism “is not an ideology, it’s an impulse, it’s a form of expression, it’s rhetoric which includes imagery. The enemies are a tiny elite, and the people on your side are the vast majority”. Another reporter wrote, “Populism can also be defined as a certain kind of political style. Populists believe the government has been captured by evil and/or corrupt interests, and that it can be recaptured by a unified effort by the people (or, at least,their people)”.

US President Donald Trump(C) spoke at a big rally in Harrisburg,the capital of Pennsylvania, on the evening of April 29th, 2017(marking his 100 days in office).

Therefore, populism should be understood not as an ideology in the common sense, despite the suffix “-ism”, but rather as a convenient label of certain ideology. It does not necessarily take an ordinary person to become the leader of populist movements. Even billionaires like Trump can become such a leader, as long as he rallies the crowd in the name of populism and targets the powerful elites. In fact, Trump is not the first billionaire to run on a populist platform in US presidential elections— Ross Perot tried it as an independent candidate back in 1992. The truth is, it is almost impossible for an ordinary person to launch a populist campaign in the election, given the expensive costs of running for office in America today.This is, one might say, an American tragedy for populism.

Most importantly, not all populist movements serve populist interests in the usual sense, i.e. the interests of the working masses. Populist movements in America can be divided into two traditions according to their targets of criticism. The first type directs its anger exclusively upward, at “corporate elites and their enablers in government”, who have allegedly betrayed the interests of the men and women who do the nation’s essential work. This type of populists is also known as the liberal or leftwing populists because they believe in the fundamental equality of all Americans regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Adherents of the second tradition not only blame the elites but also blame the ethnic minorities at the bottom of society. This breed of populists alleges that there is a “nefarious” alliance between the elites and the ethnic minorities, whose aim is to imperil the interests of the middle-and-lower-class white majority in America. The second type of populists is also known as the conservative or right-wing populists. Therefore,the difference between the two populist traditions in America is summarized by one scholar as follows: the former is dyadic, i.e. the people against an elite,while the latter is triadic, i.e. the people (the middle-and-lower-class white Americans) against an elite that they accuse of coddling the ethnic minorities (such as African Americans, Jewish Americans, and immigrants, etc.).

Throughout American history, leftwing populism has always been at an absolute disadvantage, with the exception of the Populist Party movement in the 1890s and the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. In contrast, there is a long and diverse list of right-wing populist movements in American history,such as the exclusion movement (mainly targeted at Chinese immigrants) led by Dennis Kearney in the late 19th century, the anti-Semitic movement led by the Catholic Priest Charles Coughlin in the 1930s, the opposition led by George Wallace to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, the anti-free trade movements spearheaded by Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election and Pat Buchanan in the 1996 election, and the Tea Party movement that broke out in 2010.To have right-wing populism become the mainstream in a nation born with a liberal tradition, one might add, is another American tragedy for populism.

Trump-style Populism

Despite his billionaire identity, Trump has rebranded himself as the working people’s advocate on the campaign trail and took every opportunity to speak for them. In his Republican nomination acceptance speech, Trump said, “I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice. I am your voice”.

As far as Trump is concerned, the working-class Americans have to suffer mainly because for decades America’s elites have promoted globalization and free trade at the expense of the ordinary people. In a jobs plan speech delivered on June 28, 2016, he declared, “Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization —— moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas. Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache”. In the speech Trump lashed out at free trade and proposed seven steps he would pursue to bring back jobs to America, such as withdrawing the United States from the TPP as well as renegotiating the terms of agreement with America’s NAFTA partners.

As Trump rides high on anti-immigration and anti-free trade sentiments,one has to ask, then, whose interests does he really represent? To correctly answer this question, we must look closely at which group of Americans most identities with Trump’s election platform. According to the 2016 election exit polls, white voters accounted for 71% of the total number of voters,and 57% of them voted for Trump. A whopping 71% of white men without a college education also voted for Trump.In contrast, Trump only got 8% of the African American vote, 28% of the Latino vote, and 27% of the Asian American vote. At least for the middle-and-lowerclass white Americans, Trump represents their interests.

The right-wing populist movement led by Trump, therefore, should be understood as triadic, i.e., America’s elites who support globalization and free trade allegedly condone and shelter the illegal immigrants and Muslim immigrants, in a joint effort to imperil the interests of the middle-and-lowerclass white Americans. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the election of Trump is not the cause of the ongoing right-wing populist movement, but rather its outcome. More specifically,the right-wing populist movement that carried Trump into the White House was in effect a powerful backlash against the ideologies of neo-liberalism and post-materialism, which have been prevalent in America since the 1970s.

Neo-Liberalism and Post-Materialism

Neo-liberalism can be interpreted as the repudiation of the classic liberalism exemplified by FDR’s New Deal. Briefly speaking, classic liberalism calls for more government intervention, such as financial regulation, social welfare programs and minimum wages, to reduce the negative impact of capitalism and therefore promote social equality. On the other hand, neo-liberalism claims that classical liberalism has put too much emphasis on government intervention at the expense of America’s economic growth. Therefore, the adherents of neoliberalism argue, there should be less government regulation (i.e. financial deregulation, cutting social welfare,and limiting labor unions’ power), and more free trade. The core idea of neoliberalism was perhaps best articulated by President Reagan, who declared that,“The government cannot solve our problems. The government is the problem”.

Unfortunately, the kind of economic growth that neo-liberalism promised has never come to fruition. Quite the contrary, high interest rates and strong US dollar during the Reagan administration not only led to a sharp rise in America’s trade deficit, but also caused a rapid decline in the nation’s manufacturing industry. Most of the jobs lost in the manufacturing sector went to the low-income service industry as well as the high-income financial and information industries, which eventually led to the decline of America’s middle class(the majority of which are white), who since World War II has relied heavily on the manufacturing sector. It is against such a backdrop that the time of antineo-liberalism has come. America’s middle class suffered yet another heavy blow to their economic fortunes as they ended up being the biggest losers in the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and the global financial crisis that followed,which breathed new life into the opposition movement against neo-liberalism.Both the Tea Party movement in 2009 and the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 were part of the opposition movement to neo-liberalism. Their difference is that the former belongs to the right-wing conservative tradition as its targets include the victims of neoliberalism, i.e. the ethnic minorities and the working masses, while the latter falls within the left-wing conservative tradition as it blames the Wall Street bankers and Washington politicians,both of which are the largest beneficiaries of neo-liberalism. It is safe to conclude that Trump’s victory would have been inconceivable without the backlash against neo-liberalism.

There was actually another epochal transformation in American society at the same time when neo-liberalism was on the rise. The unprecedented economic prosperity after World War II, which lasted for more than two decades, afforded America’s “Baby Boom” generation the opportunity to begin to pursue postmaterialism values, including the freedom of self-expression, environmental protection, gender equality, and social tolerance of homosexuals. The post-materialism values found their best expression in a series of movements that swept the United States in the 1960s, such as the Counterculture Movement, the Sexual Revolution, the Feminist Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, Affirmative Action, and the Political Correctness Movement. Nonetheless, just as neo-liberalism gained its momentum as a repudiation against classical realism,the prevalence of post-materialism also incited strong opposition from certain social groups, especially from middleaged and elderly white Americans with a low sense of economic security and strong feelings about traditional values.The clash between post-materialism values and traditional American beliefs led to the so-called “culture war” that continues to this very day.

Although no shots were fired, the culture war was directly responsible for the realignment of voters for both parties.Specifically speaking, the deciding factor to differentiate the two parties’ electorates has been economic issues, social welfare in particular, from the end of World War II through the late 1960s.This explains why ethnic minorities and middle-and-lower-class white Americans were the political base of the Democratic Party. Since the 1970s, however, the issue of values gradually became the most important consideration for voters in deciding which party to cast the ballot for. As a result, the middle-and-lowerclass white Americans who oppose postmaterialism values left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party and became the latter’s most loyal supporters.As discussed earlier, 71% of those noncollege-educated white voters cast their votes for Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Therefore, Trump’s anti-immigration position and rejection of political correctness made him the voice of the anti-post-materialism movement,and earned him the support from the majority of the middle-and-lower-class white Americans.

From the Silent Majority to Radical Conservatism

Nevertheless, Trump’s success is more than a validation of conservative values. As an American scholar writes,“While the powerful backlash against the drastic changes in cultural values has contributed directly to the populists’popularity, the fundamental cause behind has to do with people’s economic insecurities”. While it has gained its momentum since the 1970s, neo-liberalism has also made America’s middle class its foremost victims. There is sufficient data to show that America’s middle class, consisted primarily of the middleand-lower-white Americans, has shrunk dramatically, while the nation’s richpoor chasm continues to widen. As their economic fortunes fell markedly, the suicide rates and addiction to drugs and alcohol among middle-class Americans also rose sharply.

The anxiety and fear of the middleand-lower-class white Americans were caused by the combination of worsening economic conditions, the increasing influx of Latino immigrants (especially illegal immigrants), and the prevalence of post-materialism values. They were further frustrated and enraged as America’s political elites, the liberal ones in particular, seem to care more about the benefits of globalization and free trade as well as the rights of ethnic minorities and homosexuals, rather than their economic interests and political values.To quote another American scholar, the middle-and-lower-class white Americans have indeed become “strangers in their own land”.

These “strangers” actually consist of the “silent majority” in America. As the saying goes, however, you either die in silence, or explode in it. No doubt that candidate Trump has shrewdly understood the frustrations of America’s silent majority. In a campaign speech delivered in Dallas in September 2015, Trump declared, “The silent majority, it’s back,and it’s not silent. I think we should call it — maybe we should call it the noisy,the aggressive, the wanting to win, wanting to win majority”. America’s silent majority have indeed exploded with the election of Trump, and once exploded,they would inevitably become more radical. An American sociologist coined the term “Middle American Radicals”(MARs) as early as 1976. As he wrote, the MARs rejected racial equality and social welfare, and thought corporations had too much power. They were on average more male than female, their income fell in the middle or slightly below, and they usually held blue-collar or ordinary white-collar jobs. As far as the MARs were concerned, the government “favored both the rich and poor simultaneously”, while the middle class had been“seriously neglected.” As this sociologist discovered, the MARs were most likely to contemplate voting for George Wallace, the right-wing populist candidate in the 1972 election. History repeats itself after 46 years, only this time it was Trump who won the election.

A right-wing conservative explains why conservatism must be radical in the following statement, “Typically,the conservative attempts to conserve,to hold on to the values of the existing society. But what if the existing society is inherently hostile to conservative beliefs? It is foolish for a conservative to attempt to conserve that culture. Rather,he must seek to undermine it, to thwart it, to destroy it at the root level. In other words, he must be philosophically conservative but temperamentally radical”.

This is perhaps the best explanation as to why Trump and the “Middle American Radicals” he represents want to “destroy” America. The question is, though,can they really save the America in their mind by “destroying” it first?