Trump Surfs on the United States’ Nationalistic Wave

For Americans, the old model of left vs. right no longer reflects the spirit of the times. The dichotomy of globalism vs. nationalism has come to occupy its place.

When the iconic photograph of Angela Merkel staring at Donald Trump during the recent Group of Seven leading industrial nations summit went viral on social media, many observers pointed out the stupidity of Trump’s decision to impose punitive tariffs on his allies. The progressive liberal magazine, The New Yorker, for example wrote that “America First” (Trump’s campaign slogan) in truth signifies “America Alone.”* Few realize that Trump voters adore the photo. For his fans, it serves as proof that he is willing to defend the U.S. against globalization, which they fear so much. Breitbart, the ultranationalist news website popular among Trump’s defenders, put the image on its homepage under the headline: “G7 Summit: Trump gives a masterclass in ‘America First’ to globalists.” John Bolton, Trump’s national security advisor, shared on Twitter: “Just another #G7 where other countries expect America will always be their bank. The President made it clear today. No more.” The strategy is paying off. Trump’s approval rate is rising, and Republican politician, Mitt Romney, a recent presidential critic, said that he believes Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

Trump masterfully knew to identify and take advantage of the transformation in North American politics, in which the old model of left vs. right no longer works. In fact, the division between globalists and nationalists is increasingly relevant today. For many observers, it was a surprise to see a noteworthy number of Americans who had supported the self-declared socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party presidential primaries vote for Trump in the general election.** If all of Sander’s voters had transferred their votes to Hillary Clinton, she would be president today. These voters, however, did not view the candidates according to the classic parameters of left versus right. Instead, it seemed like they identified more similarities between Sanders and Trump than between Sanders and Clinton. The globalists, such as Clinton, believe that globalization generally produces benefits for all and does not threaten national sovereignty. They often consider national borders as an obstacle to progress. The nationalists, such as Sanders and Trump, in turn, believe that globalization is a threat to national sovereignty and want stronger national borders. For them, the national government must protect the country against negative foreign influences, such as imported products which put American industry at risk.

However, although one cannot ignore the trend, accepting the division between nationalists and globalists brings profound risks, because it makes for a false exclusivity between the two groups, as if people had to choose between the country or the world. This dangerous dichotomy permits nationalists to portray globalization as a system dominated by banks and opaque international conglomerates that undermines the national state and democracy itself. Nationalists can attack the globalists and question their loyalty: who guarantees that they will defend the homeland in times of conflict? The division suggests implicitly that the globalists are less committed to the national interest. Portraying a caricature of globalism as a liberal alternative, capitalistic and anti-democratic to nationalism yields votes, while the defense of international institutions such as the U.N, the World Trade Organization or the European Union, stirs much less interest.

Still, those who support globalization are also partially responsible for the ascension of nationalists. As Harvard professor Dani Rodrik pointed out, the majority of economists have always tried to speak only of the positive consequences of free commerce, minimizing its negative impact on specific groups. A regular lecturer at the Davos World Economic Forum, for example, rarely recognizes that issues such as the manipulation of currency, trade imbalances and jobs losses are real, or that importation from countries where workers’ rights are not protected brings serious questions relative to distributive justice. Similarly, critics of free trade are correct when they argue that multinational businesses and large investors sometimes determine the agenda for international commercial negotiations, resulting in agreements which disproportionally benefit capital relative to work. Consequently, the defenders of globalization lose part of their credibility, and Trump’s arguments against globalization have attracted much attention.

Another problem is that many globalists treat Trump voters as uninformed rednecks. In social media, his adversaries frequently depict Trump as a child. A photo edited with Photoshop which was popular on Twitter, shows the president of the U.S. in a stroller during the G-7. Another shows chairs set out for each of the G-7 leaders, with an added detail: a baby’s highchair for the United States. However, it is not often noticed that these images reinforce the perception among Trump voters that Trump is not being taken seriously and that his adversaries are arrogant and oblivious to their concerns.

The globalist vs. nationalist dichotomy is increasingly defining U.S. action in the world. Not surprisingly, Trump called for readmitting Russia to the G-7, a country led by the nationalist Vladimir Putin, and the only person whom Trump praised in his tweets during the summit was the new prime minister of Italy, a euroskeptic nationalistic leader, whom he called “a really great guy.”

But, by acting this way, Trump is not only expressing his own convictions. He is translating the zeitgeist in the United States into action, something which has been present for some time. Seeing the nationalistic views of a significant part of the population of the United States, it seems actually improbable that in the next decade, any future White House occupant will adopt a free-trade agenda as enthusiastically as Trump’s predecessors did. As the United States increasingly stares at its navel, other global actors, such as the European Union, China, the BRICS group and the Latin America nations, are left to ensure that globalization continues without the country that once was its major defender.***

*Translator’s note: The author is apparently referring to the article “Under Trump, ‘America First’ Really Is Turning Out To Be America Alone” by Susan Glasser in the June 8, 2018 issue of The New Yorker.

**Translator’s note: The Cooperative Congressional Election Study which surveyed about 50,000 people, found that about 12 percent of Sanders supporters voted for Trump.

***Editor’ note: BRICS is an acronym for the association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.