When He Woke up, Trumpism Was Still There

Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 12 November 2020
by Xavier Peytibi (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Derek Voglis. Edited by Elizabeth Cosgriff.
The president of the United States never loses. Like a good populist, he uses antagonism as one of his communication tools: Everything is everyone else's fault.

Almost 200 years ago, in the American election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral vote, but added up it was not enough to win a majority. John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay were even farther behind in terms of votes. Finally, it was going to be Congress that would be the institution to decide the future president, with all the numbers necessary for a Jackson victory. However, a surprise occurred there. Adams would go on to become the White House's new tenant after getting the majority of votes from states that had supported the actual speaker of the House, and also a former candidate, Clay. Interestingly enough, Clay would be the one chosen by Adams to be his secretary of state.

The scandal was set in motion. Jackson, a war hero considered by many to be obstinate and dim-witted, did not take kindly to it in the least, as was to be expected. As a result, he began a grueling campaign against Adams and the entire establishment at the time, even going so far as to establish his own party — the current Democratic Party (in fact, the symbol of the donkey, first drawn by Thomas Nast, is said to be for him).

For four years he denounced the alleged fraud, which would become known as the "corrupt bargain," and for four years that was the nationwide and totally polarizing issue for the American people. You were either with Adams or with Jackson, with the political elite or with the common people. And that deafening noise during the legislative session had a clear ultimate winner. In the following election of 1828, Jackson, who prided himself on being a normal person and not a corrupt Washington politician, won the presidency by a landslide.

During those turbulent four years, the public understood that the elites had rigged the election results, and that idea was fed over and over again by Jackson and his supporters, organizing themselves across the country to spread word of the alleged fraud. It didn't matter what the math said. Simply put, the states that in 1824 voted for Clay, voted for Adams in Congress because he was their second favorite candidate, while Jackson was the third or fourth. What mattered, for the now angry members of the Democratic Party, was that an injustice had been committed. And the outrage that came from this generated so much rage and anger, with a political mobilization never seen before.

Because anger can succeed when it has objective reasons for existing, as Aristotle indicated, and furthermore, as Peter Sloterdijk reaffirms in his book “Rage and Time,” when it comes from outrage over an attack on something that feels like your own ("anger is not a primary feeling, but a reactive one toward wounded pride"). Martha Nussbaum also speaks of the potential political — and revolutionary — success anger will have so long as that anger comes from the attempt to restore justice. That is the most important thing. If citizens feel that an injustice exists, anger can allow them to organize and mobilize for that cause, and to do so with more momentum than ever before. And in the face of an irate part of society, using populism is much simpler, and polarizes and mobilizes much more, which generates a more accurate vote.

Let’s go back to the present day. Donald Trump speaks indignantly of fraud; that indignation is rallying his own, many of those 70 million voters who have been polarized over the last four years, and who are just as outraged at this alleged injustice that was committed, the catalyst for his revolution over the next four years. Trump will certainly try to use this to his advantage, as he is already doing.

That will be his story for the next few months or years: It is a fraud and he is a victim — of the establishment, the elites, the corrupt system in Washington, the press, etc. It is everyone's fault but his own. Because Trump never loses, and because Trump, being the good populist he is, uses antagonism as one of his tools of communication: Everything is everyone else's fault.

In any case, until we see how this potential outrage in favor of Trump plays out, I think the kind of anger that should concern the new Biden administration is not so much this one, but rather an earlier one. It is the outraged anger of those who voted for Trump not in 2020, but back in 2016. This is because they saw their situation as unjust, and they saw in Trump a different person, separate from the political elites, a person who did care about their concerns and safety, who was in touch with what the citizens were experiencing, especially the kind of things that weren’t being shown by the media, nor existed in large multiethnic cities.

It's hard to change the mind of a person who thinks you're not being fair to them. And even more difficult if almost the entire Democratic political narrative has nothing to do with these people, or their surroundings, or with how they see things, or their daily lives. They are the ones who feel that they are the ordinary people (a healthy society versus a corrupt one, as Pierre Rosanvallon would say), and not Joe Biden or the Democrats, or that multiethnic city life so far out of step with their own.

Trump was in 2016 the angry way to escape a situation of discontent and a feeling of injustice. It was a strong statement of opposition. The polarization seen in these last four years, driven by Trump (but not only by him) has managed to keep it that way, and to divide society even more, making the Republican the clear alternative to the way professional politics and the media see the world.

Polarization has turned this into not an election, but a referendum on Trump, and a referendum on two ways of understanding the present and future of the United States. These two United States are not going to disappear only to become one, no matter how much Biden pleads — and does it well — in his speeches. Trumpism will exist for much longer than the Trump presidency itself because it has become a symbol for a large part of the population.

In 1990, the Guatemalan writer Augusto Monterroso wrote one of the shortest stories in Spanish: "When he awoke, the dinosaur was still there." When Biden becomes president-elect, even if Trump — to everyone's surprise — brings himself to accept defeat, even if the anger and outrage over the alleged, unproven election fraud ceases to seem justified and therefore no longer makes sense — even when all this happens, Trumpism will still be there. Because the outrage of many voters was not — and is not — only in favor of Trump or the electoral recount, but against a world they consider unfair to them. When the Biden-Harris administration takes office, the dinosaur will still be there, and it will be hard to send him away.




Hace casi 200 años, en las elecciones estadounidenses de 1824, Andrew Jackson ganaba en voto popular y en votos electorales, pero no sumaba lo suficiente para tener mayoría. A mucha más distancia en votos se quedaban John Quincy Adams y Henry Clay. Iba a ser finalmente el Congreso la institución que decidiría el futuro presidente, con todos los números para que Jackson fuera el escogido. Sin embargo, saltó la sorpresa. John Quincy Adams sería el nuevo inquilino de la Casa Blanca al conseguir los votos de la mayoría de estados que habían apoyado al propio presidente del Congreso (y también excandidato), Henry Clay. Curiosamente, Clay sería el escogido por Adams para ser su secretario de Estado.

El escándalo estaba servido. Jackson, un héroe de guerra considerado por muchos como alguien tozudo y con pocas luces, no se lo tomó nada bien, como era obvio, y empezó una dura campaña contra Adams y todo el establishment de la época, llegando a fundar su propio partido —el actual partido demócrata— (de hecho, se dice que el símbolo del burro, dibujado por primera vez por Thomas Nast es por él).
Durante cuatro años denunció el supuesto fraude, lo que se conocería como The Corrupt Bargain, y durante cuatro años ese fue el tema nacional y totalmente polarizador de la ciudadanía estadounidense. O se estaba con Adams o con Jackson, o con la élite política o con la gente de a pie. Y ese ruido ensordecedor durante la legislatura tuvo un claro ganador final: en las siguientes elecciones de 1828, Andrew Jackson (que se enorgullecía de ser una persona normal y no un corrupto de Washington) arrasó.
Durante esos convulsos cuatro años, la ciudadanía entendió que las élites habían adulterado los resultados, y esa idea fue alimentada una y otra vez por Jackson y sus simpatizantes, organizándose por todo el país para difundir el supuesto fraude. No importaba que fueran matemáticas: sencillamente los estados que en 1824 votaron por Clay, en el Congreso votaron por Adams (porque era su segundo candidato favorito, mientras Jackson era el tercero o cuarto). Lo que importaba, para los ahora airados miembros del partido demócrata, es que se había cometido una injusticia. Y la indignación producida generó esa rabia e ira, con una movilización política como nunca se había visto.
Porque la rabia puede tener éxito cuando tiene razones objetivas para existir, como indicaba Aristóteles, y aún más, como reafirma Sloterdijk en su libro Ira y tiempo, cuando proviene de la indignación ante un ataque a algo que se siente como propio (“la cólera no es un sentimiento primario, sino un sentimiento reactivo hacia el orgullo herido”). También Marta Nussbaum habla del potencial éxito político —y revolucionario— de la ira siempre y cuando esa ira provenga del intento de restituir la injusticia. Eso es lo más importante. Si la ciudadanía siente que hay una injusticia, la rabia puede permitir que se organicen y se movilicen por esa causa, y que lo hagan con más ímpetu que nunca. Y ante una parte de sociedad airada, usar el populismo es mucho más sencillo, y polariza y moviliza mucho más, lo que genera un voto más fiel.
Volvemos al presente. Donald Trump habla, indignado, de fraude, y esa indignación está movilizando a los suyos, a muchos de esos 70 millones de votantes polarizados durante los últimos cuatro años, que tienen en esa rabia por esa supuesta injusticia cometida la espoleta para su revolución durante los próximos cuatro años. Trump va a intentar usarlo, sin duda, como ya lo está haciendo.
Porque ese será su relato los próximos meses o años: ha sido un fraude y él es una víctima: del establishment, de las élites, del sistema corrupto de Washington, de la prensa… es culpa de todo el mundo menos suya. Porque Trump nunca pierde, y porque Trump, como buen populista, usa el antagonismo como una de sus herramientas comunicativas: todo es culpa de los otros.
En cualquier caso, y a falta de ver cómo se desarrolla esta potencial ira indignada a favor de Trump, creo que la ira que debe preocupar al nuevo Gobierno de Joe Biden no es tanto esta, sino una anterior. Se trata de la ira indignada de aquellas personas que votaron a Trump no en 2020, sino ya en 2016. Porque veían su situación injusta, y veían en Trump a esa persona diferente, alejada de las élites políticas, y que sí se preocupaba por sus dudas y amenazas, que estaba en contacto con lo que la ciudadanía sufría, especialmente la que no sale en los medios de comunicación, ni vive en grandes ciudades multiétnicas.
Es difícil hacer cambiar de opinión a una persona que cree que no se es justo con ella. Y mucho más difícil si casi todo el relato político demócrata no tiene que ver con esas personas, ni con lo que les rodea, ni con lo que entienden, ni con su cotidianidad. Si sienten que ellos son el pueblo de a pie (una sociedad sana versus una corrupta, que diría Rosanvallon), y no Biden o los demócratas, o ese cosmopolitismo de ciudad tan ajeno a sus vidas.
Trump era en 2016 la salida airada a una situación de descontento y de sentimiento de injusticia. Era un fuerte golpe de protesta sobre la mesa. La polarización de estos cuatro años, impulsada por Trump (pero no solo) ha conseguido que siga siendo así, y que la sociedad se divida mucho más, encumbrando al republicano como la alternativa clara a esa manera de ver el mundo desde la política profesional y los medios.
La polarización ha logrado que esto no fueran unas elecciones, sino un plebiscito sobre Trump, y un plebiscito sobre dos maneras de entender el presente y el futuro de Estados Unidos. Estos dos Estados Unidos no van a desaparecer para convertirse en uno solo, por mucho que invoque —y hace bien— Joe Biden en sus discursos. El trumpismo va a existir mucho más tiempo que la propia presidencia de Trump, porque se ha convertido en símbolo para buena parte de la población.
En 1990, el escritor guatemalteco Augusto Monterroso escribió uno de los relatos más cortos en lengua española: “Cuando despertó, el dinosaurio todavía estaba allí”. Cuando Joe Biden sea presidente electo, incluso aunque Trump —sorprendentemente para todos— llegue a aceptar la derrota, aunque la ira y la indignación por el supuesto fraude electoral sin pruebas deje de sentirse como injusto y, por ende, deje de tener sentido. Aun cuando todo ello suceda, el trumpismo seguirá allí. Porque la indignación de muchos votantes no era —ni es— sólo a favor de Trump o del recuento electoral, sino en contra de un mundo que consideran que no es justo con ellos. Cuando la legislatura Biden-Harris despierte, el dinosaurio todavía estará allí, y costará echarlo.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Topics

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Mauritius: Could Trump Be Leading the World into Recession?

India: World in Flux: India Must See Bigger Trade Picture

Palestine: US vs. Ansarallah: Will Trump Launch a Ground War in Yemen for Israel?

Ukraine: Trump Faces Uneasy Choices on Russia’s War as His ‘Compromise Strategy’ Is Failing

Related Articles

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Mauritius: Could Trump Be Leading the World into Recession?

India: World in Flux: India Must See Bigger Trade Picture

Palestine: US vs. Ansarallah: Will Trump Launch a Ground War in Yemen for Israel?