…And the Other(s)
Published in El Universal
(Mexico) on 17 April 2016
by Sara Sefchovich (link to original)
The rhetoric of Trump is extreme, but it responds to a fear that is shared by many Americans.
"The United States is a country that has confidence in itself, in its identity, and its future. It is a frightened, angry society." This is the affirmation by the celebrity that wants to be the Republican candidate for the presidency of that country. Allow Peter Beinart to make the following analysis: "There are three main reasons for the rise of Trump. First, Americans have not recovered from the financial crisis and have not seen an increase in their pay for the last 15 years. Second is the increase of the super-rich and the elimination, thanks to the Supreme Court, of the total limit to buy candidates, which have turned the politics of that country enormously corrupt. Third is the fear of older Americans of losing what they were assured, that is, white predominance. Trump is the only candidate that has seen and understood that this is the most important thing for many Americans, something that his opponents didn't perceive that clearly or didn't dare to confront in their discourses in such a direct manner."
This is not the whole truth; the Democratic pre-candidate has also spoken against mega fortunes and the corruption of politics. And if Trump has promised to protect his country against everything that "exploits our economy” (which includes the allies and the countries that "receive our protection," the Hispanic immigrants that "have left with our jobs and sent the millions of dollars out" and the Muslims that "threaten us"), Sanders also has talked about going against the countries that accept paying wages that are too low, making it convenient for companies to settle in them, and affecting the employment in the United States. The rhetoric of Trump is without doubt extremist, but it responds to a worry that is shared by many.
The problem of this extreme rhetoric, of talking big and attacking everyone, is that, as with those who use it, being from the right or the left, it supports the affirmation that the world is going to fall if they don't do what he (they) want.
And in this point is where the biggest risk lies.
The reason is the Republican leaders have already been overtaken. They let the pre-candidacy go too long and now they are scared and want it to stop, saying that the wealthy businessman does not represent the party, supporting those who don't even have a program (as Ted Cruz has constructed his candidacy with a basis in only opposing Trump) and even suggesting that it would be better to vote for Hillary Clinton!
But it is not going to be easy, because stopping Trump will mean confronting the militant base that mainly have given him their support, and they are willing to even "destroy the party."
The analysts confirm that the noise around the man doesn't mean that he is going to win the election. They argue that the majority of Americans don't support the idea of turning blacks, Hispanics and Muslims into scapegoats for their resentment, and they claim that whites that do support it are not enough to elect a president, for while these three groups comprise 30 percent of the voting population, the weight of [the whites] decreases more and more.
The risk, however, as Trump warned himself, is that if he is not elected, there will be social revolt. Or, and this is even more serious, they will go even further, because at this stage, the only way to change the landscape would be… a terrorist attack.
We already saw it a few years ago in Spain, and we already saw it last year in Israel: This is the only way of achieving a last minute change toward a candidate with this type of extreme discourse. And why not think that it could happen in the United States, promoted by the candidate himself or by his followers?
"The United States is a country that has confidence in itself, in its identity, and its future. It is a frightened, angry society." This is the affirmation by the celebrity that wants to be the Republican candidate for the presidency of that country. Allow Peter Beinart to make the following analysis: "There are three main reasons for the rise of Trump. First, Americans have not recovered from the financial crisis and have not seen an increase in their pay for the last 15 years. Second is the increase of the super-rich and the elimination, thanks to the Supreme Court, of the total limit to buy candidates, which have turned the politics of that country enormously corrupt. Third is the fear of older Americans of losing what they were assured, that is, white predominance. Trump is the only candidate that has seen and understood that this is the most important thing for many Americans, something that his opponents didn't perceive that clearly or didn't dare to confront in their discourses in such a direct manner."
This is not the whole truth; the Democratic pre-candidate has also spoken against mega fortunes and the corruption of politics. And if Trump has promised to protect his country against everything that "exploits our economy” (which includes the allies and the countries that "receive our protection," the Hispanic immigrants that "have left with our jobs and sent the millions of dollars out" and the Muslims that "threaten us"), Sanders also has talked about going against the countries that accept paying wages that are too low, making it convenient for companies to settle in them, and affecting the employment in the United States. The rhetoric of Trump is without doubt extremist, but it responds to a worry that is shared by many.
The problem of this extreme rhetoric, of talking big and attacking everyone, is that, as with those who use it, being from the right or the left, it supports the affirmation that the world is going to fall if they don't do what he (they) want.
And in this point is where the biggest risk lies.
The reason is the Republican leaders have already been overtaken. They let the pre-candidacy go too long and now they are scared and want it to stop, saying that the wealthy businessman does not represent the party, supporting those who don't even have a program (as Ted Cruz has constructed his candidacy with a basis in only opposing Trump) and even suggesting that it would be better to vote for Hillary Clinton!
But it is not going to be easy, because stopping Trump will mean confronting the militant base that mainly have given him their support, and they are willing to even "destroy the party."
The analysts confirm that the noise around the man doesn't mean that he is going to win the election. They argue that the majority of Americans don't support the idea of turning blacks, Hispanics and Muslims into scapegoats for their resentment, and they claim that whites that do support it are not enough to elect a president, for while these three groups comprise 30 percent of the voting population, the weight of [the whites] decreases more and more.
The risk, however, as Trump warned himself, is that if he is not elected, there will be social revolt. Or, and this is even more serious, they will go even further, because at this stage, the only way to change the landscape would be… a terrorist attack.
We already saw it a few years ago in Spain, and we already saw it last year in Israel: This is the only way of achieving a last minute change toward a candidate with this type of extreme discourse. And why not think that it could happen in the United States, promoted by the candidate himself or by his followers?
Previous article![]( "Why Do We Still Look Up to America?")