By Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
To listen to both his defenders and critics, Donald Trump
represents the U.S. version of a new nationalism popping up around the world.
I’m not so sure.
In a fairly representative analysis, Politico’s Michael Hirsh explained the “new nationalism” as “a
bitter populist rejection of the status quo that global elites have imposed on
the international system since the Cold War ended, and which lower-income voters
have decided — understandably — is unfair.”
James P. Pinkerton, writing for the stridently pro-Trump
website Breitbart News, sees nothing
less than a “Worldwide Trumpian Majority” forming to oppose globalization in
all its forms.
Interestingly, commentators across the ideological
spectrum also agree that these trends are fueled by economic conditions —
manifested here as outrage at Wall Street and global trade deals — and can be
solved by some government response. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton offer similar
solutions, such as more trade barriers and massive infrastructure spending.
That interpretation is fine as far as it goes, but I
don’t think it goes very far. Ultimately, the term “nationalism” distorts more
than it clarifies about what’s going on with Trump supporters in the United
States.
First, suggestions that a Trumpian nationalism is rising
among all low-income Americans could only be true if all low-income Americans
were white. Reading Breitbart’s
celebrations of populist nationalism or the constant invocations of “We the
People” from Trump supporters on social media might leave you with that
impression. This is not to say that everyone who supports Trump is a “white
nationalist” — which conjures various racist doctrines. Rather, it is to simply
point out that Trump’s support is overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, white.
Clinton, according to some polls, gets nearly 9 out of 10
Latino voters and 9.9 out of 10 African-American voters. When Trump pointed out
a black attendee at one of his rallies and said, “That’s my African American,”
he might have been speaking literally.
I think commentators focus on the broad-stroke economic
arguments because the real issues — the American cultural ones — are so fraught.
Simply put, this so-called nationalism in the U.S. is really little more than a
brand name for generic white-identity politics.
Liberals are uncomfortable discussing this; to do so would
acknowledge how they failed the white working-class voters who were once the
emotional heart of the Democratic party but are now the core of Trump’s
support. The Democrats’ emotional heart now revolves around a diversity-mania
that left many of its traditional voters feeling deserted — or as President
Obama once put it, bitterly clinging to their guns and their Bibles.
The Trumpian nationalist right wants to stay focused on
economics, because to be open about their cultural appeal would be to admit that
they have surrendered to the logic of left-wing identity politics.
Imagine for a moment you are a member of the working
white poor in the parts of America that J. D. Vance writes about in his
best-selling Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of
a Family and Culture in Crisis. Imagine how ridiculous phrases like “white
(male) privilege” sound to you. Imagine you are an evangelical Christian,
repeatedly told by elites and authority figures that your faith is the source
of un-American injustices — but that to suggest Islamic terrorism might have
some relationship to Islam is rank bigotry.
Every year, liberal pundits metaphorically rub their
hands in glee at the latest demographic projections forecasting the dissolution
of the white majority in the United States. Is it so shocking that some white
people might not greet that prospect with the same glee — particularly when
they have not seen tangible benefits from the immigration that is the source of
all that diversity?
Daily, I receive e-mails and comments from people who
describe themselves as nationalists – but who are, in fact, making arguments
for white culture as if whites were now an oppressed minority in need of an
American government that zealously defends their interests. Right or wrong,
many of them believe that Trump will protect white culture from the forces of
multiculturalism, and Christianity from spreading secularism.
Which brings me back to why I think “nationalism” is a
poor word to describe what we’re witnessing in this election.
If nationalism is supposed to do anything, it’s supposed
to unify the country. When I look at these so-called nationalists, though, I
don’t see a unifying force. I see the latest entrants into a decades-old game
of subdividing the country into tribes seeking to yoke government to their
narrow agendas.
No comments:
Post a Comment