In mid-2016, with Trump still running for president against Hillary Clinton, American pundits wondered what kind of leader he would be if he won that election. For example, according to Darrell M. West, the scenarios pointed to four main profiles: “traditional republican”, “popular crook”, “failed president” and “authoritarian leader”.
A few years later, it’s still hard to discern exactly what Donald Trump meant. Most likely, it was a combination of several of these possibilities. As president, he selectively adhered to some agendas favored by traditional republicans, but was mostly driven by populist speeches and actions, permeated by contradictions with the party’s values and the arbitrariness typical of authoritarian figures.
At various times he saw the promises he made by the institutions kept, and went down in history as a bad loser when he lost the results of the re-election contest without showing evidence of fraud, he was criticized even by his own co-religionists.
But anyone who thinks that categorizing Trump is enough to understand what his political power means is wrong. Despite the fact that Trump is no longer president, this is a complex and rising trend in the United States. This worldview challenges elites, including the republican party itself, bailing out radical conservatism and phagosizing the more liberal wing of the GOP. It supports a nativist view of the United States and is based on a series of resentments linked to protectionism, the disappearance of globalization, and changing demographics in the country.
The fact is that the republicans created their own torturers. Trump represents his best chance to return to the White House in 2024, but is also seen as chiefly responsible for mischaracterizing the party and compromising its own traditions.
The truth is that:
1) Since Barry Goldwater, Republicans have made promises they can’t keep. For decades, they said that they would reduce the size of the state, for example, to find ways to meet the demands in the field of immigration, but these agendas were never implemented effectively.
2) For years, the GOP relied on the votes of white workers without degrees and failed to repay that loyalty in the form of tangible benefits. This is a population that has become impoverished over time and has lost its quality of life.
3) The United States is becoming an increasingly extremist country in which those who succeed in sensitizing the passions and mobilizing the disaffected and marginalized tend to win, as in the case of Trump. There is a deep “anti-system” feeling there that needs to be analyzed closely and understood in its complexity.
It is clear that Trumpism is no longer tied to Trump. It is rooted in the deep asymmetries and inequalities of the United States. This is why it is increasingly urgent to talk about representation, diversity and inclusion in the 21st century.
source: Noticias
[author_name]
