Following Donald Trump’s first wave of caucus elections for nomination as American president it’s worth examining how a man so manifestly unsuitable for the office has managed to achieve serious consideration of such an eventuality.
The quick answer, as widely discussed by most of the media – American and non-American – is that Mr Trump has enchanted a large segment of the population into being convinced that all is seriously wrong with their country, and that this perception more than merits his campaign slogan Make America Great Again (MAGA).
His deployment of this alluring meme resonates with deeply held, all-is-wrong resentments circulating through much of the electorate, propelling them into the voting booth, there to choose and elect some truly startling candidates. How has it come to this?
The immediate answer to the question is that we have been here before. Elections seem to focus on one or two topics of burning interest and contention. US elections over the past century, for instance, have not failed to feature that socio-political element which we label as immigration; or rather, anti-immigration. It is currently the hottest topic of the 2024 campaign.
This perennial focus of attention has gone through a variety of labels, such as nativism. According to the historian John Higham nativism is:
“an intense opposition to an internal minority on the grounds of its foreign (ie“un-American”) connections. Specific nativist antagonisms may and do, vary widely in response to the changing character of minority irritants and the shifting conditions of the day; but through each separate hostility runs broader cultural antipathies and ethnocentric judgments, nativism translates them into zeal to destroy the enemies of a distinctively American way of life.”
This points to a parallel opposite; a powerful strand of thought which has always figured in the American psyche: the welcome for the immigrant as expressed in the famous words adorning the Statue of Liberty:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Elections offer the chance to restate one of these attitudes and disdain the other. Both stances, however, need reinforcement to work. In the case of social ‘antagonisms’ the propellant is provided by a certain view of the world and its current characteristics, most clearly spelt out by Mr Trump. Whichever one is chosen, left or right, there is bound to be a widely held zeitgeist whereby alleged adversaries or errors or persistent lies are conjured up and laid bare, and suitable corrective measures identified.
That in turn requires ‘explanations.’ These are convincingly provided by charismatic leaders and prophets prepared to think the supposedly unthinkable, identify the ‘other’ and smash the way forward, by violence if necessary. History is filled with examples, ranging from the ancient Egyptians to Adolf Hitler and in our own time, say, Pol Pot. These, however, were extremists by any standard; what is worryingly noticeable now is the rise of populist leaders in many ostensibly democratic jurisprudences prepared to advocate illiberal ideas, preach extremist solutions to national crises and, once in power, act accordingly.
Leaders such as these have at least three characteristics. The first is that each of them rises to power by deploying a convincing narrative which on the basis of an alleged national crisis attracts millions of voters longing for change.
The second characteristic is that of the strongman’s subversion of the state through “the long march through the institutions.” (Gramsci) The third is the undeniable fact that the leader carries within him (it is nearly always a man) the seeds of his own destruction.
This latter supposition is grounded on the fact that the new leader’s regime is almost always inherently unstable. However successful it may seem in outward appearance the regime cannot prevent the underlying idea on which it is based being eventually subverted in turn. History shows the fuhrerprinzip cannot survive an alliance-based military invasion, natural catastrophe or the fading of a national idea (such as prohibition or jingoism or nativism). Sooner or later a crack appears which the regime fails to recognise for what it is and deals with it inappropriately. “C’est une révolte? Non, Sire, c’est une revolution.”
In time, the leader becomes an anachronism, fails to keep pace with the prevailing ethos and falls victim to revolution or military impatience (witness the fall of Ceausescu in 1989).
None of this is supposed to apply to the Land of the Free. There, there is a cultural assumption that the country will never have to carry out or tolerate any kind of coup or insurrection to redress a national injury. But that is precisely what nearly happened at the storming of the Capitol on 6 January 2021. At least one who took part was quoted as saying that any country had to have a periodic blood-letting and now it was America’s turn.
It all depends on what Americans think and know about their present situation. If it is sick then it could be that what is needed, especially this year, is a more realist deployment of healing, teaching and optimism. From what we know about Trumpism we can but hope that something of this will percolate through the whole election process, whatever the underlying national obsession happens to be.
Rimbovalia 