Aug. 09, 2016
Donald Trump is not an isolated phenomenon
Many thoughtful Americans, indeed
analysts around the world, are frantically searching for the reasons behind the
appearance of Donald Trump on the American political scene, and for his success
in wrenching the Republican Party’s nomination for president. Some have
attributed it to the low esteem the American public has for the traditional
politicians, as evidenced by the low approval rating of the Congress. But this
approval rating has not been much different during the recent past. According
to Gallup, it averaged 19 percent during the 2008 election year and 15 percent
during the 2012 election year, as against 15 percent during the last 12 months.
Others have argued that Donald Trump
is part of the resurgence of fascism in the Western World, particularly in
Europe and the United States. In a recent article in Salon entitled “Fascism is
rising in the U.S. and Europe – and Donald Trump is the face of this disturbing
reality,” the author, Fedja Buric, argued that liberal democracy is losing
ground in many European countries in favor of an “illiberal democracy,” where
elections take place, but civil liberties are curtailed. The present champion
of this idea is the prime minister of Hungary, Victor Orban, who claims that
“liberal democratic states cannot remain globally competitive.”
Still others have attributed the
Trump phenomenon to the mediocre leadership of the Republican Party in recent
years. Max Boot, in a recent article in the New York Times, called it the
“stupid party,” which has become populist and anti-intellectual, thus
permitting the rise of Trump. But intellectualism was never a major trait of
American politics. Perhaps the most intellectual of the recent contenders to
the presidency was Adlai Stevenson, who was erudite and a great speaker, but
failed dismally twice running against Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. A famous
story about him tells it all. After one of his resounding speeches, a person in
the audience shouted: “Gov. Stevenson, every thinking person in America will be
voting for you.” To which Stevenson replied: “I’m afraid that won’t do. I need
a majority.”
What is it then?
Trump, whether he succeeds or not in
becoming president of the United States, is an historical phenomenon that needs
to be, and will be, studied for a long time. His major focus is a relentless
attack on what he considers non-white groups: Muslims, Hispanics, Asians and
blacks. Here lies the secret for his popularity among a majority of whites in
America and, at the same time, lies the answer to the reason for his success.
In this respect, America is
exhibiting the same symptoms of globalization as Europe. Not economic
globalization, although some rightly claim that the disenchantment in Europe
comes, partly, from those left behind by economic globalization. It is rather
the discontent arising from “human globalization” which involves the mixing of
people of different cultures and ethnicity due to the ease of travel and the
melting of the borders. In America, this globalization is actually reducing the
dominant role of the whites socially and, more important, politically. The
statistics show this very clearly.
In the 1950s, the “non-Hispanic
white” population in the United States constituted 90 percent of the total
population. But this proportion has been steadily declining since then for two
main reasons: the main one is the immigration and naturalization of Hispanics
and Asians and the other is the higher rate of natural increase of Hispanics
and blacks relative to whites. As a result, the white population now
constitutes only 62 percent of the U.S. population. Official projections show
that, in approximately 25 years, the minority (mainly blacks, Hispanics and
Asians) may become the majority.
Politically, the developing
situation is even less in favor of the white population. For one thing, the
eligible voters among minorities are increasing much faster than among whites.
Between the 2012 and 2016 election years, the eligible white voters increased
by a mere 2 percent. Blacks, in the meantime, increased by 6 percent, Asians by
16 percent and Hispanics by 17 percent. Second, the voter turnout of minorities
in the elections is also increasing, especially among blacks. In 1988
elections, for example, only 55 percent of blacks voted as against 66 percent
in 2012, while the percentage for whites remained steady at 64 percent. As a
result, in 2012, while Mitt Romney received 59 percent of the white vote,
Barack Obama squeezed through due to minority votes (93 percent of blacks, 71
percent of Hispanics and 73 percent of Asians).
This lesson was not lost on a good
portion of the white population. The older among them (50 years old and over),
the main group supporting Trump, probably felt the most nostalgia for the good
old days, when whites constituted a clear majority of the population, and an
even greater percentage of the electorate. The benign ethnic mix that existed
didn’t bother them much, but now they rightly feel that they are losing
control.
This was also the case in Europe.
When the minorities, particularly Muslim minorities in continental Europe, were
deemed insignificant and politically powerless, the resistance to their
immigration, in the form of anti-immigration, nativist parties, was limited.
But with the advent of the major flows of refugees from the Middle East and
Africa beginning in 2013, the resistance hardened and the anti-immigration,
Islamophobic parties gained popularity. Marine Le Pen’s “National Front” (FN)
in France, which, until recently, never drew more than 17 percent of the vote
in national elections, is now polling around 30 percent.
The “Alternative for Germany” party
(AfD), led by Frauke Petry, could not muster the 5 percent of the votes
necessary to enter the Bundestag (parliament) in the elections three years ago.
In the March 2016 elections in three states, it received between 15 and 24
percent depending on the state. In Denmark, the “Danish People’s Party” (DPP),
now headed by Kristian Dahl, failed in the elections of 2011 after receiving
some 12 percent of the vote. In the 2014 European Parliament elections, its
share of the vote reached 21 percent. The present Prime Minister of Poland
Beata Szydlo won the last election because of her promise to stop immigration,
especially of Muslims. Ironically, the major reason the “Brexit” vote succeeded
in England was the resentment, among many Brits, of the immigration of Eastern
Europeans, particularly Poles.
Obama stated last July that America
is a country of immigrants, therefore better adjusted than Europe to
multiculturalism. “In America,” he said, “unless you’re a Native American, you
came ... from someplace else. Europe may not have as many of those traditions.”
This description of American tolerance to immigration and multicultural
integration, if it were ever true, is not true anymore, at least not since
Obama was elected the first time in 2008. It is certainly not true with the
present widespread anti-immigration and nativist sentiments in the United
States, reflected in the rise of Donald Trump. On the other hand, America, in
this respect, does not differ greatly from Europe. In Europe, it is immigration
of culturally and religiously different people that sparked the rise of the
anti-immigration, Islamophobic parties, while in America it is immigration,
reinforced to some extent by differential natural increase of existing
populations. In Europe, it is the perceived fear of the majority of losing its
identity by integrating culturally and religiously different people, while in
America it is the additional real fear of losing political control. But human
globalization is at the roots of both situations, namely, that the world is
shrinking and the mixing of cultures and religions is the inevitable result of
it.
Trump’s proposed wall between the
U.S. and Mexico to stop Mexicans from coming to the U.S., does not differ much
from the barbed-wire fences built along the borders of Bulgaria and Hungary to
stop refugees coming from the Middle East. Trump’s suggestion to ban Muslims
from entering the United States and to encourage the immigration of white
Europeans is akin to Viktor Orban’s suggestion to accept only Christian
refugees coming to Europe. Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Frauke Petry, Viktor
Orban, Kristian Dahl, Beata Szydlo, and the rest of the rising nativists and
fascists, are all the product of the same phenomenon.
It is worth repeating that human
globalization is inevitable, irrespective of present resistance. The
inescapable transition to a more integrated world will not be smooth no matter
what. But it is incumbent on the more thoughtful world leadership to face this
resistance firmly and to reduce, as much as possible, the collateral damage that
will inevitably be caused by the nativist and fascist bunch.
Riad Tabbarah is a former ambassador
of Lebanon to the United States.
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of
The Daily Star on August 09, 2016, on page 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment