Donald Trump: The Four Key Ingredients of “Trumpism” – Analysis to be discussed –

With him Donald Trump is getting ready with his group of confidantes and his billionaire friends, see Elon Musk, to take the helm of the USA again, there are not a few who wonder and write and reflect on his… ideology Trumpism and Trump himself. The basic logic that pervades most related analyses, when they give some ideological sign to Trumpis that he is a fascist, while others characterize him as a populist.

But according to a related analysis by the professor at New York University Branco Milanovicif the attempt to understand Trump’s ideology is sincere and does not move into the realm of political controversy, the new US president is not in real terms a fascist. According to Milanovich’s text: “Fascism as an ideology implies:

1. exclusionary nationalism,
2. glorifying the leader,
3. emphasis on the power of the state as opposed to individuals and the private sector;
4. rejection of the multiparty system,
5. corporate governance,
6. replacing the class structure of society with “unitary” nationalism and
7. almost religious worship of the party, the state and the leader”.

Milanovich argues that these elements have nothing to do with what Trump wants to impose or believes, while correspondingly debunking the charge of populism, arguing that it is rather empty of meaning.

According to Milanovich’s analysis, the core elements of Trump’s ideology are essentially four:

1. Mercantilism
2. Profitability
3. Anti-immigrant nationalism and
4. A nation unto itself

As Milanovic specifically mentions:

«Mercantilism. Mercantilism is an old and “sacred” doctrine that views economic activity, and in particular the trade of goods and services between states, as a zero-sum game. Historically it was identified with a world where wealth was gold and silver. If you consider that the amount of gold and silver is limited, then clearly the state and its leader who owns more gold and silver (regardless of all other goods) is more powerful. The world has evolved since the 17th century, but many people still believe in mercantilist dogma. Moreover, if one believes that trade is simply a war by other means, and that the main rival or competitor of the United States is China, a mercantilist policy towards China is a very natural reaction. When Trump launched such anti-China policies in 2017, they were not part of the mainstream discourse, but have since moved to the center. The Biden administration followed suit and expanded them significantly. We can expect Trump to double them. But mercantilists are, and Trump will be, mercantilists: if China agrees to sell less and buy more, he will be satisfied. Unlike Biden, Trump will not seek to undermine or overthrow the Chinese regime. So, contrary to what many believe, I think Trump is good for China (that is, given the alternatives).

Profitability. Like all Republicans, Trump believes in the private sector. The private sector in his view is unduly hampered by regulations, rules, taxes. He himself was a capitalist who never paid taxes, which, in his view, simply shows that he was a good businessman. But for the others, the less capitalists, regulations must be simplified or abolished and taxation reduced. Consistent with this view is the belief that taxes on capital should be lower than taxes on labor. Entrepreneurs and capitalists are job creators, others are, in the words of Ayn Rand, “hunters.” There is nothing new about this with Trump. This is the same doctrine espoused by Reagan and beyond, including Bill Clinton. Trump may just be more vocal and open about low capital taxation, but he will be doing the same thing that Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. did. And what the liberal ilk Greenspan deeply believed.

Anti-immigrant “nationalism”. This is an extremely difficult point. The term “nationalist” can only be attributed with a certain amount of embarrassment to American politicians, as people are used to “exclusive” (not inclusive) European and Asian nationalisms. When we talk about (say) Japanese nationalism, we mean that the Japanese in question would like to expel ethnically non-Japanese from either decision-making or presence in the country, or both. The same applies to Serbian, Estonian, French or Castilian nationalisms. American nationalism, by its very nature, cannot be ethnic or blood-based because of the vast heterogeneity of the people who make up the United States. Commentators thus coined a new term, “white nationalism.” This is a strange term because it combines skin color with ethnic (blood) relationships. In fact, I think the defining characteristic of Trump’s “nationalism” is neither ethnic nor racial, but simply a dislike of new immigrants. In essence, it is no different from the anti-immigration policies currently in place in the heart of the social democratic world, in the Nordic and north-western European countries, where right-wing parties in Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark believe (in the famous expression of the Dutch right-wing leader Geert Wilders) that their countries are “full” and cannot accept more immigrants. Trump’s view is unusual only because the US is not, objectively by any measure, a complete country: the number of people per square kilometer in the United States is 38, while in the Netherlands it is 520.

A nation unto itself. When you combine mercantilism with a loathing of immigrants, you come close to what US foreign policy will look like under Trump. It will be the policy of nationalist anti-imperialism. I should break down those terms. This combination is unusual, especially for great powers: if they are big, nationalistic and mercantilist, it is almost intuitively understandable that they must be imperialist. But Trump defies this pattern. It goes back to the foreign policy of the country’s founders who abhorred “foreign involvement”. The United States, in their view and in his view, is a powerful and wealthy nation, looking out for its own interests, but it is not an “indispensable nation” in the way Madeleine Albright defined it. It is not the role of the United States to right every wrong in the world (in the optimistic or self-serving view of this doctrine) nor to waste its money on people and causes that have nothing to do with its interests (in the realistic view of the same doctrine).

Why Trump dislikes the imperialism that has become a common line for both US parties since 1945 is hard to say, but I think he instinctively tends to embrace the values ​​of the Nation’s founders and people like Woodrow’s Republican opponent Wilson, William Taft, who believed in the economic power of the US and saw no need to transform it the power in hegemonic political dominance in the world.

This does not mean that Trump will abandon US hegemony (NATO will not dissolve), because, as Thucydides wrote: “it is no longer possible to abandon this empire, although there may be some people who, in a mood of sudden panic, and in a spirit of political apathy they really believe that this would be a fine and noble thing. Your empire now looks like a tyranny: it may have been a mistake to take it—it is certainly dangerous to let it go.’ But in light of Trump’s mercantilist principles, it would make US allies pay much more for it. As in the Athens of Pericles, protection will no longer come for free. We must not forget that the beautiful Acropolis we all admire was built with gold stolen from the allies.”

Read also:

Femicide in Agrinio: The 30-year-old man was arrested – He had been raped in his father’s house

Who was Vardis Vardinogiannis: Life, media and business activity

Marco Rubio: From the fierce confrontation with Trump to the doorstep of the State Department – The “drugged” remarks that remained

Nikos Plakias: “Children were burned alive and they are trying to cover up even now…”

SYRIZA: Party organs with “holes” and patches – New balances in the Political Secretariat and debate of the “4”

If shame were a party