Polarization. Division. Confrontation. The American Rift. Among the previous readings to prepare this series was Political polarization in the United States: Origins and current state of a permanent conflict (Debate, 2023), by the political scientist, economist and collaborator of The Vanguard Josep Maria Colomer. In these highly recommended pages, one discovers that it is the institutional architecture of the country that inevitably encourages division among Americans. And that this, unlike what those of us with little memory might think, is not something new. It is part of the American genetic makeup and has manifested itself repeatedly throughout its short history. It would be foreign policy that would act as the cement of national cohesion. Provided, of course, that there exists a serious threat recognized as such that allows domestic debates to be avoided.
Globalization is seen by many as an act of generosity to distant beneficiaries.
Does that enemy exist on the street? The foreign policy plane, which would not be different in Spain or in any other country, is the one that is most difficult to scratch among ordinary people. That is, among the majority. For example, the Russian-Ukrainian war occupies little mental space in the mind of the average citizen. The inflation experienced, unlike in Europe, is attributed to the measures of the Administration to keep the economy afloat during the pandemic and immediately after. The war front is very far away. The periodic and arrogant statements of Donald Trump, proclaiming that he will end the Russian-Ukrainian war in five minutes if he is elected, would indicate that some vote linked to disagreement with the measures of US economic and military support for Zelensky is at stake. But spontaneously none of the many conversations held on this trip has referred to the issue.
Lighthizer, a possible Treasury secretary under Trump, sets the community as an economic priority
The Arab-Israeli conflict is more present, although there are too many narratives that point to this issue as a factor that could be decisive in the elections. A derivative of it, international terrorism of Islamist origin, which according to the thesis of Colomer’s book served to unite the nation around an external enemy, is part of the memory. But unlike in Europe, it is not in the citizen conversation in the present tense. In the United States, today the fear of the knife springs from the southern immigrant once he has gone through the dialectic of Trumpism, not of religious wars.
The most common enemy is China. But not because of the tensions in its sea, the growing conflict with Taiwan or the contemplated possibility that in the long term some kind of armed conflict could break out in that area. It simply happens that China is seen as the culprit in the economic sphere. In other words, at its core, as a problem that can be solved domestically. With tariffs and obstacles to free trade. The tariff-based, anti-globalization and autarchic narrative – we have everything, we can produce anything, we lose out with free trade – is in the streets and across the board. It only takes a little scratching to make it manifest. And if you dig a little deeper, Mexico and Europe may even come to light. The enemy is in the rules that govern world trade. And if the voters are there, it is normal that, at least in words, those who want to get their votes are also there.
Trump’s tariffs have continued under Biden. And if, in the pre-campaign framework, the Democratic president announced 100% tariffs on a list of Chinese products in the spring, the Republican counter-programmed by promising 200% tariffs when he becomes president again. Donald Trump’s recent message about Europe must be understood in the same way: in the US you see many European cars, but I don’t see American cars in the EU. Or the announcement of future tariffs to prevent a Tesla factory from being set up in Mexico, despite having the political support of its director and also owner of X, Elon Musk.
The message of an autarkic aftertaste is winning now. Another thing is the praxis. The Democrats are following in the wake of the Republicans. In a hypothetical return to the White House, one of Trump’s colleagues will be Robert Lighthizer, who was a trade representative in his first cabinet and who some place as a future Treasury Secretary. Last year he published No trade is free (There is no free trade), in which he advocates subverting the basic foundation of free trade –everyone wins– with a more Hobbesian realism: if I win, the others must lose. He is the ambassador of a hypothetical and solid devaluation of the dollar to favor exports and make imports more expensive, which is being advocated by the Republican ranks.
This is the common enemy that has made a fortune in the US. From a hotel breakfast with electricians in Iowa to a dinner with a public relations manager in Chicago. Also among the people you meet while relaxing in a monastery in Dakota, with a second-hand car salesman in Missouri or with a Cajun restaurant owner in Louisiana. They express it in other words, but the meaning is the same: globalisation understood as an exercise in generosity that is harmful to the US with distant beneficiaries: China, Europe, Mexico. An autarchic utopia that a good part of the nation agrees on. An impossibility, of course, but one that will mark the US agenda and that of the entire world for the next four years. With Trump, in a more showy, contradictory, radical and vulgar way. With Kamala, with sweeter words, less violent gestures and without so many shocks.
About the book No trade is free from Lighthizer: “We can no longer remain simply consumers and not producers. Nor can we offshore jobs and forget about communities, workers and families. Every business decision must be made with the goal of helping workers. Efficiency, low prices and corporate profits are important goals but secondary to improving the lives and opportunities of ordinary working people in this country.” How that is put into practice is another matter. But there is an entire nation in this goal. No matter what you vote for. Without any rift.
Read also
