Donald Trump: The Relationship between Nationalism and Race

"On the heels of the nation’s first black president, Donald Trump tapped into this crack in American society..."

...

The 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump was an enigmatic occurrence in American politics, one that continues to render more speculation than answers. However, one facet that can be attributed to Trump’s success as a politician, is the dominant role of nationalism in creating a movement for which millions of Americans cast their support behind. Nationalism is an ideology that can be characterized as the pursuit of developing and maintaining a national identity that constitutes people of a shared culture, ethnicity, language, religion, and history. Given the increasingly diverse and globalized society of the contemporary United States, Trump’s nationalist movement proved to be an incredibly effective political tool. In this paper, I examine the role and context of race and nationalism throughout Trump’s time as a politician. Many of the most disruptive periods endured by the United States have been rooted in the country’s long history of exerting a profound malevolence towards issues surrounding race. On the heels of the nation’s first black president, Donald Trump tapped into this crack in American society and utilized nationalism as a tool to unite individuals with a shared interest of preserving their national culture and identity.

One element of Donald Trump’s presidential victory that continues to confound political analysts is his ability in overcoming his controversial rhetoric and lack of political experience. In order to gain a better understanding of his success as a politician, I sought to identify the onset of the Trump movement and to further consider any underlying significance. I contend that Trump’s place in the political spotlight materialized in 2011 on account of his ‘birther’ claims that called into question the validity of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Lacking any trace of credible evidence, Trump nonetheless put the notion that Obama wasn’t a natural born US citizen at the center of American discussion and political debate. Incredulously, the conspiracy theory became a widespread belief among many Americans and presented an opportunity upon which Trump seized. Over the course of the next several years, he engaged in a strategic tirade against Obama, voicing a distinct opposition that depicted the president as the root of all the perceived problems within the country. He struck a chord with many Americans whom expressed a resentment towards the state of American politics and the economy. A taboo, but nonetheless prevalent, circumstance of the Barack Obama presidency was the discomfort of many individuals towards the election of the nation’s first black president. That discomfort, coupled with the financial stress many Americans found themselves in, cast Obama as the perfect scapegoat for everything wrong with the country. Trump unearthed this animosity and forged an avenue upon which to cultivate a base of political support. He appeared in countless interviews promoting the birther claims and criticizing Obama, also making effective use of Twitter as a medium in connecting with a vast audience. Through the use of trumptwitterarchive.com, I found that from 2011 to 2013, Trump’s Twitter account had tweeted a total of 1,696 unique tweets that made reference to “Obama”, accounting for more than 13% of all tweets during that time. An example of one such tweet from the evening of November 6, shortly after Obama was announced the winner of the 2012 election, reads: “Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us” (@realdonaldtrump). He manifested this feud with the polarizing president into a ‘me versus him’ spectacle. In a New York Times interview, Sean Nunberg, a former adviser during the birther period, offered his insight, “The appeal of the birther issue was, ‘I’m going to take this guy on, and I’m going to beat him. It was a great niche and wedge issue” (Parker and Eder). This clash naturally paved the way for Obama cynics to at least entertain the idea of Donald Trump as a political figure. The timing and extent to which Trump fixates on Obama is indicative of an underlying strategy, as those three years would prove to be crucial in establishing the base of support and rhetoric upon which he’d declare his run for president of the United States. The birther movement propagated the racist sentiments engrained in the very fabric of a society only a few generations removed from the institution of slavery.

There’s no doubting the unprecedented nature of Trump’s political success and the prominence of this American nationalism, however there are striking parallels found when compared to Andrew Jackson and the role of nationalism encompassing the Civil War. President Trump himself has even had an apparent fixation on this time particular in American history, stating that his “campaign and win was most like Andrew Jackson”, also tweeting that “President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen!”. Indeed, I found it odd that Trump would make this comparison and attach the former president to an infamous time in American history that he wasn’t even alive for. It baffles me that the current President of the United States feels compelled to ask, “Why was there the Civil War? Why would that one not have been worked out?”, further asserting that “had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War” (Parks). He’s explicitly calling into question the need for the war, one that history shows to have been necessary in order to eradicate the institution of slavery. It’s a dangerous and terrifying precedent for the president to question, and to an extent attempt to rewrite, history. Considering the controversy surrounding the Confederate monuments still scattered across the southern United States, I contend that this rhetoric has dangerous implications. Trump appears to hold an empathetic view towards the Confederacy’s determination in preserving their way of life. Following the Charlottesville white supremacist rally over the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue that left one woman dead, Trump tweeted: “Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments”(Nakamura). He further defended the white-nationalist protesters by attesting that there were “some very fine people on both sides”. When comparing Trump’s nationalist movement, to that of the nationalism of the southern states leading up to the Civil War, his empathy towards their cause begins to make more sense. Similar to the sentiments among supporters of Trump’s movement, were those of white southerners in the 1860’s that began to feel increasingly alienated and feared becoming second-class citizens. They began to question whether their loyalty to the nation and the direction it was headed, outweighed their loyalty to their state and way of life. I see a lot of similarities between the characteristics of contemporary American nationalism and those found in the time surrounding the Civil War, not only the similar demographic, but also in the shared fear amidst an evolving society. Furthermore, regarding Trump comparing himself to Andrew Jackson, there are certainly a lot of similarities. Both men were seen as a political outsider representative of the ‘common man’ and promised to cleanse the government of corruption. While neither were taken seriously as a politician, supporters believed their other accomplishments would translate to governing success, wherein Jackson was revered for his war heroics and Trump for his business empire. In connecting the dots between Trump’s analysis of Jackson and the Civil War, it is worth noting that Jackson was heavily criticized for his role for not only being a slave owner, but also a slave trader. A defiance of morality even for the time in which he lived (Cheathem). Trump likening himself to Andrew Jackson and questioning the need for the Civil War begs the consideration that there isn’t a deeper significance, that perhaps Trump’s fixation on this time in US history tells us something more. Given the racial tension in contemporary America and the presence of a movement intent on preserving Confederate culture, it is worth considering the implications of Trump’s success being attributed as an extension of Civil War nationalism.

I interpret Donald Trump’s ongoing feud with the NFL as a microcosm of American society’s rampant ignorance toward racial issues. Trump’s onslaught originated in response to NFL players kneeling before the national anthem, which he views as disrespecting the flag and the country. A movement that began in 2016 by 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, the pre- game kneeling acts as a peaceful protest in response to racial injustice in the United States. Kaepernick explained his position stating, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color”, specifically referring to the mistreatment of African Americans by police across the country. Today, Kaepernick, a talented player that led his team to a Super Bowl, is currently an unsigned free agent, but the protest has continued deep into the 2017 season. Trump’s outrage towards the protests is another instance of divisiveness rooted in race, that would be otherwise entirely irrational. The kneeling enables prominent black athletes the opportunity to give a voice to the issue of racial inequality affecting a part of our population that would otherwise not have one. There should be an obvious hypocrisy in Trump’s labeling of the protests as being disrespectful to the American flag, while defending Confederate monuments and culture less than two months prior. Nonetheless, his tweets make his position clear, “If a player wants the privilege of making millions of dollars in the NFL, or other leagues, he or she should not be allowed to disrespect our Great American Flag (or Country) and should stand for the National Anthem. If not, YOU’RE FIRED. Find something else to do!”. His insinuation that it’s a privilege for black athletes to make millions of dollars, and further implying that it therefore demands an unquestioned obedience to the country, indicates an obvious malice towards successful African Americans. However, perhaps more disturbing were the comments he made only a day earlier at an Alabama rally, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, you’d say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! He’s fired”. He didn’t stop there, making an ominous allusion to a white national identity by describing the protests by black athletes as a “total disrespect of our heritage. That’s a total disrespect of everything that we stand for”(AP). Regardless of the fact that kneeling during the national anthem is very clearly protected under the First Amendment, the references of ‘our heritage’ and ‘we’ speak to those that constitute his nationalist movement. This dialogue unequivocally displays a nationalism that traces back to the Civil War. In response to a league dominated by black athletes and a protest standing up for racial injustice, Trump creates a distinct separation between them and his supporters. Coinciding with Trump’s comments, were those made by the Texan’s owner Bob McNair during an owners’ meeting regarding the players right to protest, “We can’t have the inmates running the prison”(ESPN). The blatantly racist rhetoric displayed by Trump and the owner of an NFL team give further credence to the problem for which NFL athletes are speaking out against. This past Tuesday at the 2017 Sportsperson of the Year Awards Show, Colin Kaepernick was honored with the SI Muhammad Ali Legacy Award for using his platform to bring about change in the world. Presenting him with the award was music icon Beyonce, who introduced the former quarterback with a few profound words of her own, “It’s been said that racism is so American that when we protest racism, some assume we’re protesting America”(NBC News). It is not the responsibility of white Americans to decide whether or not racism exists in society, but rather through the experience of minorities. That’s exactly what the NFL national anthem protests are about, using their platform to give voice to racial inequality. Yet Trump managed to convince many Americans that this act was an unpatriotic defiance of the country, that only further stoke racial tensions in the United States.

I contend that this nationalism is not one of national unity, for not all Americans are included. Rather than leading a country, Trump’s leading a movement that has made no effort of inclusion. This assertion is based upon the prevailing narratives of a campaign and presidency marked by controversy and hostility, that has sought divisiveness rather than national solidarity. In addition to rhetoric, this assessment is further justified by countless polls, such as one released by Quinnipiac University on 11/21/17, which found that when asked about Trump’s job as president, only 1% of black respondents ‘approved strongly’ and 3% ‘approved somewhat’. In stark contrast, 34% of white men approved strongly and 19% approved somewhat. Another factor to consider is the prominent role of Steve Bannon, who served as White House Chief Strategist and CEO of the campaign, and who also happens to take credit for creating the populist nationalist movement long before Trump. Bannon, an extremely enigmatic figure, is the executive chair of Breitbart News website, which he’s proudly claimed as “the platform the alt- right”. Former Breitbart editor-at-large Ben Shapiro pegged the alt-right as a “movement shot through with racism” and described the current-state of Breitbart as a “gathering place for white nationalists”(Posner). In the days that followed Trump’s inauguration, Bannon ambiguously addressed the media and establishment saying that “they don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States”(Grynbaum). For many months, Bannon was Trump’s foremost confidant, so it’s worth speculating over Bannon’s role and the underlying strategy in further solidifying Trump’s affiliation with the alt-right.

As unfortunate as it may be, the United States of America possesses a history tarnished with racism, an idiosyncrasy of our society that has proven hard to shake. Nonetheless, contemporary Americans incredulously want to believe that we’ve progressed to a moral high ground, one that no longer sees race as a detriment to one’s individuality. The idea of racism is discomforting, making it easy for many to ignore- but this only makes calling out racism even more challenging, even when it’s right in front of us. In perhaps the cruelest of ironies, was the role of society’s inaction in empowering the President of the United States the freedom to silence African American efforts to take a stand against societal injustice. Herein lies the power of nationalism, in its ability to masquerade racism and xenophobia within a movement that brandishes itself as a patriotic national pride. In the name of American nationalism, Trump has hijacked the country of its virtues, doing so with relative ease due to America’s disinclination in identifying and confronting racism. There’s no getting around the blemished history of the country, but if the United States is to make progress towards eradicating racism, I contend that an important first step would be to recognize Trump’s nationalist movement for what it really is: white nationalism. I found it incredibly challenging to discern a palpable difference between the two, for at their core, they are one of the same.