Exposing the Identity Politics of Donald Trump
If there is a pathogen, similar to the common cold, that affects the political discourse, it would be identity politics. It is a sickness with no host party — it preys on us all — but perhaps the biggest proponent of identity politics is GOP front runner himself. Though he’ll never admit it in such choice words, his campaigning methods and often erratic stuns tell a clear tale. Donald J. Trump knows exactly what he’s doing; exactly who he is appealing to.
The average Trump supporter would gladly profess to at least three things: 1) They are angry 2) They have, or deserve, monetary wealth 3) They are winners. Droves of supporters see him as a manifestation of these fundamental characteristics, and The Donald wears the qualities like his own Scarlet Letter. After every debate or stump speech you will leave assured by Trump that he is these things: very angry, obscenely wealthy and an excessive winner. These are the cornerstones of his sinister version of identity politics, but the foundation was laid years in advance.
Trump has long expressed his want to be involved with politics, starting in 1988, slowly becoming more and more serious about his inquires. But why wait all this time? He’s on record saying “I think I would win easily.” in a race for Governor of NY. In fact he told Oprah in 1988 if he ran for President he thought he would win.
Therein lies why Donald took his time committing to the political sphere, because he would never “go in to lose”. Even in the 2008 and 2012 cycles that had arguably the same volatile expectations, he declined to throw his hat in the ring. He didn’t see a clear path to victory in those elections, especially not for the Republican Party, so he continued biding his time. The political climate prior to the 2016 election had created a perfect combination of paranoia, division, and most of all fear. Through this, he saw a straight shot to victory: Identity Politics.
“It was the dense and boring and selfish who had always seen identity politics as their big chance.” Christopher Hitchens (2001)
The big chance for Trump’s fear-mongering politics was paved by an extensive ideological divide — on the culture of political correctness, our growing racial divide, economic instability, terrorism abroad — but rather than appeal to the qualities that unify us as Americans, he chooses to appeal to the deepest fears and prejudices. Trump plans to take hold of the political system with a movement disguised as “populism” whose roots lie in bigotry, classism and racial divide.
If you have any doubt of this, his recent interview where he says “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacist.” affirms my claims. Trump had clear views on David Duke for over a decade, so why the sudden bout of amnesia? Because Tapper cleverly worded each question to reference white supremacy or relating groups. Donald is too keen to outright denounce a broad group with which his movement may identify.
Do not believe that this was a malfunctioning ear-piece or that he’d already denounced David Duke in a press conference on Friday.
The difference here, is Trump clearly heard Jake Tapper mention “white supremacy”, whereas any other time he has been prompted it has been specifically to denounce David Duke. Tapper forced it to be a package deal: denounce both Duke and white supremacy altogether. Trump’s refusal to do so made it clear that the campaign believes a notable number of its supporters would identify with such groups.
His refusal to denounce specifically white supremacists, coupled with the anger and fear roused by a Trump candidacy, we need to begin to question what sorts of pandemonium could be caused. For the campaign, taking another media hit is a much smaller risk compared to endangering the firm hold it has on its base. We can have a debate on whether Trump himself or his policies are influenced by bigoted or racial undertones, but it is now undeniable that a sizable portion of his movement is.
“I think he [Trump] is an opportunist, not a racist.” — Van Jones
Trump’s divisive rhetoric has ranged from women, to immigrants, to religious groups, but he refuses to extend such vitriol to the likes of white supremacists. He has drawn a clear line in the sand regarding whose opinions his campaign values. It is time that we as Americans — regardless of political affiliation — ask ourselves if this is the rhetoric we wish to tolerate and have represent us on the world stage. It is no longer about what party you align with. We cannot allow the diplomatic voice of America to be overrun by the identity politics of anger.
Identity politics are often based on the hopes, dreams and aspirations of individuals, not on anger. Appealing to hopes, dreams and aspirations are the common colds of identity politics. But what happens when we begin to identify with greed, anger and division? What sort of pathogen infects our political discourse, then? After a dominant Super Tuesday performance, a better question may be: have we even begun working on a cure?