Donald Trump Hates American Idealism

The rise of Donald Trump from minor media figure to major media celebrity — Err, presidential nominee — relies on the mobilization of a select number of voices to broadcast his message of dissatisfaction with the status quo. While I disagree on virtually every aspect of what Mr. Trump says and represents, the degree of his success reflects an impressive ability to control media coverage of his message. New narratives must counter this message and expose the Trump phenomenon as a hate-filled rejection of American idealism.

If successfully implemented, his ideas — they don’t deserve to be called policies — would go against American values that lie at the core of both our country’s founding principles and who we are as a people. A closed immigration policy? Lady Liberty is disgusted. The United States is a made up almost entirely immigrants, old and new, though it should be recognized that the atrocities committed against the original inhabitants of this continent were a brutal, often violent, clash of cultural ideologies and practices. Excluding entire groups of people based on their religion violates the American ideal of equal opportunity. We have not met this lofty goal in the past, but ceasing to strive for it amounts to an abandonment of our shared identity.

Today, our country has become the most powerful actor at a global level in history. Should we, as Mr. Trump argues, ruin our international relationships with NATO, Japan, and South Korea in order to make a point? But his point is not that we need to scrutinize our military spending — which he argues should be increased, without explaining how — rather that the not-fully-monetized international relations arena should be fully subjugated to the logic of capitalist business thinking. When the sovereignty of countries is ruled solely by markets, the likelihood — even the possibility — of mutual good will and a shared vision of the future emerging among and within countries becomes increasingly elusive.

Adding to this perversion of a shared vision of the future, his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” seeks to recreate a reality that never existed. America has always striven for greatness: the idealist rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence asserts that there are universal “rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But we have never succeeded in meeting these lofty standards: women, blacks and all minorities, and both the LBGTQ and disabled communities have all been marginalized in the course of our nation’s history. So when was this time of greatness to which we must return? And how can we become “Great Again” if the idealism of the United States implies we always strive for greatness, for improving the lot of all people both within our country and the across the planet.

Despite his efforts to destroy American idealism, Mr. Trump’s message resounds nonetheless. But the voices broadcasting this vision do not inherently support the ideas he proposes; they are driven by ratings and ad revenue. So, they echo his message and seize upon the fear and anger in people, not their hope. This message fetishizes the worst in people and blames a vague Other for the challenges facing America and her people.

While the fear and anger many Americans feel has found an outlet in the political arena, it fails to influence power brokers that are not accountable to the political process and who are in fact responsible for denying the average American a prosperous future. Multinational corporations with power outside public office have built formidable physical, technological, and legal protective layers from scrutiny and public accountability. So, it falls on public officials to regulate and rein in these actors, and restore hope and optimism about the future for the average American.

Hillary Clinton may not embody the radical change necessary to rein in these self-interested corporations. But she has proposed incremental reforms to the status quo that move the United States in the right direction toward improving oversight of corporate practices that place profit before people and planet. This is a step in the right direction for our country, though further fundamental changes are still necessary.

While I will not vote for Mr. Trump in November, I find the disruptive nature of his rise compelling. I regard his challenge to the status quo as a useful contribution to the political discourse in the United States. But he fails to gain my support — and will fail to secure the presidency — because he seeks to abandon American idealism in favor of a pessimistic, hate-filled vision of the future.

I have reservations about whether Mrs. Clinton, an establishment politician if there ever was one, will truly disrupt the status quo and change the direction of the country. Yet she does not hate the idealism of the United States as Mr. Trump does. She maintains an idealism about what America could be, an inclusive vision of what we as a people should strive to become, and for that she has my vote.