WP2 Final Draft: A Cultural Battle
Nigel Farage. Marine Le Pen. Jair Bolsonaro. Donald Trump. Again and again we hear about right-wing populist movements in the United Kingdom, France, Brazil, America and in numerous other countries. The mainstream media has extensively covered these movements but rarely delves into the reasons as to why they have gained so much traction in recent years. Despite some purporting that the rise of right-wing populists can be attributed solely to cultural or economic factors, I argue that these leaders spin economic arguments as cultural in order to resonate on a more personal level with their coalitions.
Globalization, in its most stripped-down form, describes the proliferation of ideas and people across borders and a singular view of the world where people of all nationalities are all part of the human race. This phenomenon has benefited a large number of individuals handsomely, but many have received the short-end of the stick. As countries have opened up, companies have begun turning to outsourcing blue-collar jobs to areas with cheap labor. Here in the states, the closure of manufacturing plants in the Rust Belt due to outsourcing has left many in the region jobless and despondent. Across the pond, Britain’s involvement in the European Union required it to pay exorbitant membership fees at the expense of the British taxpayer while also stimulating a prominent rise in the number of European immigrants, who were being perceived as economic competition. Many– mainly in the working-classes– feel abandoned as their economic situation continues to deteriorate while their concerns are largely ignored by traditional parties and politicians continue to push for globalist policies.
The repercussions of globalization have paved the way for the advancement of right-wing populist movements. Although there has been much discontent surrounding globalization, traditional politicians have not brought these concerns to light. Paula Sandrin explains that “Traditional political parties are perceived as unable or unwilling to change this state of affairs, leading to frustration and opening the way for populist parties” (The Rise of Right-Wing Populism in Europe). In the eyes of the working-class, the traditional parties seem set on maintaining the status quo based on their rigid centrist stances. Shifting either too far to the left or right was seen as a recipe for division and disaster; remaining firmly centrist was a bland but tried and true technique for avoiding severe disunity. Another reason that traditional parties ignored such complaints was because they simply assumed that they would continue to receive the working-class’ vote. Furthermore, the working-class has neither social influence nor money, and thus are typically not the first concern of politicians. Because there had hardly been any mainstream politicians actively airing the grievances of the working-class on the economic effects of globalization, this ultimately provided a power vacuum that right-wing populist leaders filled. These new figures in politics branded themselves as disruptors, a 10.0 earthquake in the long dormant game of politics. Capitalizing on the years-worth of pent-up exasperation of the working-class, the right-wing populists stumbled upon a whole new voting bloc that other politicians had bizarrely neglected.
In America, the negative economic consequences of global policy making have been reworded as cultural battles by right-wing populist leaders such as former President Trump. For example, the working-class has been encouraged to blame outsourcing on immigration. Speaking of undocumented immigrants, Trump declared that “They’re taking our jobs. They’re taking our manufacturing jobs. They’re taking our money. They’re killing us” (Politico, 2015). Trump asserted that the undocumented immigrants were unfairly benefitting off of the American economy at the expense of American citizens. “Manufacturing” is mentioned specifically because of the long-running frustration that runs through the Rust Belt region among the working-class who have seen thousands upon thousands of jobs be moved abroad by large corporations in order to profit off of cheap foreign labor. The issue of outsourcing is personal to a significant portion of the country and Trump is accutely aware of this fact, and therefore cleverly mentions “manufacturing” in order to turn the dire economic situation of the working-class into a cultural issue of undocumented immigrants unrightfully stealing their jobs, their money, and their livelihoods. Trump sought to place the blame of all their concerns that have resulted from economic decline on undocumented immigrants and thus the remedy to their strife and worries was to deport all undocumented immigrants, which Trump pledged to do. Only when issues are made personal can they invoke such powerful emotions that can catalyze movements like that of the right-wing populists. More recently, the conflict in Ukraine has all but emphasized the tactic of the right-wing populists to code economic problems as cultural ones. Missourian Senator Josh Hawley asserted in an op-ed that “American foreign policy should be based on what’s best for preserving American freedom and American prosperity, not expanding an empire of ‘liberal order’ around the world” (Fox News, 2022). Hawley pushed back against the idea that the American military should come to Ukraine’s aid because America should serve to solve only issues that directly impact America, who has involved itself in many wars with the hopes of preserving and establishing Western liberal democratic government institutions around the world. Yet, the results of these interventions have not yielded the presupposed outcomes and the enormous sums of taxpayer dollars spent simply infuriated the American working-class who saw a demise in their own living standards. It seemed absurd that America was spending outrageous amounts of their money to attempt to better the lives of foreigners only to fail miserably while the working-class languished in the Rust Belt region. When politicians continue to promulgate the desperate need to spend more and more taxpayer dollars abroad, the working-class only becomes more embittered by the day and the anger becomes directed towards people from other countries who are assumed to be exploiting American resources and money. Right-wing populists center the issue-at-hand on immigration and foreigners rather than honing in on economic arguments. The American government’s focus on foreigners and immigrants is a burden to everyday Americans. From there arises the slogan of “America First,” meaning that anything that the American government does should first and foremost benefit the American people. “America First” was Trump’s main mantra, which only serves to underscore the heavy significance of framing topics as cultural matters in leveraging the support of right-wing populists.
Likewise, Brexit was a result of British right-wing populists placing the onus of poor economic outcomes on Britain’s membership in the European Union. In 2016, a referendum was held in Britain to determine whether Britain should remain in the EU. The results stunned the world: just over half-of-the-population voted to leave. According to Nigel Farage, the mastermind behind Brexit, remaining in the EU would take a toll on the UK’s economy. Farage tweeted that “EU membership costs us billions of pounds per year. Let’s Leave and spend that money here instead.” In the video attached, he claimed that Britons were shelling out close to ten billion pounds annually for the EU. Talking directly to those who were struggling financially, Farage presented a simple answer for their woes: the EU. It was indeed this multilateral political union that was the source of all your financial strife. Consequently, Farage used this argument to persuade the economically disadvantaged, especially those in the working-class, to support Brexit because leaving the EU would save Britain ten billion pounds a year which in turn would trickle down and alleviate the financial burdens placed on the backs of the British taxpayer. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Farage did not triumph by relying on an economic argument, he framed the issue as one of national sovereignty as the problem was Britain’s involvement in the EU and what those ties required of Britain. Who would not urge the British government to continue spending their own taxpayer money on their own citizens instead of on bureaucrats far away across the Channel? Would not nearly everyone want the British government to act in the best interests of the British people? Farage seized this as a chance to assert that Britons must take back their country, and that national sovereignty was ultimately at stake. The anger was only magnified when the selection process at the EU was repeatedly highlighted. In an article for the National Review, Michael Brendan Dougherty detailed that “The EU is governed by an unelected Commission and an unelected Court, both joined to an elected Parliament with no real legislative power. Can you impeach a European commissioner? Can you vote for one? Or vote to remove one? No, non, nein!” (National Review, 2020). The United Kingdom’s membership in the European Union meant that they were subject to the rules and regulations of the union. However, the inability to even vote for the bureaucrats who were using their taxpayer money was exasperating. The hardworking primary school teacher of 37 years in Sussex did not vote to elect Jean-Claude Juncker nor could she hold Juncker accountable in any way; she could only watch helplessly as her money was being spent on policies debated by individuals who had not a care in the world about her and her fellow countrymen while they suffered financially. Finally, a politician like Farage stepped up and provided her with a source for her woes and a perpetrator of her misfortunes. Brexit was championed by those who felt as if they had relinquished their sovereignty to a handful of individuals in Brussels who hardly had the interests of the British people in mind. During the campaign leading up to the 2016 referendum, the narrative that Farage formulated was that it was national sovereignty which hung in the balance. Farage impelled people to vote to leave the EU in droves by convincing them that remaining would mean ceding control of British institutions to bureaucrats across the Channel. The case for national sovereignty was infinitely more powerful than mere economic arguments because it became a battle over the soul of the nation.
However, some may argue that strictly economic issues are what drive the increase in right-wing populist movements. Megumi Naoi claims that “the overwhelming majority of observational studies have found support for the economic interests hypothesis, i.e., that the economic hardship of voters drives their support for protectionism. Analyses of Donald Trump’s vote gains in the 2016 US presidential election, especially in the Rust Belt region, corroborate this view… ‘leave’ votes in the Brexit referendum were also concentrated in districts with voters with lower educational attainment, lower income, higher unemployment rates, and a historical dependency on manufacturing employment” (Annual Review of Political Science, 2020). Based on observational studies, the working-class was motivated to turn out due to the leaders like Trump’s promises of a better economic situation. While there is a correlation between the economic circumstances of the working-class and voting for right-wing populist candidates, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. UK Research and Innovation, a body of the UK government, concluded after a study that “concerns about immigration and identity were so central to the public’s views about the EU that they influenced the way people saw the economic case for Brexit too. Voters were not necessarily willing to focus on the economic arguments alone” (UKRI). Merely rattling off GDP per capita statistics and droning on and on about the economy does not provide the stimulation needed to drive the support needed to galvanize these right-wing populist movements. The working-class was stirred to channel their bitterness toward the globalists and they were convinced that to properly solve their economic problems, they were to turn to the populists who gave them emotionally-stirring answers for their hardships. Simple explanations yielded simple solutions which were all offered by these new right-wing populist politicians. Leaders like Farage did certainly emphasize the importance of developing strong economies, but ran these arguments in a cultural manner, tying them to matters like to their nation’s quest for self-determination. More than anything, explanations for Brexit that were culturally relevant felt personal for the average Briton who experienced the effects of EU policy-making but now had a target to blame and a leader to assemble behind.
Now, why does this all matter if right-wing populists seize upon the emotional attachment that the many in the working-class have to cultural issues? Because a democracy is only able to thrive in an environment where citizens do not misuse their right to vote and instead formulate educated opinions founded upon reason and facts rather than fleeting feelings. Manipulation runs rampant in societies where leaders have been able to hold people hostage by leveraging anger, fear, mistrust, and exasperation. In order to preserve our hard-won democracies, we must embolden people to utilize their rights wisely.
Works Cited
Dougherty, Michael Brendan. “Why Brexit Matters.” National Review, National Review, 31 Jan. 2020, https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/why-brexit-matters/.
Hawley, Josh. “Russia-Ukraine Crisis — China Is America’s Biggest Enemy, Not Moscow.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 7 Feb. 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/russia-ukraine-crisis-china-america-enemy-sen-josh-hawley.
Naoi, Megumi. “Survey Experiments in International Political Economy: What We (Don’t) Know About the Backlash Against Globalization.” Annual Review of Political Science, 22 Jan. 2020.
“New Research Uncovers the Reasons Why the Remain Campaign Failed to Convince Enough Voters of Economic Case to Stay in the EU.” What UK Thinks: EU, https://whatukthinks.org/eu/media-centre/new-research-uncovers-the-reasons-why-the-remain-campaign-failed-to-convince-enough-voters-of-economic-case-to-stay-in-the-eu/.
Sandrin, Paula. “The Rise of Right-Wing Populism in Europe: A Psychoanalytical Contribution.” Financial Crisis Management and Democracy the Cases of EU And, SPRINGER NATURE, S.l., 2020, pp. 227–239.
Schreckinger, Ben, and Nick Gass. “Donald Trump Storms Phoenix.” POLITICO, 11 July 2015, https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-storms-phoenix-119989.
