The other day I wrote about the deep-rooted racism, machismo, violence, hatred, sexism, xenophobia and misogyny that found vent through the Trump ballot. The available newspaper space did not allow comment on other reasons for Trump's victory and on the broader ideological framework that this victory represents.
Although the newly elected American president constantly relied on the aforementioned discourses during the campaign, and in his speeches he did not show much concern for logic and rationality, these were not the only reasons for voter support. His voters were not only driven by hatred and a collective desire to realize the political program of white supremacists.
Truth be told, the number of extremists who supported him is not negligible, and their influence on political currents has grown significantly with Trump's victory. The mentioned hatred has existed for a long time, but it was covered by the mantle of civil decency that enabled coexistence until now. Trump's victory shattered that, and his voters breathed a sigh of relief because a politician who "says clearly what I think" finally appeared. This, it seems to me, is the most terrible but also the most accurate definition of the reason for Trump's election victory.
Donald Trump has also recognized the economic frustration of a large number of citizens who are barely making ends meet, and for whom the political narrative of the American Dream is unattainable, and even offensive. Those for whom globalization poses a threat to their own economic sustainability reject the faded story of a focus on success, work and determination to overcome all obstacles, and the economic well-being that surely results from it. For them, American uniqueness is just a cynical tale of the rich from New York's Fifth Avenue.
On this front, Hillary Clinton did not offer voters anything new. Therefore, it is not surprising that a significant number of young people (both women and men) with a college degree did not vote for her. The Democratic candidate offered to vote "against" the exclusivity, sexism, xenophobia and racism offered by Donald Trump, but that was nowhere near enough to win the election. Analyzes published by the New York Times show that these elections were decided by the votes of former Obama voters, who this time did not circle the name of the Democratic Party candidate in sufficient numbers.
In the election campaign, Trump promised jobs, a better life and "hope for a better tomorrow", but there is a well-founded suspicion that his voters may be the first economic victim of his election victory. The thought of a unified right-wing font (White House, Congress, Senate) led by an authoritarian populist is very troubling to all progressive-minded people, and especially to those who end their forty-hour workweeks on minimum wage.
Trump is not a novelty in the political sky. Certain historical parallels with the fascists of the 1930s are unquestionable, but there are also many contemporary points of comparison. It represents part of the paradoxical contemporary political discourse that the philosopher Alan Badiou defines as "democratic fascism". This fascism is established and operates within the framework of the democratic apparatus, and its elements can be recognized in many areas, including Montenegro.
It is, among other things, a discourse that dislocates language and thus allows one to say anything and everything, and gives equal value to everything said. It is not a language that explains anything. Its purpose is to be against, and to create a certain effect and a false sense of community. The term "Trump's voters" indicates the contours of the community formed by his language of extremism and exclusivity, and the term "Trumpism" represents the beginning of a political discourse that sees the world through different glasses, and legitimizes the methods of action of the new American administration.
In this, Trump is not a pioneer. The first political figure of the new "democratic fascism" is Silvio Berlusconi, who has many similarities with the newly elected American president: vulgarity in performance, xenophobia, contempt for democratic institutions and procedures, criminalization of political dissenters, economic protectionism, racism, a certain pathological attitude towards women, and willingness to say and do things that are not acceptable to most people on the planet. Similar processes can be recognized in Hungary, Poland, Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, France, Turkey, India, the Philippines...
Trump should be seen as part of this broader and new political course which, unlike the fascism of the 1930s, has no worthy opponent today.
University of Alberta, Canada
Bonus video:
