Trump and Trudeau: Competing Views

Eduardo del Buey
La Jornada Maya

Martes 25 de septiembre, 2018

Canada last held national elections in 2015, and the United States in 2016.

Both countries elected leaders who have a strong brand identification, but these brands are diametrically opposed.

Let’s review some history.

In 1992, Francis Fukuyama published [i]The End of History[/i], in which he argued, inter alia, that with the fall of communism humankind would adopt liberal democracy as its universal political model, and globalization as its economic foundation.

In 1996, Samuel P. Huntingdon published [i]The Clash of Civilizations[/i], in which he posited that the world was divided among several major civilizations with competing socio-political and economic visions and ideals, and that these civilizations were locked in combat with each other for predominance in an ever-shrinking world. He also foresaw the rise of strong nationalisms and of identity politics that have led to internal divisions in many traditionally liberal societies.

Both visions are in strong competition today, and Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau each belong to different schools of thought.

Trudeau sees himself as a champion of liberal democracy – a system of government in which the rights of the individual are respected and protected by support for strong democratic governance institutions.

His 2015 campaign stressed a positive view of politics, an inclusive vision of Canadian society, and a liberal democratic optic of individual rights.

In his view, Canada is large enough and wise enough to be home to multiple cultures and its institutions are strong enough to protect the rights of the individual while withstanding challenges that multiculturalism could pose.

He believes that the democratic model can and should enable society to achieve economic and social well-being.

Among the challenges facing Canada today are the fact that many manufacturing jobs have disappeared, the benefits packages that were standard a generation ago no longer exist. One of the effects of globalization has been the massive investment by wealthy foreigners in real estate that have driven housing prices in many major centers beyond the means of many Canadians.

Yet Canadians do not seem to have bought into the vision of doom and gloom espoused by many of today’s illiberal populists. Nor have they bought into the identity politics used as wedge issues and manipulated by populist leaders to rile up their supporters.

One might conclude that, despite certain inefficiencies, Canada’s social support system compares well with the United States, and that this point of comparison serves Canadian political leaders well.

One might also posit that the fact that Canada has three recognized founding peoples leaves the country more open to accepting and integrating cultural differences making Canada the epitome of today’s globalized society.

As a major trading nation, Canada has generally viewed free trade as a boon to its economy. This, along with globalization, are not issues on the national political agenda.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, seems to have adopted the Huntingdon worldview. He behaves like a proponent of illiberal democracy. In illiberal democracies, the instruments of democracy – elections, referenda, etc. – are followed, but the institutions of democracy (the media, judiciary, central banks, and others) are weakened or eliminated so that real power lies in the hands of an autocratic leader or a small group of people.

In his view, a strong American identity is under constant threat from globalization and immigration. In this he shares the stage with European populists who view immigration as a major threat to their historical mono-ethnicity. According to many U.S. analysts, racial politics played a major role in the 2016 elections as Trump legitimized much of the latent racism that has always been present in U.S. society and turned it into a wedge issue. He also feels that trade deals have weakened U.S. society and have removed traditional manufacturing jobs from the U.S. economy, hence his popularity in the American “rust belt” of states so rich in the Electoral College votes that catapulted him into office. Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the effective pursuit of wedge issues in key electoral states was a difference maker putting Trump into power.

Trump’s worldview of “America First” echoes the nationalistic utterings of European populists and underscores the reaction of some against a globalization that has reduced the power and sovereignty of the nation state. In Trump’s view, making the country “great again” is a fundamental political priority, and one that must play a central role in the quest for political power. Reviving nationalism and patriotism is essential and can be helped along by identifying external or internal enemies against which native populations can rally. In Trump’s Huntingdonian view of the world, Muslims are perceived to be the archenemies of the West and must not be welcome in the USA. ISIS and Al Qaeda are seen as an indivisible part of the Muslim psyche, and they are quick to pursue Muslims and other minorities as major threats to Western civilization. African-Americans are inferior in his view, as demonstrated by his refusal to condemn the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis and come out against racism in the aftermath of the Charlottesville demonstrations in 2017.

In Trump’s view, and that of a significant number of his followers, undocumented aliens and recent legal immigrants are a major social and economic threat to “mainstream” (white) Americans, bringing violent crime and political, economic, and social instability to what once was a white man’s world. One recalls that he not only vents against Mexican undocumented migrants, but also U.S. born people of Mexican heritage, such as U.S. born Judge Gonzalo Curiel who ruled against Trump’s border wall proposal.

The fact that such nationalism is rampant gives populists the ammunition to attack the foundations of liberal democracy that provides shelter and protection for all - including minorities. Indeed, liberal democracy is blamed for the increased strength of “others”, both inside the homeland and abroad, that is anathema to cultural and political nationalists. In economic terms, they compete for jobs and lower wages and benefits for “traditional” citizens.

Hence the appeal of populist leaders among those who would consider themselves disenfranchised in their homelands and who are nostalgic for an unrealistic and unsustainable past. The impact of social media has liberated those who would preach hatred and exclusion in a way never before seen. Today, racist, ethnic, religious rantings and conspiracy theories can reach a global audience quickly, playing on the inner feeling of many of the world’s citizens. The election of leaders such as Trump serves to legitimize hitherto suppressed racial and religious bigotry, and social media allows them to coalesce in strong numbers to make their views felt nationally and internationally. At the same time, populist movements seek to delegitimize mainstream media and the truth is often a major casualty. Since anyone with a smartphone and a social media account can broadcast globally and is not restricted by the constraints of professional journalism, it is easy for lies to replace truth and fact. Indeed, social and economic inequities have developed over the past few decades and have been underscored by the impunity with which governments and legal systems dealt with the economic crisis of 2008. This has created a backlash among the far left (the “Occupy Movement”) as well as the far right against globalization, seen as enhancing the wealth of the few at the expense of the many. This has reduced or eliminated any confidence that many voters have for liberal democratic leaders and institutions and has created fertile ground for the illiberal populists currently on political stages around the world.

Trudeau and Trump may well be the personifications of the existential battle between liberal democrats and illiberal populists.

Both leaders may well be re-elected (in 2019 in Canada and in 2020 in the United States). Trudeau will have to convince Canadians that his government is receptive to the concerns of voters, such as relatively high taxation, the environmental debate on pipelines, his government’s handling of the current NAFTA negotiations and the impact a negative result could have for thousands of jobs in Canada. The main Conservative opposition is divided between those on the far right and the more progressive elements. The recent creation of the Peoples’ Party – led by a disaffected former Conservative leadership candidate, may well divide the right once again as it was in the 1990’s, providing Trudeau with the opportunity of winning a second mandate.

Trump will have to fight a Democratic Party that had significant problems in getting out their vote in 2016 due to deep divisions within. While his base is strong, a united Democratic Party set on campaigning effectively to win swing Electoral College states with a strong and charismatic candidate and solid mainstream policies could well pose a serious challenge to his aspirations of winning a second term. Their challenge is to get their supporters out to vote!

So, who will dominate global political thinking? That remains to be seen.

The extreme right is on the upswing in Europe, and, in Canada, a Trump-like leader has been elected provincially in Ontario. Some elements in the Canadian Conservative Party believe that multiculturalism and immigration are threats and put pressure on that party’s official policy that supports both. This may change with the advent of the People’s Party whose platform includes limiting immigration. In Quebec, the Coalition Avenir Québec leader François Legault recently said on the campaign trail that if immigrants do not learn French or prove that they can adapt to Quebec values within three years of arriving they should be expelled. This has cost him in recent opinion polls. Trudeau has yet to comment on this proposal and may refrain from doing so until the upcoming Québec election is decided in order to avoid appearing to be intruding in the provincial electoral debate.

Given today’s socio-economic realities, no political system is immune to the siren call of populism or elements of populist thinking which is affecting political stability throughout the Western world.

That is why we must all study the phenomena that brought these two leaders to power, since those broad dynamics are currently driving political conversations present today around the world.

[b][email protected][/b]