Since taking office in January, Donald Trump has enacted a series of policies that have left many Americans and global observers in shock. His administration has taken a different approach to governance. It’s the marriage of radical economic ideas with a jarring rhetorical flourish. This troubling combination of factors has led to serious concern about the increased impact on democracy, social equity, and international relations.
Trump’s trade war has often been presented as an initiative to “bring jobs home” and “protect national interests.” As the analysts insist, it’s doing a whole other agenda, altogether. Critics counter that disparate trade policies disadvantage most Americans in order to benefit the richest Americans. Second, they think these policies are focused on reversing globalization, forming an economic policy that benefits the long-term economic welfare of the top 1 percent of Americans.
In Europe too has Trump’s rhetoric resounded, having found its echo in post-fascist politicians and an unsettling convergence of ideologies. His rhetoric consistently reflects themes commonly attributed to fascism, leading to wide condemnation from all sides. Unfettered capitalism, mixed with a transhumanist faith, casts technology as the magic bullet to our social problems. Yet, this combination adds layers of complexity to his political stance.
His administration is, unsurprisingly, packed full of technology enthusiasts who spread the fallacy that unlimited growth is necessary for innovation. Marc Andreessen, a prominent venture capitalist, encapsulated this mindset by stating, “We believe that there is no material problem – whether created by nature or by technology – that cannot be solved with more technology.” This view is very much in line with Trump’s administration’s favourite techno-deterministic, silver bullet approach to tackling deep rooted, societal problems.
On the world stage, Trump has just recently declared a 90 day embargo on some tariffs, taking credit for speaking to 75 different governments. Critics see these tariff policies as coercive tools of state power. They argue that these measures are meant to intimidate countries into negotiations stacked in favor of American interests. Most people agree that these tactics will benefit large corporations that are well connected to Trump’s administration. They contend that this end result will not serve the American people at-large.
Trump’s approach to immigration has arguably received the most criticism. Yet in his administration’s use of xenophobic and racist language that echoes fascist discourse, he has led violent campaigns against immigrant communities. This strategic move is meant to mobilize and fanaticize his base. At the same time, it tries to undermine diversity and inclusion efforts in higher education and outside of it.
Here’s another fact — Trump’s economic policies are almost identical to Giorgia Meloni, the hard-right authoritarian Prime Minister of Italy. Both leaders are champions of “free market” approaches that disproportionately help the rich. This alignment is extremely concerning given this administration’s lack of commitment to protection of social safety nets for the most vulnerable.
Critics claim that Trump’s policies cannot possibly be in national interests. Rather, they say that these policies more broadly are what serves the interest of big capital. The move to dismantle these diversity programs reflects a deeper and more troubling trend in state governance. It is designed to centralize power and influence to these elite, unaccountable circles, all the while undermining free speech efforts.
“America first” – Donald Trump
