12 November, 2018

Blog

Globalisation & Populist Explosion: Trumpism As Thick Ideology

By Siri Gamage

Dr. Siri Gamage

Last week I attended a seminar on this topic presented by Professor Manfred Steger from the department of sociology, University of Hawaii where I studied for my Master’s degree in the late 70s. It was presented at the Institute of Culture and Society, Western Sydney university. He has analysed campaign speeches by President Donald Trump by using discourse analysis. Several key points from his seminar are worth mentioning.

According to Professor Steger, Globalisation has an objective and subjective element. Populism need to be studied as an ideational system. Social meanings -part of ideologies- have three parts: 1) political ideologies, 2) social imagination, 3) Ontologies (patterned ways of being in the world). In the ideological landscape in the 21st century, there are global imaginings and national imaginings. Under the former there are competing ideologies such as market globalism, global justice system, and religious globalism (left and right). Under the latter, there are national populisms as a reaction to globalisation (left and right).

National populism is sustained by mythical national unity, direct relationship between the leader and people, and pure common people vs. corrupt national elites (citing Taguieff, 1984).

There are two approaches to populism: 1) content centred (as ideology), 2) form centred as style). It is important to resurrect content centred analysis today. Every ideology wants to own some concepts and take them out of context, e.g. freedom. Populism borrows from other ideologies. It is flexible and opportunistic. Three key concepts in it are elites, people, and general will. One cannot essentialise populism by saying it is thin.

Professor’s analysis of Trump speeches, 17 in number, covered Core, adjacent and peripheral concepts contained in them. He asked whether Trump’s ideology become thicker –not just style? He used three criteria in his analysis (borrowed from Freedman, 1996). 1) distinctiveness, 2) context based responsiveness, 3) ability to produce ideological decontestations.

Findings (key ideas in Trump speeches)

The claim by Trump populists that they are the holders of General will; they represent working class interests; they are the nation builders, e.g. Dams. Depiction of corrupt elites as globalist enemies and unpatriotic – who support open borders, destroy American identity while glorifying free trade and wiping out American jobs, shoring up global structure. Adjacent concepts such as climate change, fake news, immigration also exist. Central claims in the speeches are that elites betray the people, Americanism as our credo, defeat globalisation, and cancel contributions to the UN.

In conclusion, the Professor said Trumpism meets the three criteria that he laid out for analysis. Trump is oriented to policy such as immigration, trade, environment, guns, Obamacare, taxes. He advances anti-globalist populism. Significance of all this to populism/global studies is that ideologies need to be understood as dynamic: thin to thick. We also need to bring back content-approaches. Analytical take away is that Trumpism is a mature ideology.

Political take away is that there is a struggle between anti globalist populism and market globalism (national vs global imaginary), and there is production of meanings of anti-globalism that translates into policies e.g. emissions, trade regulations, immigration, wealth re-distribution

These points about market globalism and anti-globalism by right wing populists in the US and the analysis by Professor Steger are useful in comprehending what is taking place in South Asia and Sri Lanka in terms of ideologies. We can investigate and analyse whether there is right wing or left-wing threads of nationalism and anti-globalism in Sri Lanka?  One may argue the ideology advanced by the JVP contains elements of left wing nationalism. The ideology promoted by the government has elements of market globalism (though neoliberalism is perceived to be a failed ideology) rather than anti globalism. Rhetoric promoted by environmentalists, anti-fertiliser import campaigners and anti-development groups can be classified as anti -globalist. The ideology, if any, advanced by the Joint Opposition is neither here nor there in terms of anti-globalism (though at times they cite alienation of national assets) or neoliberal market globalism. It is rather oriented towards anti-Tamil rhetoric and safeguarding national sovereignty against undefined globalist forces except the Tamil diaspora.

Where does the right wing anti globalism rhetoric come from is another question to ponder. The effects of market globalism policies and programs since 1978 have produced many casualties and oppressive conditions other than for privileged segments of the population who have had easy access to market globalism. Fears expressed by professional organisations about the negative effects of free trade agreements have to be viewed in terms of anti-globalist ideology but they seem to be in its campaign for their own benefits rather than the under privileged segments of the population. Ethnic discourse seems to have taken a right-wing slant after the war as much as it did during the war.

In the case of US, Australia and even Europe, the key question is why the left has failed to make inroads in ideological terms to take charge of anti-globalism ideology? Why the right-wing groups have been able to appropriate such ideology for their political ends?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 3
    1

    UNP : market globalism + liberalism with regard to culture and the treatment of minorities.
    .
    JO/Pohottuwa: sneaky market globalism + right wing nationalism with regard to culture and the treatment of minorities.
    .
    JVP: anti-globalism + left wing nationalism with regard to culture and the treatment of minorities.
    .
    SLFP (Maithri faction): hasn’t figured it out yet.

  • 1
    1

    Professors from their little offices see a different Rhetoric. but, there is another side to that. USA is driven market economy. IF you read, they established 13 Mega cities in their country and all of those did paper work and every thing needed for that international and world trade. So, the Dollar was used and they earned some fee on that exchange. In order to support these mega cities theey wanted every thing except WHEAT, BUTTGER or now MARGARINE and MEAT to be bought and brought from else where. Then Japan took over that and did better. There after China took over and it doind far better. Now TRUMP says no Globalization and some
    TRade Facts were torn into pieces (PAcific countries Trade fact, and NAFTA revised). On the other hand, China who is thrving in global trade said no we want it. So, how doe syour talk fits with what I said ?+

    • 0
      0

      Good point JD. In fact I raised a similar Question about the contradictions of Trumpism/right wing populism and the fact the US is viewed by others as a key player in globalisation(market globalism)? But the point about populism and populist politics is that the proponents appropriate ideas from other isms and platforms and make them their own quite successfully. In a context where traditional and radical left have lost ground on ground(not in theory),which matters for populism to emerge, right wing politicians and groups have successfully identified frustrations among the casualties of market globalisation, then catered to their sentiments through populism. It seems to me that Trumpism is against China for example merely because the US has lot its previous dominance in trade and economic relations in the face of growing Chinese market economic development under an authoritarian model. In effect Trump is addressing the concerns of the US workers who lost jobs due to industries moving to Asia and L America etc. for low wages,tax concessions etc.

      But the lesson here for all of us is that rather than using globalisation and market globalism as a mantra for development and alleviation of poverty, we need to identify groups who become casualties of the same process and address their concerns through ideology and policy. Otherwise, extreme forms of nationalism can emerge from politicians who want to hijack the interests of these casualties.

  • 0
    2

    Oh, what I forgot to tell was now their world Trade is crimblong down, their stock market is in disarray, they shoot each other, blame immigrents and some how those mega cities would disappear. So, that is why they have so many new enemies now.

    • 1
      0

      Q.What are those 13 mega cities?

      Do you have any sources of further information about these?

  • 0
    0

    Trump is blip in the sand of human-time.
    He thinks that he can etch himself in history by repeatedly singing “Mary, Mary quite contrary”.
    We are bored but help is in sight. His background chorus have begun to ask, “Is the Mary, the mother of Jesus? Queen of Scots? Or…..”. He never heard of ’em!

  • 0
    2

    Pfrofessor can say many things. but, the bottom line is TRUMP has to win the next election. After that win, things may change. Why di dnot the professor did not see things in real life terms. Sri lanka also talks many difficult to understnad terms such as Economic hub of Asia, TEchnologu hub of Asia, women empowerment, Youth em[powerment. But, the bottom line is Politicians and some businessmen get richer now it is the businessmen affiliated with Embassies. See how successful is Daya gamage as politicians, as a family and as a businessman.

  • 0
    0

    Sri Lanka is in an unenviable (yes unenviable) quagmire in terms of policy and ideology. We consider three things non negotiable A) welfare state, while the government revenue as a percentage of GDP is one of the lowest in the world B) Sovereignty, while we are next door to a giant whose federal election outcome depends on the said giant’s policy towards a minority in this tiny island. C) Protection of the majority Sinhalese, an ethnicity unique to Sri Lanka for whom international bodies wont cry for.
    This is a case where the simple left and right ideologies do not work. For A to be true we need leftist ideology. For B to be true, a liberal globelistic ideology to keep the giant at bay while inviting others to play. For C to be true, a Nationalistic populist ideology. All this within a democracy.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.