The advantage that Trump has is that he manages to channel the social animosity of a people who feel like they are losing out with the change in the international status of their country.
After the revolutions that swept Europe in 1848, many proposals from liberal and democratic forces gained ground despite resistance from the remnants of the feudal aristocracies. One of the most radical innovations was the appearance in countries like France of universal suffrage – although reserved for men over 21 – which for the first time would give a voice to the working classes during elections. The leaders of the democratic and socialist forces had deep hopes in the possibility that the working classes, hitherto excluded from all political decisions, could move towards what was called “social progress”.
The result in France was a resounding failure. In the spring, the Socialists won less than 10% of the seats, and in December, the presidential candidate of the reactionary forces, Louis Bonaparte, received 75% of the vote. The ink had not yet dried on the Communist Manifesto, in which it was claimed that Europe was haunted by the specter of communism, when Marx himself, reflecting on this defeat, complained bitterly that suffrage universal seemed to have meant that “everything that exists” deserves to perish. » The philosopher and anarchist Proudhon is more explicit and denounces that “the people spoke like a drunkard”.
This episode was a great setback for socialist aspirations. However, as capitalism developed and the number of industrial workers increased, confidence was also restored that majorities would eventually come out in favor of socialism. It was only a matter of time – asserted the socialist theorists of the late 19th century – before the majority of the population became objectively interested in proposals for the socialization of the means of production. But things turned out to be much more complicated, and over time it became clear that the working classes, especially the poorer and less educated, did not automatically join the ranks of socialism.
Donald Trump’s recent victory is a new invitation to reflect on these questions, because of what the candidate represents and the composition on which his electoral support rests – with a greater weight than ever among the poorest and least educated . The phenomenon is of great magnitude: the more than 75 million votes he obtained a week ago – or more than half of the total – are 10 million more than eight years ago, when he was elected president for the first time. This is extraordinarily high popular support and, therefore, there is every reason to be concerned about a billionaire whose ideology is defined by the most extreme conceptions of mercantilism, nationalism, neoliberalism and classism.
In these weeks when the slogan “only the people save the people” has become fashionable, it is important to keep all this in mind so as not to prematurely and naively grant the “demos” visions that do not correspond to reality. . . By any measure, the “demos” are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but it is always advisable to investigate the reasons for these behaviors.
Donald Trump, for example, would have benefited from the “woke” positions defended by progressive sectors. This argument is fundamentally reactionary because what they mean by “wokeness” is about policies for gender equality, respect for the human rights of immigrants, and concerns about social inequality. If the “demos” prove contrary to these positions, the challenge for the left should be to determine how to act to change these attitudes of the “demos.” The position that the left must resemble the people is absurd: if the people are mostly racist, it makes no sense to resemble them. Furthermore, there is nothing morally superior about wanting to influence – and change – the behavior of “demos”; It’s just politics.
In fact, this is Republican policy. The republican tradition, historically crossed by this debate, and caught between the old and liberal positions of “fear of the people” – from Aristotle to Hayek – and the authoritarian position of “speaking in the name of the people” – of the Stalinist left – has always opted for education and what we could call “the cultural battle”. The “people” is always the historical summary of the political-cultural struggles of the past, and not an ahistorical category which embodies any truth.
The election of a reactionary assembly in France in 1848, elected by universal male suffrage, continues the irony of the abolition of said right in 1849. Hence Marx’s comment. Things continued as a drama when in 1851 Louis Bonaparte proclaimed himself emperor – now Napoleon III – and reestablished universal suffrage for his own benefit, using it as a tool to legitimize his authoritarian positions; a sort of democratic dictator.
It is certain that Trump poses a threat to American representative democracy, something he has already demonstrated with his responsibility for the storming of the United States Capitol in January 2021. The narrative he and his team have constructed is based on the idea that practically anything is permitted. to save the nation from the threats that would weigh on it – poor immigration, above all. But I fear that the problem goes much deeper and goes beyond the person who embodies these reactionary ideas.
The historian Luciano Canfora has dedicated a magnificent book to Julius Caesar with the provocative title “Julius Caesar, a Democratic Dictator”. Canfora recalls that Caesar’s assassination was not enough to stop the reforms he had undertaken and that, as soon as his allies could, they continued after his death. The subsequent assassination of Cicero, one of the main representatives of classical republicanism and promoter of the assassination, symbolizes this moment of helplessness against the dictator with great popular support. In these historical moments, the political leader becomes much more than a person: he becomes a political project in which certain concerns with strong social roots crystallize.
The advantage Trump has is that he manages to channel the social animosity of a people who feel they have lost with the change in the international status of their country. Throughout the 20th century, the United States exercised military and economic hegemony over the world, which gave it a series of advantages naturalized by its population, as if they had existed since eternity. And now, in a global context full of threats such as climate and economic threats, and both manifesting together in rising prices of food and other goods, social frustration and popular desire to preserve a certain status also manifest in the form of racism, classism and ultranationalism.
It is in this context that people proliferate ready to believe all kinds of explanations, however absurd they may seem to the best informed people, including the most surreal conspiracies. To this must be added the obvious interest of certain powers in disseminating such explanations and channeling the growing anger and frustration. Trump, like other far-right leaders, is speaking to a frustrated people and promising them a proposition that fits their previous, generally unsophisticated beliefs – and through this he is integrating them into a trajectory in which the democracy can become an obstacle – especially for the accumulation of capital. After all, there are “democrats” who might prefer saving cheap gas to democracy.
