UNESP: Donald Trump radicalized divisions and contradictions of the United States

Donald Trump radicalized divisions and contradictions of the United States
September 3, 2015 in the International System Actors by Lucas Leite
The presidential elections in the United States will take place only next year, but the presidential candidates are with their campaigns apace.

Democratic, what appeared to be an easy race has turned into a polarized battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. After complaints that would have used a particular phone to perform certain duties of the position, Clinton saw her grow opponent in the polls. Sanders is considered socialist, especially by American standards, especially liberals. His speech has sought to build a candidate who favors a state of social welfare face of rising inequality in the country - which persists despite the recent economic growth.

Among Republicans, have gained prominence statements made by billionaire Donald Trump, known for his strong opinions and often biased. Trump's statements on immigration, citizenship and foreign affairs have worried the most moderate and progressive Americans. The radicalization of his speech, however, has attracted more conservative wing of the electorate of the United States, traditionally linked to the Republican Party.

One of the recent cases concerns the US-Mexico border, marked by the construction of a wall on the border between the two countries. Trump caused controversy and embarrassment to the authorities by suggesting that Mexicans are blamed for rising crime in the United States. The speech, xenophobic and simplistic, reinforces the idea of ​​the wall, but this time between two identities, according to him, do not mix or complement each other. For Trump, the Mexicans would be responsible for entry of drugs in the United States and the perversion of American ideals. His speech positions the candidate before the issue of immigration, but attracts a population that passively accepts this thought, transferring to the "other" to blame for more complex and dense issues.

This discussion is part of a larger one, whose centrality is in the very formation of what is American. The United States are proud of the image that are a people made up of different cultures, nationalities and religions - what they call "melting pot". Would be a country of immigrants by nature. This statement is correct, but should be contextualized and set right in order to understand how this "mixture" happened. For this, we can draw a parallel between the history of the country with the events currently taking place - we will see that the narratives intertwine and overlap.

Although there are other reasons, especially economic, the civil war that divided the country between north and south and came to an end in 1865 marked the debate about citizenship and race relations in the United States. After the war, it was established through constitutional amendments that everyone, white and black, would be equal, therefore citizens. In practice, however, most of the black population was considered tacitly or legally as second-class citizens: this happened due to the creation of state constitutions that limit their rights, called "Black Codes".

The fight for civil rights and egalitarian politicians in the United States followed for decades. While most European immigrants who entered the country to help populate their lands to the west, blacks were segregated repeatedly in the geographic and spatial context. The first conclusion that can be drawn is this: similar, white and Christian, were welcome - the others do not.

Also in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the United States went to regional power status in the international system. After an easy victory of war against the Spaniards, several islands and territories have become spoils, including Cuba and the Philippines. This "annexation" was permeated by a very similar debate with the emancipation of the post-Civil War black: what to do with this population would now be under American dominance? Once again the question of citizenship permeated the political context of the country and the relation of alterity was again placed as a starting point.

Very influenced by the so-called social Darwinism, a large number of intellectuals, businessmen and politicians believed that some people were naturally superior to others. Starting from the idea of ​​natural selection, to borrow Charles Darwin term, reiterating that social relations followed the biological and natural relations, that is, whenever we would see the survival of the fittest as a sign of evolution and adaptation to the environment. For these decision makers, the whites of northern Europe would represent the culmination of this evolution and, like Anglo-Saxons, would share the same high level that would determine the existing racial superiority scale.

It's not hard to imagine that discussions of that time were guided not only by an express xenophobia, but by racist and determinist notions directed to "the other" - which may or may not live in the United States or territories conquered the country, but deep down not It would be American. In practice this meant the imperialist US experience in Cuba and the Philippines, mostly. But also the escalation of conflicts where this view was placed as a rule and law, as in 1882 the exclusion of Chinese in California and in clashes with Japanese also in this state and in the Pacific region.

Some might ask why go so far as to talk about the current elections, especially the Donald Trump candidate. The first is that history, however we want is not always linear or evolutionary - even imperfect goes through cycles reinterpretation of events that rescue stories and speeches from other periods. The second is that the current debate has focused enough on issues related to the American citizen, who he is and what their prerogatives and rights.

For Trump and other Republican candidates, notably the most radical linked to the Tea Party and the neo-conservative wing that apparently seeks to return to the political game, the US is exactly the same so-imagine and build more than a century ago: white, Christian and Anglo -Saxon. There is even a term for DSSA name: WASP - white, anglo-saxon, protestant. For part of the American population, those who do not fit in this group would not share the values, ideas and interests inherent to the citizens of the United States. Many analysts associate this thought to racial tensions in the country, constantly featured in American journalism.

Speaking of Trump against Mexican emphasizes that construction of otherness: we, the Americans, against them, Mexicans, Hispanics. This simplistic categorization seeks to produce cohesion in a country marked by ethnic divisions, which boasts of being formed by a mixture of races and nationalities, but have not yet learned to accept completely different.

Moreover, this narrative expresses a dissatisfaction with the current policies of President Barack Obama, which seeks to include different minorities through federal government programs and pressure to change the law. The success achieved by Obama is likely to contribute further to the radicalization of the dispute.

The United States is rather a country of different peoples, ethnic groups and religions, but they often see each of these groups separately. Understanding this process is essential to understand what happens in the current elections. The debate of the nineteenth century remains today.