Like many scholars, Pierson discusses “Trump’s brand of aggressive anti-elite and ethno-nationalist politics” (S109). While populist rhetoric prevailed on the campaign trail, Pierson contrasts that rhetoric with the appointments and legislative initiatives that Trump has pursued since taking office. In your view, how central are anti-elite politics to Trump’s actual governing strategy?
April 29, 2019 at 2:43 pm
I think that there is almost no connection or consistency between what Trump says and does. It is incredibly clear that his actions while in office benefit upper class white people. However, on the campaign trail, he was not necessarily anti-elite. He inflated his net worth and embraced the name of Trump and its association with outlandish wealth. He made a name for himself as being “anti-establishment”–he was not a politician, did not have a law degree, and did not follow the conventions of what was previously deemed politically correct. I think he used the term “anti-elite” to really mean anti-education. Education in America is elitist and difficult to access. Most Americans do not have a college degree. Trump was able to spin the resentment of this exclusive upper class to benefit himself. He did not need to present any facts or possess any knowledge in order to be president. He also could tap into underlying racial hatred that was too low-brow for the “elites” to express out loud. This furthered the growing wedge between the upper and lower classes and made Trump more relatable to the working class.
April 29, 2019 at 2:32 pm
A significant portion of Trumps success is a result of his effective use of anti-elite rhetoric. In his campaign, he championed arguments for working class Americans and maintaining employment for these populations. However, it is deeply ironic that Trump and majority of conservative politicians stand staunchly against promoting higher minimum wage, which effectively increases the inequality by keeping the lower class locked into jobs that hardly pay a livable wage. Additionally, his anti-establishment rhetoric of “drain the swap” contrasts significantly with his cabinet appointments, such as Scott Pruitt and other extremely wealthy individuals who worked as corporate executives in the private sector. The concentration of power in the hands of a few wealthy individuals is a clear theme in the United States, reflected in Trumps cabinet members. Finally, Trump appealed to many in the working class because he made American politics accessible through blatant anti-establishment statements against many influential people in Washington, which successfully kept attention off of his own elitist background and consistent support of policy that increases inequality by stagnating wages in the lower class and generating massive revenues for the wealthy through corporate tax cuts. Ultimately, the anti-establishment and anti-elitist rhetoric employed by Trump is imperative to maintaining his “for the working man” mentality, which is furthered by his lack of embellishment and political jargon, making politics accessible to an entirely new population of people. It is an effective shield for his deeply hypocritical actions thus far.
April 29, 2019 at 1:31 pm
During the campaign, I do believe Trump very effectively promoted an anti-elitist agenda in order to win the election. I genuinely do believe that people that voted for him did think he was going to follow through on a lot of the promises he made. Whether the promise be job creation for the lower-middle class of America or tackling the corruption that has plagued Washington, he was very adamant on his positions of favoring the working class and for representation of the often underrepresented (white working class). However, this issues seem to be less and less important throughout his presidency. Furthermore, the anti-elitism he ran on seems to be continuously diminishing in significance.
As was pointed out in an earlier post, the people that he surrounded himself with are by far in the highest level of class in the United States. This decision on his part was the first of many in which he tracked back on his anti-elitist agenda. By placing rich like-minded people in positions of power that they are not qualified for, he is furthering the notion that wealth buys power in America. Furthermore, he actions by appointing people such as Betsy Devos or Ben Carson, it became obvious that the anti-elitist agenda was merely a tactic to lure in the working class. His cabinet alone is estimated to be worth more than 4.3 billion dollars and consists of people from his friends to big donors.
April 29, 2019 at 11:39 am
I certainly buy in to Pierson’s argument that Trump leveraged anti-establishment and anti-elite fervour on the campaign trail to his benefit, only to renege on those promises once in office. The entire idea of “draining the swamp,” a line he often used to refer to his promised exiling of career politicians, was ostensibly to rid Washington of its supposedly endemic corruption. Trump, however, bringing people like Rex Tillerson, Betsy DeVos, and Ryan Zinke to his cabinet, all individuals who benefitted financially from or took advantage of his administration, demonstrates his hypocrisy on this matter of corruption. One of the central messages of his campaign surrounded economic fairness, yet the cabinet of people he put around him was the richest in American history, arguably a group of individuals not in touch with the concerns of average Americans.
Legislatively, his passage of the tax cuts for individuals on a temporary basis and corporations on a permanent basis also cause two problems to arise. The largest beneficiaries of the tax cut were people in the highest tax bracket, who had already been riding the wave of the largest gains in the stock market seen in decades, and was minimal for middle income families. Also, by making the cuts permanent for corporations, Trump is shifting more of the tax burden in the future onto average Americans to pay for the government revenue loses incurred by those tax cuts. Furthermore, tax cuts have been a legislative priority of republican administrations for decades, and given that its his only legislative accomplishment to date, he has shown an unwillingness or inability to get work done on the problems of economic inequality and corruption he promised to solve. He has also pushed the federal reserve to temper their rising of interest rates, an unorthodox move that, just like the tax cuts, was intended to boost the stock market, where mainly elite Americans hold their wealth. Trump is not really anti-establishment nor anti-elite, except for his abrasive rhetoric.
April 29, 2019 at 9:46 am
I do not think Trump’s governing has been anti-elite — at least not as much as his campaign made people think. While his tax reform capped the mortgage tax deduction (which you can argue its anti-elite), he has given significance tax break to corporations and ultimately its wealthy shareholders. Not to mention Trump’s wealthy elite and influential appointees.
The most anti-elite practice Trump has been involved in is his anti-establishment rhetoric. Trump has critical about a few conventional political and economic entities including the Republican Party itself. For instance, Trump has criticized the US intelligence community as well as the federal reserve, unusual criticism from the president of the US.