Two Nations, Not One

Dear friends,

Happy new year, if that is possible in the era of Herr Trump. I’m finally starting to blog as of right now. I have been writing about race and identity politics in The United States and South Africa for many years now. The topics that I will be addressing in upcoming posts will revolve around two themes: Populism and American national identity, and thinking globally, while acting locally. Let us begin today on the issue of American populism.

Two Nations, Not One

The year that Obama ascended to the presidency, I wrote an article entitled “Racial Identity and the Emergence of Populist Nationalism in the United States” (see attachment). In it I argued that the since the emergence of identity politics in the 1960s, political polarization in the United States increased to the point that by the 21^st century we had become two nations with widely diverging views about what it means to be American. Secondly, I argued that our differences over how we viewed race where a central feature of that polarization. Populism is a useful way to talk about the poles of opinion over the meaning of American national identity. 19^th century American populism was basically, the anger of common everyday people overt the collusion of big business and big government against small businesses and the working class.

In the 20^th century American populism broke off into two streams: a left-wing populism seeing big business as the enemy, and a right-wing populism seeing big government as its problem. Populism requires a mass movement and charismatic leadership. Left populism began with the labor movement in the 20^th century and was responsible for bringing Franklin Roosevelt to the presidency in 1932. People of color gained position in the labor movement and used those organizing experiences to launch the civil rights movement after World War Two. Activists wanted government to expand its reach to include African Americans and other people of color into first class citizenship in this country. By the end of the 1960s women’s, environmental and LGBTQ rights movements had emerged, all asking government to do more to support the goals of their movements. Part of what government would need to do was to make corporate capital and the other institutions of civil society treat marginalized people equally, and protect the natural environment.

That specter of such government “overreach” was alarming to the more conservative sectors of society. The right populist backlash began with the white supremacist mobilization against the civil rights movement. Race was central to its genesis. But as the movement against the Vietnam War grew, and the feminist, gay rights and environmental movements exploded, by the end of the 1960s, right populism was centered around the defense of the status quo pre-1960 … That is to say, patriarchal white supremacy, heterosexism, American imperialism and as little regulation as possible of environmental degradation. Thus, right populism uncritically defended capital.

Most of you know the rest of this story. By the 1990s James Davison Hunter was dubbing these political divides as “the culture wars.” I have chosen to define them as the two poles of populist nationalism. In the 2016 presidential campaign Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump represented the left and right poles of American populism, and also, opposing versions of the American national idea. Unfortunately, for the left, our populist lost, while the right populist landed in the White House.

This is a warm-up. In the posts that follow I’ll be sharing my thoughts on what populist on the left can do to stop Trump’s right-wing and fascist populism from steamrolling over us.

Link to my article on race and populist nationalism:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504630903205290