Trump’s Victory Marks the Obituary of Globalization as the Ideal of the West

In the famous 90s action movie Demolition Man starring Sylvester Stallone, the main character wakes up in a distant future after being frozen and at one point realizes that Arnold Schwarzenegger has meanwhile been the President of the United States. In 1993, this was just one of the good gags in an otherwise very entertaining film, but after November 9, 2016, it seems more like a desirable development. The ‘rival’ action hero that Stallone mocks in the film later became the Governor of California and was, successful or not, a quite serious politician, especially compared to the modern version of Benito Mussolini, the star of the reality show The Apprentice, Donald Trump. A self-proclaimed racist, xenophobe, sexist, and nationalist, he became the 45th President of the United States and thus effectively wrote the obituary for globalization as the ideal of the West, as well as for liberalism as its fundamental social achievement, at least for the foreseeable future. As usual, despite the emphasis on social issues such as immigration, foreign policy, or racial relations, the economy was in the background of such an incredible political turnaround worthy of an episode of The Twilight Zone. The trend of turning back the clock has been ongoing in Europe for some time and has actually just spilled over into America in one of the rare historical moments where the direction has not reversed. In fact, the last time Americans imported a political concept from Europe, it was this very democracy that brought Trump to the head of the most powerful country in the world.

Something is deeply dysfunctional in Western societies, and the arrogant ignoring of problems affecting broader layers of society and their easy dismissal usually through blanket labeling has only strengthened and cemented this trend. Globalization, viewed as a recent opening of the entire world to the market economy driven by rapid technological advancement, has brought a range of benefits, but also some fundamental problems that, it is now clear, negate those benefits for many. The convenience of using advanced technologies, namely, means little if you cannot afford them or have to worry about whether you will have a job tomorrow, if you even have one. The relocation of production and the increasingly strong shift of momentum to other countries, paired with the explosion of technological changes, has left many workers in the West unprepared, unqualified, and inadequately equipped for a completely different concept of the economy, and even daily life. Failed policies of elites willing to believe in the economic fantasies of those who reap very concrete benefits from globalization and their intellectual lackeys, as well as their complete, indeed very brazen and arrogant indifference to the ‘world below,’ have only strengthened this feeling of disappointment, powerlessness, and frustration. The crisis after 2008 laid bare all the shortcomings of the approach that has dominated since the 80s, and the issue of immigration ultimately dealt a fatal blow to any possibility of a quick and relatively painless return of Western societies to the standard political groove. People want change and as such are extremely susceptible to cheap tricks, demagoguery, and, above all, a backward turn towards, often illusory, a better past. On the wave of such thinking, extreme political ideas are rising in Europe, and now in America, where the disproportion between the ‘new economy’ and ‘old’ workers accustomed to a completely different life from the one they have been leading lately is particularly emphasized. Globalization has, quite simply, discarded many of them as unnecessary, while local elites either ridiculed or ignored them. This is a potent mix.

The theses that still exist, albeit in increasingly marginal circles, about the desirability of market fundamentalism, and even some that claim that rising inequality is actually a great thing because it is a byproduct of great growth and sorting from the most capable to the unnecessary, have been completely debunked by Trump’s victory as a sustainable concept. Just like the decision for the United Kingdom to exit the European Union. The unnecessary have responded in the only way they can, by electing a loud bully who promises to work in their favor and protect them from the gentlemen in suits who despise them. How sincere he is in this, or how capable he is of implementing it, becomes quite irrelevant in the electoral process. Trump did not start as a politician or ruler; he is a populist spokesperson, a tribune in search of the next television hit. It is not entirely unbelievable that he never even thought of being president but just wanted to work a little more on self-promotion, which he has been doing his whole life. Success is entirely accidental, a joke that suddenly became very serious. Trump’s success is the product of two fundamental forces, one directly arising from the economy, the other somewhat related to it. Globalization and technological advancement, two processes that have gone hand in hand in recent decades, have been great for the business community, which, thanks to both processes, significantly cuts production costs, thereby increasing its competitiveness, and sells its products more easily than ever around the world. The consumer base in home countries, however, has not fared so well because it has largely drawn the shorter end of this process. The second cause is immigration and aggressive liberalism that dismisses the fears and concerns of the ‘little man’ with disgust in the name of the ‘great idea,’ which has become particularly pronounced lately. The attitude that starts from labeling all who express skepticism or fear, rationally or irrationally, is actually irrelevant, has opened wide doors in the West to xenophobes, Nazis, fools, and reactionaries, and is beginning to have concrete consequences for political life. The result is defiance and a sense of marginalization among an ever-widening layer of the native population seeking its voice and finding it in populist parties and politicians. The fact that a good portion of once loyal left-wing voters now supports anti-immigrant parties is a clear indicator of the changed circumstances in which the postulates of mainstream political analysis have tragically become outdated and operate in a time that no longer exists.

It is somewhat amusing, therefore, to watch bewildered politicians who, after each such shock, which are beginning to pile up, call for deep analysis, listening to the ‘people,’ and changing their approach, even though they do everything to keep things just as they are. They continue churning out trade agreements, accepting never-before-seen numbers of immigrants, liberal economic policies covered only by a few fig leaves, meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, demonizing competing countries, and inciting fear and insecurity when it suits them, with a patronizing attitude towards voters, behind-the-scenes political games, favoritism towards individuals from the business community, corruption, cutting public services, turning a blind eye to the evident rampages of certain sectors of the economy, pushing ‘newspeak,’ and sometimes extremely strange rules of public conduct, and then after election night they are astonished and look in disbelief. As things stand, that disbelief could soon be replaced by resignation, and only then do the problems begin.