Trump nationalism translates to racism

While standing on the stage of a packed NRG arena in Houston next to his former rival, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, President Donald Trump boiled his political message down to a question of identities. “A globalist,” he pronounced, “wants the globe to do well, [but] not caring about our country so much.” The Democrats were therefore globalists because they opposed Trump’s proposed border wall. But what about those who prioritized America’s interests? “They have a word” for such a position, he explained, but “it sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist.” But while some say “we are not supposed to use that word,” Trump, of course, is not demurred. “You know what I am? A nationalist.” The boisterous crowd erupted with cheers.

Nationalism, however, has never gone out of favor in American political culture. From wearing flag pins on jacket lapels to denouncing opposing perspectives as “non-American,” politicians have always been judged based on their perceived commitments to national ideals. To claim nationalism has become “old-fashioned” and gone out of use is to invoke a fictive history to support one’s political position.

But at the heart of Trump’s appeals to nationalism — which have been present since he announced his presidential run in Trump Tower — are nativist elements that were previously subtext but are now central themes. His nationalist message, as witnessed at his campaign rallies this fall, are as much rooted in exclusion as they are patriotism. Beyond merely dismissing attachments to global networks, or denouncing the opposing political party, Trump’s vision of America is centered on cultural and racial homogeneity.

How is one to square Trump’s lofty rhetoric of national union with his partisan policies of division? By acknowledging that he is not including the entire electorate within his nationalist vision.

All the way back to the beginning of America, political leaders have similarly mixed nationalist language with exclusionary programs. Andrew Jackson, whom Trump often refers to as an inspiration and whose portrait now hangs in the Oval Office, utilized a rhetoric of empowering the common American even as he oversaw the forced removal of Native Americans and the strengthening of the slave institution — both perceived as threats to American principles and a way

At the heart of the president’s appeals to nationalism are nativist elements that were previously subtext but are now central themes.

to make “America first.” Jackson expressed pride in American nationalism, but it was an American nationalism centered on white men.

One of the threats to Trump’s imagined union at home is a supposed infiltration of violence from abroad. He frequently invokes the MS-13 gang violence as a bogeyman for open borders. He denounces a coming caravan filled with beleaguered South American refugees as “bad people,” and the need to stop them as proof that America requires stricter border laws. People from these countries — regions that nearly always include people who do not fit within Trump’s ideal ethnic nation — must remain outside America’s borders. The situation’s direness even necessitates the imprisonment of children who are separated from their families. Under this form of nationalism, anything can be justified when America is under attack.

But the exclusive rhetoric does not stop at the border. Simultaneous with denouncing foreign threats abroad is suppressing minority rights at home. His continued accusations of voter fraud are meant to depress voter turnout from the very demographics that do not match his ideal national character. The goal is to reduce representation from potential citizens who do not look like him. And an array of legislators have used his rhetoric as political cover as they change state laws in advance of the coming election.

“We’re putting America first, which we haven’t done in a lot of decades,” Trump declared on Tuesday. “We are taking care of ourselves for a change.” But as it has long been the case, the appeal to “America first” represents a parochial and limited set of individuals and interests while excluding others. Trump’s vision of America does not match Texas’ increasingly diverse community.

American nationalism is always an imaginative projection that reveals more about a person’s ideals, priorities and prejudices than it does reality. It is not an objective ideal but a subjective projection. Recognizing Trump’s nationalist rhetoric for what it is — a vision of a united and racist union set apart from the world — merely adds another chapter to the quintessential tale.