https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFCwetiSEBM
“Trump is not an exception to the U.S. democratic system, but rather a direct product of an exclusionary democracy,” said Dr. Sebastián Sclofsky during the conference “Trump’s Election and the Limits of U.S. Democracy.”
Sebastián Sclofsky is an assistant professor of criminology at California State University, Stanislaus, and holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Florida. His research examines state violence and how it affects the quality of democracy. He has published in various academic journals and recently began a new research project on security policies in Uruguay.
The event, which was part of the Lecture Series organized by the Department of International Studies at Universidad ORT Uruguay, was held via Zoom on Thursday, September 23, 2021.
Trump's contradictions and the inclusion of the elites
Sclofsky explained that Donald Trump based his campaign on xenophobia, racism, and misogyny, as well as on populist and ultranationalist rhetoric. Local scholars and experts attempted to portray him as an anomaly within the political system, arguing that there was no need for institutional or systemic reforms to prevent a similar situation from occurring again, but rather that it was simply a glitch in the system.
The scholar refuted arguments claiming that his victory was a response by white supremacists to the Obama administration or that it was due to the failure of the elites and institutions designed to contain the rise of populism, as Daniel Ziblat and Steven Levitsky suggest in their book *How Democracies Die*.
Even so, Trump brought ideologues from far-right movements, such as Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller—one of the architects of the anti-immigration policy—into the White House.
Despite having publicly attacked the elites during his campaign, he had the support of the largest number of billionaires since World War II: members of the Goldman Sachs board shaped economic policy, just as they had in previous administrations.
“Despite his protectionist rhetoric against free trade, Trump is a direct product of neoliberalism,” Sclofsky explained. “Neoliberalism has weakened democracy and paved the way for the rise of authoritarian and neo-fascist candidates and movements.”
“Trump is not an exception to the American democratic system, but rather a direct product of an exclusionary democracy, designed to be exclusionary by the Founding Fathers. An exclusion that has been explicitly reinforced over the years,” Sclofsky stated.
This exclusion, the expert added, has been evident since the triumph of liberalism and individual freedom over republicanism and collective freedom. The speaker noted that mistrust of the masses led to the creation of a system that imposes obstacles to direct democracy, such as the Electoral College.
The disenfranchisement of millions of African Americans, the promotion of a prison state in response to civil rights movements, and even budget cuts to the Postal Service designed to hinder the timely delivery of ballots are examples of these obstacles.
Neoliberalism, the 2008 Crisis, and Obama's Response
“ To understand Trump, we must look to the institutional limits of an exclusionary democracy and to the effects that neoliberalism—and the crisis of neoliberalism—has had in recent years,” said Sclofsky.
The Obama administration’s authoritarian response to the 2008 crisis also appears to have been a major factor in Trump’s victory. The bailout of Wall Street while austerity programs were being implemented in all 50 states and the elimination of 1.1 million public sector jobs during Obama’s first term, among other measures, fueled the rise of the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement and the Republican Party’s victory in the 2010 midterm elections, and laid the groundwork for Trump’s emergence on the political scene.
Low wages painted a bleak picture for college graduates saddled with heavy student debt. “In 2013, 750,000 bachelor’s degree holders were working in the fast-food industry, and 42% of workers in this sector had at least started a college degree,” Sclofsky noted.
Under Obama’s administration, wealth concentration rose to historic levels, and GDP for the remaining 90% of the population fell sharply. By the end of his second term, 76% of Americans had a negative view of Congress.
“At the end of the day, the elite’s gamble paid off: despite Trump’s rhetoric, the economic elite actively participated in the administration (…) and had no trouble adapting to Trump’s xenophobic and authoritarian rhetoric and actions—something that likely wouldn’t have happened with (Bernie) Sanders.”
“As author Ingar Solty concludes in his analysis of the Trump administration: the extreme right-wing and authoritarian forces that have emerged in the United States and Brazil may seem like an uncontrollable threat during the election campaign, but in the end they serve the interests of the elite in the most ruthless way,” he concluded.