The upsurge of far-right sentiments in global politics is a strange phenomenon given the fact that it is in stark contrast to the concept of global village promoted during the last four decades. While the world as a global village was meant to be more inclusive, diverse, and interconnected, the recent wave of conservative politics is all about isolationism, fragmentation, and expansionism. But what caused this total shift within just a few decades?

The United States is a strange case study in this context. It has always been referred to as a country of immigrants and a melting pot. What is the justification for Donald Trump’s meteoric rise in American politics then? He had built his reputation even in the business circles as an extremely conservative and a self-serving bully. Nothing has changed ever since he entered the political fray and got catapulted to the White House. With another presidential election cycle around the corner, the nationalistic wave as a matter of strategy only appears to be intensifying.

Dr Marvin Weinbaum, professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and director of Afghanistan and Pakistan programme at the Middle East Institute, says that the advent of nationalism in the United States is not new. “We have seen historical periods of such sentiments around the times of crisis, and wars etc. It has only aggravated now because of newer means of communication making mobilisation of a large audience with targeted messages much easier.” Referring to President Woodrow Wilson’s “America First” slogan during the First World War, he says such tactics tend to be associated with isolation but were successful in garnering public support for their objectives.

He believes that it was possible to separate populism (coming from masses) from nationalism (used for propaganda purposes). He, however, stresses that throwing religion in the mix, like in India, made such agendas an even more potent threat and difficult to deal with. “Although the US has always been viewed as a Christian country, this aspect has not been emphasised so strongly, previously.” The politicisation of evangelicals in different states (eg Iowa and Arkansas) had started challenging basic norms and was making the entire country more nationalistic, he says, adding that it was similar to the rejection of globalist view in the pre-World War II era. Such fragmentation makes it difficult to address the situation, since there are pockets and they feed off one another. “Even if such rhetoric is rejected, it does not mean that it is not having an effect elsewhere,” Dr Weinbaum says.

Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Programme at the Wilson Centre, attributes the rise of nationalism to a series of factors. “Primarily, it is a pushback at the grassroots against inclusivity, diversity, and political correctness.” The populist and conservative nationalists had a certain amount of unhappiness and discontentment against the show of support for more progressive views, he adds. “I first saw signs of it during my stay in Europe during the late 1990s, when right-wingers like Le Pen (French politician), who were not actual political figures but had started to show signs of, channelled that discontentment to become bonafide contenders to power,” he recalls. This xenophobia is a very strange phenomenon because it has made the fringe elements mainstream now, he recalls.

With another presidential
election cycle around the
corner, the nationalistic
wave as a matter of
strategy only appears to be
intensifyin

Commenting on the overt nationalistic positions taken by President Donald Trump during his campaign before elections and subsequent ramping up of such rhetoric, Kugelman says that the United States has always been a politically conservative country. “We have not seen widespread support for liberal progressive views at the national level. That is why even Democrats, considered liberal otherwise, have to take centrist position,” he asserts adding that even President Obama had to modify his extremely liberal positions on several issues. In the 2016 elections, right wing has been able to tap into the anger among the rural white conservative base, which was largely unhappy with the idea of liberalism. “Even in that context, President Trump is an anomaly as he has shown much more willingness to intensify nationalistic rhetoric,” he says. He also believes that the absence of a viable liberal alternative in the Democratic Party had also worked in Trump’s favour. “Hillary Clinton was a woman and was also seen as a liberal democrat. Both these factors rallied conservatives against her. Her relationship with Bill Clinton didn’t help either.”

Dr Weinbaum identifies some of the reasons for such a trend among voters. “If you are not educated, feel helpless, and believe that crucial decisions are taken elsewhere, then you are likely to listen to such rhetoric,” he emphasises. Trump, he says, recognised that raw materials were present in the society to build a new kind of populism and nationalism and used it to his advantage. “What we are seeing is a culmination of both nationalism and populism which reflects tribalism and a fractionalised society instead of a liberal community.” President Trump, he suggests, wasn’t defensive about it and was playing by his rules since he had recognised that it suited his plans.

None of the experts foresee any changes in the rise of nationalistic politics in American mainstream. In Michael’s opinion, there are no signs of dust settling down on this wave of conservatism and nationalism anytime soon, particularly with the US gearing up for another presidential election next year. “Everything at this point is for 2020. He is likely to appeal to the same conservative voters with more divisive rhetoric rather than toning it down.” There had been some isolated messages in favour of bringing civility back to politics, but most of the democratic candidates were vying for Trump voters with similar kinds of nationalistic messages. “Democratic candidates are either too liberal or not good enough even if they adjust to a centrist position. They are only united on one agenda and that is to get Trump out,” he says while citing the example of Joe Biden who was trying to cultivate blue collar voters with a nationalistic stance in his campaign.

Dr Weinbaum also does not see any chance of President Trump’s firebrand nationalistic positions to change in the wake of fast approaching next presidential election cycle in 2020 that is likely to attract a lot of television airtime. “Trump sees this as an important weapon because it helps him capture monopoly on patriotism, thereby going beyond his own voter base.” He says facts don’t matter for staunch supporters and Trump’s entire campaign was built around this strategy.

Michael Kugelman anticipates that the current trend in the US will cease eventually, but it is premature to predict when that will happen. He believes that the world in general is still not ready for course correction as none of the global leaders riding the wave of nationalism (eg India, Bangladesh) are showing any indications of suffering from vulnerabilities as yet. He likens the rhetoric used by most of these right-wing global leaders pretty similar to President Trump. Dr Weinbaum maintains: “how Trump reacts in future also depends on the turn of events. If we find institutions and countries engaged in conflict, then such nationalism will only increase,” he warns.