David G. Embrick et al.: Capitalism, Racism, and Trumpism
In the United States, the persistence of fascism, neoliberalism, and racism is institutional and systemic, forming part of a history of long-term oppression of various groups. The broader question is how the United States has once again normalized racism, sexism, pseudo-democracy, various illegal acts, and authoritarianism. What does it mean when Donald Trump claims that Mexican immigrants are criminals and drug dealers? What does it mean when he refuses to disclose his tax status to the American people, refuses to respond to whistleblower complaints, and publicly accuses his whistleblowers? What does it mean when he not only disparages but severely censures scientists and health service practitioners on major issues such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic?
The answers to these questions involve the racist motivations behind Trumpism. Part of the reason for the rise of Trumpism lies in Trump's ability to fuel a "Whitelash." Although Trumpism and Whitelash are paranormal, unique, and often centered on misinformation, obfuscation, reckless behavior, and outright lies, the manufacture of fear around race, gender, and class is not new. In the United States, when it comes to racial issues, Whitelash has always been a driving force for public debate and political decision-making, appearing particularly prominent on the issue of immigration.
I. Theoretical Framework
Because of changes in the law, racism has become less obvious and overt; thus, contemporary scholars basically understand racism from systemic and structural perspectives. They advocate for the importance of intersectional and hierarchical frameworks designed to understand the interconnections between systems of oppression, thereby better explaining the steady rise of Trumpism.
(1) Racial Formation, Racialized Social Systems, and Systemic Racism
Michael Omi and Howard Winant emphasize that the state plays a primary role in creating, shaping, and reproducing racial categories and racial identities. They argue that race in the United States is fluid and dynamic, and highly dependent on the politics of white supremacy in American history. The state determines the racial order of society, emphasizing the importance of racial categories and their significance. How we understand ourselves and others, especially regarding racial identity and a sense of belonging, depends on "racial common sense," which helps us understand our own social status.
Eduardo Bonilla-Silva argues that racism is a global phenomenon in which racialized social systems are divided hierarchically, and people's positions of advantage or disadvantage depend on their place within the racial and social order. Bonilla-Silva seeks to address the lack of a theory of structural racism that emphasizes how the dominant race will take measures to ensure and maintain its social status at the top of the racial hierarchy. He also notes that while the racialization of the world-system is based on relations of dominance and subordination—socially, economically, politically, and psychologically—between racial hierarchies, "the racialization of a social system does not imply the exclusion of other forms of oppression; it also occurs within social formations constituted by class and gender."
Joe R. Feagin proposed the concept of systemic racism to explain the situation of Black Americans. He argues that systemic racism highlights the structural, institutional, and historical forces unique to the United States, as the country was founded to oppress Black people and provide favorable conditions for whites. Deep-seated racism in American society has led to social and institutional racist practices, maintaining white supremacy across economic, political, and ideological levels. He also argues that the white racial frame is supported by the ideology of systemic racism theory. This concept provides a broader understanding of racism; for example, it includes visual images, emotions, and language that legitimize and maintain white supremacy.
Compared to racial theorists, sociological scholars offer more novel explanations of racialized organizations. Wendy Leo Moore describes the process by which courts reinforce legal practices under the constraints of white supremacy. Victor Ray argues that social organizations are racialized and thus filled with racial meanings that help shape organizational hierarchies and interactive relationships.
In view of the above perspectives, we believe that racism is systemic, deliberate, and constantly changing, and is used to ensure the dominant position of whites. Although diversity in American society has increased in the 21st century and calls for equality have grown louder, structural racism continues to find ways to support white privilege and superiority. The reality is that racist ideologies influence institutional practices and policies that hinder opposition to white supremacy, thereby undermining progress toward racial justice and equality.
(2) Systems of Intersectional and Hierarchical Control
In understanding how racialization reinforces racial attitudes, it is also crucial to recognize the role of intersectional identities. Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term "intersectionality." As she stated, the experience of intersectionality is greater than the sum of racial and gender experiences. Patricia Hill Collins’s famous work Black Feminist Thought not only expanded Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality but also elaborated on interlocking oppressions, or the co-extensiveness of racism, sexism, and classism. Collins points out that oppression is systemically organized and arranged, and is legitimized by hegemony. We all participate in it and become part of a larger matrix of domination that privileges the dominant group. Thus, white women can be members of an oppressed group while simultaneously holding racist and anti-immigrant political views.
We must also recognize the interconnection between racial issues and the issue of group social mobility. In the United States, being white means having access to better citizenship, voting rights, property ownership, and better jobs and pay. Herbert Blumer argued that the prejudice and discrimination of white Americans primarily stem from their perceptions of their own economic status. When white Americans are threatened economically and politically by other racial and ethnic groups, they often utilize "Whitelash" to restore a social, economic, and political order dominated by whites.
(3) Whitelash
Our understanding of Whitelash is based on the following concepts: white supremacy, capitalism, and patriarchy are part of the American social structure; racism, classism, and sexism are firmly rooted in its structural foundations. The term "Whitelash" was coined by CNN commentator Van Jones. In a broad sense, we can define it as opposition to individual, institutional, and structural countermeasures aimed at eliminating white supremacy, or opposition to actions that correct existing racial inequalities. We believe that Whitelash is both a response to challenges to the white status quo and a response to increasing racial diversity, as well as a systemic reaction to progressive changes. These progressive changes would eliminate racism, question white privilege, or imply that racial equality is necessary to achieve the American ideals of fair and equal treatment. In a broader sense, Whitelash is not just about confirming and reaffirming white dominant identity but is about the fear of changes to white supremacy. That is to say, Whitelash has less to do with issues such as opposition to immigration and more to do with maintaining white dominance in all aspects of life and reinforcing white hegemony. Therefore, Whitelash is the reaction of individuals and institutions within a racialized social structure.
We further argue that Whitelash occurs at different social levels. Racialized institutional policies and practices that reinforce the status quo are forms of Whitelash; these racial mechanisms or racial programs help maintain and consolidate white supremacy. Similarly, changing racial ideologies are also a form of backlash; these ideologies help people understand the current racial and social order and ignore or disparage racial rifts in society, thereby reinforcing white supremacy.
First, the structural level. Structural racism refers to practices within a specific society that are formalized and designed as normative social behaviors, bringing unequal rewards to different groups. Starting with the extermination of indigenous groups, racism has been deeply rooted in American history, its tentacles extending into politics, economy, society, and ideology. Resistance in American society comes from the racial ideologies existing within its racialized social system, including racism, racial framing, diversity ideologies, and racial apathy, which help whites understand their position in the racial and social order.
Second, the institutional level. Whitelash may be the result of real or perceived pressures that challenge existing institutional practices. Similarly, Whitelash can create exclusionary spaces conducive to consolidating white supremacy. Organized racial mechanisms include, but are not limited to, places, spaces, polities, programs, practices, methods, logic, or language. Omi and Winant point out that since the American Civil War, whites have systematically challenged racial or ethnic progress in equality through social institutions. The shift toward "new racism" has also become more hidden and subtle within institutional frameworks.
Third, the individual level. At the individual level, we draw on the racialized emotions proposed by Bonilla-Silva, which are linked to collective movements and drive groups to react negatively to progressive change. For example, since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, whites have increasingly disparaged or ignored solutions to racial inequality; they tend toward laissez-faire explanations that blame changes in white social status on minority groups, or express resistance to equality based on neoliberal ideas that support equality for everyone rather than just disadvantaged groups. Even Blumer argued that prejudice and discrimination are influenced not only by social changes occurring in the status of white supremacy in the U.S. but also by white "feelings"—the feeling that they are losing control over what they deserve, including jobs, social benefits, public services, and their identity. In general, since the founding of the United States, racial emotions have often blamed national problems related to economic, political, and cultural shifts on other races and ethnic minorities.
Therefore, we can identify similar peaks of Whitelash in American history, where the issues focused primarily on challenges to the rights of non-whites and calls to reduce racial/ethnic oppression, whether these issues were economic, political, social, psychological, or philosophical. For example, the Reconstruction era in the United States was filled with strong opposition to the emancipation of Black slaves. Thereafter, there was strong resistance to correcting the erroneous history of American slavery; this correction involved both the issue of slavery as it relates to race and white supremacy, as well as the absurd and factually incorrect perception that because Black people considered themselves great as slaves, there were few slave uprisings. Related to the backlash against correcting American history, there is also opposition to the removal of monuments that represent nostalgic memories of a previous era—an era in which racial oppression was overt and legal. In the next section, we provide a detailed case study of Whitelash, namely the case of immigration. Through this case, we can link historical Whitelash with contemporary Trumpism. We believe that Trump's racism is, to an extent, paranormal, and it has the potential to institutionalize existing racial mechanisms of white supremacy.
II. The Case of Immigration
(1) Ideologies Shaping the American Immigration Debate
When it comes to the issue of American immigration, Whitelash has always relied on nativist ideology, which distinguishes "natives" from foreigners. John Higham...
Nativism is defined as "an intense opposition to an internal minority on the ground of its foreign connections." In times of national crisis—such as economic recessions, wars, terrorist attacks, or sudden increases in the size and concentration of immigrant populations—nativist views and actions often become more exclusionary and hostile. By investigating immigration from 1860 to 1925, John Higham found that anti-immigrant sentiment and policies were undoubtedly influenced by real or perceived challenges. In the early years, if immigrants did not pose an economic, political, or cultural threat to the native-born, there was a tendency to support immigration regardless of race or ethnicity. Later, Higham realized that by the 1960s, as more non-white immigrants arrived in the United States, race and ethnicity became the primary factors determining which immigrant groups should be viewed as threats to domestic resources.
Sociologists Charles Jaret and Cameron D. Lippard argue that racial ideology is significant in the U.S. immigration debate, and that contemporary immigration issues rely heavily on racial perceptions of non-white immigrants. Furthermore, the issue of "illegal" versus legal immigration is not new in the American immigration debate, but it became particularly prominent after the 1960s as more Asian and Latino [4] immigrants entered the United States. This seemingly new racialized immigration issue was further exacerbated by events such as wars, economic recessions, the "9/11" terrorist attacks, and the 2008 "Great Recession," making race a vital variable in discussions of immigration.
Nativism and racism work together not only to determine who belongs to America but also to protect this white supremacist nation. Reflecting on recent anti-Asian and anti-Latino immigrant sentiments, Higham noted: "We do not need a theory of 'new' nativism or 'new' racism to explain the troubles sparked by today's concentrated immigration trends." Or, as Rene Galindo and Jami Vigil put it: "When immigrants also happen to be people of color, racism and nativism become intertwined in the process of nation-building." Consequently, American "racial nativism" supports "white supremacy" in various ways and allows for the protection of white privilege and power within a pluralistic America.
(2) The Historical and Structural Roots of White Backlash
Scholars have observed a link between racial nativism and federal immigration laws that protect the supremacy of white Americans. Reviewing U.S. immigration law from the colonial period to the present, William Bernard found that all immigration laws imposed restrictions on foreign-born groups not of "white lineage" from Western and Central Europe. Moreover, while non-white immigrants from Asia, Central America, and South America were not preferred, they were permitted to immigrate to the colonies and the newly formed United States if they represented a steady supply of cheap labor. This "cheap labor" proviso helped attract immigrants from Ireland, China, and other East Asian countries, aiding the economic expansion of the United States in the West. For example, during the Open Door period from 1776 to 1881, the U.S. supported white immigrants from Europe and elsewhere becoming citizens automatically after living in the colonies and later the independent United States for two years. This open policy favored Europeans from Britain, France, Germany, and other "white lineage" regions, while also encouraging the immigration of non-white groups who served as sources of cheap labor. These federal immigration (naturalization) policies were supported by scientists and politicians who endorsed eugenics and biological racism, frequently labeling "non-whites" as disease-ridden and possessing inferior genes.
By 1881, the United States suddenly changed its entry policy of allowing non-white immigrants as a source of cheap labor. Chinese and other Asian immigrants were dubbed the "Yellow Peril" [5], and anti-immigrant movements erupted against them. Public focus shifted to how Chinese immigrants posed a threat to national security in economic, political, and public health terms. However, the most consistent concern—primarily expressed by the white American elite—was that Chinese immigrants were too economically successful compared to white entrepreneurs. By the 1880s, Chinese immigrants had earned significant money in American gold mines and had opened thousands of small businesses across the U.S., securing working-class jobs at lower wages. Irish Catholic immigrants joined the white elite in linking Chinese immigration to national security issues. More importantly, by aligning their political and economic interests with wealthy white Americans and suppressing other immigrant groups and African Americans, Irish immigrants avoided persecution and deportation, thereby being reclassified as white in the sense of racial politics.
In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act became law. This was one of the earliest racist immigration policies in U.S. history, upholding the superior status of whites relative to the foreign-born population. The act prohibited new immigrants from China, specifically targeting Chinese women because they might increase the birth rate of native-born Chinese infants. The act also led to the "deportation" of large numbers of Chinese people; many members of the white working class used mob riots to drive Chinese immigrants out of businesses and towns. For example, in 1885, white American miners at the Rock Springs coal mine in Wyoming attacked and killed nearly 30 Chinese immigrants, whom they blamed for their unemployment. Other incidents included white Americans forcing Chinese families back into "Chinatowns" and restricting business interactions between whites and Chinese or other Asian immigrant business owners.
Although the Chinese Exclusion Act was fully repealed in 1943, its impact, combined with white mob violence, effectively set Chinese immigrants and Americans back decades economically and politically. This act also opened the door for more restrictive federal immigration policies, including comprehensive restrictions on "unfavorable" groups from "non-white" countries (including most of Asia, Central and South America, Africa, and European countries such as Italy). Following World War I, the United States limited the number of incoming immigrants by implementing restrictive quotas. The Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924 stipulated that pre-determined quotas for entry would be allocated to every country in the world, with 82% of the shares assigned to Northern and Western European countries. In effect, the majority of quotas flowed to countries, races, and ethnic groups deemed more capable of being "assimilated" into American life and culture, severely restricting immigrants from Asia, Africa, and most of Central and South America. Overall, these new federal immigration policies were designed to increase "white" immigration from Europe and protect the economic and political interests of "native" white Americans.
While these new restrictive laws closed America's doors to much of the world's non-white population, exceptions were made when cheap labor was needed. For example, during and shortly after World War II, Americans realized they lacked sufficient cheap labor to maintain war production, leading to the creation of the "Bracero Program" [6] (手臂计划), which brought in cheap manual laborers from Central America, particularly Mexico. This program continued until 1964, primarily introducing Mexican immigrants to harvest crops. By the 1950s, as U.S. prosperity reached historic highs, Mexican immigrants and native-born citizens began to unite to consider their economic value in the U.S. This move by Mexican labor sparked concern and opposition among wealthy white farmers and business owners, who wished to maintain high profit margins through cheap labor. These concerns prompted the federal government to take another action in 1954 titled "Operation Wetback" (针对非法进入美国的墨西哥劳工). This operation repatriated and deported nearly 1.3 million Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans back to Mexico, while simultaneously restricting the development of farmworker unions and keeping the wages of the white working class and African Americans low. Simply put, until the 1960s, U.S. immigration policy sought to allow certain groups to establish and perpetuate white dominance and privilege, taking explicit action against any possibility of economic or political loss for whites.
(3) White Backlash and Today's Latino Immigrants
Let us fast-forward to the late 20th and early 21st centuries. After the passage of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, all immigration quotas were abolished, and America's doors were once again opened to all nations (groups), regardless of residence, race, or ethnicity. These new "liberal" laws allowed families to reunite, as both naturalized and native-born citizens could sponsor family members to immigrate to the U.S. While policymakers hoped the new act would encourage more white immigration, it actually contributed to a "browning" of immigration trends. By the 1980s, Asian and Latino immigration increased significantly. Due to U.S. involvement in global political and economic activities in Vietnam and surrounding countries, the majority of immigrants came from Central America, China, and much of Southeast Asia. Consequently, the liberalization and diversification of U.S. immigration became the "new normal."
In 1986, President Reagan enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act. This was the first law concerned with searching for, detaining, and deporting illegal immigrants, especially those from Central America and Mexico. The law also attempted to penalize companies that hired illegal immigrants. At the same time, Reagan granted amnesty and provided citizenship to approximately 2.7 million people, hoping they would become honest, tax-paying citizens. However, these efforts did not slow the influx of illegal immigration, as many companies continued to hire illegal immigrants with little interference from the federal government; only business owners competing with those hiring illegal immigrants encountered problems.
Despite similar efforts by the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, economic and political tensions across the U.S. continued to intensify. White backlash began to emerge in various states, particularly those experiencing increases in non-white immigrants. For example, in 1994, California's Proposition 187 attempted to reduce illegal immigration. This proposal was an institutional response from California conservative politicians who believed that "illegals" were abusing public services without paying local taxes. This turmoil primarily targeted Mexican immigrants and sought to identify all illegal immigrants while prohibiting "illegals" from using California's non-emergency healthcare, public education, and other services. Although the act was passed and enacted in California, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually struck it down as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
However, the period of most intense white backlash occurred in 2001, when several factors combined to plunge the U.S. into a fever of white backlash. First, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ushered in an era of restrictive policies aimed at protecting the interests of the U.S. and its people. The Patriot Act of 2001 enabled the U.S. government to monitor, detain, and deport numerous immigrants and non-white individuals suspected of assisting in or carrying out terrorist acts. Furthermore, it led to the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which dissolved the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and established Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Second, in 2008, a severe economic recession hit the U.S. and the rest of the world. The "Great Recession" destroyed the jobs and retirements of many Americans, meaning that even jobs primarily held by immigrants were now viewed as valuable resources by the American unemployed. Finally, the broader activities of non-white citizens and other marginalized groups fighting for social recognition and equal status triggered white backlash. Increasing movements—including but not limited to same-sex marriage, racialized police brutality, and the gender pay gap—made many white Americans realize they were not the only ones suffering...
For those suffering from the turmoil of early 21st-century political economy, prejudice and discrimination also remain major issues for the majority of non-white, marginalized Americans and immigrants. The convergence of all these factors has formed a white backlash movement against non-white immigrants. Significant shifts in rhetoric and policy have moved the treatment of immigration issues away from liberal perspectives.
In this new era of white backlash, local, state, and federal agencies have taken actions to reduce non-white immigration from Central America. For example, between 2001 and 2010, nearly half of the states in the U.S. passed or attempted to pass anti-immigration laws to reduce undocumented immigration within their borders. Arizona's SB 1070 is a prime example; this bill encouraged local law enforcement throughout the state to check the legal status of individuals suspected of being in the country illegally. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately struck down the law, finding that enforcement targeted individuals who "looked potentially illegal" based on race and racial stereotypes [7]. Despite this Supreme Court ruling, several other states enacted similar laws designed to punish Latino immigrants by both restricting access to public services and targeting companies that covertly hired undocumented workers. The most notorious of these state laws appeared in the South, including Alabama and Georgia, which attempted to ban the hiring of undocumented immigrants for crop harvesting. However, local farmers and business owners lobbied state governments to rescind these provisions because they significantly reduced agricultural profits.
Local municipalities and counties have also established links with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), deputizing local officers as federal immigration enforcement representatives. For instance, ICE planned to allocate federal funds to local law enforcement for training, creating new positions, and establishing detention centers to assist in the crackdown on undocumented immigration. These actions frequently cast Latino immigrants and their families as suspects.
White backlash against immigration is also prevalent at the federal level. The Obama administration played a foundational role in restricting both undocumented and legal immigration from Central America, providing more federal funding to build up ICE and hiring more border patrol agents. This effort led to the highest deportation rates in U.S. history, with 5.3 million people deported between 2009 and 2016. Since Trump took office, the U.S. has further intensified its crackdown on immigrants from Latin America and the Middle East. In 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13769, banning Muslim immigrants from several countries—including Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq—from entering the U.S., ostensibly to curb terrorist activity. Trump also pushed for more federal funding and even foreign investment to build more walls on the southern border with Mexico and other parts of Central America, while increasing the staffing of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). He further encouraged ICE and CBP to increase raids on industries employing immigrants and implemented the separation of immigrant children from their families to deter other families from entering the U.S. Additionally, he restricted or revoked federal funding for immigrants and invested heavily in training Mexican immigration enforcement to align with U.S. concerns.
In American history, this white backlash—particularly against Mexican immigrants—is not a new phenomenon. As sociologist Leo Chavez argues, the "threat" of Latino immigrants to white Americans is a long-standing construction of a racial nativist narrative dating back to the Mexican-American War. However, current public support for these practices and the federal government's focus on the "threat" posed by Latinos have reached historic highs. U.S. media, business owners, and state and federal politicians all disseminate misinformation regarding the impact of immigrants on the American public. As Trump has articulated over the past five years, Latino immigrants in the U.S. have been characterized as an immigrant "horde" composed of rapists, murderers, and drug dealers.
Scholars have demonstrated that white backlash has seeped into the daily lives of Americans and their interactions with immigrants. For example, Lippard and M. Graham Spann found that in mountain towns in western North Carolina, Latino immigrants and their families face moderate levels of discrimination and exclusion when accessing public services. Other researchers have noted that Latino immigrants are often categorized as undocumented and subjected to abuse when seeking employment, housing, and social services. Journalist Roberto Lovato coined the term "Juan Crow" to explain the adoption of discriminatory laws and the condoning of local discrimination against Mexican immigrants in Southern states, paralleling the racist conditions African Americans faced during the Jim Crow era [8].
In general, white backlash has become the standard for handling immigration issues in the U.S. today. In fact, this is not a new trend, as scholars have proven that debates and decision-making regarding immigration have long been rooted in the protection of white supremacy. Institutions at all levels of American society have played and continue to play an important role in formulating laws to restrict and deport "aliens" [9] who threaten white supremacy. What is abnormal is the hostile rhetoric Trump uses when describing immigrants seeking employment in the U.S. Such a racist framework indeed fuels white backlash, making this era significantly more dangerous for immigrants of color.
III. Discussion
Given the racial nature of the above debates and the inflammatory language used by Trump on these issues, media and political commentators remain concerned about the existence of racism. However, social science scholars studying racial prejudice are not surprised by this inflammatory rhetoric. They point out that in the U.S., the formal resurgence of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other "isms" is not a new phenomenon. At best, these "isms" have only been symbolically addressed in American life, while other attempts have merely scratched the surface of these major social injustices. Furthermore, during the transition from the Obama administration to the Trump administration, white wealth and status received both overt and covert support behind the so-called "change."
Social scientists have described the growing but "silent" resentment among white Americans since the 1960s. For example, Gallup polls indicate that most white Americans believe racism has become a thing of the past. These polls also indicate that whites believe they are the new targets of racism, and that non-white groups gain advantages in public programs—including welfare and university admissions—due to their skin color. Furthermore, white Americans have begun to view immigration as a genuine challenge to their job security, economic prosperity, and safety from terrorist attacks. As sociologist Herbert Blumer argued, whites believe their economic, political, and social group status is being threatened by a growing non-white population. Consequently, they feel a significant threat to their economic and political lives, leading to a series of white backlash events aimed at restoring the order that grants them privilege.
Since the 1980s, white Americans have tended to believe that race or racism is not a matter of discrimination or abuse. Most whites believe that race is irrelevant to the unequal treatment of non-whites, and that respect for authority and "cultural pathology" [10] are the keys to the persistent conflicts involving many non-whites. These neoliberal arguments recur in discussions of police brutality, Mexican immigration, and the failure of public schools. While the condemnation of overt racism is commendable and illustrates changing American norms, it also highlights the need to disseminate new definitions of racism. Furthermore, it reflects a worrying reality: the U.S. government may not only maintain the status quo of white supremacy but also bring about a return of Jim Crow-style racist policies and practices.
IV. Conclusion
The lack of insight in the opinions expressed by white people is related to the issue of "whiteness"; many whites fail to see the privilege associated with the white "race" and ignore the lack of rights among marginalized racial groups. Some scholars have attempted to place whiteness within the broader social context of white supremacy or a racialized social system. For example, the book White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism edited by Ashley "Woody" Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva represents one of the earlier attempts by sociologists in this regard, showing how white racial attitudes trigger debates over whether American racial issues are a matter of social inequality. In the current era, how can we better understand issues such as structural racism, whiteness, and white attitudes? Are current racist attitudes and behaviors merely "old wine in new bottles"? Or is the abnormal racial and political extremism of Trumpism more shocking to those of us who hope for racial progress and equality?
(1) Old Wine in New Bottles?
On one hand, we argue that Trump’s calls to build a border wall, the Muslim ban, and the return to the "Great" America of the 1950s segregated era are nothing new; in fact, these are recognized white supremacist strategies. Although this article provides only one example of white backlash, the actual list of ideologies, events, and figures in the U.S. related to the reinforcement of white supremacy is nearly endless and daunting. Scholars studying the impact of Trump’s policies on racial relations and social justice movements need to consider what is key to maintaining the racial status quo. More importantly, scholars need to link white backlash with the demands of minority groups for equal rights.
In fact, we argue that racism is merely a way for the dominant group in American society to safeguard its own interests. As Susan Faludi noted, there has been a widespread backlash against women's rights in the U.S., which has both hindered and shaped gender equality. This argument is also evident in discussions of how backlash strategies influence equality issues in other movements. At the same time, scholars should note that ideologies, institutions, and individuals can concentrate power to influence social change. These oppositional strategies and forces, such as white backlash involving racism, have been and will continue to be mobilized to fight for privilege. Therefore, ideology and the broader structural barriers that hinder change and the realization of equality should be the focus of our future research. It should also be noted that in a country based on democracy and individual liberty, these stubborn discriminatory ideologies should not be a normal presence.
(2) This is Not Normal!
Few people believe that Trump is a typical "business as usual" conservative president. For example, Trump's intransigence sets him apart from previous presidents. The Trump administration has exacerbated white backlash and further deepened racial contradictions in American society. It is noteworthy that during his term, Trump overturned the liberal public policies and laws established by Obama to promote diversity. This may indicate the hatred Trump and his electoral camp hold for people of color, but more likely reflects his attitude toward and understanding of white supremacy within the racial and social order. In essence, this reflects the consistent vigilance Trump maintained in dismantling Obama's political legacy, as that legacy stood in the way of white men attaining their "rightful" place at the top of society.
Trump’s abnormal obsession with Obama (and Hillary Clinton) was essentially a guiding motivator...
This can stir up anger and hatred within his support base and throughout American society as a whole. In this way, not only does the public fail to question Trump's racist policies, but many voters also express acceptance, believing these racist actions and policies to be justified. We can see this in the "Deal of the Century" proposed by Trump to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also noteworthy that, in the face of statistical data showing that non-whites are more likely to die from complications caused by the coronavirus, the Trump administration avoided public policies aimed at providing medical and financial assistance to patients and their families. Trump’s departure from traditional political norms was conducted in a racialized manner, a racialized approach that may further drive the development of broader white confrontation and white-supremacism. Most importantly, Trump's rhetoric and policies have departed from and destroyed American liberalization, making the liberalization that began in the 1960s now seem like little more than a dream. (Notes omitted)
[David G. Embrick: University of Connecticut, USA; J. Scott Carter: University of Central Florida, USA; Cameron Lippard: Appalachian State University, USA; Bhoomi K. Thakore: University of Central Florida, USA; Liu Shuhui: Institute of Marxism Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)]
Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Foreign Theoretical Trends (国外理论动态), Issue 6, 2020.