The phenomenal and exceptional rise of Donald Trump is comparable to US exceptionalism itself as his chequered presence and Trumpism of the last ten years can match any Hollywood blockbuster. Exceptionalism is caused by a number of factors. American exceptionalism, with primacy of economics over politics, is both a product of its history and geography. Trump’s rise and consolidation reflects a sea change in the political landscape of a nation that had Life Magazine describe in 1941 the 20th century as “an American century”. This psyche allowed a rank outsider with impressive economic success to occupy the position of the President of the US in 2016 and in 2024. Those who thought 2016 to be a freak event had to concede that Trumpism is a reflection of his support among a majority of voters. In the post Second World War period, the hegemony of the US based order supported by the containment theory was possible due to the decline of the great European powers in general and the exit of Germany in particular. The Soviet led bloc was never a match or a threat to American domination.

Richard Nixon confidently declared that the US president was irrelevant for internal governance as the dominant social, economic and racial issues had been resolved perfectly well. Dahl’s theory of polyarchy and Lipset’s attribution that politics has become dull restricting it to decide ‘a nickel here and a nickel there’ aptly summarized this perception. So did the debate on End of Ideology and Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man. But this equilibrium was shattered in the 1990s with the inauguration of the Clinton presidency in 1993. In an upset election, Bill Clinton defeated the incumbent, George H. W. Bush. Ross Perot, the third candidate polled 19 per cent of the popular vote upsetting Bush’s apple cart and also propelling the little-known Democrat Governor of Arkansas, Clinton to the White House.

Advertisement

The Clinton Administration’s initiation of NAFTA, an economic union in North America which included Mexico as well, contained grave implications for USA’s internal economic arrangements and concerns for blue-collar workers, the mainstay in a formidable democratic coalition since the New Deal. Perot opposed both NAFTA and the move of shifting the manufacturing base of the US to China. The collapse of communism saw the emergence of a unipolar world. Liberal triumphalism accompanied by extending democracy by force resulted in pushing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to the borders of the post-Soviet Russian federation. George W. Bush refined the concept after 9/11 by fabricating falsehood in Iraq and elsewhere. He resurrected the Dulles doctrine that one who is not with the US is against it.

President Barack Obama continued with the major planks of both Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations with no indication of a significant policy shift even after the 2008 financial crash. Sandel blames the Clinton years for deregulation of the financial industry and for doing “little to address growing inequality and the influence of money on politics”. Obama “showed that progressive politics can speak a language of moral and spiritual purpose” but that wasn’t reflected in his presidency. He also appointed the economic advisers who supported financial deregulation during Clinton’s presidency. He bailed out banks without making them accountable and offered little help for ordinary citizens who lost their homes. “All these fuelled popular protest across the political spectrum. On the left, it prompted the Occupy Movement and the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. And on the right, it prompted the Tea Party Movement and the election of Trump”.

Cynicism has replaced the approval of inequality due to hard work, innovation and puritan ethics, and the corporatism of the US economy has raised suspicions of an unaccountable deep state machine operating against the majority convincing the latter of minority tyranny. This scenario was further complicated with the spectacular rise of China and its admission to the WTO in 2001. In 2016, Brexit followed by Trump’s surprise victory defeating Hillary Clinton challenged the aforesaid aggressive policy that was pursued vigorously for a quarter century.

Hillary’s over-emphasis on identity politics moved the Democratic Party away from the coalition that made it a mainstream majoritarian party after having dismantled the Daley machine in its stormy Chicago Convention held in 1968. The social security and solidarity which was part of the New Deal was pushed to the background. In 2016, the Democratic party found solace in the fact that Trump, like other Republicans Nixon and George W. Bush, had secured victory by electoral college votes and not by popular votes. But that was shattered in 2024.

Biden’s victory in 2019 and Trump’s antics after losing the presidency including the 6 January episode in 2020 convinced the Democratic leadership that Trump’s challenge was over and that it has regained its popular support. Trump’s four years at best were an aberration. But the euphoria was short lived as Trump despite fighting his legal battles continued to maintain his presence on the political scene, and clinched the nomination for 2024 presidency. He regained his importance with a formidable presence after effortlessly trouncing all the other Republican aspirants in the primaries. He demonstrated, in a political career of only a decade, that a rank outsider can occupy the pivotal position fighting all odds. Bravery and tenacity are valued attributes in a system that combines the position of a head of the state and that of the government. Biden as president ignored the economic issues that were affecting the overwhelming majority of his supporters. The wages of an American worker remained stagnant while that of his counterpart in China increased four-fold. An average American also perceives that there is no centre of power in Washington with an ability to deal with galloping inflation. While maintaining tariffs imposed by Trump on China there was no visible effect either on revamping manufacturing or on the expected consequent increase in the number of bluecollar workers.

Trump reiterated the issues that he raised in his first term, namely revitalizing the manufacturing base of the US, along with the insecurity, isolation and alienation of the working class who lacked a college degree. He rejected the domination of an Ivy League meritocratic urban-based privileged elite that C. Wright Mills theorised in his notion of the power elite in the 1950s, as it has brought in a new caste system with its contempt for a vast under-class in American politics. As a result of all these factors Trump dislodged the Democrats in many predominantly Democratic states and also in the seven swing states to emerge as a leader of reconciliation committed to restoring American pride.

(The writers, respectively, are retired Professors of Political Science of the University of Delhi and the Jesus and Mary College)