“Well, this time he truly went besides far. Now everyone will look at it and see that it is simply a failure.” How many times have we heard this in the context of Donald Trump's actions? And how many times has no of this come true?
Maybe this time he truly went besides far. After all, the fact that he is playing with customs, creating trade wars, and then abruptly changing his mind, can lead to a worldwide recession or even to a collapse. And then Trump's supporters will disown him, right?
I wouldn't bet on it, and here's why.
Trump has already waged war on everything that builds prosperity and prosperity: democracy, healthy ecosystemseducation, wellness care, discipline and art. Yet among these ruins, the support rates for the president of the United States are inactive 43–48 percent – much higher than the support for another leaders. We only observe minor, insignificant fluctuations.
Why? 1 possible answer is based on a fundamental aspect of our humanity: the impulse to destruct what we feel excluded from. I consider this impulse to be crucial to knowing politics. Yet almost nobody sees it – but the far right, which sees it very clearly.
W many places in the world, a especially in the United States, since the late 1970s, inequality has grown rapidly (UK) follow this trend). planet billionaires last year got rich by extra $2 trillion, while the number of people surviving below the global poorness line has not precisely changed since 1990.
They are. strong evidence that there is simply a causal link between increasing inequality and expanding popularity populist authoritarian movements. Sole Article In the diary of European Public Policy, the increase in the Gini coefficient (measures of inequality) by 1 unit increases the support for demagogues by 1 percent.
There are respective related explanations why this is happening: feeling marginalised, fears related to social status and social threats, deficiency of safety leading to autority reactions and loss of assurance in another social groups. However, the basis of these explanations is something that is profoundly rooted in the human psyche: if you cannot have something, you must destruct it.
In the United States, a large proportion of people are excluded from access to many of the benefits mentioned at the outset, which Trump is presently eliminating. discipline can lead to breakthroughs in medicine, but this does not translate into a better wellness condition for people who cannot afford to pay for wellness insurance. Higher studies can open doors, but only if we're willing to owe ourselves tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Art, theatre and music make our lives better – but only those who can afford entrances usage them. Even to enter national parks must be paid, so for many they stay closed.
We are told that democracy gives people a voice in politics. However, it seems that it only gives it to those who have respective million have the support of 1 of the political parties. According to a political scientist, prof. Martin Gillens in book “Affluence and Influence”: “In most cases, the preferences of the vast majority of Americans and Americans do not seem to have any influence on the policies of the government.”
GDP growth was crucial under Joe Biden, but, as prof. of Economics notes, Jason Furman: "In 2019-2023, household income after inflation has decreased, while the percent of mediocre people has increased". GDP growth and material improvement are no longer linked.
All these good things? You're out of luck, not for a sausage dog. If you want to burn it all down, then all that stinking, hypocritical strategy reserved for rich people, Trump will be happy to handle it. At least that's what he says.
In fact, what Trump says and does is just distracting attention from increasing inequalities. From the beginning, he stood at the win of the position: the more the inequality itself deepens, the greater he gives the impulse to take revenge on his scapegoats: immigrants, trans people, people of science, teachers, China.
But no like that. Killer clown He wouldn't be able to do it alone. The most effective in bringing supporters of specified demolition are center parties with paralysis in the face of the power of large money. Walking on the belt of wealthy donors, crammed with a drug before the media, over which billionaires care, for decades have not even been able to name the emerging problem, let alone address it. Hence the spectacular defeat against Trump activities of the Democratic Party. As the American writer notes Hamilton Nolan: “One organization commits slaughter, the another organization waits for its leaders to die out.”
In the UK, the Labour Party, like the Democrats in the United States, has long been telling itself that it is no substance how large the economical inequality is as long as it lies on the poorest. Now they don't even stick to it anymore: you can cut off benefitsas GDP grows. However, inequality is very important. A full array of evidence collected in 2009 by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in the book The Spirit of Equality (updated in 2024), it argues that inequality has a powerful impact on social, economic, environmental and political performance regardless of what assets people have in absolute values.
If there is specified a thing as “Starmerism”, the doctrine will fail. Article published last year by political scientists Leonardo Baccini and Thomas Sattler, in which authors show that belt tightening policy leads to increased support for the extremist right in the regions affected by the crisis. It turns out that this belt tightening is the key variable – erstwhile it is not there, little educated people do not vote for right-wing demagogues more frequently than those with higher education. In another words, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Treasury Minister Rachel Reeves have just given their constituents to Nigel Farage.
They, of course, deny that they are applying a belt tightening policy. They are obscured by a method definition that has nothing to experience The people who are getting hit the hardest. due to the fact that the mediocre experience a policy of extremist austerity and at the same time watch as the rich and higher mediate classes under the Labour organization are even more prosperous.
Starmer and his men say there's nothing else they can do: that the rich are already heavy taxed. Meanwhile, Everyone sees with their own eyes that this is bullshit.Because we have private helicopters and jets flying over our heads.
Of all the information I've been looking at in writing this text, I'm most shocked by the following: according to the latest data (from 2022) After payment of benefits, the Gini coefficient for gross income in the UK does not, in fact, disagree from that ratio for post-tax income. In another words, the gap between rich and mediocre after taxation collection is almost as deep as before. This would mean that taxation has no crucial impact on income distribution.
How is that possible erstwhile rich people pay higher taxation rates? Yes, much more of the income of the mediocre goes to sales taxes, specified as VAT – so much in the deficiency of area for manoeuvre. So much for the "realist approach" of labourists.
The only thing that can halt the far right from reaching power is the thing that the mainstream parties do not want to take – to alleviate inequality. The rich request to be charged more with taxes, and the income from them must be spent on improving the lives of the poor. And while the center parties are wriggling like the squeakers to not do it, there is no another way out.
**
The article was published on blog author. From English she translated Catherine the Formers.
