Is the current right-wing of American politics a more explicit version of the New Right of the 1970s and 1980s, or a new form of conservatism altogether?
Since the beginning of America’s independent history, when John Adam’s became the second president of the United States (US) following the election of 1796; America has been witnessing a political division. In fact, only three years later Patrick Henry declared, ‘united we stand, divided we fall’, (1799); a concept still crucial today and becoming ever more apparent. As political parties have realigned, adapted and evolved through social movements and societal perceptions; at what point do they become a new form altogether? For instance, whilst the New Right typically refers to the conservative political movement that emerged in the latter half of the 20th century; characterised by a focus on limited government influence, free-market capitalism, traditional social values, and a strong national defence. Trumpism has alluded to political ideology associated with Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States. It is defined by a populist and nationalist approach, emphasising economic protectionism, immigration restrictions, and a “America First” foreign policy. Trumpism also includes a rejection of political correctness, a focus on deregulation, and a strong emphasis on personal charisma and communication through unconventional means, such as social media. The movement has left a lasting impact on the Republican Party and has sparked debates about the future direction of conservative politics in the United States. Henceforth, this essay will attempt to critically analyse the Republican New Right ideologies with that of the current conservatism, asphyxiated with Trumpism. Investigating the economic goals, foreign policies and political integrity of each party; one may be able to argue that Trumpism has produced new form of conservatism Trumpism.
To be a conservative economically speaking, would still to this day be aligned with ‘Burkean conservatism’ (Berkowitz, 2004). This refers to the traditionalism deep rooted within the Republican Party, and the influence Edmund Burke had on conservatism in the west. Essentially, conservative economic ideology emphasises the importance of individual entrepreneurship, private property rights, and free enterprise. It often supports lower taxes, reduced regulation, and a belief that a market-driven system fosters economic growth and innovation. The New Right was no different, ‘espousing a hatred for economic equality, a renewed respect for intuitional authority in politics as well as for the authority of tradition (I.e) in culture and personal life, and a crude brand of nationalism’, (Thompson, 2007). This was a direct consequence of the individualism and atomisation asserted by previous Republican parties such as during the Eisenhower administration; labelled as the American dream. In all, ‘conservatives seek to remove the invisible foot of government from the lives of individuals’ (Armey, 1996).
These economic ideologies asserted the United States as a strong global superpower post World War Two, as they entered the ‘golden age of capitalism’. The war had spurred industrial production, and following its conclusion, the U.S. economy transitioned to peacetime production. The GI Bill provided educational and housing benefits to veterans, contributing to a skilled workforce. However, under Nixon, In the 1970s, the United States experienced a shift in its postwar economic preeminence marked by significant events such as the Nixon Shock, the end of the Bretton Woods system and the concurrent decline in the market shares ‘in terms of global nuclear reactor sales’, (Sarkar, 2021). Richard Nixon’s decision in 1971 to abandon the gold standard, a key component of the Bretton Woods agreement established after World War II, is known as the Nixon Shock. This move severed the link between the U.S. dollar and gold, leading to a new era of floating exchange rates. The subsequent collapse of the Bretton Woods system further altered the global economic landscape, as other major economies also shifted towards flexible exchange rates. This spawned fiat money and the transition to neoliberalism. An economic ideology that Charles Peters, often referred to as the Godfather of Neoliberalism, called an ‘embryonic movement’, (1982), implying underdeveloped. Yet still it became the premise for Reaganomics, a key feature of the New Right. Reaganomics refers to the notion that, ‘bringing government spending back within government revenues, which is the only way, together with increased productivity, we can reduce and yes eliminate inflation’ (Reagan,1981). Reagan believed there was excessive taxing and aimed for for the finalisation of all. De Facto, ‘every citizen is a borrower’, (Friedman, 1988). During Reagan’s presidency he implemented significant tax cuts alongside, his deregulatory agenda, and support for free trade, thus embracing a supply-side economy.
This is in contrast to Donald Trump's economic ideology as although holding similar fundamental principles; America’s economy was engulfed with a protectionist stance. Pursuing tax cuts with the ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’ of 2017, as well as, continuing the emphasis on deregulation; one can identify the similarities between New Right and modern conservatism economical beliefs. However, in difference, Trump pursued an ‘American first’ trading policy, imposing tariffs on imported goods, as he perceived them as an unfair trade deal. This in-itself is contrary to neoliberalism and that of a free market. Something which Republicans had been supporting for decades prior. So, whilst both Trump and Reagan strived for a pro-business economic policy, Trump’s protectionist trade stance and his unique approach to government spending set his economic policies apart from the New Right era. This was also contributed by context, global dynamics and policy changes. Thus, though holding similar beliefs the contrasts in economic ideologies between the New Right and Trumpism are perhaps too polar to be identified as a continuum, and more so of a new configuration.
Secondly, through analysis of foreign policies, including national defence between Reagan and Trump, the contrasts are once more emphasised. The direction in which an administration constructs their foreign policies, specifically a superpower, is crucial for global dynamics and nationalism. It is often at the heart of election campaigns, and a popular discussion amongst scholars. This is a consequence of constructivism, the notion that, ‘the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces’ (Wendt, 1999); implying that concepts such as national defence is far more impactful for the perception of the country, rather than the resource as of the country, especially in the case of the United States. As a superpower, it has been noted that, ‘all that stands between civility and genocide, order and mayhem, is American power’ (Kaplan, 2003). This has been illustrated throughout the United States history with the Cold War perhaps being one of the most prominent of those conflicts. The Cold War was a geopolitical and ideological conflict between the United States and its allies, primarily representing the capitalist West, and the Soviet Union and its allies, representing the communist East. Lasting from the end of World War II in 1945 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was characterised by political tension, military buildup, and a nuclear arms race. Both superpowers engaged in proxy wars, such as in Korea and Vietnam, and competed for global influence, leading to a divided world into the spheres of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with periods of détente and heightened tensions. The conflict ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, marking the victory of the West in the ideological struggle. In short, ‘the Cold War was about the clash of two revolutionary faiths, each of which believed that the future of the world was rightfully and inevitably theirs’ (Gaddis, 2005). Reagan's response involved the ‘Reagan doctrine’, a military buildup aided by the Grassroots activism; as well as the Strategic Defence initiative (SDI) coded ‘Star Wars’ implying the fight against the empire (Soviet Union). Reagan also took part in diplomatic strategies, including the often-referenced speech of, “Tear down this wall” (Reagan, 1987). Furthermore, the reaction to Reagan’s response stimulated a strong united front as Americans supported the reduction in the size of the federal government, provided it didn’t jeopardise the programs they personally benefited from; In Reagan’s journey to the presidency, a significant aspect was how his approach to national defense and foreign policy enabled him and his supporters to address the gap between the public’s dependence on federal programs and their opposition to an expansive government. Everything considered,‘Foreign policy and national defence offered a political solution to resolving this dilemma’ (Berne’s, 2015). Reagan sought to be perceived as an aggressor.
In disparity when investigating the tensions between China and the United States from 2017 to current, the Republicans have chosen a protectionist stance, a cold peace. The origins of this tension can be identified within the statement, ‘when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, shit happens’ (Allison, 2017). This quote reflects Allison’s argument about the Thucydides’s Trap, a concept suggesting that a rising power challenging an established power can lead to conflict. While this quote is more broadly about power transitions, Allison’s work delves into the contemporary dynamics between the U.S. and China, offering insights into their geopolitical relationship. This is at consequence to Trumps far more diplomatic response, targeting trade deals and creating a ‘Strategic Competition’, between the two powers. Henceforth, Trump imposed tariffs on a significant number of Chinese imports, addressing what Trump were unbalanced trade policies. There were also technological restrictions on China’s access to U.S Technology. As well as criticisms from Donald Trump surrounding China’s practises of human rights, specifically the Uighur minority; this was at a similar time period to the detention camps set up via the Trump administration, in which Trump insisted on a stricter immigration policy; with an emphasis on those who are Islamic; leading to 38 deaths in three years. This is further evidencing the difference in foreign policies as Reagan supported immigration and maintained diplomatic relationships with the Middle East. In contrast Donald Trump instated the Abram accords and pulled many resources aiding the Middle East in various conflicts and crises.
Elementally, Reagan utilised hard power in aid of America in the Cold War, whereas Trump took the soft power approach. Donald Trump actively intruded on alliances, treaties and global norms that have been in place since the Second World War- ‘testing the strength of its bonds and forcing supporters to rally to its defence’ (Fettweis, 2018); China, the Middle East (Abraham Accords), and much of Europe being at the centre of Donald Trump's disarray. Therefore, indicating a new form of conservatism within foreign policies.
Finally, when studying the political styles of the New Right with the populist Donald Trump; one can be witness to the contrasts of political integrity. Although all politicians create a scandal vacuum amongst the media, the scale in which Donald Trump imploded his political integrity is second to none. This is a direct consequence to Donald Trump utilising the political phenomenon of populism, a ‘coherent ideology whose mass appeal stems from the fiery articulation of core positions, notably hostility toward “others,” bias against elites in favour of “the people,” and the transgressive delivery of those messages’ (Bucky, 2020). Trump lent into the big personality, celebrity persona leading to linguists comparing the extreme use of hyperbole and superlatives, to create a ‘fairy tale quality’, ‘symbolic with those of Nazi Germany. (McLntosh,2020). Populism is a notion Trump has been familiar with throughout his career; evidencing quite ironically in his ghostwritten book, ‘The way I promote is Bravado’, (Trump, 1987). In the social media driven society of today the cyclical cycle of ‘media attention leads to more media attention’ (Darr, 2019), has been crucially employed with the Trump administration, a concept not viable within the 1970’s and 80’s of the New Right era. For instance, in 2017 a disproven, discredited far-right conspiracy theory known as QAnon worked as a catalyst for Trumps presence is the media. It alleges a secret plot against President Donald Trump by a supposed deep state of government officials, celebrities, and other prominent figures. The conspiracy theory gained traction on online forums and social media. However, it lacks credible evidence, and its claims have been widely debunked. Many experts and authorities consider QAnon to be baseless and a potential source of real-world harm due to its promotion of unfounded allegations and its impact on public trust and social cohesion. It created a cult like mentality for the passionate members of the Republican Party and gave Trump the ability to create a sense of self and other. As well as, providing the perspective, ‘as to why, while Trump’s discourse was perceived as incoherent and non-sensical by many, it made perfect sense to his followers and supporters’ (Salahshour, 2021). By separating himself from other politicians, Trump was able to have increased influence with absence of general political distrust from his supporters, leading to a more devout following. However, as his presidency supports, not always necessarily for the benefit for the moral and progression of America.
For instance, during his election campaign Trump was heard saying, ‘grab em’ by the pussy. You can do anything’ (Trump, 2016). This discourse did not soften as his presidency continued but in fact got emphasised and became his primary political tool. As an exemplar, in 2020 with the emergence of Covid-19 the statements released had no presence of fundamental scientific validation. This includes utterances of, ‘it’s an amazing thing [Covid-19] affects virtually nobody’, as well as referring to the virus as ‘King Flu’ and ‘China Virus’ (Trump, 2020). Subsequently due to his prominent influence, this led to an increase in Asian hate crimes with the American Civil Liberties Union deputy stating, ‘that attempts to blame China leads to dangerous scapegoating and widespread ignorance’ (Wang, 2020).
Furthermore, Trumps dogmatic followers continued to highlight their unwavering support through the January 2021 riots; personifying the instability of democracy due to Donald Trump's populist ideologies; as he stated rather than a peaceful inauguration, ‘well, we’re gonna have to see what happens’ (Trump, 2021). This created an opportunity for his followers to storm the United States Capitol in protest of the elected democratic president, Joe Biden. Consequently, Donald Trump for the second time was impeached. The only president to ever be impeached twice, as well as the only Republican president to continue term after impeachment.
For that reason, though both Nixon and Reagan had their own political scandals, along with the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s own impeachment- neither can be compared to Donald Trump, who used political scandals to his advantage.
To conclude, whilst the New Right conservatism and Trumpism do hold alike primary principles, including a sense of traditionalism and religious values the specifics within the administrations and manifestos are too contrasting to be just an advanced form. With differencing economic goals, involving an end of an era for neoliberalism compared to the free-market capitalist heavy Reaganomics, the polarising ideologies of foreign policies and populist versus Elitism; the argument can be evidenced that the current right-wing of American politics is a new form from the 1970’s and 1980’s New Right conservatism rather than an explicit form.
Bibliography
Armey, "Conservatism in America," Brown Journal of World Affairs 3, no. 1 (Winter/Spring 1996): 199-204
Berkowitz, P 2004, Varieties of Conservatism in America, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [22 November 2023].
Brenes, M. (2015) ‘Making foreign policy at the grassroots: cold war politics and the 1976 republican primary’, Journal of Policy History, 27(1), pp. 93–117. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030614000372.
Bucy, E.P. et al. (2020) ‘Performing populism: Trump’s transgressive debate style and the dynamics of Twitter response’, New Media & Society, 22(4), pp. 634–658. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819893984.
Friedman, B.M. (1988) Day of reckoning: the consequences of American economic policy under Reagan and after. 1st ed. New York: Random House.
Lawrence F. Kaplan and William Kristol, The War Over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 118.
John Lewis Gaddis, “The Cold War: A New History” (New York: Penguin Books, 2005), p. 6.
McIntosh, J., & Mendoza-Denton, N. (Eds.). (2020). Language in the Trump Era: Scandals and Emergencies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108887410
Monthly, C.P.C.P. is the editor of T.W. (1982) ‘A neo-liberal’s manifesto’, Washington Post, 5 September. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1982/09/05/a-neo-liberals-manifesto/21cf41ca-e60e-
404e-9a66-124592c9f70d/ (Accessed: 25 November 2023).
Modigliani, Franco. “Reagan’s Economic Policies: A Critique.” Oxford Economic Papers 40, no. 3 (1988): 397–426. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2663013.
Sarkar, J. (2021) ‘The economic strategies of u. S. Nonproliferation policy during the nixon-ford years’, Journal of Global Security Studies, 6(1), p. ogaa009. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogaa009.
The Guardian (2020) ‘Donald Trump calls Covid-19 “kung flu” at Tulsa rally’, 21 June. Available at:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/20/trump-covid-19-kung-flu-racist-language (Accessed: 24 November 2023).
Thompson, M. (ed.) (2007) Confronting the new conservatism: the rise of the right in America. New York: New York University Press.
Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press. Pp.1-4. ISBN 978-0-521-46960-9.
Address to the nation on the economy - february 1981 (no date) Ronald Reagan. Available at: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/address-nation-economy-february-1981 (Accessed: 23 November 2023).