Search
USA, election 2016, trump vs clinton, Impakter
Culture, Politics & Foreign Affairs, Society

Impakter Essay: The Politics of Hate

by
1.33k

The Politics of Hate in the 2016 US Presidential Election

Editor’s Note: This piece has been published concurrently in the KCL Dialogue. 

Hatred in US politics is nothing out of the ordinary. Founded and populated by immigrants of just about any other country, the United States has always dealt with racial and ethnic tensions. Throughout its history, American politicians used and were inspired by these tensions to achieve their political goals: from the Know Nothing party in the 1850s, to southern segregationists in the 1960s, to the so-called “birthers” of the 2010’s. In this context, the 2016 US presidential election doesn’t differ from previous elections as to its usage of racial and cultural resentment. Its main difference however – besides the fact it’s not the 19th century anymore – is the fact that for the first time in modern history, a national figure doesn’t subtly use these social strains (the de facto technique), but publicly promotes them.

To compare the usage of hatred in Clinton’s campaign with that of Trump’s is a prime example of false equivalency. Bar from a ninth of September quote where she said that “half of Trump supporters can be put in a basket of deplorables”, Hillary Clinton has not encouraged nor tapped into the populist anger of the American electorate. In fact, she has found herself on the receiving side of it. Trump however, has called for a ban on Muslims coming in the country, has dubbed Mexican immigrants as rapists, has questioned the legitimacy of the first black president and has suggested people take up arms in case of a Clinton win. However, analysing hatred in this presidential election and precisely in Trump’s campaign is impossible without identifying it in the larger trend within the conservative movement. The Republican Party for decades has stirred up paranoia and hatred in order to win elections. That is why to outsiders of American politics, the election of someone like Trump makes no sense. But if one sees his nomination from the hate-filled lenses of many of his followers, he is the only candidate that makes sense.election USA ? Impakter

PHOTO CREDIT: Mary Phalke/ Pixabay

Hate In Conservative Politics

Research shows that online content is more likely to become viral if it makes us angry. The same applies to politics. Politicians are keen to exploit and instill anger in their electoral base because research shows that not only does it drive people to the polls, it makes them seek less information on their candidate and not base their vote primarily on policy. It’s no wonder then that for the past eight years of a Democrat in the White House, the conservative movement in the United States has been kept in a perpetual state of hatred. Whilst there are various legitimate reasons to be angry about the state of affairs in the country, there exists an alternative world of conservative news in which the United States is on the brink of destruction. In that world, the country is run by a secret Muslim. Latin American immigrants are pouring in from the borders. The federal government is an inch away from taking the constitutionally guaranteed guns of its citizens. Hillary Clinton is a murderer. And last but not least, the “liberals” and the Democratic Party want to destroy America. All these claims are not found just in fringe websites that no one reads. They live and breathe in the US congress. They are either not denied or accepted by mainstream Republican leaders. They are not the result of outside influencers of unfortunate ideas that some people might happen to believe. They are a direct result of a political establishment that has realised it can keep winning in local, state and governorship elections by keeping its base in constant fear of the other side.

Indeed, hatred is not found just in nativist sentiment and resentment for foreigners. It can and is being used on compatriots. The opposition ceases to be the opposition, but instead becomes the enemy. The Democratic Party ceases to be the party that wants to regulate guns, it becomes the party that wants to take your guns away. It ceases to be the party of immigration reform, it becomes that of “amnesty”. They are not pro-choice, they are the party of “baby killers.” The result is that Partisan antipathy and party consistency has risen in the United States, and so has political polarization.

Whilst this strategy might have served to win over local races, it has flared nationally. The previous two presidential elections were not-so-close democratic wins, and by many indicators this one will be also. Its biggest blow back, however, is Trump’s emergence. Donald Trump was able to beat 16 contenders for the Republican nomination, all more experienced and with more connections to the Republican Party. His unabashed, rude and power man attitude eventually won him more votes than any Republican nominee in history, to the surprise and sadness of the Republican establishment. As one commentator put it, “they created a Frankenstein”; an electoral base that saw compromise with the Democratic Party in the face of such “terrifying” times as ground for dismissal. A base that ignores facts and reinforces its worldview without exposing itself to different opinions thanks to news outlets that cater to its every need. A base that was promised an America they had once experienced, but now feel like is slipping off their fingers. This hate-filled Frankenstein allowed a former reality TV personality with dubious business success and an ego complex to get within reach of the highest office in the world.

Related Article: “DEATH OF THE EURO: THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE“

Hate in the Trump campaign

One of the most astonishing things in Trump’s campaign, is that the hatred he spouts in his speeches is not found in some sort of coded or nuanced way. It can be seen first-hand at his rallies. Numerous reports have circulated since he began his campaign in June 2015, by both attendees and journalists, of rowdy and intimidating behavior by his supporters. This surpasses the typical excitement of campaigns speeches. The New York Times made a shocking video of live footage from Trump’s rallies, showing supporters calling Obama the n-word, calling Hillary all kind of names, and hurling insults against immigrants. This hate-filled behavior has surpassed words in many instances, reaching physical violence between supporters and protesters. Whilst violence in political rallies used to be common place in the 19th century, no one thinks it should be brought back. No one except Trump apparently, who has repeatedly encouraged these acts. He has said he’d like to punch a protester in the face that he’d defend his supporter in court in case they got sued for the violence and that protesters deserve to be “roughed up”. Needless to say that this behavior is unheard of, and marks a dark moment in American political history. 

The blame for these acts lies primarily on their perpetrators. And Trump has rightfully sought to distance himself from such occurrences. However, he has to be held accountable for the rhetoric that fuels such hate. He has called for Hillary to be imprisoned. A surrogate even called for her execution by a death squad. He labels all protesters in his events, even those who just sit wearing an anti-trump t-shirt, as trouble makers and “the enemy”. Perhaps the most dangerous is his rhetoric against Muslims. Hate crimes against Muslim Americans are at the highest level since 9/11. According to the FBI, they have increased by 78% over the course of 2015. Whilst it may be academically deficient to assume causality, I will assume so in this case. Politicians have to be held accountable for their rhetoric. Not just for the sake of civility and a healthy national discourse, but for the real consequences that their words can have. In times where the Western world is battling an invisible enemy that can only be defeated by powering through and holding true to our values, ignorant policies and hateful rhetoric not only don’t prove useful, but are counterproductive.

Another bullseye mark in Trump’s dart board is the so-called “establishment”. The 2016 election could be best characterized by a mass anger against what the electorate perceives as the establishment: the political and economic elite of the country. In the aftermath of disastrous wars, political gridlocks and a financial crisis, populist anger is understandable. And in many cases rightfully directed towards those in positions of power. However, criticism of the political establishment must be grounded on logic and practical policy proposals. Bernie Sander’s campaign stayed true to this principle in many instances. Donald Trump’s exploitation of this sentiment is the complete opposite. It is yet another hate-filled tool that allows him to capture hearts and minds without actually proposing anything. “Our leaders are stupid” is not a remedy. It is barely a diagnosis. He claims that “the country is run by incompetent people”, and therefore because he is very smart (he says he has a good brain) he alone can fix. Trust in the public institutions is indeed falling, and changes have to occur in order to regain said trust. Rambling on about the federal government as if all it’s highly educated and in many cases world-renowned public officials are incompetent might get an already angry electorate even more angry, but it won’t change things.

johnhain pixabay trump impakter

INTHE PHOTO: EXAMPLE OF HATE TOWARDS TRUMP PHOTO CREDIT: John Hain/ Pixabay

Hate in the Hillary campaign

One of the failings of the US media in this election is the sometimes implicit bias they have shown covering the Clinton campaign. It is a natural inclination in a free press to try to cover both campaigns equally. But not treating two things equally is the way to go when they are not equal. This false equivalency extends to the idea that Hillary Clinton’s campaign fuels hatred. Calling out Donald Trump on his statements is not fuelling hate, but rather simple observation. Of course she has to be held accountable for instances where her rhetoric increased tensions. During her bitter primary, her supporters frequently clashed in with Bernie Sander’s camp, often resulting in online harassment and abusive attitudes. However, in contrast to Trump, Clinton herself cannot be linked to her supporters actions. Neither her rhetoric nor actions fell outside of the average political back and forth in her primary with Senator Sanders.

Political gridlock

In conclusion, hatred in US politics is neither new nor fading. Mr Trump’s emergence in the political scene is a direct result of a strategy by Republican elites to instill a sense of fear, anger and borderline paranoia in parts of their electorate for political gains. Mr Trump understood this better than anyone else and capitalized on it to the maximum, to the detriment of the national discourse, civility and even what was supposed to be a peaceful election. One last unfortunate consequence of such high levels of hatred in US politics is the political gridlock that it ensues. Government should be above politics in certain cases. Public institutions have to be above political parties. But when the electorate is angry, members of Congress are afraid of collaborating with the other side for fear of blowback from their constituents. This leads to political gridlock, with the best example being the 2013 federal government shutdown. For 16 days large parts of the American government effectively stopped “working”, because the Republican and Democratic party could not agree on a fiscal budget. Hate-filled speech might get votes – it might even satisfy us voters if we are angry. But it has real life consequences that are worth much more than our feelings.

Recommended reading: “THERE’S NEW EVIDENCE ON HOW CLINTON AND TRUMP WOULD AFFECT THE ECONOMY” 

EDITOR’S NOTE: THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE BY IMPAKTER.COM COLUMNISTS ARE THEIR OWN, NOT THOSE OF IMPAKTER.COM
Feature Imaged Photo Credit: Unsplash/ Pixabay

Further reading: 

Lichtblau, Eric. “Hate Crimes Against American Muslims Most Since Post-9/11 Era”. Nytimes.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Sept. 2016.

Parker, M. T. and L. M. Isbell. “How I Vote Depends On How I Feel: The Differential Impact Of Anger And Fear On Political Information Processing”. Psychological Science 21.4 (2010): 548-550. Web.

Valentino, Nicholas A. et al. “Is A Worried Citizen A Good Citizen? Emotions, Political Information Seeking, And Learning Via The Internet”. Political Psychology 29.2 (2008): 247-273. Web.

“Political Polarization In The American Public”. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. N.p., 2014. Web. 5 Oct. 2016.

0
Tags:
, , , , , , , ,
About the Author /

Juan is finishing his degree in Political Economy at King's College London. He is Greek and Spanish but grew up in Belgium. He is interested in Politics and Journalism, while also having had experience in Venture Capital and Startup Development.

Post a Comment

Related posts you may also like

Food, Impact, Uncategorized

The food industry is coming under increasing scrutiny for its environmental impact, from greenhouse gas emissions, to excessive and detrimental land and water usage, to chemical pollution. Given the challenge of feeding a growing world population whilst simultaneously needing to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts, clearly we need to look at alternatives to “dinner as usual”. The contribution of livestock to global greenhouse emissions is estimated at between 14.5 – 18%. Fortunately, there are companies who are tackling this challenge head on and looking at how emissions from food production can be reduced. With consumer interest increasing in alternatives to meat and other protein sources, we’ve spoken to the founders of three companies. From the seemingly futuristic to the rediscovery of superfood trees, each company tackles this new drive in consumer interest in different ways.

Solar Foods, Finland

Dr Pasi Vainnika is the CEO and co-founder of Solar Foods. The slogan of the company is “Food out of thin air”. Pasi was formerly in charge of the single largest renewable energy program in Finland. However, when he found out that 20-25% of the emissions come from food, he realized that emissions from this sector needed to be addressed, as well as those in the energy sector. But with the growth in affordable and renewable energy – particularly solar energy– it led him and his team to question the possibility of producing food solely from energy, carbon dioxide, and water. It turns out, the answer is yes. Solein is a unique single cell protein. It is produced using a fully natural fermentation process like that of the production of yeast or lactic acid bacteria. The powder, which is produced from the process, is 50% protein, 5-10% fat and 20-25% carbohydrate. Most likely, the first product to reach the consumer market will be a replacement in existing plant-based foods. For example, using Solein in shakes or as an alternative to dairy in milks, yogurts, and even in breads and pasta. In the future, a lasagna could include the protein in all aspects of the recipe: the sauce, in the pasta sheets, and in the filling. Further into the future, there is also the possibility that it could be used as the basis for cultured meat production.
In the Photo: Solein Can be used in smoothies as a protein alternative. Photo Credit: Shawn Fields - Unsplash
To produce a kilo of the protein powder takes 10 liters of water in comparison to the 2500 liters of water for a kilo of soy or 15,500 liters for a kilo of beef. Electricity is the main raw material, and the plan is to source this from renewable energy sources. Additionally, Solein binds carbon dioxide rather than emitting it, easing pressure on land use. The product is currently going through regulatory checks and testing at the moment, with a plan to launch in 2021. NASA and the Soviet Union space programs had started to investigate in similar protein production for their expeditions in the past, but Solar Foods has brought it down to earth.

Higher Steaks, United Kingdom

Whilst some people are switching to plant-based diets and others have reduced their meat consumption, some others still want to keep meat in their diets but are looking for more environmentally friendly options. This is where lab-based meat comes in. Benjamina Bollag, CEO and co-founder of Higher Steaks, a UK-based company, believes that it is important to provide alternatives to meat with a lower carbon footprint, but that taste as close as possible to the real thing. She believes that the change required in human behavior to cut emissions will not happen fast enough otherwise. This approach is confirmed by research they have conducted. 52% of respondents confirmed that they would switch from conventional meat to the Higher Steaks alternative, with 21% saying they would prefer a plant-based diet. There are different ways of producing lab-based meat. The process that Higher Steaks is developing is based on pluripotent stem cells, which are taken from a small skin patch or blood sample. The meat that is grown is then shaped into products. Currently, Higher Steaks is working primarily on pork products.
In Photo: Higher Steaks will eventually release pork as its first lab-cultured meat. Photo Credit: Yvonne Lee Harijanto - Unsplash
The company has yet to conduct a lifecycle assessment of the lab-grown meat, but given the high levels of environmental impact from meat production, it should be safe to say that Higher Steaks products will be more sustainable. In addition, as Benjamina explains, other advantages include the avoidance of antibiotic use, resulting in a product which is better for the consumer as well. The level of fat can also be adjusted, depending on consumer preference. The company is working to have the first products in shops within 3-5 years.

Barukas, Brazil

Barukas proves that you don’t always to have to look to the future for more sustainable food sources. Sometimes it is about rediscovering and making available a food source which has been around for a long time to a wider audience. The baruzeiro tree, native to Brazil, has been a long-time source of nutrition for people living in the Cerrado, the vast savannah at the heart of Brazil. The tree produces a fruit, which contains the baru nut. It was the nutritional profile of the baru nut that initially attracted Seth Tuckerman, who had formerly been the COO of Beachbody, a fitness business. The nuts are high in protein, fiber, minerals, and are lower in fat than typical nuts. The taste is often described as a cross between peanuts and almonds. In fact, Tuckerman’s immediate thought on tasting them was “low calorie almonds”. Tuckerman’s passion is not only about the positive health benefits, but also about the trees and the mutual benefits for the communities where they grew.
In Photo: Baruzeiro tree. Photo Credit: Barukas
Tuckerman became a co-founder of Barukas Incorporated. They are on a mission to plant 20 million baruzeiro trees – as a start. The trees need little water and – as native trees – they are already ideally suited to the Cerrado conditions. First, Barukas must prove that there is a market for the fruit of the existing trees. As such, the company is encouraging those living in the Cerrado to collect the nuts by guaranteeing to buy them, then creating customer demand for the nuts. Collecting the fruit from existing trees helps to preserve them from being cleared for intensive and invasive agricultural methods such as soy plantations. Likewise, planting new trees helps to reverse the deforestation of Cerrado. A report by the Climate Observatory estimated that the destruction of surface vegetation in the Cerrado released 248 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2016. This is roughly two-and-half times the annual tailpipe emissions from all cars in Brazil.
In Photo: Closer look at the baruzeiro tree. Photo Credit: Barukas.
From talking with these three pioneers, it is now clearer than ever that we need multiple solutions to address how to sustainably feed a growing population. We need to cut the carbon emissions and reduce other environmental impacts such as water and land use associated with food production. Some of these solutions are a little way off in the future, but others are available now. We are what we eat, but our choices will increasingly determine what kind of future we will live in as well.   EDITOR’S NOTE: The opinions expressed here by Impakter.com columnists are their own, not those of Impakter.com.
Continue reading

Business, Environment, Essays, Foodscape, Impact, Society

Nothing less than food system transformation is required to address the scale and urgency of the health

Business, Corporations, Society

If a company only pays attention to maximizing profits and neglects its social responsibility, it may eventually

Scroll Up
impakter-logo-light

Editor's Pick Newsletter

~ Once a week only ~

You have Successfully Subscribed!

I confirm that would like to subscribe to Impakter Editor's Pick Newsletter