The State of the Union is an unusual speech for Donald Trump. The characteristically rash choices of words and passionate rants that were commonplace on the campaign trail were noticeably stifled by the teleprompter on February 5th. Despite the prudent format, Trump’s 2019 State of the Union upheld a familiar populist message.
Generally, populism is used to describe popular ideological movements under the leadership of strong outsider candidates. In “Populism on the March” by Fareed Zakaria, populism is described as being characteristically hostile to elites and established institutions, therefore seeing itself as the patriotic voice for the common, forgotten person (1). As for its causes, in “How Democracies Fall Apart,” Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Erica Frantz describe populism as having roots in economic issues, as well as uneasiness towards globalization and immigration (1). These aspects of populism can be found throughout the 2019 State of the Union address.
First, Trump’s State of the Union speech was directed at common Americans, and it invoked the patriotism within them. When describing his agenda, Trump said that it was not democratic or republican, but the “agenda of the American people.” Moreover, he called for making our “culture richer” and our “middle class more prosperous.” These pleas directly relate to Zakaria’s description of populism and the “forgotten” common person. Some would argue that patriotism in the State of the Union is an expectation rather than a populist exception. However, the brand of patriotism Trump employed in his 2019 address is arguably different. When he claimed that “nowhere can compete with America,” and repeatedly referred to the unique strength of America in World War II, he fostered nationalism. Trump’s populist tone can also be seen in the goals he has set for the remainder of his term.
One main element of the State of the Union was the President’s call for bipartisanship in upgrading the infrastructure of the United States. This unassuming point in Trump’s agenda is undeniably populist. First, it is populist in that it disregards the party establishment in favor of a popular and salient policy. Moreover, it can be compared to past populist infrastructure policies. In their article, “Highway to Hitler,” Nico Voigtlaender and Hans-Joachim Voth argue that the building of the Autobahn increased the popularity of the Nazis enough to allow the popular referendum that gave Hitler sole control of Germany as Führer. While I do not wish to compare Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler, the popular support that can stem from the perceived competence of leaders who successfully complete large infrastructure projects is worth noting. Furthermore, although America does not face an economic crises similar to the the one that helped Hitler come to power, Trump’s economic boasts are still salient to his populist message.
Unsurprisingly, the State of the Union included boasts of the current economy. Trump’s economic achievements are a key factor in his appeal to common Americans. In his address, he gladly claimed responsibility for tax cuts and child tax credits for “working families.” He also boasted about an economic boom and the historic unemployment numbers under his guidance. These appeals relate to the economic aspect of populism mentioned by Kendall-Taylor and Frantz. Trump’s State of the Union also focused on an element of populist movements that is particularly prominent across the West.
The President’s 2019 address spoke to the uneasy feelings many Americans harbor about globalism and immigration. These issues were described as the roots of populism in Kendall-Taylor and Frantz’s article. First, Trump boasted that America is now a net exporter of oil. For many Americans, dependency on foreign oil has seemed like a recurring failure of the establishment parties. Moreover, Trump also discussed renegotiating deals with China, Mexico, and Canada. By pushing back on dependency on foreign oil, the TPP, and NAFTA, the President is pushing back on globalism.
Furthermore, the President’s address focused on illegal immigration. Playing on the fears of Americans is a clear populist aspect of the 2019 address. However, some may argue that this is a common party establishment policy rather than a populist policy. However, Trump strategically worded the immigration portion of his speech to support the common American and belittle the establishment elite. Specifically, he said that “wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders while living their lives behind walls and gates and guards.” In contrast, he noted that “working-class Americans are left to pay the price for mass illegal immigration.” This cost, he claimed, is felt in “reduced jobs, lower wages, over-burdened schools, overcrowded hospitals, and increased crime.” Zakaria’s argument supports the usefulness of the type of language Trump used as he notes in “Populism on the March” that establishment governments have refused to fix immigration issues “whether because powerful economic interests benefit from cheap labor or because officials fear appearing uncaring or xenophobic” (6). Through President Trump’s anti-globalist and anti-immigrant language, the populist message is clear.
In the 2019 State of the Union, Trump spoke to patriotism, the common American, economic issues, and the fears of globalism and immigration. Each of these issues reveals not only the populist nature of the speech, but possibly the deeper state of our union as well. As Kendall-Taylor and Frantz warn at the end of “How Democracies Fall Apart,” “citizens in Europe and the United States should hesitate before assuming they are invulnerable to a populist-driven backslide” (3). The 2019 State of the Union is a reminder that while populist movements are prime examples of democracy, they also carry the dangers of ending it.
Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen.
I want to start my comment by thanking you for writing an excellent and well-researched blog post on Trump’s State of the Union speech. One of your points that I found fascinating is when you stated, “Trump strategically worded the immigration portion of his speech to support the common American and belittle the establishment elite.” I think this is a great assessment, and I want to build upon it. Before Trump stated his claim that the “elites” want globalization, but that they hide behind “walls,” he went through a boasting, as you pointed out, of the economy. He stated, “My administration has moved with urgency and historic speed to confront problems neglected by leaders of both parties over many decades.” His claim fits with the mantra that most populist leaders have, the idea that “I alone can fix.” Professor Sherry Linkon of Georgetown University wrote in an article titled “The Half-Life of Deindustrialization” that in communities that lost factories that the people feel like they can only depend on themselves because of “decades of economic struggle and the deterioration of [their] communities.” Trump’s rhetoric gives them someone to depend on because he is promising to fix personally, and in a fast manner, structural economic and social problems in American society that would take long periods to be solved.
However, when using the rhetoric of “I alone can fix it,” an enemy is needed to blame when the problems are not fixed. As you pointed out, one enemy Trump has identified, like most Populists, are the elites. Trump in his speech also stated that he is ordering more troops to the southern border in preparation for a “tremendous onslaught.” The use of militarized language to describe migrants coming into the U.S. is used on purpose, as Trump is manufacturing a crisis. As Levitsky and Ziblatt point out, “Would-be autocrats often use economic crises, natural disasters, and especially security threats – wars, armed insurgencies, or terrorist attacks – to justify anti-democratic measures” (93). Trump linked undocumented immigrants as a contributing problem to the isolation different communities were feeling in America and offered a simple solution that he alone could deliver, even saying during the campaign that no one could build a wall like him, to his base. Since Congress rejected him, he had to manufacture a crisis at the border to justify his national emergency, because otherwise if he succumbed to Congressional pressure, the legitimacy behind his populist roots and his claims that he is standing up to the elites, would have been questioned. Do you believe that the national emergency and Trump’s State of the Union speech are attempts by him to keep his populist legitimacy to his base?
References:
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. New York, NY: Crown.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592718002852
Linkon, S. (2016, August 18). The Half-Life of Deindustrialization: Why Donald
Trump Is Just A Symptom. Retrieved February 22, 2019, from
https://billmoyers.com/story/
half-life-deindustrialization-donald-trump-just-symptom
The State of the Union Address. (2019, February 4). Retrieved February 21, 2019 from https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/donald-trump-state-of-the-union-2019-transcript/index.html
Hi Caleb,
I really enjoyed this post and your analysis of the State of the Union address. I found your argument to be very well-organized and well-supported.
Your point about Trump appealing to common Americans and invoking patriotism was especially important. I would agree with you that a populist message was clear within this speech. It can be said that much of Donald Trump’s campaign success was derived from the populist language he uses in his speeches. In the State of the Union address, he continued to strengthen his perceived “connection” with his middle-class base by using populist rhetoric. As you said, he uses illegal immigration and blaming the “establishment elite” and the “wealthy politicians” as a way to appeal to his base. He asserts himself as being unlike all other politicians. In “Trump and American Populism: Old Wine, New Bottles”, Michael Kazin states that Trump “tapped into a deep vein of distress and resentment among millions of white working-and middle-class Americans.” Trump continues to tap into the pre-existing resentment of his base towards illegal immigrants and politicians. The language he used in his speech is inherently populist as it appeals to those who feel that they have been wronged, places blame upon the “establishment elite”, and labels himself as the only person who can fix things. In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt describe Trump as denying the legitimacy of political opponents. I feel that this is shown through the State of the Union address as he continues to cite all politicians who challenge him or disagree with him, especially on immigration and the wall, as elites who do not care about common Americans.