The View | Race and identity now the central dividing line in American politics, not economics
And internal divisions within each of the main parties also makes it difficult for either to successfully mount any economic policy without the cooperation of the other
As the surreal train wreck that is the 2016 US presidential election campaign unfolds, the obvious question is, how did the Republican Party wind up with Donald Trump as its nominee?
Trump’s campaign platform draws from a history of presidential aspirants focused on populist immigration and international trade policies. In 1992 and 1996, Pat Buchanan sought the Republican presidential nomination on immigration and Ross Perot ran as an independent candidate on trade.
Trump himself first ran in 2000 against Buchanan and bowed out in the face of certain defeat. Interestingly, he repeatedly accused Buchanan of racism, calling him a “neo-Nazi” and “Hitler lover” for bashing blacks, Mexicans and gays.
In the current election cycle, Trump has retained Perot’s anti-trade and anti-elitist messages but added Buchanan’s warnings of losing the country to ethnic and religious minorities.
Race and identity are now the central dividing line in American politics, not economics (despite some strong trade and China-bashing rhetoric). Though race has always lived close to the surface of American politics, it has rarely featured so explicitly in political campaigns. So how did this happen?
Trump is not acting in a vacuum. His identity-based nomination is the logical culmination of Republicans’ 50-year “Southern strategy” to define politics primarily by race and identity instead of economics. This was a winning strategy first tried by Richard Nixon in 1972 and with greater success by Ronald Reagan in 1980.