“Trumpism is Politics of Loss and Revenge” and an Introduction to “The Politics of Resentment”

In “Trumpism is Politics of Loss and Revenge” by John Marshall, Trump’s ascent to the presidency is described through the shifting population dynamics in America. However, Marshall starts the article on a totally different note. Marshall says any debate that “seeks to make a fixed ideological orthodoxy” is stupid and pointless. This idea should be applied when anyone tries to argue a definitive. Marshall says these one-point arguments fail because “We don’t simply respond to our own personal experiences but the collective experience of communities we identify with.” We are a collection of all our interactions. These one-perspective ideas cannot lead to major shifts . It must be an aggregation of many complicating factors that lead to revolutionary change. Marshall looks to find one root of Trumpism and the major impetus for the shift in American politics. He is not looking for the one answer to explain everything, but one potential component of the whole movement.

Marshall says “I continue to believe that it is best understood as a reaction to the erosion of white privilege, supremacy and centrality in American life.” The term white privilege is thrown around a lot but it is often hard to understand, even if you have experienced it. The following article describes it as “the societal advantage that comes with being the norm.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/16/white-privilege-explained/?utm_term=.7b8b93bdb5c1

In recent years, the population trends have shifted away from an overwhelming white majority. In the 1960’s the United States was 88.6% white and now it is only 53.9% white. There is some disagreement among the exact percentages, but the shift in trends is undeniable proof of the changing population. This shifting population means a loss of the overwhelming white majority, a loss of being the norm, and in turn a loss of white privilege. This change is illustrated best in the two graphs: “Population Distribution by Race: 1940-2010” and “Percent Minority 1970-2042” which can both be found under the following link to the U.S. census.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/1940census/CSPAN_1940slides.pdf

So, back to Marshall’s argument in which he is saying that this loss of the white privilege is the root of Trumpism. This argument seems to hold even more weight when compared to the rhetoric used in Trumps campaign and the sections of the population more inclined to vote for Trump. The most obvious rhetoric is “Make America Great Again” the key word being “Again”. The last word calls for a return to the old order, when whites were the majority and they had those inherent societal advantages that come from being the norm. However, those advantages have been lost and the people who enjoyed those benefits want to see them return. This explains why Trump polled much higher with older Americans, because they remember the days of white privilege and want to see it again, but younger generations do not remember such intense white privilege. This image below shows that whites were more likely to vote for Trump, especially the older generation.

https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/AgeRace.png

Marshall concludes by stating that Trumpism is “politics of white nationalism”, a type of ethnic nationalism focused on regaining the white privilege that once existed in America.

In the introduction of Engels’ “The Politics of Resentment” the Gabrielle Giffords shooting is used as an example. Here’s a clip, based on the shooting, from the show “The Newsroom.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m95qHOmoUXs

This clip also ties into the point made by Dupnik that constant, rapid news aimed to inflame the public will only negatively impact people. There is always something in the news about death or tragedy, simply because it gets ratings. This explains what Engels calls the “dialectic of postmodern life” we are moved and we move on. Since we are constantly bombarded with information on tragedies we cannot actually focus on an event. We simply forget and press forward.

Much as our news media has shifted, our political rhetoric has changed along with society. The original political rhetoric was observed by Aristotle, who said politicians must be able to influence the emotions of the people. Aristotle claimed the emotion of resentment was unusable because it splits the people and makes them unpredictable. Unfortunately, our modern day politicians use the rhetoric of resentment pretty much constantly. They have used resentment to split the people into two groups, the democrats and republicans, each of which constantly blames the other for the countries troubles.

Engels continues to state that the current form of democracy is dangerous. Engels states that “democracy is now seen as a noun and not a verb,” this idea is confirmed by the low percentage of voters in the most recent election.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/

Engels further discusses how democracy has changed to protect the elite instead of the people. Engels believes that our current democracy is ruled by resentment and it is detrimental to the average citizen, so there is a need for change.

33 Responses to "“Trumpism is Politics of Loss and Revenge” and an Introduction to “The Politics of Resentment”"

Caroline Zerkle says:

February 21, 2017 at 2:41 pm

After reading “Trumpism is a Politics of Loss and Revenge”, I found myself wanting to counter many arguments. While Trump has of course used pejorative rhetoric, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Trumpism is based off of the fear of losing white supremacy. There are undoubtably some that were inspired by his racist rhetoric, but I argue that more were moved by his promise to bring back jobs to the middle class. Coming from Pittsburgh, a former rust belt city, surrounded by many other economically depressed (usually blue) areas (West Virginia, Cleveland, Western New York), that surprisingly went for Trump, I found it difficult to align Trump’s success in these types of areas with white supremacy. One reason for this is probably because most people who tended to vote for Trump is these areas, in my opinion, never experienced “white supremacy”. Yes, they may be white, but from what I have seen, these people have never experienced any type of advantage from their skin color, but rather are lower-middle-class or impoverished households whose profession is in a dying industry. These people are stagnant, uneducated, skilled-labors, trying to find their way in a world that no longer values their skills. This is the reason for their plight. A rebuttal to my position would probably be that these areas have little to no diversity, which is true, and people tend to scapegoat illegal aliens or others for “stealing” their jobs. However, there is a reason why there is so little diversity in these areas. It is because for so long there has been so little economic prosperity or hope that there is no reason or incentive to move to these areas. You simply won’t find a job here, there are so many dying industries. The white people in these depressed areas feel just as hopeless as minorities. The difference is, Trump was speaking to these people, whereas Hillary, Obama, and many Republican candidates simply overlooked these people and their needs and their plight. Additionally, voters in my area, who are the “typical” Trump voter, tend to be coal miners, steel workers, farmers, or small business owners. Usually, these citizens vote democrat, as they are aligned with labor unions, however increased resentment for their industries from Democrats (like when Hillary Clinton spoke in Ohio about shutting down the coal industry to protect the environment, where the majority of people work in the coal industry) is another source for their support for Trump. This notion shifts to the idea of resentment outline in “The Politics of Resentment”. People are resentful that they depressed and they feel hopeless with no prospects. Of course people probably felt resentment towards Obama and a Democrat Presidency that failed to boost their standard of living. Likely this same resentment will be aimed towards Trump if he fails to help these people as they need.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  February 21, 2017 at 10:07 pm
  
  When I wrote “white supremacy” in this article, I meant to write “white privilege”
2. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 9:45 pm
  
  I agree that there were other factors to Trumps popularity. He did focus on areas where people had lost their jobs and made them promises of bringing back work. This was especially prevalent with coal mining towns. However, these areas were often predominantly white. So it is still a focus to white voters. Whether the focus was due to race or industry I don’t think we can ever know. I think one of the biggest issue sis that the resentment is always aimed across party lines however. The republicans resent the democrats and vice versa. One the people start to resent the elite maybe we can see real change.
Sean Foley says:

February 21, 2017 at 5:45 pm

Marshall’s article from April of 2016 broke down Trump supports as mainly being from an older generation and being white. This held true in the election and I agree that a large number of voters probably felt that they were losing white privilege whether they recognized it as white privilege or not. As a white man I find it difficult to recognize when I’m taking advantage of my white privilege and I tend to be fairly conscious when it comes to racial issues. Marshall also points out the fact that America is becoming increasing heterogeneous and it’s the white homogeneous communities that are Trump’s biggest strongholds of support. Yet, as we saw in the election Trump did win approximately 30 percent of the Latino vote and had higher results than expected in all non white categories. So was Trump’s election a racial movement to sustain white privilege, I would say in a lot of voters felt that way. However, Trump’s campaign connected with a wider audience than those who push for the majority white race. Yet, Marshall’s statement that “Trumpism is: the politics of white nationalism” seems to more spot on with each passing executive order limiting immigration.
The introduction to Engals The Politics of Resentment tackles what is rhetoric and more in depth as to what is the rhetoric of dissent. In order to have democracy rhetoric must be omnipresent and Engels does a good job making this point. Yet, his discussion of the rhetoric of dissent intrigued me. His theory that dissent rhetoric has been used in America to create a constant bickering between citizens has kept the elite happily on top. Basically his theory of dissent rhetoric boils down to the divide in politics between republicans and democrats. It is dissent rhetoric that make sit seem as if our government is constantly fighting itself and it is the reason for poor communication. He also makes a good point that another form of main rhetoric in America has been war rhetoric. I look forward to reading the essays in the remainder of the book.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 9:53 pm
  
  I think there were some other factors in Trumps election win, but i think white privilege was one of the biggest. I have of a few friends who are minorities and refused to vote for Hillary due to her political history, if they actually voted for Trump I have no idea. The point being that not every minority flocked to Hillary. I was surprised to hear how well Trump did with the Latino vote, granted 30% isn’t necessarily well but with the rhetoric Trump used against Mexico and Latinos that is incredibly well. How Trump managed to win over the same people he called “rapists and criminals” I’ll never really understand.
Colin O'Donnell says:

February 21, 2017 at 7:30 pm

There are parts of this article that I agree with but there are also parts in which I think author dismissed a claim without really looking at indepthly. For example Marshall completely dismissed the claim that many Trump supporters were struggling from globalization by pointing out that “greater affluence among non-college whites was positively correlated with supporting Trump”. However I think that is wrong to assume as many non-college educated whites who have recently been affected by globalization would probably be in better economic situations than those that haven’t. This is because factory jobs were much higher paying than other jobs available for non-college whites such working as a janitor. Now, even though they are struggling and losing their jobs they would still have more money than people who never had such jobs. This sentiment is also reflected in the washington post article about the study which Marshall sites, as it makes it clear that Trump supporters, “while still better off than many of their neighbors, are worse off than they might have been in the past.” This shows that there is credibility to the fact that many supporters saw their jobs disappearing and their lifestyle getting worse and voted for Trump to bring that back rather than for other racial reasons. However I did find one point in the article which I thought was interesting and does lend credibility to Marshall’s point. This was, that Trump performed best in the republican primary in areas which were heavily populated by minorities and that he outperformed Romney in these areas during the general election. In my opinion this is lends credence to Marshall’s as these people may be angry and feel like they are losing much of their power to minorities.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 9:57 pm
  
  I don’t really get your factory job analogy? Are you saying that globalization is bringing factory jobs into America which would be higher paying jobs for non-college whites? I think the people who are struggling with losing their jobs are more likely to lean towards Trump since they are focused on finding work and he promises it. He hasn’t made steps to deliver yet, which could explain a lot of the dissent that former Trump voters have been expressing. Also the people with more exposure to minorities shifting to Trump is a good point to support Marshall’s idea.
Helen Spiller says:

February 21, 2017 at 8:44 pm

Marshall’s piece on “Trumpism” was a harsh, yet insightful piece that took the stance that Trump rose to power behind the ideals of loss and revenge of white supremacy. Marshalls piece was so convincing to me because of his use of facts. The most interesting part of his article was his chart showing the decline of the majority of the white race by 2060. He also explained how majority white, elderly people voted for trump in majority white neighborhoods. This is yet another example of the dominant, most successful class, wishing for things to remain the same. Marshall, again, used the term, “ethnic nationalism” then “white nationalism” with regards to Trump’s campaign. Nationalism as a term that we have studied expresses pride in your country and perhaps with Trump that pride comes from a white nation for which you find your nationalism.
A second aspect of Marshall’s article that I was really interested by was the blindness that white americans have to this white privilege. Marshall said, “The privilege comes with me no matter what ideas I have in my head.” People may think they understand white privilege or that it doesn’t exist, but it does. White privilege 100% exists and it is hard to see as a white person because that is what we live every single day.
On the other hand, in the introduction of, “The Politics of Resentment”, I found it interesting how Engels dealt with the term democracy, claiming it was extremely overused. Marshall stressed how this resentment in politics puts a strain on democracy. He suggests this resentment is a simply a way for the elites to stay in power and the other citizens to disagree and fight among one another. Overall, Engels seems like he has a very intelligent and telling point on politics through resentment that I look forward to reading more about.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 10:00 pm
  
  I think the older generations voting for Trump is an interesting point. Those people saw the white privilege while the younger people did not. However, there were some young people who chose to vote for Trump. How do you explain this younger generation of Trump voters if his political base was from white nationalism? Your point of white people often missing white privilege is spot on. I think we need to move forward and try to treat every equally, eliminating any privilege that exists.
Michael Horan says:

February 21, 2017 at 10:09 pm

Marshall’s article focused on how Trumpism is a “reaction to the erosion of white privilege, supremacy and centrality in American life.” As we examined in the last article about paranoid style, Marshall highlights the idea of taking back what is lost as a central part of Trump’s ideology. It even represented in his campaign slogan, Make America Great Again. Marshall calls this politic, white nationalism.
Overall, I think Marshall provides some solid, persuasive information to support his claim, although I think it is in some ways oversimplified. One thing that struck me was that he was fourth in the polls among voters 18-29 years of age. That is an incredible statistic that cannot be ignored. Trump evidently got least support from the young generation that is most ethnically submerged and accepting of new immigrants. Trump clearly did not appeal to these young people, yes, including whites. Marshall connects this discovery to the idea of white privilege. Personally, being a white male, the idea may be subliminal, but this article does a good job at bringing it to light. We have to realize that 50 years ago white privelage was very prominent, as whites represented around 80%. Now that has been reduced to around 53% and is falling. Clearly, it is is legitimate to think that like Trump, many older white people want to bring America back to how it used to be demographically. Nonetheless, I think this article is oversimplified because every white person didn’t vote for Trump for racial purposes. In addition about 30% of hispanics and asians voted for trump, and Trump won the rustbelt states which aren’t historically republican. For this, other things do factor into Trump politics, but the idea of white nationalism is indisputably a prominent source of his support.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 10:07 pm
  
  I agree that this article is somewhat of an oversimplification. If you look at the beginning Marshall agrees against any debate that “seeks to make a fixed ideological orthodoxy”. He even acknowledges that his paper falls under this category, but he thinks the white nationalism point is so predominant it is worth discussing. I think that Trump could also be looked at as the Baby Boomers trying to maintain power. If you look at population by age, the Baby Boomers are still the largest generation and they still hold the most political sway. Especially since younger generations have become less likely to vote, as stated in Engels paper by saying democracy has become a noun and not a verb.
Isaiah Duplessis says:

February 21, 2017 at 10:54 pm

The two assigned articles ask us to come away from generalizations a bit and address nationalism and resentment as elements in politics that have individual meaning.
Trumpism poses the attachment to a white identity and nationalism on an individual encourages Trump’s followers in the political spectrum.
Politics of resentment gives us a taste of how rhetoric can be meaningful to an individual, and how the 20th century and modern political sphere is using civic displeasure as a powerful political weapon.
Engles is published in 2015, and his take on Trump is not clear (at least not through the introduction). He clearly advocates for a Marx like restoration of the poor to power in his vision of the purpose of democracy. He fears that the most powerful weapon of democracy, resentment has been used to fracture the majority.
Reading his introduction, I feel better prepared to look at the conflicts individuals faced with the election of Trump. Seemingly our President played into the contemporary fracturing resentment, and the underlying historical resentment democracy was principled on, hatred of the elites. Further in reading the article on Trumpism, while the majority provides certainly things are not so simple as racial divide and scapegoating, it ends with a discussion of the return of white privilege as an identifier amongst Trump voters.
We must ask ourselves where are the policies against big business and the elites as we face the Trump era? Have his voters been bait and switched?
It is transparent that the pro-white is erupting to the surface of his policy.
Arguably Trump’s use of resentment will be studied for years, it is clear to me however civil discourse will continue, as will the use of resentment, and while Trump was viewed as an insurgent candidate, how could he truly favor the poor, “silent majority”, if his policies do not attempt to help the civic equal of the poor minority.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 10:13 pm
  
  Your point on the shift in democracy is spot on. Democracy was founded to protect the people from the elites, but not it protects the elites from the people. Our elites are businessmen and we are living in an oligarchy. This seems like a difficult claim but think about how corporations are perceived through the law. They have the same rights as people. Also besides being a figure head for white nationalism, Trump is one of those wealthy elites. He comes from a rich family, and given a “small amount” of one-million dollars he has furthered his wealth. Many people valued him for his success in business but is that really a valuable trait?
  1. Isaiah Duplessis says:
    
    March 5, 2017 at 3:03 pm
    
    We should never address anything from one perspective, but in response to your question, it should be valued, and would be valued by certain people. Understand those who view America’s economy as a problem would like to see it run more like a buisness. The issue is some people fail to recognize how buisness practices hurt the public and how a government run like a buisness would hurt the public as well.
    
    I personally do not value it,n or find him a very successful businessman.
Emily Wu says:

February 21, 2017 at 11:30 pm

Marshall’s article examines the debate on whether Trump’s appeal is economically or racially fueled, ultimately concluding that Trumpism is the “politics of white nationalism”. I think Marshall made a few good points. He began by emphasizing that the debate should not be reduced; a strong argument on one side does not nullify the other. I thought his point that “we don’t simply respond to our own personal experiences but the collective experience of communities we identify with” has weight. He also asserts that Trumpism is about loss. I think it is interesting that the sense of loss is relative and that some of what is being lost like privilege or dominance “wasn’t legitimate to have in the first place.” While I agree loss can refer to an “erosion of white privilege supremacy and centrality in American life” I think people’s feeling of loss can refer to a loss of jobs, economic security and overall quality of life. White nationalism may not have been a primary motive for most Trump supporters, but their other concerns and problems may have been framed in a way by Trump that shifts their focus to blame nonwhites. Marshall talks about political identification with whiteness as a yes or no question without acknowledging how political rhetoric is used to create and shape identity.

Engels is interested in looking at the interplay of democracy, rhetoric and resentment. I think it will be interesting to study the history of the politics of resentment and how resentment changed from being “the bane of political elites to their primary rhetorical instructment for managing democracy and restraining the power of the demos. ” Resentment is redirected within the citizenry rather than used as a unifying force. Engels sees resentment as a “product of widespread feelings of powerlessness” and a sense of victimhood. I am curious to continue reading to understand better why Engels favors the term resentment over other emotions like frustration or anger.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 10:40 pm
  
  I think one of the biggest point of Marshall’s article is the explanation of how Trump’s campaign was racially fueled. You pointed out well that it is the sense of loss felt by the white majority. I think often times people say Trump’s campaign was racially based without any evidence so they are quickly dismissed. I also agree that there is other losses that could motivate Trump’s supporters. However, does that mean that every 4 years we should alternate political parties since each party effectively experiences loss after a term held by the opposition? Or do only significant losses that occur through changes in the population drive political action?
Nicolas Delvalle says:

February 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm

I absolutely agree with Marshall that Trump ran on campaign of reclamation and loss, but there is much more ground to cover than simply the racial demographic. One must only look at Trump’s early signed legislation that he favors coal, and there are several other bills in the works as well. The coal industry has been under fire from all sides: from environmental activists who claim green energy is the future, to less radical yet perhaps more influential proponents of other fossil fuels. Until the Trump administration stormed the White House, it seemed that coal’s days were numbered, and that was being felt across America. Towns built around the coal industry were beginning to fade away. Once prosperous districts were and are becoming impoverished as those who have the power to move are doing so. The thousands of workers being thrown out of work by the displacement of the coal industry are unable to find jobs, and thus they represent a large demographic that Trump targeted directly.

The strength of Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” is the ambiguity of when America was “great.” There is no defined time that Trump believes we were “great” yet he states that we used to be “great” all the same. It allows listeners to project their own beliefs of when America was great, whether that be before they were born, or just ten years ago. It allows each person’s mind to suggest an answer to the question of “When WAS America great?” that Trump’s slogan seems to ask.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 25, 2017 at 5:21 pm
  
  I agree there is more loss than just white privilege. Also your point of the ambiguity is spot on. It allows Trump to have a large mass appeal. He can appeal to anybody who favors an older time in American history. The question of when was America great is answered by the individual. This allows it to resonate with many more people than if it was “Make America Return to the 1920’s” for example. Trump has used other examples of ambiguity in order to appeal to a larger majority of people.
George Clayson says:

February 21, 2017 at 11:50 pm

Josh Marshall’s article on trumpism was confusing at times. The way his ideas flowed was hard for me to understand at times. He has the idea that trumpism means white nationalism, which means a majority gives way to a sense of security for whites. This almost sounds like a way to explain why it is okay to be racist. Find if that is a stretch, but for an article that starts out very anti-trump Marshall has a way to try and not own up or defend his opinions.
Marshall does a good laying out the different voters for Trump. How he thought that maybe economic anxiety might be the cause of Trump winning the election, but then stating how the middle class are big political actors and those with economic stress would not carry enough weight in the election to swing the vote. Marshall then confirms my belief that those in isolation from multi-racial culture are those who are supporting trumpism. I had this belief probably because social media has shown me that an average Trump support looks like a southern white racist who lives in a trailer park.

Engels states how it is not important to look into why Loughner shot Giffords, but why there is so much resentment as an emotion used in contemporary American politics to divide the citizens. The politics of resentment, specifically the term itself, connected to Josh Marshall’s trumpism. They both talk about resentment, although in slightly different ways. Marshall mentions resentment towards minorities, while Engels refers to in as opposing political views. Both have to do with peoples conflicting opinions, Engels just doesn’t specify that is opinions about racism, instead about all political viewpoints. Both mention how the resentment leads to anger and violence. The free-speech democratic system we live in today has given people the power to have opinions that are wrong, unjust, and immoral, such as racism.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 25, 2017 at 5:38 pm
  
  I’m not sure if having white privilege is the justification for racism. I don’t think Marshall condones racism but he is explaining why it is so prevalent for Trumps campaign. It is the politics of loss and resentment. The loss of white privilege is what causes people to support Trump, not the hatred of other races.
Steven Zhang says:

February 21, 2017 at 11:55 pm

Marshall’s article Trumpism is Politics of Loss and Revenge defines the Trumpism by discussing the constitutes of Trumpers. He claims that the Trumpism is the politics of white nationalism. He believes that Trumpism is “best understood as a reaction to the erosion of white privilege, supremacy, and centrality in American life.” It’s the feeling of loss of the socioeconomic status and centrality which are originated from the racial privilege from history. The words used in Trumpism are constantly referring to grievance and anger. Especially, he points out that the groups of people who are more appealed to Trumpism are those who experienced a sense of loss, such as some white people with relatively low economic status and some people who mostly live in homogeneous areas. And it’s more appealing in older citizens than in younger. The author summarizes the Trumpism as white nationalism.

Truly, there is evidence that the states with dominantly white residential have high supporting rate for Trump. However, what also helps Trump to win the election is that around 30% and Latino and Asian voted for him. Therefore, the Trumpism is way more than the revenge of the white. There are many other factors lead to Trump’s win, while this article mainly focuses on the predominant reason. Besides, I feel like the slogan “make America great again” has some similarities with the slogan “support-the-troops”. “Make America great again” does not explain how great is America before or when is America great, but it evokes people’s sentiments of returning to the less diverse, less global society. The slogan, instead of being a particular policy, appears as a solution to the current problem in many fields so that it’s natural for people to follow it.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 25, 2017 at 8:16 pm
  
  Trump winning 30% of the Latino and Asian vote is what surprised me the most. Are those people who experienced loss of jobs and wanted those jobs back? Or are there other aspects to Trumps campaign than loss and revenge? Still 30% is not doing particularly well in any given demographic, but for a man who constantly ridiculed those people it is surprising. Also I agree that the slogan “Make America Great Again” has ambiguity which allows Trump to appeal to more people.
Michael Paul says:

February 22, 2017 at 1:20 am

Similar to Hofstadler’s Paranoid Style, Engles brings up the idea citizens who are alienated or feel exploited tend to blame others for their losses, mainly referring to the upper class and those in power. Resentment leads to “hatred of our neighbors and fellow citizens” (Engles 12). I see this as a way for the misfortune to place blame on those that have what others are lacking; a scapegoat. This translates directly into politics as those involved use this resentment to gain more power by attacking those who have what others want. The politics of resentment “aims to make these feelings of victimhood politically productive” (Engles 18). This destructive form of democracy is apparent in America today, most recently with the election of President Donald Trump.

While Marshal does not specifically argue that the politics of resentment had a play in the election of Trump, he does argue that some of the reasons relate to the white privileged dislike of other groups, or rather nostalgia for the past when America was less diverse. Marshall alludes to present Americans’ using race as a scapegoat for America’s problems. This resentment was used by Trump during the election with slogans such as “Make America great again,” alluding to an earlier “greater” America that was less diverse, even though there is debate as to whether America was ever greater before. There is a clear overlap between Engles’ politics of resentment and the ideas Marshal brings up in Trumpism is a Politics of Loss and Revenge.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 25, 2017 at 8:50 pm
  
  The resentment in our society is often aimed at the other citizens. This can be seen in our political party system. With the republicans often blaming the democrats and vice versa. It only turns the citizens against each other. However, if we aimed our resentment at the elite. The rich and the powerful in society maybe peoples resentment could be beneficial. The people could inspire change through their resentment.
Virginia Thornton says:

February 22, 2017 at 2:37 am

I thought that these two readings really pointed to something I personally observed during this past election. I grew up in a very rural and conservative place, but then I went to a very diverse and liberal boarding school. So, during the election, half of my Facebook feed was extremely pro-Trump and half was the exact opposite. I saw tons of aggression and rhetoric for and against both sides on a daily basis. While neither of these groups- both of which were composed of good friends of mine- couldn’t agree on a candidate, what they had in common was that neither seemed to be able see why anyone would, or even could, support the opposing candidate. Seeing both sides and living both situations that brought these people to believe what they believe and support who they support, I could see the motivations Marshall’s article discusses. I resented my friends from home for supporting a candidate that I saw as egregious, but I equally resented my friends from high school who bashed Trump supporters by minimizing their views by simply calling them “racists.” Engles discusses a similar idea in his introduction when he talks about his hometown in Kansas. He says he knows that the people in Kansas “are not bad people.” Similarly, I know that the people back home in Alabama are not bad people. The situation we are in now, as Americans, is a result of many factors cumulating into a sentiment that enough people believed in to get Trump elected. As Engles discusses, it is easier to blame other people for the problems we face instead of finding the real root, which is why my Facebook feed has been and will probably continue to be such a battle ground.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 25, 2017 at 8:53 pm
  
  Again i think the issue is resentment is aimed at fellow citizens. The resentment is not aimed towards the people in power who are enacting the policies. I also think it is super interesting that your Facebook feed shows both sides of the argument. Most people who look into politics find themselves only seeing their own side and end up more narrow minded. Many democrats would unfollow republicans because they are clogging their news feed with the other political views. So the fact that your Facebook breaks this norm it is somewhat interesting.
  1. Virginia Thornton says:
    
    April 22, 2017 at 5:32 pm
    
    I agree that the issue is that resentment is aimed at fellow citizens. I think this is type of resentment is what is being portrayed on my Facebook feed. I find it interesting to see both sides of the issue so I can keep my mind open and understand what each side believes.
Madeline Tolsdorf says:

February 22, 2017 at 10:20 am

When I was reading the introduction of “Politics of Resentment” I almost laughed out loud when Engels brought up his hometown of Wichita, Kansas. I wouldn’t quite call Kansas the most conservative state in the country, but being raised in Kansas City I would have to agree that the state is up there on the level of conservatism. A lot of the kids I went to high school with were publicly pro-Trump and were incredibly vocal about it. My high school lacked diversity and mostly were about being publicly conservative than actually taking the time to understand the politics within the election.

Marshall’s reading was somewhat similar to the introduction. The ideas behind the election were at times violent and full of resentment; primarily, as we’ve discussed, the resentment a lot of Trump’s supporters feel toward minorities. Despite this, it is easy for many people to label all of Trump’s supporters under one umbrella – racist. Instead of doing this, Engels proposes we get to the bottom of how America really got to the way it did and find the real root of the political problem within our country.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 25, 2017 at 9:43 pm
  
  Did you have kids in your school speak in support of Hillary or were they mostly quite supporters? I’m curious cause that could serve as an example for the nation. Many people were afraid to openly support Trump since he was so heavily vilified in the media. I know people believed that polls were skewed since Trump supporters didn’t even want to say they were pro-Trump to the polling offices. I also think Engels, and you, personally relating to Kansas ties into what Marshall said about people being influenced by those in proximity with them.
Claire Brown says:

February 22, 2017 at 11:17 am

Reading John Marshall’s article “Trumpism is Politics of Loss and Revenge” I found myself agreeing with a great majority of what was being argued. This article really struck me as a fairly balanced and well researched (not that other articles are not, this one simply stood out as such), given the look at each side of Trumpism and research done in various settings. I definitely think that loss plays a huge role in Trump supporters and the ideology they are so quickly embracing with the rise of Donald Trump’s political influence, however, I do believe that Trump’s individual beliefs regarding race and other issues were as initially widespread as people are lead to believe now. The following article is exactly my philosophy on how Donald Trump was able to pull people in and in turn use their feelings of loss to twist their personal desire for success and reframe their beliefs on an idealistic America. I think that that beliefs held by many Trump supporters in regards to race were not initially their own, but through Trumpism and “jumping all in on his bandwagon,” what the individual initially believed and what Trump promotes became unfortunately and somewhat frighteningly blended.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433554/donald-trump-art-seduction

So, I do believe that at the center of Trumpism is deep seeded loss, however through Trump’s identification of a scapegoat and “plan of revenge” through “Make America Great Again,” many people carry his politics forward at an alarming rate.
1. Corey Beutel says:
  
  February 25, 2017 at 9:46 pm
  
  The article you linked has a lot of weight. Even if someone hates Trump, they have to admit he is good at getting supporters. His show went on for 14 seasons, and about 12 years with him at the head of it. That takes some amount of appeal. Trump is good at pulling people to his cause by quickly degrading those that oppose him. While it may not be the best politics it is effective and Trump has gained popularity as a celebrity and as a politician in much the same way.
Michael Paul says:

February 27, 2017 at 11:50 am

The idea of white privilege is becoming more apparent to me the more we talk about it. I have never noticed the difference between my life compared to a minority in America but it definitely exists. That is likely why Trump was elected presidents as white citizens felt threatened by the increase of different cultures in America. Like Engle said, resentment is at the root of politics, and that is clearly shown with the election of trump. Opposite of many of Engles’ points, however, the resentment was not towards the wealthy, upper class, or elite, rather it was a resentment towards a growing demographic in America. Trump used that resentment for gather votes from the dwindling white majority in the United States.

Trump wasn’t the only candidate to use resentment for political gain. I have noticed that those not persuaded by Trump’s politics have a huge resentment towards trump supporters; a movement in the opposite direction. I find it interesting that no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, every political outlet uses resentment. I find this worrisome that creating resentment is the main tool for political persuasion. Instead of running on a plan that caters towards citizens who support one form of government, political leaders run on plans that harm other political leaders. That is the danger of democracy. As Engles stated, “resentment can then be intensified into an orientation that shapes outlook, motive, and action – pushing politics ever closer to indiscriminate and stupid violence” (Engles 25). Resentment is used to create hate, rather that supporting a political process that caters to what people want, instead of what they don’t want. I can’t see this changing in the near future, especially in America’s democracy, but it is something that is important to be aware of as an educated voter.
Sophia Bruce says:

April 19, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Marshall’s article talks about how Trump’s campaign ran on both reclamation and loss, such as the loss of white supremacy and the reclamation of jobs from immigrants or those who he did not believe deserved the job and/or citizenship. Reclamation, and his slogan “Make America Great Again” shows that he believed America WAS great and needs to be reclaimed. As we begin to read the Politics of Resentment, we can see how Trump held resentment on his shoulders throughout his campaign. It didn’t matter if it was immigrants or proponents for climate change, by creating resent against those groups, he gained support from the white working class and majority. There is a lot of overlap between Politics of Resentment and Marshall’s Trumpism.

Comments are closed.