The Rise of Trump and the Divided States of America
My Story
I lived on the West coast of the US for 18 years, from the mid 80's to the early 2000's . My grandparents had lived in the US for a decade before then, and my grandpa especially was a major fan of the US in the 70's.
Back in the 80's my grandparents could buy a decent house for about $100k, and my parents could do the same, after only a couple years of work. That was gruellingly hard work, many hours of overtime, and months and months without any holidays. It was also manual work, and I remember both my Mom and my Dad coming home exhausted. Break times were strictly controlled, and clocking in and out was mandatory.
Knowing English was necessary, at least to the point where you could understand what needed to be done, and ask questions if you weren't sure of something. Neither my grandparents or parents had perfect English, but considering they came to the country without knowing any, it was impressive the level which they reached without any formal English classes. The question of "Where are you from?" which Americans tend to ask to be friendly got tiring after the 100th time of course, especially if the person asking the question has no idea where the country of origin is.
At some points, when work became too hard, or their bosses treated them unfairly, they serious considered returning to their homeland, but never took action on it. A key barrier to that was that the Socialist state they had come from had taken their passports as they exited the country. So in effect, there was no going back.
I'm giving you this background info, to know that I'm not just someone from the outside looking in, but someone who has lived in the USA, and know how it's changed at least in the period that I've lived there. Since then, it appears to have changed even more, but not in a positive direction.
The start of the Military Industrial Complex
My firm belief is that the US took a wrong turn in the 70's with starting the Vietnam War, and they've repeated that same mistake with the Afghanistan, but especially the Iraq war which was sold under false pretences of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction(WMD's). A falsehood repeated enough times, until it stuck in people's minds and they believed it was the truth, drawing the country into an 8+ year war without a real purpose, or various nefarious purposes, depending on whether you believe conspiracy theories about money, the CIA, etc, some of which may be partially true at least. It certainly did nothing to stabilise the Middle East, quite the opposite in fact.
Many people during each of these wars noticed the egregious mistake their country was making and they protested against it. We were in some of those protest, close to when we left the States, as we realised that no matter how many people protested, the war was going to go ahead regardless.
The Rise of right-wing media
Fox News went on the air in October 1996. I remember my Dad watching it sometimes, and grumbling about the viewpoints presented there. I'd consider myself and most of my family Left leaning on the political spectrum, except maybe for my grandpa who thoroughly hated the Socialist system he had left behind, mainly because of the extreme shortages, and long queues that it had produced.
It's interesting to think that at the time, Fox News was considered far right on the spectrum, but now there are news organisations that are even further to the right on the spectrum, such as NewsMax, OANN, Daily Wire, and the conspiracy-theory peddling Infowars, all of which have become more and more popular. I'm sure the left-wing outlets have likely shifted leftwards as well, but it's interesting to note that CNN, which started in 1980, is still the most popular among liberals, along with NPR(started in 1970), and that NPR is on Trump's chopping block for funding.
Billionaires calling empathy "woke"
Even more concerning, is that Elon Musk, a semi-trillionaire has labelled even Wikipedia as "woke". Think about that, Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia that prides itself on keeping neutral language and providing sources for it's claims, being called out for being too left-leaning. Speaking of Wikipedia, looks like they've compiled all these childish insults into an easy to read list. Not only that, but Musk actively campaigned for and spent hundreds of millions, $290 million to be exact, to ensure that Trump was elected. And he's gone onto involving himself in Europe's politics as well, continuously saying that refugees are to blame for crime in Europe(specifically the UK) and that the far-right AfD party in Germany is the only thing that can save it.
Enter Trump
What I'm trying to say, is that the spectrum in the past 2 or 3 decades has shifted sharply to the right, which allowed a divisive figure such as Trump to win the presidency, not once, but now twice. He didn't win by a landslide, he snuck in, when the country was straddling the 50% fence, in a 2-party system.
To say that Trump is divisive, is an understatement. He's used the term "Radical Left lunatics", "Radical Left Democrats" more times than I care to remember. He's called Democrats "Communists and Fascists"(which is funny cause it's not possible to be both, but I doubt he knows the meaning of either), and has constantly used the moniker "Fake News" for anything that didn't flatter him, or presented him in a negative light. He was born into a rich family, with his Dad being a real estate agent from Germany, who famously gave his son "a small loan of a million dollars" as the Donald Trump later remarked. That statement alone shows how out of touch with the common man he is, as a million dollars, especially back then wasn't a small loan to most people.
There is something to be said for seeing the world in different ways, depending on the lens that you have on, and your life experiences. A poor person will have a different view of the world from a billionaire, There's also a direct relationship between the amount of empathy you have for others, and the location within the political spectrum that you sit on. To me it seems the richer you get, the less empathy you have, and the more you believe that your success is simply a direct result of your actions, not luck or a system that's weighted towards rewarding the rich. No wonder some billionaire supporters are recently railing against empathy as a negative. But regardless of which side you happen to identify with, it's hard to argue that Trump hasn't been a divisive rather than a uniting force.
So if you consider that he's been in power for almost 5 years now(not consecutively, obviously), and constantly putting out divisive rhetoric there's no wonder that the USA is so divided. Of course the Left have joined in as well in the name-calling, but I'd say the Divider-in-Chief is still very much Trump.
It has been even more evident in his second term that he's out to seek retribution for being impeached, and having to stand trial, and for having been convicted on 34 felony counts. I'm guessing in his mind, he's done nothing wrong. He continues to claim that, and I believe he believes it as well. His ethical compass seems to centre around the fact that if it made money, it doesn't matter how it was done, what shady deals were made, or what actual laws were broken. And he quickly drops support for anyone that speaks out against him, regardless for how long they've supported him. Michael Cohen comes to mind here, but more recently even MTG who was his staunchest supporter. Someone remarked that Trump is very much a transactional person, and if you're not making him more money, or especially if you lose him money by making him look bad, he'll instantly turn against you.
The discrediting of media
The scary thing now, as I hinted earlier is left-wing news outlets being shut down, and the constant televised discrediting of news outlets, where when asked a critical question, he'll respond with "What outlet are you from" and if it's anything that's left-of-centre, he will respond with "That's a horrible question" or "I don't talk to fake news". At first glance this seems comical, but it's a concerted effort meant to discredit any news organisation that's critical of him, as he cannot stand criticism.
Meanwhile Trump's family is getting richer and richer. His son-in-law received 2 billion from Qatar, he himself received a plane, and his sons and daughter are near billionaires themselves, and now he's building a ballroom. Here's a detailed rundown of how rich they've become .
According to Forbes magazine "no first family has used the office to make as much money as Donald Trump’s." This begs the question of how much the money he's being offered is being used for bribes to get favours that his billionaire supporters expect from him. And money is the only thing that matters, and ethics be damned, then there will definitely be some expectations from the donors. An interesting anecdote here is the $40 billion that was recently offered to Argentina, solely based on the fact that the president that had crashed the economy there is a right-wing autocrat himself.
The Divided States
So what does the average American think of Trump? Well the country is as divided as ever, with Republican lawmakers at least supporting trump, with some key exceptions. On the actual normal people front, I think a lot of past Republican supporters are starting to come to the realisation, that they don't want a man without ethics that will sell them out if it benefits him. Some, unfortunately many Christians, still see him as some sort of saviour, or at least an outsider that's keen to change the usual politics game for the average man.
That's one thing I can never understand, watching someone get richer and richer, by breaking, or skirting rules, and then think that they're working for you. I do however understand the disillusionment with the system, including Democrats, and the worry about the ever-increasing deficit(38 trillion as of this writing)
In fact I struggle to see the attraction to Trump, certainly at a personal level. The only policy I agree with him at least in concept is being tougher on crime. More on that later. So to gain some insight into other's attraction to him, I asked AI whether those on the Right of the political spectrum generally prefer autocratic rulers. My guess from everything that I've seen so far, was yes. Here's what it had to say
"Open Borders" or just people seeking a better life in a globally connected world?
A key element that I think has driven many towards the right, is the idea that they present as "open borders" Most people, left or right, believe in the sovereignty of nations, but those on the right, attach an additional softer "national identity" element to that. They then take that a step further and either introduce race, religion, and/or language, or a combination of the three to try and define it. And for the right in the US at least, it's mainly white, Christian, English speaking only that they're willing to easily tolerate. The rest of the population is viewed with disdain as invaders. This is not to say that illegal immigration isn't a problem in the US. In fact, the problem has gotten worse over the years, and reached a peak in 2023. But to say "open borders" is certainly an exaggeration, beyond mere hyperbole.
The truth of the matter is that the world is globally connected, and people will choose the country that provides the best living standards, while also providing a safe place to raise their families. In that sense, it's quite normal that people from faraway places choose to travel to your country, and they may not look like you, or speak your language perfectly.
Now some would say, they're fine with legal immigration, regardless of the origin country, they just don't like those that break the laws and illegally enter a country. I, for the most part would agree with that, crossing a border illegally certainly is jumping the queue, and disadvantaging those that often wait years to be able to get a residency permit.
The case become even more contested, when the subject becomes refugees or asylum seekers. These people, often from war-torn countries, need immediate housing and help, or they may, in many cases die in their country of origin. Ukrainian refugees have been a recent example, but many people have been fleeing various countries that often have unstable, often dictatorial power structures, or previously dictatorial structures that have fallen into anarchy and destruction, often because of wars or foreign influence.
The people caught up in this type of situation are for the most part, very normal everyday people caught up in a horrible scenario, where they've had to flee their homeland. Unfortunately among them there will be a very small percentage of criminals as well, just as in any population. When these criminals commit crimes, it will draw media attention, and the right-wing especially will fixate on these events, and judge the entire population in the image of those few.
What does the POTUS think? Well, he doesn't even seem to know the difference between asylum seekers, and those coming from a mental asylum. Or maybe he intentionally conflates the two. Either way, it creates a narrative that all foreigners are evil and there to do harm, which is not the case at all.
Unfortunately dictatorial types love to blame minorities for all of the world's problems, and their solution, instead of fixing the systematic problems that lead to a refugee situation, is to deport them all. So the newest trend in a very divided country has been to send in the National Guard, or ICE or both to "get rid of criminals" . If they were to just do that, I would support them fully. If they took the worst of the violent criminals, and executed them, I would support that.Imagine a left-of-centre liberal saying that, but I truly believe that a lot of society's problems are due to recidivist crime.
ICE raids in Democrat Cities
What have ICE under Trump's direction done instead? They've gone into large cities, with Democratic governors, and have snatched people off of farms, and from Home Depots, working people with families that have been in the US in some cases for decades. In a few cases, they've even snatched citizens off the street and held them without trial until they could prove they were citizens. This is among scenes of tear gas, and flash-bang grenades, one infamous one where a priest got hit in the head by one. And their defence for doing all this? They're protecting federal buildings !
It's often said that dictators and strongmen start by pointing to an existential threat, and then proclaiming that they're the only ones that can save the population from that threat. And it seems to work on at least parts of the population, mainly those that are often xenophobic, or scared of races and religions other than their own.
The other key part of the equation is the current financial situation of the US. While the number of billionaires had rapidly expanded, along with their wealth, the prices for the average American have gone up significantly. Meanwhile the National Debt reached 38 trillion dollars in October of this year(2025). Even more interesting was the rate of increase, which is far from linear. The last trillion dollars was added in just 71 days!
So increasing debt, and a cost-of-living crisis, combined with staggering amounts of wealth inequality that's pushing the bottom 25% into poverty, even if they're working one or more jobs, combined with xenophobia, has produced desire among especially the right, for a strongman or even king to come along and fix the problems unilaterally. The Trump admin even "joked" about him becoming a king.
The reason I put "joked" in quotes, is because I firmly believe that Trump does have dictatorial ambitions, which are very evident as he meets other dictators in the world, like Putin or Orban, and even Kim Jong Un.
In another attempt at "joking" he shared an AI video of him flying a plane in a crown, dumping "brown liquid"(we all know it's meant to represent shit) onto American citizens heads that protested him in the No Kings protests. Is this type of humour befitting the honor or prestige of the office of the President, any president? To me, it's tasteless, childish bullying humour.
In this scenario the culprit that's being blamed has shifted to Muslims. The level of xenophobia, and outright racism that's resulted in some Republican congressmen calling the recent people's advocate candidate, Zohran Mandami not just a communist, but also an Islamist and a jihadist. How is that acceptable public speech from a US congressman?!
I've touched on this above when I mentioned the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars. These wars the US had started, and whether you agree with the rationale or not, whether it was true or manufactured, the end result has been millions of displaced people, eg refugees, which ironically then are blamed/marginalised because they want to escape the warzone or destroyed cities/infrastructure they find themselves in.
In 1990's many US companies quietly moved their operations to China.I remember having conversations about this, and my libertarian friend commenting that it was a good thing, as companies should be choosing lower-cost manufacturing centres, so they can maximise their profit by minimising their cost. But one thing he, and most of the US didn't consider is the bigger picture of the impact of skill and manufacturing expertise moving overseas, and how hard that would be to get back once it's gone.
It's not just that the new generation no longer has the skills and would need to be retrained, but it's also that it's cheaper to manufacture something, if the parts are also being manufactured in the same country, and don't need to be imported. So to rebuild the US as a manufacturing centre for electronics or cars for example, would be a massive undertaking, and because the cost would be considerably higher(easily double), as the labour laws are better in the US than China, the product may be prohibitively expensive for consumers.
Well firstly I don't think anything will change, until a new Republican candidate takes over from Trump. In fact, until then, things will likely get worse as he digs his heels in again, especially when it comes time again to leave the White House.
Well, both parties should be trying their best to ensure that they're working for common working Americans, not special interests or those that keep handing them money. So in that sense, any donations to politicians or their direct relatives would have to be disclosed. I would make it mandatory for all politicians to disclose their net worth, and tax returns for review by the public.
It would also be important to prominently display the country of origin for any accounts that regularly post political content on social media. This would help curb the election interference that's plaguing not just the US, but often European countries as well.
Finally back to my story
That is a hard decision, because we still have family there, and we love the National Parks and many of the universities there, and we love the idea of grand open spaces still, but pro-billionaire, anti-worker, anti-immigrant policies that are currently being forced on the whole country, even those that don't agree with it, have forced our hand, so at least until Trump is in power, I don't think we'll be moving back. Even after he's gone, it will take a long time to clean up the destruction that's been left behind.
Comments
Post a Comment