[America's Future 2030: The Future of American Hegemony: Where is America Headed After Trump?] ① The Emergence of White Nationalist Identity Politics and the Future of America

Editor's Note

As the first report in the "America's Future 2030" special commentary series, a working paper analyzing the white nationalist identity politics that emerged around the time of President Trump's appearance and forecasting America's future politics has been published. The author argues that the dissatisfaction of white Americans with immigration issues, which has been growing since the 1990s, stems not merely from economic threats but from a perception that traditional American values and the status of European whites are fading. The author posits that the emergence of Trump as a Republican candidate served as the catalyst for the full activation of this white nationalist identity politics. The expansion of the Trump movement was enabled by online media, which provided an "opportunity window" for Republican voters critical of the political establishment's failure to firmly address illegal immigration and for white supremacists to coalesce their opinions. To counter this situation, the author emphasizes the need for the Democratic Party to develop appropriate policy alternatives addressing the concerns of low-income, less-educated white workers and to thoroughly examine white dissatisfaction with immigration policy.

※ The following is the introduction to this working paper. For the full text, please refer to the attached file below.

I. Statement of the Problem

This paper aims to analyze the content of "white nationalist" identity politics that emerged around the appearance of President Trump in 2016 and, based on this analysis, to forecast the future of American politics. To this end, the paper will first explain the origins and background of identity politics related to immigration in the United States. It will then examine the activation of white nationalism brought about by Trump's candidacy, and finally, offer a projection of the near future of American politics. Before commencing this discussion, the paper will first explore two perspectives on America's national identity: its ideological definition and its folk/cultural definition. It will then explain how the argument for identifying "true Americans" based on the latter perspective has strengthened since the 1990s, leading to the rise of white nationalist identity politics in 2016.

Since its founding, the United States has been a nation that developed based on pluralism, with various ethnic groups coexisting. Since the 19th century, this principle of pluralism has been underpinned by the fact that America is a multi-ethnic and multicultural nation composed of diverse immigrants. In the case of the United States, comprised of immigrants, not only Protestant Western European immigrants but also Catholic immigrants from Eastern, Northern, and Southern Europe increased in the 19th century, leading to various conflicts in urban areas where these new immigrants settled between the Anglo-Protestant earlier settlers and the newly arrived Catholic immigrants. Later, Chinese immigration occurred during the construction of the transcontinental railroad, followed by increased immigration from various Asian countries in the 20th century and a surge in immigration from South America since the 1990s. As a nation of immigrants, the United States has traditionally formed its national identity based on citizens' commitment to liberal democratic values such as individual liberty and equality, human rights, limited government, and free markets, rather than on ethnic and cultural elements. Positing an ethnic mainstream culture in a multicultural nation could be perceived as cultural pressure on minority ethnic groups and non-white folk groups. Therefore, America's national identity has been shaped around the American Creed, and whether a member of the American polity is a "true American" has been determined by their commitment to this American Creed (Huntington 1983).

However, while acknowledging this national identity based on the American Creed, an argument emerged that this creed itself is meaningless if divorced from the political, religious, and cultural traditions of European Protestant civilization. The reasoning was that a multicultural nation would ultimately become a multi-creed nation, and thus, the American Creed would only hold meaning when connected to the traditions of European Protestant culture; otherwise, the political value of the American Creed would be too fragile to maintain national cohesion (Schlesinger 1998; Huntington 2004). The core of this argument was that political creeds unsupported by a civilizational and cultural foundation cannot be sustained long-term and cannot, in themselves, become the core element of national identity.

As these arguments gradually gained traction, the assertion eventually arose that national identity should be defined by a sense of belonging to the "national group" that forms the mainstream culture. This perspective argued that adherence to or commitment to values and principles such as liberty, equality, and human rights is insufficient to maintain national identity. Instead, national identity should be defined by a sense of belonging centered on the mainstream group that constitutes the nation—in the case of the United States, European whites or, more broadly, whites of European descent. In the American context, this logic implied that a sense of belonging to the national group rooted in the Christian civilization of European whites, which has been the mainstream in American society since its founding, should be the determining factor of American identity. This argument posited that social bonds sustaining America and the true foundation of national identity are strengthened when a sense of belonging centered on white, European, and Christian—or more narrowly, white, Western European, and Protestant—identity is maintained. The counterargument was that without a shared reverence for national symbols and rituals through strong cultural and ethnic bonds centered on the mainstream national group, adherence to the superficial principles of the American Creed is vulnerable to being replaced by other values or principles at any time.

These arguments ultimately create a logic that distinguishes between groups that exhibit a strong sense of belonging to the national group and those that do not, leading the former to discriminate against and exclude the latter. Inevitably, there is tension between the "true Americans" who feel a strong sense of belonging to the mainstream white population and the "marginalized Americans" who feel this sense of belonging less strongly, leading to efforts by the former to discriminate against and exclude the latter (Theiss-Morse 2009; Kinder and Kam 2009). The in-group of the former, the "true Americans," rejects the out-group of the latter, the marginalized Americans. The latter must either accept their position as second-class citizens, which they cannot change due to immutable ancestry, or constantly strive to assimilate into the national group. Otherwise, they must either achieve victory through struggle with the national group or return to their country of origin. However, given that it is virtually impossible for these marginalized Americans, the out-group, to overcome the mainstream status of European whites, the in-group, minority ethnic groups and immigrants, the out-group, are compelled to form subcultures within the dominant white culture. In such a scenario, there is no room for social pluralism or political correctness.

The emergence of Trump, a candidate who accurately grasped the grievances of white Americans, particularly low-income and less-educated whites, regarding immigration issues in 2015 and took a strong anti-immigration stance with fervent rhetoric, was a phenomenon rooted in anxieties about white marginalization due to minority ethnic groups and immigrants, and concerns about the "California-ization" of America. Trump's appearance and his slogans such as "America First" or "Make America Great Again" were indirect expressions of these white anxieties and grievances amidst the Clinton-era Democratic Party's consistent pursuit of a cosmopolitan immigration policy, globalization, and the wave of "political correctness" that the Democratic Party wielded as an infallible tool. Against this backdrop, Trump made immigration his core policy promise, successfully mobilizing white voters, and ultimately ascended to the presidency.

■ Author: Son Byung-kwonProfessor of Political Science and International Relations at Chung-Ang University. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan. His main research areas include American politics, U.S. foreign policy, and comparative legislative and party politics. Recent publications include "Is American Congressional Politics Still a Model of Democracy?: The U.S. Congress Captured by Party Politics" (2018) and "Understanding the Emergence of American Nationalism in the Trump Era" (2017).

■ Editor: Lee Young-hyun EAI Research Fellow

Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 207) ylee@eai.or.kr

[EAI Commentary] is a commentary series designed to provide a platform for discourse where experts from various fields can offer in-depth analyses and policy recommendations on major domestic and international issues. Please cite the source when quoting. EAI is an independent research institution independent of any partisan interests. The arguments and opinions presented in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not attributable to EAI and represent solely the views of the respective authors.

Attachment: 1.Son Byung-kwon_The Emergence of White Nationalist Identity Politics and the Future of America.pdf