A few thoughts on Trump’s self-identification as a “nationalist.” Yes, the term has multiple meanings, some more benign than others (my research has shown this). But Trump’s usage is deliberate and refers to ethno-nationalism rooted in social exclusion. How do we know this?
Trump’s campaign discourse consisted of a mix of populist, authoritarian, and blatantly ethno-nationalist appeals. His administration threw populism by the wayside but doubled down on nationalism & authoritarianism (think travel ban, family separation, threats to dem norms, etc.)
He consistently uses ethno-nationalism to re-energize his base, esp. during pivotal moments (hence the “caravans” tweet before the midterms). Plenty of research has shown that his supporters love this stuff. But we knew this before his “nationalist” comment. So why did he say it?
Because it’s another norm violation. It’s about bringing the fringe into the mainstream. And it serves the same function as his endless lies: it proves to his (white) supporters that he represents *them*. See this paper by @ohahl, M. Kim, and @ewzucker: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
But the “nationalist” comment has another feature typical of Trump’s gaslighting: plausible deniability. After all Gandhi was a nationalist too! Right-wing pundits have seized on this preposterous argument. It’s disingenuous and completely ignores Trump’s consistent track record
So, did Trump mean that he’s an “economic nationalist” (i.e., trade protectionist) or an “ethno-nationalist”? Well, (a) it’s both because the two ideas are fused in his discourse and (b) it doesn’t matter b/c his supporters will instinctively recognize both meanings.
My experimental research has shown that once these ideas are fused in discourse, they become substitutable. Exposure to (pure) anti-elite populist claims results in greater antipathy toward minorities. That’s how dog-whistles work. And frankly, this is more of a bullhorn. /end
