Download Nationalism, the United States, and Cyclical Crises

Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
Nationalism, the United States, and Cyclical Crises
Jan. 9, 2017 What is causing the rise in nationalism in the US?
Originally produced on Jan. 2, 2017 for Mauldin Economics, LLC
George Friedman and Allison Fedirka
In the coming year, the United States will remain the overwhelmingly dominant geopolitical
power in the global system, and President-elect Donald Trump will be at the helm. His
presidency will mark a turning point as the first significant shift towards nationalism at the
center of the US political system.
As explained in our 2017 forecast, this rise in nationalism is a global trend, and one of three
critical consequences of the 2008 financial crisis that will play a pivotal role in shaping
geopolitics in 2017. (The other two are economic stagnation and instability in export-dependent
countries.) Its rise stems from the rejection of the internationalist model that has dominated
international relations since the end of World War II.
In places like Europe, it is easy to see why internationalism is losing favor. It is less obvious for
the US. The European Union (EU) put in place policies and regulations that prioritized the Union’s
survival over national interests, and this inherently creates conflicts of interest between the bloc
and member states.
This was exacerbated by the 2008 financial crisis. Member countries saw their economies crash
while their hands remained tied by Brussels, which was slow to act and offered a narrow range
of Band-Aid solutions.
1/4
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
Unlike the EU, the US government does not answer to any regional blocs or international powers.
And yet, like the EU, the US will continue to see a strong rise in nationalism in the coming year.
Our forecast states that internal stresses will be reflected in US foreign policy, one of the few
areas where the president has a say.
While our forecast explains what these effects on foreign policy will look like, here we explain
the less obvious forces causing nationalism to rise in the US.
Cycles of Crises
Historically, the US has experienced some type of internal crisis approximately every 50 years.
The book, “The Next 100 Years,” details the nature of these past crises and their paths toward
resolution. Since its founding, the US has confronted an economic and social crisis every 50
years—the most recent starting with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Approximately a decade before a crisis starts, new socio-economic problems begin to emerge.
Trump’s election does not mark the arrival of a crisis, but it does foreshadow the anticipated
arrival of one in the 2020s.
The defining internal economic problem confronting the US today is a decline in the middle
class’s purchasing power. According to our calculations, the take-home pay for a median income
earner—after taxes and other deductibles, and assuming employer-provided health care—totals
about $3,600 a month. At current interest rates, that would be enough to purchase a home and
a car, and maintain them without savings.
A worker in the lower-middle class would earn about $2,000 a month after taxes and with
employer-provided health care. That person would no longer be able to afford more than rent for
an apartment. A generation ago, members of the middle class could not only buy a home, they
also could enjoy an occasional indulgence, vacation, or superfluous purchase.
Political Shifts
One of the key groups most affected by this decline in purchasing power is the white working
class. While it remains the single largest ethnic and social group in the country, this group found
itself increasingly lacking in political representation.
Political party lines put in place by the New Deal coalition saw the Democratic Party represent
workers and the Republican Party the upper-middle class. But an electoral shift that started in
the South in the 1960s sparked culture wars between parties, and Democrats cut ties to one of
their former bases: blue-collar workers without college degrees.
It is reasonable to expect that these grievances would influence this demographic’s voter
2/4
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
behavior. Trump astutely tuned in to this demographic and used it as his base to win the
election. It should be noted that any politician—it didn’t have to be Trump—who could
successfully appeal to this group would have been a strong candidate in the November election.
The rise of US nationalism reflects the fact that extended economic dysfunction has inevitable
political consequences. These consequences play out at the intersection of the emerging
domestic socio-economic crisis and global economic stagnation. From 1991 to 2008, the
accepted wisdom was that the more efficient an exporter nation, the stronger its economy. In
reality, exporters are only as strong as demand.
The 2008 financial crisis challenged core ideas that promoted the benefits of free trade. The
crisis’s other two major consequences were economic stagnation in advanced industrial
countries and increased instability and insecurity in export-dependent countries. Post-crisis,
export-dependent economies were no longer strong but rather weakening and vulnerable.
The Role of Free Trade
Free trade now must prove its worth, as protectionism—the economic expression of
nationalism—gains momentum. Both the World Trade Organization and the International
Monetary Fund have noted a decrease in world trade levels and assume there is a direct
correlation between growth in trade and growth in GDP.
The relationship between trade and GDP is clear, but no one has actually figured out what that
relationship is. A 2008 study by the US International Trade Commission (USITC) concludes that
“all the empirical analysis” confirms a link—but none of the empirical analysis points to where
the causality lies. The USITC study also points out that for developing countries, whether trade
liberalization helps or hurts remains unclear.
The balance between free trade and protectionism has been a major political issue in the US
since the country’s founding. While the US economy remains relatively protected from a decline
in exports—which account for only 12.6% of GDP—the crisis created space for a re-evaluation of
trade relationships.
These trade conversations tied directly to the growing US domestic debate over declining
purchasing power and standards of living. Moving to the forefront of national conversations were
the questions of job loss from industrial shifts associated with free trade, depressed wages due
to global competitiveness, and loss of market share for domestically produced products.
Looking Ahead
When self-interest becomes the focal point of an argument, it is likely to spread to other
dimensions of society and politics. The discussion about economic survival bleeds into larger
3/4
Geopolitical Futures
Keeping the future in focus
https://geopoliticalfutures.com
national questions about immigration policy, military commitments abroad, trade agreement
terms, and foreign aid—among others.
Furthermore, populations will head towards the path that provides the best advantage. Today,
nationalism looks increasingly attractive. For those who suffered after the 2008 crisis,
internationalism has not only failed to solve the world’s current political, security, and economic
crises, but it’s also seen as the cause of those problems.
This shift towards nationalism in the US should not, however, be overstated. In the US, and at a
global level, nationalism may not simply triumph. But this requires internationalism to reinvent
itself in a way that seems like a viable alternative. Trump’s election is the first step in this
extended process.
Except in the event of war, foreign policy shifts do not happen quickly in the US. The US is
undergoing internal stresses that will inevitably be reflected in its foreign policy, which is further
explained in our 2017 forecast.
4/4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)