The British referendum to leave the European Union and Donald Trump's election as president of the United States marked the beginning of right-wing populism in 2016. Like Thatcher and Reagan in 1979-1980, Britain and the United States are once again leading the political trend in the West. In 2017, major European countries such as the Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy entered the rhythm of the general election one after another, and people passively waited for one black swan after another to fly out with trepidation. With the continuous fermentation of the effect of the 2016 refugee wave, the frequent occurrence of recent terrorist attacks, and especially the strong promotion of President Trump's victory in the United States, 2017 is destined to be the year of the rampant right-wing populist political ideology in the West. Moreover, regardless of whether the far-right leaders of various countries win the election or not, the fall of right-wing populism in Western politics as a whole will be a long-term political phenomenon that will last for many years.
Why the West? Why now? In the face of the surging tide of right-wing populism, the question raised by the famous American political commentator Fared Zakaria is very representative, revealing the doubts and worries in the hearts of almost everyone in the international political and ideological circles. In fact, before Trump's victory, few people thought that the wind of right-wing populism in the West would be so strong, and the collective misjudgment of the US election results by Chinese academics profoundly shows that people are seriously underestimating the changes in public sentiment in the United States and Europe. Since then, although phenomenological analysis and political predictions about populism have become overwhelming, they have generally remained at the level of fact-based or hindsightly phenomenal analysis. The US Democrats, who lost the election, continue to be entangled in various external factors and still do not understand where they lost. Now is the time to analyze the origins of right-wing populism and to sort out the theory.
This paper explores the causes and nature of right-wing populism today, examines its socio-cultural roots and theoretical foundations, analyzes its trend and future development, and attempts to provide a theoretical answer and thinking approach to Zakaria's question.
1. The origin and nature of right-wing populism in the West
Why is right-wing populism rising and wreaking havoc in the West today? How did this political upheaval happen? Identifying the nature of right-wing populism in the West today is the basic basis for us to predict the social and political changes and trends in the contemporary West.
The so-called populism, with elitism as its opposite, conceptually refers to an anti-elite, anti-establishment social and cultural trend of thought. Populism has a long history, typified by the "populists" in Russia in the 19th century and the People's Party movement in the United States in the late 19th century. Examples of reality are the "counter-culture" movement of Western youth in 1968, the anti-globalization movement led by the Western left after 1998, the populist movement of the Latin American left represented by Chavez, and the "Tea Party" movement and the "Occupy" movement in the United States since the new century. In fact, all kinds of mass movements characterized by grassroots "rebellions" in history, including various socialist movements, ultra-nationalist movements, egalitarian movements, etc., have all contained a large number of populist mobilization elements.
The common denominator of all forms of populism is its plebeian nature – the legitimacy of the political movements and political systems advocated in the name of "the people". However, populism has a colorful political spectrum, both left and right, but it does not constitute a unified ideology. It lacks universal core values and does not share common political and moral aspirations. In the real world, Sanders and Trump in the United States, Alexis Tsipras in Greece and Le Pen in France, Chavez in Venezuela and Perrin in the "Tea Party" are clearly representatives of very different populist currents and movements. In the foreground and behind the various populist demands, there are different ideological supports and political goals. Therefore, populism is a typical political "chameleon", which can be combined with a variety of political theories to form populist movements and currents of thought of a very different nature.
It should also be noted that these various forms of populism, although not rational expressions, can vent social sentiments. The common and greatest utility of populism is that it is a indicator of political and economic crises, a barometer of social sentiment, and an unconventional expression of public opinion. It reflects the anxiety within a society and the underlying intensification of social contradictions in the face of crisis, expresses the social conditions and public opinion that cannot be expressed by conventional democratic channels and platforms, and sends political warnings to people in the form of extremism.
Needless to say, right-wing populism is the main manifestation of populism in the West today. The combination of right-wing liberalism and populism is a prominent feature of the current tide of right-wing populism. In other words, today's right-wing populism is nothing more than a "backdoor listing" of right-wing liberalism, a populist trend and movement dominated by right-wing liberalism, that is, political conservatism. What is particularly striking is that this time it is the non-mainstream, non-establishment, and atypical alt-liberal right-wing conservatives who are carrying the banner of right-wing liberalism. Once upon a time, populism was the preserve of the left, and the left-led anti-globalization movement in Europe and the United States was on the rise. However, in just over a decade, the tide has reversed, and the tide of right-wing populism has flooded both sides of the Atlantic almost instantly. This is undoubtedly a major right-leaning turn in public sentiment in Western society. In this sense, it can be said that the sudden rise of right-wing populism in Western politics in 2016 is no accident, and has its own inherent logic. To put it simply, the right-wing populism of the West today is a rebellion at the bottom, dissatisfied with the elites, unbearable, and demanding a change in the status quo. This time, populist ideology has changed dramatically, signaling that conservative liberalism has once again prevailed in the West. This trend expresses the long-standing grievances of ordinary people in the West against the establishment elites, and is an early warning of crisis expressed in an unconventional populist way.
The convergence of right-wing populism from a trickle to today's monstrous wave is not only a temporary stress response to the current flow of refugees and terrorist attacks in the Middle East, but also a fundamental concern about the long-term crisis lurking behind it. In the final analysis, it is the relative decline of the West's power in the process of globalization over the past 30 years that has led to a series of economic, political, and cultural crises in Western society. Specifically, the development of globalization over the past 30 years has promoted progress in various fields around the world, but also given rise to many new problems, which objectively pose new challenges to the Western world, which dominated the global order in the past. This challenge is due to external shocks triggered by changes and restructuring of the world economic and political order, and second, to the new polarization and social rift that have formed within Western countries. What is even more serious is that the failure of the Western elite democratic system in the face of these two new challenges has deepened the depth and intensity of the crisis in the West.
As far as external challenges are concerned, today the West has to face the economic rise of the emerging economies represented by China, which has grown and strengthened in the midst of globalization, and is also forced to face the threat of terrorism from Islamic religious extremist forces and the civilizational impact and cultural challenges brought about by the rapid expansion of the world's Muslim population. Over the past 30 years, especially since the 2008 international financial crisis, the self-confidence of Western people in civilization has been declining day by day. With the exception of a few wealthy countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, "old Europe" has fallen seriously behind in the information industry revolution and the take-off of the world economy, and has been reduced to a second-rate country as a whole. After the victory in the Cold War, the United States did not maintain its excellent situation of "one superpower monopoly," but on the contrary, it damaged both its hard power and soft power in the continuous campaign of "anti-terrorism," and the Americans' status as the "boss" and their psychology were seriously damaged. The "restructuring of the world" caused by dramatic economic, political, and cultural changes is no longer just a rhetoric of theorists, but has evolved into a grim objective reality.
Within Western societies, the increase in wealth after more than 30 years of globalization has not benefited all people, but has instead created a new polarization. Especially after the 2008 international financial crisis, the phenomenon of social polarization has further developed, wealth has been concentrated in the new technology elites of the financial and information industries, and the absolute income level of the traditional middle class, including the working class, which is the pillar of social stability in the West, has not increased but declined. The absolute number of the middle class is decreasing, and their share of the population of Western countries is also declining. Ordinary people in the West have endured the pain of the economic crisis, facing increasing pressure on employment, education, housing, health care and pensions, and Europeans are generally dissatisfied with the social realities of long-standing high unemployment, deteriorating law and order, and political corruption scandals. Moreover, from New York to Berlin, from London to Paris, Islamic terrorist attacks against the West are frequenting in the heart of capitalism. The "March 22" terrorist attacks in London and the "April 20" terrorist attacks in Paris represent the new normal of terrorist activities, and terrorist attacks will be like a shadow in the daily life of Westerners in the future. Threats to social security, economic security, political security, and even personal security have brought the security anxiety of Western people to a critical state.
In the face of external challenges and internal crises, the Western elite has not responded forcefully to the backlog of contradictions for a long time, and has been slow to come up with solutions and policy measures to adjust social redistribution, alleviate the domestic security crisis, and reorganize the world on an international scale. The sluggish response of Western elites to the crisis and their insensitivity and incompetence to the suffering of the people led to a concentrated explosion of anger in the form of right-wing populism in the wake of the 2016 European refugee horde. Still water flows deeply. As a deep response to the crisis in the West, right-wing populist ideologies emerged. It is the inaction of Western elites that has contributed to the strong rise of right-wing populism in the West. The essence of the rise of the right-wing populist tide lies in the fact that the Western people have created a rebellion against the entire Western elite democratic system.
Therefore, we logically see two new landscapes that have emerged in Western party politics since 2016: first, the liberal right has become the representative of "the people"; The second is the overall aversion of the Western masses to the establishment elite. Generally speaking, in traditional Western party politics, the left and center-left are usually representatives of the middle class and the middle and lower classes of working people, while the right-wing and center-right are usually representatives of capital and power. And now we see that the first spectacle in the populist trend of the Western right today is prominent, and the center-right and even the far-right parties in the West have become the spokesmen of the traditional middle class and the people at the bottom. Norbert Hofer of the Liberal Party, the far-right populist candidate who lost less than 1% of the vote in Austria's election, choked at the narrowly defeated former Greens leader Alexander van der Bellen: "You have the upper class elite behind you, and I have the people with me." In the words of the Western media, Van der Bellen's victory advantage was "as fine as a hair." In his inaugural address to the 45th President of the United States on January 20, 2017, Trump declared: "Today we are not just transferring power from one government to another, or from one party to another, but to return power from the hands of the Washington elite to the people," and "January 20, 2017 will once again be the day when the people become the masters of the country." Geert Wilders, the candidate of the far-right Liberal Party, who has been dubbed the "Trump of the Netherlands," said on Twitter that "the people are taking back their country, and the Netherlands will do the same." French far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen described the French election as a "global popular uprising", and she even has the support of a large number of French youth. The middle and lower classes supported the right, with the exception of 1979, when British workers voted for Margaret Thatcher of the Conservative Party, a similar situation that rarely occurred in the post-war period.
The second landscape is more conspicuous, at present, people in Western countries favor "political amateurs", preferring to choose figures who have nothing to do with the traditional establishment of the two parties to hold political posts. The dislike of the Western masses towards the traditional political elites of the two parties has reached the point of "talking about the big people and despising them", and anti-elite, anti-expert, and anti-bureaucracy has become fashionable in the West. Western countries now face the standard "Tacitus trap". In France, Macron, which broke away from the mainstream of the two major political parties, the Socialist Party and the "Alliance for the Defense of the Republic", became the "dark horse" of this election; In Austria, the traditional center-left Social Democratic Party and the center-right People's Party were both eliminated in the first round of the general election and did not make it to the "final"; In the United States, orthodox bureaucratic politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties are unpopular with voters, and Sanders and Trump, who have nothing to do with the establishment and have no political experience, are popular. Across Europe, the traditional party politics pattern dominated by the center-left, center-right is collapsing. It is foreseeable that in this round of European election season, a new situation in which right-wing populist parties come to power and non-mainstream parties are in power will frequently emerge, and evolve into the new political normal in the next decade or two.
Phenomenally, people in the West who have lived under democracy for many years are now shrouded in polarization, as if "only the extreme is the right way, and all the golden mean is shameful cowardice." "The people's involuntary rejection of the establishment elite is a mistake of the elite and a sorrow of the elite. The most ironic thing is that the ruling left-wing Social Democrats in Europe are abandoned and spurned by the people. They have embraced a new middle class over the past decade or so, relying on a diverse minority group and moving away from traditional social foundations. Today they pay a heavy political price for the "third way". The "third way" was originally designed as a set of theories and policies for the Social Democrats to adapt themselves and to help people adapt to globalization, but in practice overcorrected their left-wing traditions. The traditional middle class and the underclass, who have been ignored and betrayed by it, have turned to populist parties without a voice from the political system for a long time. However, the general public in the West has become completely tired of the endless party strife between the two major political parties in the past decade or so in the face of convergence of policies and ideas, and is disappointed and even despaired by the ability of the elites of the two party establishments to resolve the crisis, thus viewing the elites as incompetent and incompetent people who cannot be trusted, and showing no respect for all the establishments. One of the characteristics of today's right-wing populism is that it is not a single national trend and movement, but an anti-institutionalized political and ideological trend that pervades the entire Western world.
Compared with the numbness and incompetence of the establishment elites, the key to the fact that the non-mainstream liberal right wing has been able to lead the trend of Western right-wing populism is that it conforms to the extreme public grievances and popular sentiments in the West reflected by right-wing populism. This sentiment can be summed up as follows: Western people 1) have a double sense of insecurity about their own economy and person; 2) a sense of crisis about the direction of the country's development and even the future of Western civilization; and 3) a sense of despair and disgust with the incompetent democratic establishment elite. During Obama's eight years in office, the U.S. national deficit has doubled, the Islamic State has risen, and the U.S. economy and security threats have continued unabated. In particular, the influx of refugees in Europe in 2016 and the normalization of terrorist attacks have strained the security nerves of Western people to the extreme. It can be said that the non-mainstream liberal right-wing has taken the pulse of the right-wing populist trend of thought among the Western people, and expressed the strong public demand of right-wing populism on security concerns, crisis awareness, and the future of civilization. Therefore, some Western media say that Brexit in the United Kingdom and Trump in the United States are a world-class anti-trend movement. It is the depth of the crisis in the West and the intensity of the anxiety and demands for change among Western citizens that reveal the true roots of the rise of right-wing populism. Otherwise, it would not explain why Cameron won the Scottish Brexit referendum but lost the big bet on the Brexit referendum; Why did Hillary Clinton lose a winning campaign in the U.S. presidential election, when the election budget was greatly exceeded, the poll results were leading all the way, the mainstream media was strongly supported across the board, and the expert predictions were all optimistic? Otherwise, it would not explain why right-wing populism has evolved into a "transatlantic phenomenon" that has ravaged both continents, Europe and the United States. The emergence of a right-wing populist tide in the West is the result of the evolution of the logic of the crisis, and it is also the result of popular sentiment.
The non-mainstream liberal right, represented by Trump, has been able to lead the way in right-wing populism because they have pointed directly to the "real problems" of the West, waved the banner of "change", and offered different and subversive solutions. In the presidential election, Trump started in the place where the traditional establishment was entangled and stopped, not only put forward the shocking slogan of opposing "political correctness" and reasserting "Americanism", but also came up with a whole set of strategic ideas for reviving the United States: the strategic goal of "making America great again"; the strategic layout of "America First"; A series of strategic measures, such as "re-employing the United States", "re-making the United States safe", "hiring Americans, buying American goods", and "bringing American companies home". The strategy covers specific issues such as politics, economy and trade, taxation, labor, employment, health care, immigration and counter-terrorism, and seeks to comprehensively reform and rebuild at the policy, legal and institutional levels. Although this strategy was flawed in the election campaign and in the early years of administration, it was welcomed by the "silent majority" because it was a clear blow to the nail on the head to solve the real problems of the United States, concerned about the living conditions of ordinary people, cared for the nationalist cultural sentiments of the American masses and the patriotic general power complex, and gave the people hope for "change." Trump's strategy broke the long-standing political deadlock that the mainstream of the two establishment factions could not break through, and launched a new political agenda; It has adjusted the direction of social development in the United States and opened up a new path for national development. As a result, the 2016 U.S. election has been called the "Trump Revolution." Underestimating or misjudging the political nature and cultural value of this "revolution" is precisely an important reason why the pro-establishment factions of the two parties, especially the leftists, lost their election and lost power.
All of this suggests that the wave of right-wing populism led by the non-mainstream liberal right-wing in the West is a major shift driven from the bottom up. Therefore, the fundamental question is not whether there is a Trump in the United States, not how many black swans can fly out of this round of European elections, but that the crisis still exists, the public sentiment cannot be reversed, and the tide has been formed. Even without Trump and Le Pen, whoever comes to power and who governs must respond to the new trend, complete the big change, and achieve the big change. In fact, a small number of people of insight in the West have realized this. Although Zakaria, who asked the question, did not answer his own question correctly, he did understand that Trump could represent a broader and more enduring political agenda; Endorse the judgment of American political scientist Justin Gerst that Trumpism will last longer than Trump himself. Martin Wolf, an economic commentator at the Financial Times, sees the changing times and the decline in the relative position of the West, especially the United States. Speaking at the 2017 Beijing Global Economic Forum, he said: Now the benefits of globalization have been exhausted. The economic crisis of 2007 highlighted the need for a "transfer of power", and a shift in power meant a shift in "legitimacy". Linked to this is a significant decline in self-confidence in the West in general and in the United States in particular. Future predictions such as "Era of Chaos" and "New Era of Great Power Competition" are currently frequently appearing in Western media. Rogers, a world-renowned investor and chairman of Rogers Holdings, even predicts that the world landscape may change dramatically in just five years or so. Some media have pointed out that the United States is now encountering "changes unseen in a century," that an unprecedented major historical turning point is taking place in the West, and that the era of great change has arrived.
To sum up, we can examine the nature and historical orientation of right-wing populism in the West today: first, the rise of right-wing populism is a reflection of the crisis in the West, indicating that the West has encountered an important juncture in the choice of development direction; Second, the public sentiment of right-wing populism shows that the political balance of the West is tilted to the right, and the liberal "alternative right" dominates the trend of right-wing populism and the rightward adjustment of Western strategy. Third, right-wing populism expresses in an extreme way the cultural mentality of the people who expect Western civilization to redeem itself, marking a quiet shift in cultural values.
2. The Roots of Values for the Rise of Right-Wing Populism in the West
Before and after the US presidential election, the ideological game was extremely fierce, and the social rift was extremely serious, reaching a record level. The Clinton camp called Trump's supporters "old and white," and Hinton himself even blurted out that "most of Trump's supporters are garbage" during the televised debate. Trump's right-wing populist camp has called Hillary Clinton's supporters "white left" and "mentally retarded," and the media has coined a new term in English, "Lunatic Libtards," which means "crazy far-left liberals," meaning "Hillary's brainless fans." After Trump's election, the campus of Columbia University was filled with mourning, Hollywood spoke ill of it, and the left-wing media denounced the "failure of American values." Trump's right-wing camp hailed the success of the anti-"political correctness" and the victory of American values. These phenomenal polarizations show that the current election is indeed a "showdown of values" that has triggered serious thinking about the future cultural direction of the United States (and the West).
Is Trump's alt-right and the right-wing populist ideology it represents a subversion of American values? Is anti-"political correctness" anti-American values? To correctly judge the values and nature of Trump and right-wing populism, we need to clarify: What are American values? Does "political correctness" represent American values? What is the crux of the current conflict of values in the United States?
American values originated from the Protestant values of the initial period and the founding of the United States, and are based on the Protestant tradition of "Mayflower" and the tradition of township democracy founded by cowboys since the westward expansion, and the liberal values of the mainstream people of the Western WASP. The so-called WASP refers to the traditional mainstream society of the United States, that is, the Protestant Anglo-Saxon Americans; They believed in Protestant values that formed the core of American civilization. Unlike other developed countries in the West, 45% of the people in the United States still believe in Protestantism, and biblical values have become the common values of American society. The constitution and laws of the United States are the secular form of its basic values, biblical values that are restated in political language.
In 1620, early English immigrants brought Puritan ideas to the New World of North America. In Puritanism, the New Testament had positive ideas that were in line with social progress, emphasizing individual freedom, equality, and self-discipline and diligence. These values, combined with the Puritan struggles in the New World, constitute the values of individualism, sense of equality, and hard work in the American national spirit. First, the Puritans, who were persecuted by religion, let their dreams of freedom fly in their entrepreneurship and creation in North America, and formed an American individualism full of optimism in the process of building the colony into an ideal society called "a city upon hill." They believe that the success or failure of the economy is the responsibility of the individual, that with their hard work and good quality, they can achieve self-esteem and integrity, and that independent individuals, independent values and self-reliance are above all else. This individualism is the absolute value consensus of Americans. Second, the Puritans believed in the equality of all people, advocated the abolition of religious hierarchies, and believed that believers could attain the salvation of their souls through a direct personal connection with God. This concept of equality before God has developed into an egalitarianism that constructs the foundation of American democracy in the process of organizing the society of American townships and towns, and when equality of opportunity has become a form of egalitarianism that is widely recognized by the American public. Like individualism, egalitarian values have gradually influenced every aspect of American social life. Third, the Puritans saw themselves as "God's chosen people" and believed that wealth and success were the symbols of God's chosen people. They proved themselves to be God's chosen people through self-struggle, self-made, and wealth creation. This belief, combined with the harsh natural conditions of the New World and the hardships of entrepreneurship, fostered the American value of hard work. Franklin was a representative of American values. The 13 virtues he stated in his autobiography, such as industriousness, frugality, and temperance, were basically the tenets of Puritanism. Franklin's image of success through personal struggle epitomizes the "American Dream" and the "American Spirit," making him a moral icon that embodies American values and ideals.
Famous Western thinkers have made classic studies and expressions of American values. Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America was the world's first famous book devoted to American cultural values. Tocqueville found that what shaped the unique characteristics of American democracy was the unique American sentiment, that is, the internal traditions of American culture, that is, what he called equality of social status (identity) and the famous individualism. Tocqueville's values of equality, which are a product of America's special historical conditions, have thus become the best answer to the famous "Sombart problem" for contemporary decipherment. Robert. Professor Robert N. Bellah presided over the writing of "The Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Public Responsibility in American Life" (1985), which systematically summarized the role of social customs or values in the process of moving from the colonial period to the modernization of the United States from the perspective of cultural values, and explored the cultural roots of American modernization. This book is the most important book on the study of Americans' own values after Democracy in America, and is still regarded as a contemporary classic of American sociology. Based on a large-scale survey of American values, the author of the book identifies the four most important cultural traditions or value types in American social life: utilitarian individualism, expressive individualism, biblical religion, and civic republicanism. The authors refer to individualism as "the first language of Americans" and biblical religion and civic republicanism as "the second language of Americans." They believe that the individualism in the American cultural tradition is not selfish egoism, but a positive and vigorous individualism that contains social responsibility. He points out that contemporary America has seen the extreme development of individualism that Tocqueville feared back then. The social consequences of this extreme individualism (expressed as "radical individualism" in the book) are severe. The new capitalism has undermined the cooperation, norms, and trust of social organizations, led to the loss of civic consciousness, that is, the sense of social responsibility, disintegrated the sense of community and social cooperation at all levels, and caused the loss of resources for social solidarity (such as the voluntary service tradition of American civil society). They argue that the American tradition of individualism remains valuable and that the central importance of the individual cannot be overlooked. However, extreme individualism, a "distorted form of individualism," must be corrected, the correct assessment of the social dimension of the individual human being must be restored, and biblical religion and civic republicanism, which are intrinsically traditional in American culture, must be used to provide resources to maintain social unity and stop extreme individualism.
To sum up, we can understand that the core concepts of American values are individualism and egalitarianism, which inherently contain the resources of freedom, equality, democracy, and unity, which are embodied in the four major cultural traditions of utilitarian individualism, expressive individualism, biblical religion, and civic republicanism in contemporary American society. Judging from the value orientation of Trump and his right-wing populist supporters, in their aspirations for reviving "Americanism", rebuilding a "country on a hill", upholding the free market, and opposing same-sex marriage, there are prominent cultural characteristics of returning to traditional values.
The right-wing populist camp, which is mainly made up of middle-class, lower-middle-class whites, and Native Europeans, embraces traditional American values. Trump broke the political taboo in the presidential election, openly called for "political correctness", shouted "'political correctness', we can no longer afford it", demanded a return to the common sense of American values, and criticized the Democratic Party's immigration policy, education policy, employment policy, racial policy, etc. based on this, thus winning the enthusiastic support of a large number of traditional people who have long held grudges against the hegemony of "political correctness" but dare not speak out, and finally won the election with the general public opinion of right-wing populism. Hillary Clinton presents herself as the standard-bearer of progressivism that adheres to "political correctness", stands on the moral high ground, and acts as a protector and spokesperson for minorities and "vulnerable groups" such as blacks, Latinos, women, and homosexuals, and puts on the hat of opposing mainstream values for her opponents, thus winning the support of the mainstream media, cultural circles, college elites, financial and technological elites. The two turned an election campaign into a value showdown between "Americanism" and "progressivism."
3. "Political correctness" and traditional American values
So, the question now is, who really represents American values? What is the relationship between "political correctness" and Protestant values in the United States?
The so-called "political correctness" was originally a political ethical standard that Western political parties would follow, calling for equal treatment in politics, especially the protection of the weak. For example, we must not discriminate against or harm minorities and vulnerable groups in our words, policies, or actions, and we must not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, physical disability, religion, or political opinion.
After the emergence of "political correctness" in the 1970s, it was only the rules of the game in Western party politics, and gradually developed into a moral code and social norm that public institutions, media, academic institutions, and even the whole society must abide by in the second 30 years of the 20th century. People are required to use inclusive language and civility to express "political correctness" in social life, for example, the United States and Canada do not use some words: "old people" instead of "old people", but "senior citizens"; "Blacks" are not "Black People" but "African Americans"; "Poor" is not "Poor", but "Economically disadvantaged"; "Homeless" is not "Bum", but "Homeless Person". Neutral designations for minorities have even been enshrined in U.S. federal law, such as "Oriental," "Spanish," "Eskimo," and "Native American," which have been replaced by "Asian-American," "Spanish-speaking American," "Alaska Native," and "Native American," respectively. Otherwise, it is a "discriminatory word" and a "politically incorrect".
It should be said that the formation of "political correctness" and its social norms reflects the social progress of the United States after the black equality movement and the youth student rebellion movement in the 1960s. In a sense, "political correctness" itself is a product of the progressive movement of the 60s. Since the beginning of the '60s, the United States and the Western world have experienced waves of egalitarianism, pushing for equality in areas such as gender equality, religious tolerance, and race and ethnicity. Non-discrimination against minorities, care for the vulnerable, accommodation of refugees, respect for women's rights, etc., have become a universal moral consensus. In fact, after years of protecting the rights of vulnerable groups, now is the best time for Western societies to achieve equality and tolerance. Since the core idea of "political correctness" is egalitarianism and is in line with American values, it is correct in principle and can be regarded as the inheritance and development of American values.
Since there is an egalitarian consensus between "political correctness" and traditional American values, why do the two views, whose basic ideas are not opposites, deduce into a fierce confrontation between the two values, and may even lead to political conflict? The author believes that from the perspective of the large-scale rise of right-wing populism in the entire Western world, it has vented the fierce cultural sentiment of the people in Europe and the United States who are dissatisfied with the dogma of "political correctness", so it is the misplaced value of "politically correct" ideas and policies in reality, which has led to the dissatisfaction and suspicion of the Western people about the direction and value orientation of the country. The extreme development of "political correctness" in reality undermines social justice, breaks the value consensus of egalitarianism, and is the potential source of current social and political conflicts. This is a contemporary specimen of Huntington's use of Tocqueville's law to explain the political turmoil that occurred after the war.
In Political Order in a Changing Society, Huntington argues that the mismatch between the "art of domination" and "equality of status" is the source of all postwar political upheaval. In other words, if the "ruling art" cannot keep up with the needs of the development of "identity equality", it will subvert the old political order; Conversely, if the development of "equality of status" is not normal, it will also lead to political turmoil. Therefore, looking at the reality based on the "Tocqueville's Law", the current social rift in the United States falls into the latter situation. Therefore, it is not the traditional mainstream values of the United States and its ideas of freedom, equality, democracy, and solidarity that are problematic, nor the principle of "political correctness" and its concept of equality to protect the weak, but the fact that "political correctness" has gone wrong in practice in recent years. Traditional political parties increasingly regard these principles as politically off-limits, making the principle of "political correctness" dogmatic and extreme, leading to the extreme development of egalitarianism. Extreme egalitarianism shatters the egalitarian consensus of traditional values and "political correctness", and sows the seeds of opposing values, social divisions, and political turmoil.
In reality, the radical "political correctness" has led to the proliferation of ultra-leftist phenomena, which has reached the point of seriously undermining the principle of egalitarianism and arousing a sense of injustice among the public. In the United States, remarks about race, ethnicity, and gender are very sensitive topics, and the taboo of "political correctness" has developed to the point of severe allergies and even absurdity. The former president of Harvard University resigned after a remark that women were less talented in mathematics than men sparked student protests and was accused of "sedocrisy." When it comes to gender issues, LGBT issues are a more sensitive issue that the American public is concerned about. The term "LGBT" is narrowly defined to refer to the gay, bisexual, or transgender community, and broadly to represent all non-heterosexuals. It emerged in the 1990s and represents an extreme appreciation and tolerance of cultural diversity in gender identity and sexual orientation. Obama even issued a presidential decree to fully implement "transgender toilets" in schools above high school, allowing LGBT people such as gays to choose what gender to use in the toilet! As a result, in the same month that the decree was issued, rape cases in Chicago and other cities soared. In order to "respect the equal human rights of LGBT people", they do not hesitate to restrict the freedom of others and violate the free and equal human rights of heterosexuals, who make up the vast majority of the population. When it comes to immigration, the term "illegal immigrants" has become taboo in the United States, with the term "undocumented immigrants" used only by mainstream media and school intellectuals. There are now at least 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, and the Obama administration has effectively adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants. Cities such as New York have become legal "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants. If it weren't for federal funding, California would have tried to make the entire state a sanctuary state. The average benefit for an illegal immigrant head of household is $24,721 per year (according to the 2013 Heritage Foundation), which is higher than the benefit of a legal immigrant who has been taxed for many years. On ethnic issues, liberal government social policies are heavily skewed toward people of color, and the news media is afraid to criticize black criminals and even silence black people who deliberately shoot and kill police officers. In the aftermath of the Orlando killings and the terrorist attacks in London, the media in the United States and Britain only claimed that their own residents were responsible, and did not dare to mention their Muslim backgrounds, for fear of being "politically incorrect" due to alleged racial and religious discrimination, while ignoring the innocent souls who lost their lives. In the distribution of higher education resources, Democratic politicians favor African-Americans and Hispanics, one-sidedly emphasizing the distribution of public college enrollment according to the population, and portraying them as a special ethnic group that can obtain resources without equal effort. In her election campaign, Hillary Clinton further supported the "Asian American Subdivision" bill, which lowered the quota for academically outstanding Chinese racial enrollment to 1%, provoking unprecedented resistance among the Chinese, calling it "the Chinese Exclusion Act in the new era" and "naked racial discrimination". Under the banner of egalitarianism, this deformed "political correctness" undermines the egalitarian consensus of American values, tramples on the free and equal rights of the majority, and actually creates new social injustices. These so-called progressives, who do not hesitate to increase the national deficit to provide more benefits to the poor, do not hesitate to limit police enforcement of crimes of African descent, but instead discriminate against hard-working taxpayers and law-abiding citizens, including law-abiding African Americans.
The most serious problem caused by the dogmatization and rigidity of "political correctness" is the serious challenge of the political elite detached from the people, divorced from reality, and ignored reality. Under the banner of progressivism, Hillary Clinton has positioned herself as a minority, a liberal, Wall Street, Obama's successor, a savior of illegal immigrants. She regards cultural equality as higher than socio-economic equality, ignores the main social contradictions within Western societies, ignores the main middle class and labor groups in the United States, and ignores the sense of economic deprivation and personal insecurity of the majority of society. Behind the "old white poor" despised by Hillary Clinton's supporters is the class division that has emerged in American society after more than 30 years of globalization. As the authors of The Habits of the Mind rightly point out, Americans have historically disliked the language of class, but contemporary America does have a class divide that is rare in history, especially the emergence of an underclass. "The pressures of the global market economy are hitting societies around the world. The first consequence of these pressures is the rising inequality between winners and losers in global markets. The result is not only income polarization, and richer riches and poorer poorers, but also a shrinking middle class increasingly worried about its future. In particular, he states that "at a time when we have become sensitive to language about race, the term lower class has great benefits as colorblindness." "Five out of six poor people in the U.S. are white, and poverty breeds drugs, violence, and unstable families, regardless of race." The Democratic establishment fails to pay attention to the realities faced by most Americans, and instead of addressing structural economic problems such as austerity, unemployment, or declining incomes, the Democratic establishment emphasizes only the rights of "minorities" at the cultural level in the face of such severe class divisions and people's livelihood sufferings at the socioeconomic level. "Political correct" theorists blur class divisions with cultural differences, prioritizing the dignity and rights of illegal immigrants and LGBT over the welfare of veterans, the homeless, and poor black people in vacant inner city neighborhoods. What a level of unreality this lack of reality has reached! Similarly, on domestic security issues, traditional political parties ignore the reality of the threat of Islamic extremism and dogmatically emphasize the principle of "politically correct" religious tolerance. With regard to the widespread problem of refugees and migrants in Europe, European politicians dare not admit that Europe has long been a continent of migrants, do not face up to the reality of the infiltration of Islamic extremism into Europe in recent years, and formulate corresponding policies accordingly, in fact, allowing the security situation to deteriorate. Democrats have taken a protective attitude towards illegal immigrants in the United States, completely ignoring the dignity of the law and the will of the people. The traditional political elite is unable to face up to the real crisis of the West and the threat it poses to the security of the people, and is simply unable to propose measures to solve the problem. The dogmatic "political correctness" and erroneous value orientation are undoubtedly the political self-defeat of the West. No wonder opponents see "political correctness" as a pejorative term, synonymous with pseudo-Taoism, oversensitivity, and overkill. From this perspective, the rise of right-wing populism in the West is also a cultural stress response to the threat of Islamic extremism.
The political elites who support "political correctness" have prepared a strong right-wing populist ideological support and a broad social base for the Trump-style alt-right right by ignoring reality and distancing themselves from the people. Trump dared to challenge the political forbidden zone of "political correctness" and spoke out about the real difficulties and problems faced by the American people, such as the economic downturn and the loss of jobs, the seizure of welfare resources and job opportunities by immigrants, the threat of terrorist attacks and the death of wars abroad, and so on. His vision of "making America great again" and a series of promises of reform to "re-employ" and "re-security" have rightly been echoed by the public. In his election campaign, he focused on the patriotic and nationalist themes of "jobs" and "rejuvenating the United States", played a good hand of values, and quickly gathered and consolidated his right-wing populist popular base. For too long, politicians and the media have been afraid to risk being "politically incorrect" to speak for these ordinary people, leaving them deeply angry and helpless. In the absence of normal democratic channels for a long time, right-wing populist sentiment among the population has gathered momentum and poured into the country. These supporters of Trump's Americanist values, oppose the biased values of "political correctness", and look forward to changes in American political culture include at least three groups:
Traditionally white middle class. They constitute the silent majority of American society, the group of people who have the strongest sense of predation in recent years, the most victimized by the shackles of "politically correct" values, and the natural supporters of American values. They feel the decline of their economic status, believe that universal health care and flood benefits have increased their burden, and think that they have given too much and gained too little. They are most disgusted by the ingenuity and recklessness of Wall Street's financial elites, leading the entire society to deviate step by step from the traditional American values of "self-reliance, self-reliance, hard work, and prosperity"; We are not accustomed to the lonely "symbolic analysts" and "code farmers" who undermine the biblical religious traditions that maintain a sense of community and social solidarity between individuals.
Lower-middle-income earners. Under the pressure of global competition, they are a group of people who have completely lost their employment security, and believe that illegal immigrants and migrants are being taken more care in terms of work, social welfare and housing, encroaching on their resources, affecting their own interests, and destroying their stable and worry-free living environment and lifestyle. They are not accustomed to the illegal immigrants who come to the United States for nothing, and they hate the ultra-left "politically correct" social policy of rewarding laziness and punishing hard work, and "the poorer the better, the more honorable." They are the group of people who are most nostalgic for the old days of the past and the traditional values of America.
Part of the political, economic, and cultural elites of the upper strata of society. These people's concerns are mainly cultural. They are concerned about the growing social influence of Islam and about the demographic changes in the West and their consequences. In recent years, the Muslim population has exploded as a share of the world's population, and with the influx of refugees into the big cities of the West, the influence of desecular Islamic values has increased accordingly. Within Western countries, the proportion of the population of different ethnic groups is quietly changing. The proportion of immigrants in the United States, especially Latinos and African-Americans, is rising rapidly, and the traditional mainstream Anglo-Saxon Protestant white (WASP) is accelerating into a minority. The stable structure of the American population, which used to be predominantly white, is about to completely collapse. The change of the demographic structure of the United States will inevitably lead to the reconstruction of the political structure and the change of the political atmosphere, and the Protestant values, which are the core of American civilization, are also constantly weakened. As such, this elite at the top is the political "alt-right", that is, the core of right-wing populism, and represents a major force for a return to the core values of "Americanism".
Despite their different reasons, there are right-wing populist voters at all levels of society, united by Americanist values. Right-wing populism has led to a change in the political landscape and a reshuffle in the political arena of Western countries, forcing the West to rethink its value orientation and adjust its development direction. As a result of such an unprecedented change in post-war Western society, it is difficult to escape the blame for solidifying and rigidizing "political correctness". It is by opposing the dogma of "political correctness" that Trump has torn off the hypocritical cloak of "mainstream values" that he pretends to be, shattered the aura of his moral sanctity and superiority, and fought a victory in the battle of values, thereby mobilizing and uniting Americans who yearn for comprehensive change. From the perspective of values, the nature of the "Trump Revolution" is the value self-salvation of the West, which can be positioned as a conservative revolution that revives the traditional values of freedom and equality in the United States.
It should also be noted that the polarized evolution of the "politically correct" dogma has its own political logic and deep philosophical roots. From a political point of view, the real reason why the American (Western) people are so disgusted with "political correctness" is not only that its overcorrection violates the bottom line of equal rights and freedoms in the fundamentals of American (Western) society, but also that "political correctness" has become a tool for politicians to attract votes. The Western left-wing establishment elites have allowed "political correctness" to evolve deformously, not because they are completely ignorant of basic values. Out of the political needs of party struggle and election campaigns, they regard absurdity as normal and take it for granted. As the left-wing ideology grew after the 1968 movement, some politicians suddenly discovered that immigration politics was extremely powerful in the election campaign, and immigrants and ethnic minorities and their families tended to vote for left-wing parties, which has become the eternal election iron plate of left-wing parties. As a result, the parties involved are full of elaborate political calculations under the high profile of "political correctness". Instead of winning votes through the traditional way of working for the welfare of the people and doing good deeds, they maliciously manipulate political issues such as minorities and disadvantaged groups, and use all kinds of rigid and deformed dogma and perverted unlimited equality promises to curry favor and please immigrants and minorities. They also consciously exploit demographic trends (immigrants among the younger generation have become the majority of the population) to further divide society and seek political dividends under the guise of "political correctness". The growing leftism of the new generation of young people in the United States is not only related to changes in ethnic structure, but especially to the fact that left-leaning liberals have used their discourse power in the media and universities to inculcate perverted and distorted "politically correct" creeds for a long time. A ready-made example of profiting under the banner of progressivism is "Obamacare." This reform is tantamount to splitting the egalitarian pie and giving free health care to all the poor, including illegal immigrants. This has dramatically increased the tax burden on small and medium-sized business owners and the middle class, and has also multiplied the national debt, shifting the burden onto the next generation. In the past, the basic characteristics of the U.S. medical insurance system were, first, labor income, and second, a complete market mechanism, with the government participating in the auxiliary role. Americans are more inclined to believe that the market is fairer than the state than the rest of the West. After the implementation of this reform, the main responsibility shifted from the market to the state, and the disadvantages immediately appeared, and the premiums, drug costs, and operating expenses of the designated insurance institutions soared. According to a September 2014 report by Bloomberg, a simple Obamacare website costs more than $2 billion, and if run by a private sector, it would cost less than 1% of the government's fees. As a result, Obamacare is not economically sustainable at all, and it could go down the path of big governments that have dragged down Europe. Obama knew he couldn't do it, and promised the people benefits that he couldn't pay in the future, in order to win the hearts and minds of the people and permanently consolidate his party's vote base. The controversy surrounding "Obamacare" has become a dead knot that has deeply torn American society apart. In order to bring down the opponent in the party struggle, he does not hesitate to bring down the country and harm social development, what real progress and political correctness can there be?
The media and universities in the United States have long been dominated by liberals, and their egalitarian public opinion orientation has had a profound impact on social consensus. After years of immersion in "political correctness", religious freedom, ethnic equality, and women's liberation have become the mindset and political traditions of American society, which will not be easily broken. However, the dogma of "political correctness", which has been solidified and rigid, has also become part of the social consensus, deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, and difficult to change. At a time when Western countries are in a crisis of transition and society can no longer bear the extreme demands for equality, the left is still intensifying its efforts to promote polarized and distorted "politically correct" ultra-egalitarian social policies, and finally playing with fire, provoking a strong backlash from right-wing populism at the level of values throughout the Western world. For example, the values of traditional mainstream American society are relatively conservative, and they can not discriminate against the increasingly noisy phenomena of same-sex marriage, transsexuality, transgender toilets and locker rooms, but they will never agree with it. However, many of these absurd and bizarre "political correctness" have become taboo and ideological barriers, which cannot be ignored, otherwise they will be labeled as "politically incorrect" at every turn. This seems to form a kind of "despotism under a democratic system", that is, a "soft autocracy" for the general public. The solidification of rigid "political correctness" has damaged the foundation of democracy, poisoned the political atmosphere, and actually touched the bottom line of people's right to freedom of speech. Under the obscene authority of the leftists who often use "political correctness" to go on the platform, many people have not dared to tell the truth and tell the truth for many years. This is one of the reasons why polls in the U.S. election are repeatedly distorted. Western right-wing populism is a belated response and punishment for polarizing "political correctness." After decades of ultra-left "political correctness", the tide of history has finally turned against normalcy and common sense. The worldwide trend of right-wing populism conveys the voice of the need for comprehensive reform in the United States and the West.
Moreover, from the perspective of philosophical and cultural roots, the polarized evolution of "political correctness" dogma is not unrelated to the rise of multiculturalism in recent years. Since the beginning of the 21st century, "political correctness" has formed a "general line" of multiculturalism in the name of respecting the cultures of various ethnic minorities. Multiculturalism is a political philosophical trend that emerged in the late 20th century. It requires the protection of the equal rights and status of minority or vulnerable multicultural groups, such as blacks, women, the poor, persons with disabilities and homosexuals, and the recognition of their value, based on the recognition and respect of differences. As a theory of fighting for the rights and cultural status of ethnic minorities, its core appeal is the equality of values between ethnic groups. Multiculturalism thus became the philosophical basis of "political correctness". Multiculturalism is an alternative to post-Cold War Western socialist thought. American leftist intellectuals, who pay lip service to "socialism," are more than willing to talk about the pluralistic and equal demands of multiculturalism. In an era when inequality is becoming increasingly untenable, multiculturalism has contributed to the development of contemporary Western democracies and promoted social equality to a certain extent. However, as a pluralistic political philosophy that demands the equality of group values, it wants to create a society that is not a community of illiberal people, but a modern liberal democratic society in which they can be truly respected as equals. There is a huge contradiction between multiculturalism's identification with liberal democracy and its critique of liberal individual freedom, which is theoretically difficult to be self-consistent. In terms of its pluralistic appeal alone, multiculturalism does not offer more pluralistic values than Rawls's egalitarian liberalism. In particular, when multiculturalism extends the equality of values between ethnic groups to the level of civilization development, emphasizing that "every civilization has equal value", this extreme egalitarianism shows the tail of historical nihilism. The "civilizational value equivalence" of multiculturalism is equivalent to saying that the theocratic political ethics of killing reason are equal in value to the political ethics of modern liberal democracy. This fundamentally negates the progress of human civilization for hundreds of years. This extreme egalitarian value appeal of multiculturalism is precisely a philosophical endorsement of the extreme proposition of "political correctness" that regards the cultural values of minorities above all else. Multiculturalism actually became the philosophical basis for the polarized "politically correct" dogma. On the other hand, the equality values of multiculturalism, characterized by extreme egalitarianism, are theoretically a regression to the absolute egalitarian view of equality with a pre-modern nature.
In short, extreme egalitarianism, which puts the cultural rights and values of minorities above all other values, runs counter to the original intention of the principle of "political correctness". The polarized "political correctness" with extreme egalitarianism as the core of values has impacted traditional values, interfered with the principle of rule of law and justice, undermined the egalitarian consensus of long-term coexistence in American society, and in fact weakened and undermined American values. The direct democracy of the extreme egalitarianism implicit in multiculturalism in Western political practice is attacking representative democracy with great democracy. Western democracies have been weakened and shaken.
4. Enlightenment and reflection
Right-wing populism, which emerged from the other extreme, is a forced correction of Western society in terms of values and political direction. In fact, neither the extreme left nor the extreme right is the normal state of a democratic society. Democracy breeds rationality and stability, while extremes lead to autocracy and turmoil. Western society is in the midst of a great tension between the two extremes. Change, or decline? Western democracies are being challenged like never before. At present, the trend of right-wing populism has swept the West, where is the West going? We will see what a politically uncertain future holds.
The rise of right-wing populism in the West is a socio-historical phenomenon, an extreme reaction within Western societies to the crisis of polarization and social fragmentation at a particular stage of the development of globalization. The essence of this phenomenon is the strong dissatisfaction and protest of the people that the ideas and capabilities of the entire elite democratic system lag behind reality. Right-wing populism, as an extreme development of popular sentiment, indicates the depth of the social crisis and the urgency of the demand for reform. An important warning for the development of right-wing populism into a worldwide trend is that the political elite must maintain a high degree of sensitivity to the people's feelings, must have a macro-political strategy to respond to crises and guide changes, and must adjust and formulate corresponding social policies in a timely manner to suit the people's feelings. Otherwise, it will be overwhelmed by the tide and pay a heavy political price.
Right-wing populism in the West is a reversal of polarized "political correctness" dogma, illustrating the overdevelopment of egalitarianism beyond its stages, which can likewise lead to political instability. "Extreme" is similar. Polarization to the left or to the right is an irrational undermining of democracy and the security order. The political elite should not ignore the "Tocqueville's Law" of contemporary politics, and pay attention to maintaining a dynamic balance between the means of political governance and the development of egalitarianism in the process of social modernization, so as to prevent subversive political turmoil.
The popular sentiment of right-wing populism in the West has forced the West to adjust the direction of national development and start a self-correction and self-salvation of Western civilization. The West is entering a period of deep change, its traditional political structure and political ecology will undergo major changes, and many uncertain emergencies will emerge in recent years. The current antagonism and confusion of Western social values are rooted in the relative decline of the overall strength of the West in this round of globalization. Misjudging the nature of right-wing populism and the direction of Western reform can lead to strategic mistakes and wrong choices. The history and reality of the West show that the strength and weakness of values are clear and turbid, and to a certain extent, they indicate the fortunes of the country. The strong discourse of values depends on the economic and political hegemony of a powerful country to support and disseminate. Therefore, only by doing its own things well, strengthening its strength, and practicing its internal skills can a nation create a cohesive, charismatic, and proud dominant values and discourse power.
Source: Foreign Theoretical Trends