Shame and American National Identity

Though the conceptions of international relations that form the basis of the foreign policies of nearly all states understand governments as rational and unitary, recent overreactions and extreme political rhetoric in the United States challenge this supposition. American hyper-nationalism of the Trump era is an excellent indicator of this trend thanks to the openly racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic ideologies and policies perpetuated by the current American administration. This harms the average constituent, and can be sensibly understood as a self-imposed punishment for the American people. Though those perpetuating hyper-nationalism largely attack those they perceive as “other” to them in some way, their aggressive rhetoric can still be construed as self-harming to their own reputation amidst the peers they are attacking and the wider international community.

On an elite level, seemingly irrational cabinet picks reflect this idea, since the appointment of controversial figures such as Elon Musk and Kash Patel negatively impacts Americans’ own perception of the expertise and ethics required to work in government. It is widely understood that these officials are massively unpopular, signalling that though Trump as a figure may have an appeal, his approach does not necessarily hold up with the sensibilities of an average voter. This trend presents the question: why are a variety of Trump supporters, especially elites, so keen on harming their reputations by supporting him? Though Trump’s policies may financially benefit those in top American tax brackets, they inherently lower their domestic and international status due to Trump’s insistence on his “anti-elite” position. 

Yet, the castigation of old-fashioned elitism (like the Democratic establishment) through these cabinet-choices in a democratic system as a project has largely been unsuccessful due to the fact that such a project would require an ideological and systematic shift in American political power structures and institutions that supposes an erasure of institutional memory simply too great for the span of a single presidency. This raises the question: what does anti-elitism mean if it is being espoused by elites themselves? Is it an ideological or practical position? Is it just lip service to motivate non-elites to continue perpetuating rhetoric that entrenches their own humiliation? 

This question itself has been challenged by conservative thinkers who rightly highlight the ideological alienation between the right and left in the United States by drawing attention to the dehumanising language utilised to describe the other. Thus, this characterisation of Trump and his administration could be perceived as a pathologisation and as an attempt to rationalise his behaviour as so many think-pieces have done before. It has been posited that Trump and his elite supporters perceive their uniquely brash behaviour as a method of developing a distinct isolationist national identity, thus making it ultimately rational since humiliation is subjective. 

In addition, the United States has long been characterised as a puritanical nation insistent upon restricting and even punishing its populace, however this is reductive in that one must recognise that they are harming themself in order for a true self-inflicted punishment to be taking place. Thus, this article posits that two key aspects of American identity are clashing with one another in the second Trump era: unfoundedly strong nationalistic sentiments with a desire to improve a reality that does not reflect claims of American supremacy. However, American business and political elites who align with Trump seem to be content with a lowering of their international status in favour of isolationism that they perceive will be helpful in alleviating the more significant (to them) financial humiliation that has resulted in a shift of economic hegemony away from the United States. Moreover, a “brain drain” is taking place as a result of this, further creating a gap between American expectations of their own primacy and empirical achievement. Whether American conservatives across economic classes aim to punish themselves or not, the division they present to their opponents and the international community results in ostracisation and the exacerbation of economic decline. 

Ultimately, the existence of a new, reactionary counter-elite does not mirror American populism of the past, rather it reflects the desire to resolve the public shame that galvanises American society. In addition, humiliation from the international and even domestic community has often been a salient strategy in ending oppressive practices in the United States, which is best exemplified through developments towards racial inclusivity during the Civil Rights movement. This demonstrates how shame regarding being “behind” other nations has driven social change in the past, a trend demonstrated today in a reactionary rather than revolutionary manner. However, in this case, shaming the American public into a reactionary isolationism that aims to redevelop an insular society with its foundations in manufacturing seems to be unsuccessful, considering the burgeoning negative effects of President Trump’s extensive tariff regime, rhetoric, and conduct.

Illustration by Will Allen/Europinion