The Unmasking of Race: How Trump’s Policies Reshaped Global Order and What Comes Next
The spike in hate crimes during Donald Trump’s election campaigns wasn’t a coincidence. FBI data, analyzed through time series regression, revealed a surge in prejudice-driven violence, marking the second-highest peak in 25 years. This wasn’t simply a byproduct of political fervor; it was a symptom of a deliberate strategy – one where race wasn’t just a factor, but a foundational element of both domestic and foreign policy.
Beyond “Transactional”: The Supremacist Undercurrent
For years, experts described Trump’s approach as “transactional,” a simple give-and-take. But this framing, as scholars like Pratap Bhanu Mehta argue, fundamentally misses the point. Trump’s negotiations weren’t merely about mutual benefit; they were often coercive, laced with disrespect, and driven by a clear sense of superiority. This isn’t simply tough bargaining; it’s a manifestation of supremacism. He didn’t just want a good deal; he wanted to dominate the other party.
A History of Racial Division, Amplified
To be clear, racism isn’t new to American leadership. Racial prejudice is deeply ingrained in the nation’s history, and bipartisanly condoned. However, Trump uniquely weaponized racial division, openly exploiting it for political gain, discarding the conventions of political correctness. He tapped into a pre-existing current of social unrest, but instead of bridging divides, he deliberately widened them.
The Power of Narrative and the Monetization of Fear
Trump’s success wasn’t accidental. He skillfully portrayed America as a victim of globalization, appealing to voters frustrated by economic anxieties and fears of cultural change. As Professor Shaun Narine points out, he effectively “monetized” these sentiments, turning paranoia about outsiders into a powerful political force. This narrative resonated with a segment of the population who saw him as a warrior defending a “pristine white culture.”
From “Shithole Countries” to the “I Flu”: Racism in Rhetoric and Foreign Policy
The impact of this racialized worldview extended far beyond domestic rhetoric. Trump’s inflammatory language – labeling Haiti and El Salvador as “shithole countries,” his obsession with defining Obama as Black and Harris as Indian, and his attacks on Colin Kaepernick – weren’t isolated incidents. They revealed a consistent pattern of racial categorization and devaluation. This extended to foreign policy, as seen in his labeling of COVID-19 as the “I flu” and his disparaging treatment of Indian immigrants during deportation. He even framed China’s rise as a threat to “Western civilization,” revealing a prioritization of Western interests rooted in racial terms, as Andrew Gawthorpe contends.
Civilizational Wilsonianism and the Illusion of a “Civilizing Mission”
Trump’s foreign policy wasn’t driven by traditional geopolitical strategy, but by what Gawthorpe calls “civilizational Wilsonianism” – a belief in a self-appointed “civilizing mission.” His proposal to transform Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East” exemplifies this, implicitly positioning America as “civilized” and Palestinians as needing to be uplifted. This worldview, a blend of imperialism and orientalism, defied easy categorization and challenged conventional theories of international relations.
The Enduring Legacy: A “Racist Mask” Removed
The danger isn’t that Trump invented racism, but that he normalized it. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta observed, his presidency saw the “racist mask” come off the international order. The subtlety of coded language gave way to blatant expressions of prejudice. This normalization has lasting consequences, as millions have benefited from and continue to perpetuate racist discourse. Even after leaving office, the effects of this shift are palpable.
Deracializing International Relations: A Call to Action
The implications for the field of International Relations (IR) are profound. Scholars must actively “deracialise” the discipline, challenging the inherent biases and hierarchies of knowledge that have long shaped it. This requires a fundamental rethinking of our syllabi, pedagogical practices, and research agendas. As Sankaran Krishna urges, we must “work and see around the dazzling blindness of white IR,” acknowledging the conjoined histories that shape our understanding of the world.
The Future of Race and Foreign Policy
The rise of what C. Rajamohan terms “con-intern” – a convergence of populism, anti-immigration sentiment, and racist ideologies – suggests that the forces unleashed during the Trump era aren’t going away. We are likely to see continued attempts to exploit racial anxieties for political gain, both domestically and internationally. The key to navigating this landscape lies in recognizing the centrality of race in shaping global events and actively challenging the structures that perpetuate inequality. The challenge isn’t simply to condemn racism, but to understand its complex interplay with other factors – economic anxieties, cultural grievances, and geopolitical competition – to build a more just and equitable world. The FBI’s Civil Rights investigations provide valuable data on the ongoing trends in hate crimes.
What are your predictions for the role of race in shaping foreign policy over the next decade? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
