Trump’s victory and the dynamics of American party politics
IIYAMA Masashi / Professor, Hokkaido University of Education
December 16, 2016
Will President Trump change the basic configuration of American politics? The Republicans and the Democrats, who have been fighting over such issues as “small government vs. big government”, “religion” or “foreign policy”, now seem to be on a collision course over the question of “whether globalization serves American interests or not”. Both parties‘ base supporters will shift accordingly so that we may very well see “the Republican Party hoisting the banner of protectionism and anti-immigration with the support of white working class” and “the Democratic Party advocating free trade and internationalism, marshaling the support of businessmen and intellectuals”. That would be a picture of American politics far beyond what we have imagined possible. If this were to happen, what should we envisage for the Japan-U.S. alliance?
American political parties have been quite open to change. It has been the case that anyone who manages to win the series of the presidential primaries on the strength of his/her favorite policies can change the shape of his/her party. For example, in the late 1970s, the religious right group suddenly injected itself into the Republican primaries by demanding that biblical teachings be placed as the main pillars of the party’s platform. Traditionally, Republican politicians represented business interests and had little to do with religion. They initially scorned the religious right’s anachronism, but, increasingly fearful of the right’s vote-getting power, finally have come round to wave the pro-life banner of the religious right by themselves. Thus, the traditionally secular Republican Party has transformed itself into a conservative religious party in little more than 10 years.
With it came the surge of white religious conservatives into the Republican ranks. Unlike the traditional Republican supporters from the business wing, they were low to middle income farmers and industrial workers. They are a huge voting bloc, accounting for nearly a quarter of the whole population. Actually, they, not the business wing, are the backbone of today’s Republican Party.
They lost their jobs as they found themselves sandwiched between the massive job transfer to overseas in manufacturing industry and the inflow of cheap immigrant labor. They are the “losers” of globalization. Especially after the Lehman shock, they have been driven into dire straits, as shown by cases of social problems such as alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide. These are precisely the people that Trump’s populism targeted.
Trump successfully proved that provoking the anger of white workers and spreading impossible dreams were the strategy to win the Republican primaries, which would lead him to the White House. Just like the time when the religious right emerged on the scene, there is a high risk that Republican politicians will be competing to wave the flag of Trump-style populism and anti-globalism.
However, Trump’s anti-globalism clashes head-on with the interests of the traditional Republican supporters from the business wing. In November, Trump pressured a major manufacturer of air conditioners in the United States to reverse its plan to relocate its plant to Mexico. Such a rough display of power by the incoming President, like forcing an individual firm to change its management decision, is sure to be met with resistance by businessmen. It would be a very serious challenge for these business people, who have reaped great benefits from globalization, if they were no longer able to use cheap immigrant labor and had to face the shrinkage of free trade. They might in due course be driven to flee the Republican Party and seek refuge under the wings of the Democratic Party, which is committed to free trade, internationalism and cosmopolitan values. Alternatively, they might detest the Democrats for being too liberal and become non-partisan drifters.
Some such signs are already discernible in the results of this last election. According to the exit polls, among those with annual income higher than $100,000, 54% voted Republican and 44% Democrat in the 2012 presidential election. This time, 48% voted Republican and 47% Democrat, the margin shrinking to only 1%. Among white college graduates, 56% voted Republican and 42% Democrat in 2012, but this time 49% Republican and 47% Democrat, with a large number deserting the Republicans, of whom some voted Democrat and the rest becoming non-partisan, In contrast, among whites without a college degree, 61% voted Republican and 36% Democrat in 2012, and 67% Republican and 28% Democrat this time, sharply increasing the margin of victory for the Republicans from 25% to 39%. All these show traces of rich as well as college graduate whites moving towards the Democrats, while whites without a college degree moved in the opposite direction.
It is the Republicans from the business wing who have believed in the value of capitalism based on market economy, espoused free trade and strong anti-communism, and supported a solid Japan-US alliance. If they are to drift politically, who will sustain the Japan-US alliance? Should there be a tectonic change such as those Republicans converting to the Democratic Party, would the Democratic Party hoist the flag of free trade and tread the liberal hawkish line of Hillary Clinton? Though these are not more than wild conjectures yet, we should watch carefully the possible shift in the basis of support for the political parties.
The writer is former Washington, D.C. correspondent of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.
American political parties have been quite open to change. It has been the case that anyone who manages to win the series of the presidential primaries on the strength of his/her favorite policies can change the shape of his/her party. For example, in the late 1970s, the religious right group suddenly injected itself into the Republican primaries by demanding that biblical teachings be placed as the main pillars of the party’s platform. Traditionally, Republican politicians represented business interests and had little to do with religion. They initially scorned the religious right’s anachronism, but, increasingly fearful of the right’s vote-getting power, finally have come round to wave the pro-life banner of the religious right by themselves. Thus, the traditionally secular Republican Party has transformed itself into a conservative religious party in little more than 10 years.
With it came the surge of white religious conservatives into the Republican ranks. Unlike the traditional Republican supporters from the business wing, they were low to middle income farmers and industrial workers. They are a huge voting bloc, accounting for nearly a quarter of the whole population. Actually, they, not the business wing, are the backbone of today’s Republican Party.
They lost their jobs as they found themselves sandwiched between the massive job transfer to overseas in manufacturing industry and the inflow of cheap immigrant labor. They are the “losers” of globalization. Especially after the Lehman shock, they have been driven into dire straits, as shown by cases of social problems such as alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide. These are precisely the people that Trump’s populism targeted.
Trump successfully proved that provoking the anger of white workers and spreading impossible dreams were the strategy to win the Republican primaries, which would lead him to the White House. Just like the time when the religious right emerged on the scene, there is a high risk that Republican politicians will be competing to wave the flag of Trump-style populism and anti-globalism.
However, Trump’s anti-globalism clashes head-on with the interests of the traditional Republican supporters from the business wing. In November, Trump pressured a major manufacturer of air conditioners in the United States to reverse its plan to relocate its plant to Mexico. Such a rough display of power by the incoming President, like forcing an individual firm to change its management decision, is sure to be met with resistance by businessmen. It would be a very serious challenge for these business people, who have reaped great benefits from globalization, if they were no longer able to use cheap immigrant labor and had to face the shrinkage of free trade. They might in due course be driven to flee the Republican Party and seek refuge under the wings of the Democratic Party, which is committed to free trade, internationalism and cosmopolitan values. Alternatively, they might detest the Democrats for being too liberal and become non-partisan drifters.
Some such signs are already discernible in the results of this last election. According to the exit polls, among those with annual income higher than $100,000, 54% voted Republican and 44% Democrat in the 2012 presidential election. This time, 48% voted Republican and 47% Democrat, the margin shrinking to only 1%. Among white college graduates, 56% voted Republican and 42% Democrat in 2012, but this time 49% Republican and 47% Democrat, with a large number deserting the Republicans, of whom some voted Democrat and the rest becoming non-partisan, In contrast, among whites without a college degree, 61% voted Republican and 36% Democrat in 2012, and 67% Republican and 28% Democrat this time, sharply increasing the margin of victory for the Republicans from 25% to 39%. All these show traces of rich as well as college graduate whites moving towards the Democrats, while whites without a college degree moved in the opposite direction.
It is the Republicans from the business wing who have believed in the value of capitalism based on market economy, espoused free trade and strong anti-communism, and supported a solid Japan-US alliance. If they are to drift politically, who will sustain the Japan-US alliance? Should there be a tectonic change such as those Republicans converting to the Democratic Party, would the Democratic Party hoist the flag of free trade and tread the liberal hawkish line of Hillary Clinton? Though these are not more than wild conjectures yet, we should watch carefully the possible shift in the basis of support for the political parties.
The writer is former Washington, D.C. correspondent of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
トランプ氏の勝利と米政党のダイナミズム
飯山雅史 / 北海道教育大学教授
2016年 12月 16日
トランプ大統領は、アメリカ政治の構図を変えてしまうのだろうか。「小さな政府と大きな政府」や「宗教」、「外交」などで争ってきた共和党と民主党は、これから「グローバリズムはアメリカの利益か否か」という争点で正面対決となりそうだ。両党支持者も入れ替わり、「白人労働者の支持を受けて保護主義と移民排斥の旗を掲げる共和党」と、「自由貿易と国際主義で実業家やインテリが集結する民主党」というような、想像を絶するアメリカ政治を見ることになるかもしれない。そうなったら、日米同盟はどんな姿になるのだろうか。
アメリカの政党は極めて開放的で、誰でも自分の好む政策を掲げて予備選を勝ち抜けば、政党の姿を変えることができる。例えば、宗教右派のグループは1970年代末に、突然、共和党予備選で選挙運動に乗り出し、聖書の教えを同党の主要政策に据えることを要求した。伝統的な同党政治家は、実業家の利益代表で宗教とは無関係だ。彼らは、最初は宗教右派のアナクロニズムを嘲っていたが、やがてその集票力を恐れるようになり、最後には争って人工妊娠中絶禁止など宗教右派の旗を振り始めた。世俗的だった共和党は、10年余りで宗教保守政党に衣替えしたのである。
それに伴って、新たに、白人の宗教保守層が共和党支持になだれ込んだ。彼らは、共和党の伝統的なビジネス・ウィングの支持層とは異なって、中低所得で低学歴の農民や労働者たち。全人口の4分の1近い巨大な有権者層であり、実は、今の共和党の屋台骨をなしている。
その彼らは、製造業の海外移転と安い移民労働力の挟撃で職を失った、グローバリズムの“負け組”である。特にリーマンショック以来、経済的に追い詰められ、アル中や麻薬、自殺などの社会問題に苦しんでいる。トランプのポピュリズムがターゲットとしたのは、まさに彼らだった。
同時に、トランプが証明したのは、白人労働者の怒りを刺激して、実現不可能な夢をばらまくことが共和党予備選の勝利戦略であり、ホワイトハウスへの道であるということだ。宗教右派が登場した時と同じように、やがて共和党の政治家は、トランプ流ポピュリズムと反グローバリズムの旗を競って振るようになる危険性は高い。
だがトランプの反グローバリズムは、伝統的なビジネス・ウィングの共和党支持層と利害が正面衝突する。トランプは11月、メキシコに工場移転を計画した空調メーカーに圧力をかけて移転をやめさせた。（次期）大統領が個別企業の経営判断を腕力で変えさせるという荒業は、実業家たちの反発を買うことが必至である。安い移民労働力も使えなくなり自由貿易が縮小すれば、グローバリゼーションで大きな利益を得てきた彼らにとって、極めて深刻な問題だ。やがて、彼らは共和党を逃げ出して、自由貿易と国際主義、コスモポリタンな価値を掲げる民主党に救いを求めるかもしれない。あるいは、民主党はリベラルすぎると嫌悪して支持政党を失い、無党派に漂流してしまうかもしれない。
今回の選挙でも、その兆しを感じることができる。出口調査を見ると、年収10万ドル以上の高所得層は、前回大統領選挙で共和党投票率54％、民主党44％で、共和党が10ポイントも勝っていたが、今回は同48％対47％で、差はわずか1ポイントに縮んでいる。白人の大卒でも前回は共和党56％、民主党42％だったのが、今回は49％対45％。共和党から多数が離反し、一部は民主党に投票して残りは無党派となった。逆に高卒以下の低学歴白人では前回、共和党61％対民主党36％だったのが今回は67％対28％と、共和党の勝ち幅25％から39％に急拡大したのである。金持ちと高学歴の白人が民主党と無党派に動き、低学歴の白人が逆方向に動いていった形跡が出ているのだ。
競争市場に基づく資本主義の価値を信じ、自由貿易や強い反共主義にたって、確固たる日米同盟を支持してきたのは、ビジネス・ウィングの共和党だ。もし、彼らが政治的に漂流してしまえば、日米同盟は誰が支えていくのだろうか。一方で、彼らが民主党に転向するというような地殻変動が起きたら、同党は自由貿易の旗を掲げ、ヒラリー・クリントンのようなリベラル・ホーク路線を歩むのか？いまだ大胆な想像の域を超えないにしても、政党支持基盤の動向を注視しておく必要がありそうだ。
筆者は元読売新聞ワシントン特派員
アメリカの政党は極めて開放的で、誰でも自分の好む政策を掲げて予備選を勝ち抜けば、政党の姿を変えることができる。例えば、宗教右派のグループは1970年代末に、突然、共和党予備選で選挙運動に乗り出し、聖書の教えを同党の主要政策に据えることを要求した。伝統的な同党政治家は、実業家の利益代表で宗教とは無関係だ。彼らは、最初は宗教右派のアナクロニズムを嘲っていたが、やがてその集票力を恐れるようになり、最後には争って人工妊娠中絶禁止など宗教右派の旗を振り始めた。世俗的だった共和党は、10年余りで宗教保守政党に衣替えしたのである。
それに伴って、新たに、白人の宗教保守層が共和党支持になだれ込んだ。彼らは、共和党の伝統的なビジネス・ウィングの支持層とは異なって、中低所得で低学歴の農民や労働者たち。全人口の4分の1近い巨大な有権者層であり、実は、今の共和党の屋台骨をなしている。
その彼らは、製造業の海外移転と安い移民労働力の挟撃で職を失った、グローバリズムの“負け組”である。特にリーマンショック以来、経済的に追い詰められ、アル中や麻薬、自殺などの社会問題に苦しんでいる。トランプのポピュリズムがターゲットとしたのは、まさに彼らだった。
同時に、トランプが証明したのは、白人労働者の怒りを刺激して、実現不可能な夢をばらまくことが共和党予備選の勝利戦略であり、ホワイトハウスへの道であるということだ。宗教右派が登場した時と同じように、やがて共和党の政治家は、トランプ流ポピュリズムと反グローバリズムの旗を競って振るようになる危険性は高い。
だがトランプの反グローバリズムは、伝統的なビジネス・ウィングの共和党支持層と利害が正面衝突する。トランプは11月、メキシコに工場移転を計画した空調メーカーに圧力をかけて移転をやめさせた。（次期）大統領が個別企業の経営判断を腕力で変えさせるという荒業は、実業家たちの反発を買うことが必至である。安い移民労働力も使えなくなり自由貿易が縮小すれば、グローバリゼーションで大きな利益を得てきた彼らにとって、極めて深刻な問題だ。やがて、彼らは共和党を逃げ出して、自由貿易と国際主義、コスモポリタンな価値を掲げる民主党に救いを求めるかもしれない。あるいは、民主党はリベラルすぎると嫌悪して支持政党を失い、無党派に漂流してしまうかもしれない。
今回の選挙でも、その兆しを感じることができる。出口調査を見ると、年収10万ドル以上の高所得層は、前回大統領選挙で共和党投票率54％、民主党44％で、共和党が10ポイントも勝っていたが、今回は同48％対47％で、差はわずか1ポイントに縮んでいる。白人の大卒でも前回は共和党56％、民主党42％だったのが、今回は49％対45％。共和党から多数が離反し、一部は民主党に投票して残りは無党派となった。逆に高卒以下の低学歴白人では前回、共和党61％対民主党36％だったのが今回は67％対28％と、共和党の勝ち幅25％から39％に急拡大したのである。金持ちと高学歴の白人が民主党と無党派に動き、低学歴の白人が逆方向に動いていった形跡が出ているのだ。
競争市場に基づく資本主義の価値を信じ、自由貿易や強い反共主義にたって、確固たる日米同盟を支持してきたのは、ビジネス・ウィングの共和党だ。もし、彼らが政治的に漂流してしまえば、日米同盟は誰が支えていくのだろうか。一方で、彼らが民主党に転向するというような地殻変動が起きたら、同党は自由貿易の旗を掲げ、ヒラリー・クリントンのようなリベラル・ホーク路線を歩むのか？いまだ大胆な想像の域を超えないにしても、政党支持基盤の動向を注視しておく必要がありそうだ。
筆者は元読売新聞ワシントン特派員
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟