An additive versus a subtractive presidency
I'm just not ready to give up on America
A minority (non-White) candidate for the presidency of the United States is compelled by the math to be an additive manufacturer of votes — a builder of coalitions.
A majority (White) candidate, however, can still win through subtraction — divide and conquer.
Richard Nixon cracked that code in 1968 with his Southern Strategy: he sought to appeal to White Southern voters through coded language that reflected their concerns about race and social order (aka, White privilege). In reply, his campaign emphasized "law and order” — a direct response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, but one cloaked in more socially acceptable anti-radical packaging, meaning the most widely promoted “fall guys” were college students protesting the war in Vietnam. Youth, in general, are often fall-guy targets in a divide-and-conquer strategy within a democracy because of their low voting participation.
Donald Trump updates Nixon with a fixation on migrants as the source of all problems in our country. Indeed, we are told that America is presently “occupied” by those released from foreign insane asylums and jails. The imagery here is always clearly non-White: brown people “defiling” America in some manner. If you’re someone who dreads the declining White share of the US population, these are powerful images that prove they are coming to replace you!
The Great Replacement Theory weaponized.
Trump’s focus on preventing the blood-poisoning of White America fits within his larger rejection of global connectivity and globalization in general: we need to seal ourselves off from the outside world and go back to manufacturing everything for ourselves.
That combination of racial purity and economic self-reliance is oh so very North Korean, but it fits a larger pattern right now, as exemplified by Putin’s Russia, Xi’s China, Orban’s Hungary, and, in its worst moments, Modi’s India with its Hindu nationalism.
These are not political instincts to emulate because they all portend a walled-garden approach to globalization’s ongoing challenges and opportunities — none of which are bounded by national borders.
In short, indulging in such separatist instincts is certain to leave you smaller and more disconnected over time — right as the global economy goes digital.
Talk about burying your head in the sand!
Trump’s America fools itself into clinging to the belief that once defined the global economy: American consumption was so central that the rest of the world would do whatever we demanded to gain access to our market. Thus his promise that tariffs will fix all by forcing all to move all manufacturing here. In a highly competitive global economy, that is a bad assumption.
Per the IMF, America is at best about one-tenth of global growth going forward and there’s little to no reason to expect our share to grow in some imagined, more distant future — not as we age and rack up even more sovereign debt or, worse, shrink because we cut off immigration.
Point being: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows will seek out easier profits elsewhere — if hassled enough by rising US protectionism, and there is plenty of “elsewhere” out there.
America can still access globalization’s future engines of growth, but our days of constituting that central function are long gone — as in, roughly two generations past.
The U.S. economy has been a significant driver of global growth since the post-World War II era, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, the U.S. emerged as the world's largest economy, contributing substantially to global economic expansion through our industrial output, technological advancements, and consumer spending.
Yes, the golden age to which Trump promises immediately passage.
But our fabulous run didn’t end there. The most notable period when the U.S. was unequivocally recognized as the primary engine of global growth was in the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. economy experienced robust growth rates, driven by technological innovation, globalization, and a shift towards service-oriented industries. This era saw the U.S. leading in sectors such as information technology and finance, which had profound impact on global economic dynamics.
It’s really only been since the turn of the 21st century that it’s become clear that America no longer drives global growth as it once did, even as we remain crucial to overall global economic health.
What these charts tell me is that the future of global economic growth is fundamentally non-White, non-American, non-European, non-Christian, and non-Western. The Old West (and it is getting much older) is responsible for about one-fifth of global growth going forward.
There is your “realism” in a nutshell.
Unsurprisingly, numerous studies and reports indicate that companies adhering to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles, as well as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, tend to perform better as businesses.
In short, this is about making $$$.
ESG basically comprises America’s New Map’s focus on climate change (environment), demographics (social), and governance (who rules the global middle class?). DEI speaks to all the “non’s” identified above.
Companies that embrace ESG and DEI are embracing globalization’s future challenges and opportunities in an additive versus subtractive fashion.
What this approach yields such companies is:
Increased customer satisfaction and loyalty
Increased employee engagement and retention
Increased sales growth from sustainability initiatives
Improved risk management and operational efficiency
The increasing favor of investors worldwide.
Some of the best examples of this approach include Microsoft, Apple, Accenture, Cisco Systems, and Mastercard.
Again, to follow economic opportunities today is to be culturally and racially additive — not subtractive. The same holds true for great powers, which is what makes America’s current inward turn that much more tragic.
We are totally built for this age.
Right when the world needs our example of an additive democracy, we toy with abandoning that profile — something that will clearly unfold in a second Trump term infused with subtractive authoritarianism (submit or be otherized!).
And, to me, that is mind boggling: to discard your greatest brand strengths right when they’re most needed for future success. It’s almost like America wants to retire from world power and just putter around like some old White guy who prefers golf to life.
I guess what disturbs me most about this historical timing is how it can be interpreted as reflecting my own life journey: Why not just give up and retreat to some appropriately sedate retirement community? All but one of my older siblings (4 of 5) are retired and I am likely to be the only one still working it 2-3 years from now.
The irony, there, of course (or is it karma?), is that my spouse and I decided to extend our parenting mode past our biological limits by adopting three kids from abroad in our 40s, meaning I don’t really have a choice in the matter.
Example: my brother Andy has his first grandchild in college while I still have one child in college and two still to go!
Having symbolically chosen globalization over nationalism in my nuclear family, I am not merely dedicated to that vision but firmly committed to seeing it through.
[Remember the difference between dedication and commitment: The egg-laying chicken is dedicated to your breakfast, while the pig … is committed.]
And I guess that is what will disturb me most if Trump wins tomorrow: that sense that the America I grew up with is no longer interested in doing what it takes to lead globally: that we’re happier subtracting ourselves and our institutions down to such petty ends — namely, the preservation of White Christian nationalism, which, to me, is such a been there, done that outcome unworthy of any great effort on my part.
I just don’t want to give up yet. I want to stay in the game. I want to keep building a future and not just dreading it.
I want to keep up the fight and can’t, for the life of me, understand how “fight, fight, fight” translates into prioritizing White, White, White.
Because I’ve already chosen something else and there’s truly no going back for me and mine — no matter the popular rejection that may unfold.
Therein lies my sense of vulnerability … and yet, likewise a great reserve of motivation.
Fuck 'em if they can’t take the future.
Another banger piece, this sums up my perspective at least.
"And I guess that is what will disturb me most if Trump wins tomorrow: that sense that the America I grew up with is no longer interested in doing what it takes to lead globally: that we’re happier subtracting ourselves and our institutions down to such petty ends — namely, the preservation of White Christian nationalism...I just don’t want to give up yet. I want to stay in the game. I want to keep building a future and not just dreading it"