Donald Trump Middle Class Analysis

Both texts discuss how recent political developments have arisen out of problems related. In Donald Trump’s focus on the middle-class, one must ask: What is the middle-class? Who is a part of it? Who is excluded from it? For Trump, it may be the ‘average white man’ whom he focused on as the base of his support. He focuses on how other groups bring down the middle-class instead of taking a more nuanced look at who constitutes the middle-class. Ho provides the example of the housing market and posits that housing opportunities heavily favored white men because of “massive federal subsidies” and loan originations were “offered only to white men across class backgrounds created a majority middle-class founded in whiteness” (Ho 2). Thus, the very …show more content…
Such racism not only keeps certain groups down but also propagates wealth inequality among these groups. If an African-American cannot get a loan to purchase a home, they have a lower chance of building wealth compared to a white person who could obtain a loan. Thus, Trump’s brand of populism shows the growing discontent among the white middle-class who have felt ‘cheated’ out of wealth and its repercussions.
Populist politics are often silent killers. It typically rears its head after years of financial malaise have befallen substantial amounts of the population and anger and frustration brew, which lead to voters voting for the candidate who seems best able to make their financial prospects better. This white middle-class disenchantment seems to confirm a disturbing trend that has appeared in politics in the United States and Europe. Gusterson believes “nationalist populist movements” are characterized, among other things, by “a hostility toward (at least some) immigrants and ethnic others, especially Muslims” and “a claim to speak for working people, whose interests are no longer well represented by traditional parties of the …show more content…
“It is precisely this fiction-that the singular and primary purpose of the firm is to create value (in the form of a rising stock price) for its shareholders, who are problematically conceptualized as “the owners” - that has allowed corporate America to be shorn from? its job-creating potential and commitment to employment and other stakeholders and to be mined as a collection of financial assets for elite and private gain” (Ho 2). This argument by Ho brings up many points. Over the last few decades, companies have come under more pressure to deliver quarterly results that are pleasing to investors. In placating investors, however, employees can get hurt. When inflation rises or a company must cut costs, companies typically fire employees. CEOs are incentivized to appease Wall Street because they benefit from a rise in their company’s stocks, and their fiduciary duty pushes them to generate returns. They aren’t rewarded for retaining employees even if it is morally right, and management is far more concerned about the company’s performance than the economy’s performance. Also, poor people often do not own stocks. Even with the rallying of the market with Trump’s win in the polls, Trump’s base likely did not benefit much. Wealthy people are more likely to own stocks than poor people. Trump’s wealthy supporters enjoyed lower taxes and higher stock prices.