Essay Introduction
A large Republican party base is attracted by racist and anti-immigrant discourses. Donald Trump won the election thanks to a declassified, white, and less educated population vote. This segment of the population has been behind the Republicans. And the racial factor is decisive. A large Republican party base is attracted by racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric. The arrival of Donald Trump on the political scene in 2011, when he was relayed by conspiracy theories on the civil status of Barack Obama, is also known and appreciated by this group. In addition, this white-collar and working-class population was concentrated in states likely to tip the balance, the ‘swing states,’ such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa. Trump had a large support base, even though he did not represent the majority. There was no credible alternative to Trump.
Research Paper on Donald Trump
The racial factor is more important than the economic factor. In fact, economic arguments are linked in these discourses to racial factors. If they lost their jobs or they downgraded, it’s because the Democrats, and Barack Obama in particular, have given the minorities too much, according to them. Donald Trump was able to use these arguments.
Argumentative Essay Examples on Donald Trump
Two-thirds of the white electorate voting for Trump is interested in the idea of anti-immigration policies based on respect for Christian values and priority for employment for Americans. The Trump administration has shown, in its desire to criminalize asylum seekers, that current processes for obtaining US citizenship can be criminalized at any time. The President’s wish to demonize all immigrants by pretending to be intruders on American soil is not very reassuring. This denaturalization movement is only the latest in a larger Republican-led campaign, overseen by key figures in the Trump White House, to preserve a white electoral majority in the country.
Thesis Statement for Donald Trump
At the state level, Republican lawmakers are taking steps to protect their party’s white constituencies, blocking voter turnout to a minimum and reducing the number of voters, which increases the chances of Republican victories in Congress. In parallel with these efforts, the Washington Republicans are appointing or reappointing judges who provide legal cover for the removal of certain parts of the population from the voter’s lists in order to further restrict and reduce their rights. What Donald Trump explicitly intends to do is to exclude non-white immigrants from the body politic by discarding them as much as possible from the electoral lists and by presenting those who remain as a suspicious class.
Republican Efforts to Maintain a White Electoral Majority
Even by blocking all new immigration to the United States and excluding millions of naturalized people, current trends show that demographic change is inevitable. In the not-too-distant future, the majority of the American population will be Black, Hispanic, and Asian. But there is a difference between the population of a country and its electorate, that portion of the population that exercises the full rights of citizenship and enjoys the privileges associated with it. Republicans understand this, and they are trying at all levels of government to build a white electorate large enough to consolidate their power and thereby maintain a hierarchy between classes and races. Donald Trump plays a leading role in this. Case. The Republican Party relies more and more on the revanchist anger of a white minority. Stung by the election of Obama, this active minority of the electorate managed to obtain a majority in the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 and allowed the Republican Party to control many states across the country.
Further Research on Trump and His Administration: An Indispensable Influence
What came out of these victories is as important as what produced them: we are witnessing an effort to reduce the electorate by disadvantaging voters of color. In 2011, the Republicans of Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin introduced and signed the more stringent voter identification decrees. Those in Ohio banned the possibility of registering on voting day (which was previously possible), and those in Florida and Texas took steps to limit registration campaigns on electoral lists. Georgia, Florida, and Ohio have curtailed early voting opportunities, and Iowa and Florida make voting more difficult for former criminals.
After winning a triple victory in 2012 (the governorship and two legislative chambers), Republicans in North Carolina made dramatic political changes-eliminating taxes and dramatically reducing government services. – and then passed a law to prevent the Democrats and their electorate from returning to power by significantly increasing electoral restrictions. This law has been described by a federal court of appeal as ‘the most restrictive electoral law passed in North Carolina since the days of Jim Crow [name given to the period when, despite the abolition of slavery, racial segregation was maintained in the southern United States by laws and regulations, and stated that it targeted black voters precisely.)
In 2013, the conservative majority in the US Supreme Court – each of whose members were appointed by a Republican president – struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which allowed all Conservative lawmakers to go even further in implementing the restrictions imposed on electors. In the wake of this decision (Shelby County v. Holder), Republican-controlled states, such as Wisconsin, made changes and restrictions that had a measurable effect on the electorate. In Milwaukee, for example, 41,000 fewer votes were counted in 2016 than in 2012, a change that can not be explained by the decrease in the voting-age population. Donald Trump won this state by less than 23,000 votes.
Manipulations of electoral geography
To gain such an advantage, Republican lawmakers used their majority to carry out large-scale electoral gunshots, piling the Democratic electorate in districts supposed to dilute their electoral influence. In some states, this also requires racial redistribution of constituencies to neutralize the influence of black and Latino electors. These methods amplify the existing Republican benefits. The party is naturally turned to rural counties and peri-urban residential areas – where conservative Americans and white Americans are disproportionately represented – and turned their backs on dense urban centers and metropolitan areas. Republicans may well lose the nationwide popular vote in November while retaining a majority in the House of Representatives.
In many places, the Republicans have managed to lower the threshold they needed to reach the necessary majority. Due to the poor distribution of seats, the electoral map, and the cleaning of the lists, the Republicans may well lose the popular vote nationally in November, and several points, while retaining a majority in the House of Representatives. This rural bias is even stronger in the Senate, where Republicans can win a majority of seats with a distinct minority of voters, thanks to equal representation [two per state, regardless of the size of the party. State and a large number of predominantly rural states.
Trump, his administration, and the Republicans are on the same line.
In all this, Donald Trump is less an instigator than an accelerator. By clearly appealing to white racial prejudices, Trump decided to use this well-distributed plurality of white electors and widened it to ensure a victory in the electoral college, starting from the ‘reign of the minority ‘already extending to the federal legislature and extending it to the White House itself. The Republican Party has also followed the same path, relying on narrow but absolute majorities in order to pursue its ideological goals-reductions in upper-class income taxation and attacks on social security, while taking maximum measures to permanently maintain this governance of the minority. If Trump has done something unique in this, it’s to take hold of the underlying vision of this policy-we must prevent people of color from voting or at least limit their full participation-and to state it clearly.
The Trump administration has spared no effort in this direction. Shortly after his appointment as Attorney General, Jeff Sessions totally overturned the Justice Department’s policy, putting the government on the line of voter delisting in the case of two complaints in Texas and in Ohio. The administration also proposed that the next census include a question on citizenship, which some critics say would limit the number of registered immigrants and could distort representation in the House of Representatives and in the House of Representatives. Electoral College: States with large immigrant populations would lose seats and votes, which would be redistributed to the white electorate in rural states [the census is used to determine how many representatives each state sends to the House. ].
Neil Gorsuch, an ally at the Supreme Court
Trump tried to make ‘electoral fraud’ a national cause by appointing Kris Kobach, a Republican from Kansas, a pioneer of anti-immigrant measures and voter list delistings, to head a presidential advisory commission on integrity elections. Kobach was supposed to investigate the President’s accusations of election fraud against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, but several states have refused to cooperate and pass on voters’ data and other sensitive information; President Trump finally dissolved the commission.
But the most enduring action of Trump and the Republican Party in this area is certainly Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, which reinforces this same conservative block slicing the Voting Rights Act. In his last term, Gorsuch voted in favor of keeping polls in Ohio and redistricting constituencies in Texas, adopting Judge Clarence Thomas’ view that the Voting Rights Act allows legislators to dilute minority votes, making the law almost obsolete and meaningless.
The fact that Gorsuch voted in favor of maintaining Trump’s famous ‘travel ban’ for certain Muslim-majority countries, despite the President’s prejudiced words against Muslim immigrants and immigrants, is another sign that the Conservative majority will not oppose significantly the restrictions on immigration wanted by the White House.
Inevitable demographic change
But even the Supreme Court can not completely stop demographic change. A recent report written by several left-wing, non-partisan groups shows that, given the current trends, white American women and Americans will only represent 59% of the American population in 2036. And people of color will make up at least one-third of all residents in more than half of all US states and territories, enough to allow the Democratic Party to build a majority in the constituency, even with little support from the white electorate.
The electoral restrictions open a royal road to all those who want to preserve their interests in the government. It is nevertheless possible to slow down or even stop the electoral consequences of this change by building large dikes around the ballot boxes. If the designated targets of these policies are naturally people of color, these measures will not be without consequences for many white voters – as in the days of the Jim Crow laws, when many white people from the South countries were also excluded from the electoral lists or intimidated so as not to vote.
The participation rate in the South at the time of these laws was catastrophically low, even among the white electorate, and gave the country’s businessmen and elites free rein to enact the policy that suited them. This last point is essential: most political actors who work hard to preserve a white political majority in this country are the same ones who fight against the welfare state and the regulatory state – or what it remains. Each fight is conducted against the other because the electoral restrictions open a royal road to all those who, in the government, want to preserve their interests.
Conclusion
The current trajectory is unfortunately not without thinking of the beginning of the twentieth century, where rampant racism and nationalism, as well as great economic inequality, provoked extensive policies of dispossession and withdrawal of civil rights. Massive immigration from southern and eastern Europe has given rise to a restrictive immigration system aimed at preserving the political and cultural dominance of Anglo-Saxons and convoluted naturalization laws. Having no other purpose than to limit the influence of these immigrants who settled in the urbanized North.
The United States experienced, in the early twentieth century, a ‘constant and widespread contraction of voting rights,’ writes historian Alexander Keyssar in The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, for reasons ranging from deep racial hostility and accompanying prejudices to the vision of an economic and social elite who ‘found it difficult to control the state in a context of complete democratization.’ Even in a period of progressive activism, political experimentation, and union mobilization, it took the Great Depression and a world war to reverse this contradiction and reintroduce more democracy into the system. Hopefully, we should achieve the same result for the next generation by sparing ourselves the same trauma and disaster.
