By DANI RODRIK*
Less educated working class voters who embraced Donald Trump’s anti-elitist message will continue to be the losers
1.
Although Donald Trump came to office on a tsunami of public hostility toward “elites,” his elite supporters are themselves important components of the establishment and the plutocracy. As was the case during his first term, Donald Trump—a wealthy businessman turned celebrity—surrounded himself with a mix of mainstream Republican politicians, Wall Street financiers, and economic nationalists. But this time, these groups have been joined by the techno-digital right (techno-right), blatantly represented by Elon Musk, the richest person in the world.
What unites these groups, at least for now, is not Donald Trump’s charisma or his leadership—both of which seem insufficient. Rather, it is the belief that their specific agendas will be better served under his administration than under any alternative that seems possible.
Conservative Republicans want low taxes and less regulation, while economic nationalists want to close the trade deficit and restore big industry to the U.S. economic fabric. Free speech absolutists want to end what they see as “woke censorship.”woke censorship[I]), while the techno-digital right wants the freedom to proclaim its own vision of the future.
Regardless of their pet projects, all of these groups, at the time of the last presidential election, saw Kamala Harris (and Joe Biden) as an obstacle and Donald Trump as a promising ally. Most do not oppose democracy as such, but they seem willing to ignore it and thus make room for authoritarianism, as long as their agenda is being served. Pressed to assess the current administration’s anti-democratic impulses and disregard for the rule of law, they will either opt for equivocation or minimize the risks.
2.
During Donald Trump’s first term, I shared these concerns with one of his top economic advisers (an economic nationalist). My interlocutor dismissed my concerns and said that the Democrats and the administration were the most serious threats. Ultimately, he was interested in his boss’s commitment to tariffs on imports, not in any of the possible consequences for democracy of the way he governed.
Similarly, in a recent episode of the podcast hosted by Ezra Klein, New York Times journalist, Martin Gurri, who advocates for absolute freedom of expression, explained that his own support for Trump was driven primarily by the Biden administration's crackdown on free speech.
Joe Biden, he said, “basically told [social media] platforms that they would have to adhere to European standards of good online behavior.” But Trump’s restrictions on the speech of government officials and government-funded private entities already loom as this kind of repression—and in a much more blatant form. While acknowledging that Donald Trump could end up “being even worse,” Martin Gurri seemed unfazed. For at the moment, he felt it was more important to decimate cultural norms than to defend the First Amendment.
As Donald Trump’s elite supporters prioritize their own agendas that deviate from democratic principles, the risk of a slide into authoritarianism seems obvious. Fortunately, it is even more likely that the competing agendas within his political project will come into open conflict, causing the coalition that supports Donald Trump to implode.
The clearest line of demarcation is between economic nationalists and the techno-digital right. Both camps see themselves as anti-establishment and want to disrupt a restrictive regime they feel has been imposed on them by Democratic Party elites. But they embody very different visions of America and where it should be headed.
3.
Economic nationalists want to return to a mythical past marked by American industrial glory, while tech platform leaders envision a utopian future run by artificial intelligence. One is a populist, the other an elitist. One has faith in the wisdom and common sense of ordinary people, the other trusts only in technology. One wants to stop immigration in all sectors, the other welcomes skilled newcomers. One is parochial, the other is fundamentally globalist. One wants to divide Silicon Valley, the other to strengthen it. One believes in squeezing the rich, the other in feeding them.
Populist nationalists claim to speak for the people who will be left behind by Elon Musk’s imagined technological revolution. So it’s no surprise that they have deep contempt for the “technofeudal” entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley. Steve Bannon, a leading voice among economic nationalists (and a graduate of by Harvard Business School, of course), has gone so far as to call Elon Musk a “parasitic illegal alien.” Musk and what he represents must “be stopped,” Steve Bannon warns. “If we don’t stop them… they will now destroy not just this country, but the world.”
Although Steve Bannon does not currently serve in Donald Trump's administration, he is a leading figure in the MAGA movement (make america great again); moreover, he maintains close ties with many important government officials. However, it is clear that it is Elon Musk who currently has Donald Trump's ear. The White House has given free rein to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Musk's command; moreover, it was Donald Trump himself who encouraged Elon Musk to be more aggressive.
It is typical of personalistic leaders like Donald Trump to pit allies (courtiers, really) against each other so that none of them gains too much power. Donald Trump undoubtedly thinks he can stay on top and leverage conflicts to his own advantage. But such tactics work best when the competition between different groups is for resources and government favors, rather than reflecting different ideologies and belief systems.
Given the very different worldviews and policy preferences of the forces behind the Trump administration, a confrontation is all but inevitable. But what will come next? Will there be paralysis, or will one group assert its dominance? Will the Democrats be able to capitalize on this split? Will Trumpism be dethroned? Will the prospects for American democracy be revived, or will they grow even dimmer?
Regardless of the outcome, the tragedy is that the less educated working-class voters who embraced Donald Trump’s anti-elitist message will continue to be the losers. Neither of the competing wings of Donald Trump’s coalition offers a vision that is suitable for them. This is true even of economic nationalists (despite their rhetoric) since their aspirations depend on an unrealistic revival of manufacturing jobs.
As different elites fight for their own versions of America, the urgent political agenda needed to create a middle-class economy in a post-industrial society will remain as distant as ever.
*Dani Rodrik is a professor of international political economy at the Harvard Kennedy School. Author of, among other books, Has globalization gone too far? (unesp).
Translation: Eleutério FS Prado.
Originally published on the portal Project syndicate on February 28, 2025.
Translator's note
[I] The term "Woke” derives from the English verb “wake” (to wake up), which in practice means “to be awake”. In the cultural context of the United States, being “Woke” refers to being well aware of social and political issues, especially those related to equality and social justice.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
