United States. The great American power. Synonym for freedom and opportunity. Of solid foundations and a broad spectrum of possibilities. Absolute and indisputable democracy. Home to its own people and foreigners. A dream for many. An example of political effectiveness for checks and balances, today it seems to be heading down the dangerous path of polarization, extremism, and populism, which has led so many citizens of the world – victims of the same situations in their countries – to seek refuge in our cities, most of them illegally.
With respectful speeches dedicated to caring for the coexistence that converges in the country across so many colors, creeds, cultures, and conditions, American leaders (Democrats and Republicans) have historically maintained a sober, educated, and diplomatic stance in managing social and coexistence situations, until in 2016 Donald Trump unleashed fury among minorities who, with airs of superiority, wish to “purify” their country and their race as Hitler once intended.
The resurgence of populism is a global phenomenon, which has recently manifested in Europe, Latin America, and, more specifically, in the United States. It finds its opportunity in countries with slow economic growth and greater social inequality. All of this leads leaders to find scapegoats in immigrant and non-native populations, promoting a wave of sentiment against minorities, who are primarily descendants of other cultures or foreigners. In Latin America, where migratory movement is limited, the responsibility for economic and social problems falls on the most privileged classes, due to populist discourse, which sees the «oligarchy» as the enemy of the system. All of this becomes a package of actions that go against the democratic nature and purpose.
For Arlene Ramírez, a licensed International Relations professional and writer for Forbes Mexico, the convergence in economic policy and in the populist discourse of some Western governments has a common denominator: the reestablishment of cultural patterns, institutions, norms, ideas, and social patterns that materialized in votes for Trump, Brexit, or the peace agreements in Colombia; “therefore, we should not be surprised (negatively, of course) that Trumpism (for example) endures even after Trump.”.
Populism has demonstrated over time an extraordinary capacity for adaptation and development, taking different forms by virtue of the profound emotional needs of its respective peoples, many of them circumstantial and others historical. For this reason, populism has typically been linked to very diverse nationalisms, ranging from those focused on our indigenous origins to the more recent and frequent economic forms of protection of national production.
Thus, according to Randall Arias, executive director of the Foundation for Peace and Democracy, nothing stirs popular sentiment more effectively than appealing to “the national” versus the foreign. For this reason, a preferred tool of populists consists of creating external enemies, usually enemies of the people, making the population believe that the country and/or they are under permanent attack from “external factors,” normally indeterminate, or at least never proven.
Populism, whether from the left, center-left, or far-right – as is currently evident in the United States – ends up degrading democracy in its attempt to inhibit the rights of others due to their differences in any context; it trivializes public debate, vulgarizing and impoverishing it; it attacks public finances, violates the rule of law, and, worst of all, leads society into a war with no clear or logical objectives.
In this way, what happens in the United States is reflected in Latin America where, after the so-called Pink tide o Turn Left, the political parties were in antagonistic positions on the political spectrum (left and right). There, the distinction friend-enemy Of Carl Schmitt, it all makes sense. Meanwhile, Bolivia takes a turn to the left after the forces of the opposing spectrum occupied briefly, the power, Chancellor Jorge Arreaza of Venezuela, retakes his country's embassy where a portrait of Juan Guaidó had been hanging. Meanwhile, Martín Vizcarra's removal in Peru opens the field to a president despised by half the country. Not to mention radicalized Nicaragua, in the hands of leftist Daniel Ortega, and polarized Brazil, under the tutelage of right-winger Jair Bolsonaro. In all these countries, unlike the United States, the institutional framework is completely undermined. What does 2022 hold for Colombia?