Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 69
Julio
Diciembre
2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre) 2021, 678-688
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Recibido el 15/03/2021 Aceptado el 19/05/2021
Socio-Economic Foundations of Trump’s
Domestic Policy and The Globalist Project
in The United States (2016-2020)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3969.42
Dmitry Kolomyts *
Firdaus Vagapova **
Renat Vagapov ***
Segei Ustinkin ****
Irina Kuvakova *****
Natalia Morozova ******
Abstract
The article considers the socio-economic dimension of former
President Donald John Trump’s domestic policy concept in the
United States during his presidency from 2016 to 2020. The
contradictions between D. Trump’s policies and the concept of
globalism stand out. During his domestic policy course, D. Trump sought to
regain the ability of U.S. leadership to rebuild the country’s big industry to
achieve the independence of transnational nancial capital. His policies had
been partially successful and had created the conditions for a redenition
* Ph.D. of Political Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Regional Studies and Eurasian Studies,
Institute of International Relations, Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9891-6337. Email: kolomits@list.ru
** Ph.D. of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, World
Politics and Diplomacy, Institute of International Relations, Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University,
Kazan, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6876-7353. Email: yaktashlar@mail.ru
*** Ph.D. of Political Sciences, Advisor, Department for the Prevention of Extremism at Religious Grounds,
Oce for Monitoring Interethnic and Interfaith Relations of the Federal Agency for Nationalities
(FADN) of Russia, Moscow, Senior Research Ocer of International Interdisciplinary Research
Laboratory "Study of World and Regional Socio-Political Processes" Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic
University, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5303-1682. Email:
renariov@gmail.com
**** Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of Laboratory, International Interdisciplinary Research
Laboratory "Study of World and Regional Socio-Political Processes", Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic
University, Nizhny Novgorod, Director of Volga branch of the Federal Center of Theoretical and
Applied Sociology Academy of Sciences Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1481-3208.
Email: sv.ustinkin@gmail.com
***** Ph.D. of Sociological Sciences, Professor, Department of International Relations and Sociology,
Institute of Social Sciences, Moscow; Research Assistant of International Interdisciplinary Research
Laboratory "Study of World and Regional Socio-Political Processes" Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic
University, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0932-3573. Email:
kuvakovaim1999@mail.ru
****** Ph.D. of Political Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of International Relations and World
Political Processes, Research Assistant of International Interdisciplinary Research Laboratory "Study
of World and Regional Socio-Political Processes" Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University, Nizhny
Novgorod, Deputy Director of Volga branch of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology
Academy of Sciences Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1335-8496. Email: 4379037@
gmail.com
679
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 678-688
of the concept of globalism. Methodologically, the research, in reviewing
Trump’s globalist strategy and economic strategy, adopted a socio-
economic approach to politics that simultaneously explored geoeconomics
and geopolitical issues in their dialectical interactions, including on the
socio-economic dimension itself. It concludes that the U.S. elite faced the
need to accommodate the interests of the American population, whether
Republican or Democrat. Moreover, as asocial phenomenon, Trumpism
has shown that the politics of globalism has entered a period of conceptual
and resource crisis characterized by its inability to consider the interests of
the American population.
Keywords: U.S. policy; socio-economic relations; globalism;
regionalization, multipolar world.
Fundamentos socioeconómicos de la política interna
de Trump y el proyecto globalista en Estados Unidos
(2016-2020)
Resumen
El artículo considera la dimensión socioeconómica del concepto de
política interna del expresidente Donald John Trump en los Estados Unidos
durante su presidencia de 2016 a 2020. Se destacan las contradicciones
entre las políticas de D. Trump y el concepto de globalismo. Durante su curso
de política interna, D. Trump buscó recuperar la capacidad del liderazgo
estadounidense para reconstruir la gran industria del país a n de lograr
la independencia del capital nanciero transnacional. Sus políticas habían
tenido un éxito parcial y habían creado las condiciones para una redenición
del concepto de globalismo. En lo metodológico la investigación, al revisar la
estrategia globalista y la estrategia económica de Trump, adoptó un enfoque
socioeconómico de la política que exploró simultáneamente cuestiones
geoeconómicas y geopolíticas en sus interacciones dialécticas, incluso sobre
la dimensión socioeconómica propiamente dicha. Se concluye que la élite
de Estados Unidos se enfrentó a la necesidad de acomodar los intereses de
la población estadounidense, ya sean republicanos o demócratas. Además,
como fenómeno social, el trumpismo ha demostrado que la política de
globalismo ha entrado en un período de crisis conceptual y de recursos
caracterizado por su incapacidad para tener en cuenta los intereses de la
población estadounidense.
Palabras clave: política estadounidense; relaciones socioeconómicas;
globalismo; regionalización, mundo multipolar.
680
Dmitry Kolomyts, Firdaus Vagapova, Renat Vagapov, Segei Ustinkin, Irina Kuvakova y
Natalia Morozova
Socio-Economic Foundations of Trump’s Domestic Policy and The Globalist Project in The
United States (2016-2020)
Introduction
When it comes to elections in the United States, it means, rst of all,
clarifying who the country is economic and nancial elite will stand for. The
common view on this issue is that economic elites do not « put all one’s eggs
in one basket », that is, they share their interests between democratic and
republican party. It is just a matter of greater or lesser preferences (Baltz,
2021). With regard to the 2020 elections, the issue of the value choice of
voters was added. But there is another question for elections: the political
choice of voters based on socio-economic preferences, that is, the impact of
class preferences on political choices (Biegon, 2019).
When discussing the contradictions between Republican and
Democratic Party supporters in the United States, the media focus on the
contradictions in the world view. This can be explained by the fact that with
the predominance of services in the economy, industrial policy becomes
less visible (Gusterson, 2017; Farzanegan et al., 2021).
As a result, the interests of the North American community in the
production of goods and productive entrepreneurship are on the periphery
of media discussion, analysis and attention. But it is precisely the
contradictions between the industrial and post-industrial parts of North
American society that constitute one of the main contradictions between
the Trumpist Republicans and the Democrats. It is known that Trump was
in favor of the country’s industrial revival, and that the Democrats were
in favor of a post-industrial strategy. Some aspects of this policy and its
outcomes from 2016 to 2020 are discussed in this article.
1. Materials and Methods
The article, in reviewing the globalist strategy and President Trump’s
economic strategy, adopted a socio-economic approach that explored geo-
economic and geopolitical issues in their dialectical interactions, including
about the socio-economic dimension. A problem-solving approach has
been taken when considering the policies of President Trump himself, as
well as the objectives of his political opponents by globalists. This method
examined Trump’s actions in overcoming US economic de-industrialization
in the face of opposition from the globalist elite. An analytical method was
also used when Trump’s policies were studied in the elds of migration,
employment, nance, and industry. The sociological method was used to
examine voters’ political preferences in the United States from 2012 to
2020. The statistical method was used in the framework of the sociological
method and the involvement of economic statistics.
681
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 678-688
2. Results
By 2016, many in the United States had come to realize that the most
powerful American TNCs and banks did not solve the problems of US
citizens or North American domestic businesses. The mortgage crisis of
2007-2008 in the United States showed that all the wealth of the world
that was supposed to be in the territory of that state was not really there.
The money of the globalists ows past the U.S. and does not enrich the
state. In the so-called « “Great Stratication”: for the period 1979-2007.
The combined income of the richest 1% grew by 275%, while the poorest
20% of American households grew by only 18%» (Clarke and Ricketts,
2017; Biegon, 2019).
Trump needed domestic support to achieve his goals. It was therefore
vital for him to keep his promises. In his statement, he blamed the
immigrants and the foreign campaigns. Thus, with one proposal, he solved
four issues: the development of national capitalism, the maintenance of the
nation-State, the prevention of unemployment, and the ght against crime.
According to many analysts, Trump’s policies had their eects. In the
Rust Belt, stretches of riverway are crowded again with coal barges. And
local business leaders believe in the Trump Bump because they see it in
their order books and balance sheets. In the Coal Belt, there’s been delight
at the rescinding of Obama’s Clean Power Plan. According to a report
by the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics
in September 2019, the United States’ unemployment rate «reached a
record low since December 1969 and amounted to 3.5%» is 5.8 million
men (Guliyev, 2020). As early as 2018 in Davos, Trump announced: Since
my election, we’ve created 2.4 million jobs and that number is going up
very, very substantially. It is noteworthy that he said, continuing his talk:
African-American unemployment reached the lowest rate ever recorded in
the United States and so has unemployment among Hispanic-Americans
(Nelson, 2019). The success of Trump’s policy was also recognized by the
opposition. It is acknowledged that the successes at the end of 2019 can
be considered as the «strong stock market, record low unemployment, low
ination», «petrol prices below average, tax cuts, deregulation campaign...»
(Regilme, 2019) In doing so, Trump articulated a commitment to the
philosophy of North American imperialism, stating; There has never been
a better time to hire, to build, to invest, and to grow in the United States.
America is open for business and we are competitive once again (Farzanegan
et al., 2021).
The Republicans’ tax stance under Trump remained the same: the drive
to cut taxes. During Trump’s presidency, taxes were reduced on so-called
C corp, one of the most common types of private enterprises in the United
States, including large ones, as well as on individual business rms and
682
Dmitry Kolomyts, Firdaus Vagapova, Renat Vagapov, Segei Ustinkin, Irina Kuvakova y
Natalia Morozova
Socio-Economic Foundations of Trump’s Domestic Policy and The Globalist Project in The
United States (2016-2020)
partnerships with various exible organization schemes (Lacatus, 2020).
Moreover, Trump proposed lower-wage taxes. As a result, 40% of small
businesses considered themselves Republicans in 2020, compared to 29%
who considered themselves Democrats, while the number of undecided
people decreased to 40% (Guliyev, 2020). Small and medium-sized
businesses’ views of Trump’s presidency were strongly inuenced by the
announced COVID 19 pandemic. It particularly aected those who were
unable to compensate for losses despite State aid or health insurance, and
who chose to deny Trump support (Hall, 2020). While others who had
successfully survived the pandemic by the end of 2020 have maintained
condence in the incumbent President. In general, during his presidency,
Trump managed to secure the support of the business.
Trump’s policy of limiting migration from Latin America proved
successful. Already by the beginning of 2020 so-called «caravans of
migrants» from Mexico disappeared. The reason for this was the agreement
that Trump made with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador,
whereby the Mexicans unilaterally closed the border with Guatemala and
the United States, and the remaining migrants either stayed in Mexico
or returned to their countries. The number of migrants in July 2019 was
87,000 and the month before that was 144,000 (Nelson, 2019). At the same
time, in April 2019, 16,100 illegal migrants were detained on the border
with Mexico; in June - 30,700 in July - 38,400; in August - 46,800 (Biegon,
2019; Restad, 2020).
Overall, by the end of 2019, the number of migrants detained at the
southern border of the United States had fallen by 75 percent compared to
May of the same year. Mexico stopped about 150,000 migrants from going
to northern Mexico. Besides, in 2019, 64,000 illegal border crossings were
transferred from the United States to Mexico (Mulich, 2020). Evidence
suggests that irregular migration has not stopped, and several illegal
immigrants have entered the United States, but it has declined signicantly.
Trump’s other action was to build a wall on the border with Mexico, which
was not completed but remained an important part of his anti-migrant
policy.
The persecution of Trump personally unleashed by the democratic
globalist elite led to the concentration of its so-called «nuclear
electorate» around Republicans and Democrats: Protestants, whites,
farmers, African Americans, Hispanics, LGBT community, gun owners, etc.
«In the «Bible belt» Protestants see Trump as their own, just like them, a
victim of bullying by the liberal elite. In the «solar belt» along the Mexican
border, his plans to combat illegal immigration are strongly supported».
The struggle to implement the new policy towards migrants has spread
to the US courts (Regilme, 2019). At the same time, the Latin-speakers
themselves oppose the inux of migrants across the border, realizing that
683
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 69 (Julio - Diciembre 2021): 678-688
this leads to an increase in crime and unemployment. The important thing
here is that Trump continued to fulll his promises, thereby retaining
support among those of his supporters who considered illegal migration a
big problem for the United States.
Likewise, Conservative Trumpists associate achievements in domestic
politics with achievements in foreign policy. In an interview with The Wall
Street Journal, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said, «the taris
are helping to bring industrial jobs back to the US» and «the number of
jobs in the sector has grown by 400,000» between November 2016 and
early March 2020 (Guliyev, 2020). As his victory, he announced that «out
of 200 billion dollars, China will spend half (50 billion dollars a year) on the
purchase of agricultural products from American farmers who unanimously
vote for him in the elections» (Restad, 2020). China was forced to make
concessions on other issues as well.
The economic goal is expressed something like this: we will get rich, and
everyone will come to us for technology, loans, money. It is believed that
the goal of Trump’s policy is «to level the playing eld in his giant domestic
market and to resist theft of intellectual property» (Biegon, 2019). Trumpists
managed to solve the ideological task of creating an «image of China as an
enemy», which «became entrenched in the minds of Americans» and «the
abolition of duties on Chinese goods» is no longer being discussed (Nelson,
2019). His opponents from the liberal camp accuse him only of hypocrisy,
since it was in China that Trump placed some of his orders. They also say
that further all the projects of the President of the United States will not be
successful. Nevertheless, these are weak arguments (Mulich, 2020).
However, the political confrontation noticeably turns into falsications
and the creation of false facts. For example, Wall Street Journal experts
«note that this two-thirds increase occurred even before the United States
introduced the rst round of duties on Chinese goods in July 2018. By the
beginning of 2020, even before the States faced the pandemic, the growth
in industrial employment had stopped (Interfax.ru, 2020). In fact, the
decrease in unemployment was hardly noticeable in 2018 (by 0.1-0.3%),
but the increase in unemployment still turned out to be directly dependent
on the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic - it was in March that there was
a sharp jump in unemployment by 11.3% (Lacatus, 2020).
The deep internal contradictions among the population of the United
States should be considered. A country that declared but did not become
a “melting pot” of nations, did not create a true “American nation.” And
the growth of ideological contradictions, up to the “idiosyncrasy” and
“incapacity for constructive cooperation” of the opposing forces, at least
“by the Republicans already in 1994”, further and further led people away
to the political anks (Restad, 2020).
684
Dmitry Kolomyts, Firdaus Vagapova, Renat Vagapov, Segei Ustinkin, Irina Kuvakova y
Natalia Morozova
Socio-Economic Foundations of Trump’s Domestic Policy and The Globalist Project in The
United States (2016-2020)
With Trump, a strange feature in the political life of the United States
was revealed in that the President’s course is personal, and is named
Trump’s course and “Trumpian”, and the «globalists» and «democrats»
acting against him are anonymized. Based on this, one gets the impression
that Trump is a loner opposing the US Democratic Party. It is backed by
major US campaigns, the military-industrial complex, and most of the US’s
population.
Trump opposed the Fed, which, according to Trump, raised rates and
continued to print extra money (Mulich, 2020). The decision of the US
Federal Reserve to cut the renancing rate for the rst time in the last decade
by only 0.25 percentage points should be considered a minor victory for
Trump (Wojczewski, 2020). There is another opinion that Trump could not
resist the Fed, that wolves of Wall Street showed Trump who was the boss
and who would determine the level of interest rates in the economy. But we
observed a certain confrontation between the President of the United States
and the Fed (Hall, 2020).
A feature of the political choice of voters in the United States is value.
In the United States, as a state with a signicant share of services in the
economy, which means a fairly high level of income for a large part of the
population, political choices rarely regard the income directly. Many people
vote based on value and ideological preferences, which are especially
advantageously highlighted in the media, showing the confrontation of
some groups against others. The 2020 presidential election did not add
consensus to North American society (Lacatus, 2020). Brexit and then
Trump’s election is a reection of a deep crisis in Western society that no
one wanted to notice. And the example of “yellow vests” in France, the
League in Italy, and “Alternatives for Germany” in Germany” shows that “in
Western societies there was a rebellion of a signicant part of the population,
a populist rebellion” (Regilme, 2019; Wojczewski, 2020). After the crisis in
2008, “millions of Americans were left homeless” plus “a deep economic
split in American society”: job cuts due to technological development aect
both workers and employees (Nelson, 2019).
In the liberal-minded part of Canada, Trumpism is assessed as an
extreme right-wing movement, inspired by Trump in its racism and
xenophobia, which will increase the pressure on society (Mulich, 2020).
Regionalization as a global trend has captured the United States as well.
Trump only strengthened and sped up the US advance towards isolationism,
which became noticeable even under Barack Obama (Restad, 2020).
Since there were no signicant changes in demographic, economic, and
social relations from 2015 to 2020, the state voting only conrmed the
development of the existing patterns (Guliyev, 2020) (Figure 1, Figure 2).