The highest-graded essay. Political economy decoded through marketing theory. What the movement sold, who bought it, and what they actually paid for. Offence intended.
1000 words · transcribed from the original PDF
The former president of the United States, Donald Trump, exploited the marketing slogan “Make America Great Again” (hereafter MAGA) to propel himself into office during the 2016 presential elections. Regardless of his infamous legacy, one cannot dispute the sheer effectiveness of this particular political slogan, from a marketing perspective, although ethically questionable, it brutally capitalizes on the conflicting race relations in the United States. To elaborate, MAGA implies that the United States once was great, one could therefore deem the slogan to be inherently problematic, specifically because the country rose to prominence through what (Bhambra, 2017, p. 225) describes as a “slave-society”. This refers to the fact that the US gained an economic advantage, due to the (continued) systematic oppression of black people. Notably, whatever “greatness” the US has achieved is heavily intertwined with slavery, thereafter legalized segregation and now structural inequalities. However, the question still remains - MAGA implies former greatness, but for whom?
According to popular belief, it was the “working class” that swayed the 2016 US election results, apparently in response to being economically “left behind” (Mutz, 2018, p. E4330). Similarly, the left behind narrative was applied in terms of the Brexit results; voting “leave” was supposedly the crusade of the working class. In both cases however, this has been debunked, empirical evidence directly implicates the white middle-class being the driving force behind voting outcomes (Bhambra, 2017, pp. 215-216). Therefore, contrary to the assumptions of commentators and academics alike; Trump’s victory in 2016 was not decided by the working class, which essentially voids the left behind thesis. On the contrary, it was overwhelmingly instigated by the white middle class. In light of (Cialdini, 2007, p. 257) this makes sense, he explains that downtrodden people, ergo the working class, have normalized their deprivation, but it’s those that have had “some taste of a better life”, in this case, the middle class, that are most likely to react. This encompasses scarcity, which describes the want for conditions that we deem as rare or unattainable. During Trump’s Victory in 2016, it seems as if the working class was less affected by scarcity as opposed to the middle-class. In line with Cialdini, it correlates with the fact that many of those in the working class have been there for generations, not knowing or “tasting” the privileges of another class, whereas those in the middle class would not want to lose their economic advantage. It all interlinks with dreading the loss of freedoms already possessed (Cialdini, 2007, p. 245). On the other
hand, in the aftermath of Trump’s victory in 2016, commentators and academics wrongfully focused on the plight of the white working class to explain the election results, disregarding the impact of the white middle class, whilst systematically neglecting the fact that people of colour are in the left behind category too. Essentially one could say the left behind category is a euphemism for the white working class. Paradoxically, the perceived beneficiaries of Trump’s 2016 campaign reveal the underlying story; perhaps MAGA does not implicate greatness for everyone. Besides, the way MAGA and it’s attached nostalgia structurally targets white workers, as opposed to all workers, whilst contaminating the meaning of class and disregarding the impact of race, in practical terms argues for the ethically controversial racial hierarchies of the past (Bhambra, 2017, pp. 217, 227).
According to (Mutz, 2018, p. E4331) the 2016 presidential election results can be explained through dominant group status threat, which takes two forms. To elaborate, racial status threat is a by-product of the fact that white Americans will soon be the minority race in the US, it entails the fear of losing control in social and political settings. On the other hand, global status threat encompasses the downsides of becoming too reliant on other countries, moreover the rise of China also endangers their perceived global dominance. One could say this is a prime example of loss aversion, the middle-class valuing their advantages more, in the fear of potentially being able to lose them. Moreover, (Cialdini, 2007, p. 267) tells us that in terms of scarcity, the joy is rooted in the notion of possessing certain freedoms, ironically, the risk of losing it looms larger than the actual experience. Furthermore (Mutz, 2018, p. E4332) clarifies that global status threat and racial status threat are initially two separate forces, however an intersectionality occurs when predominantly white Christian males anchor their identity in being “American”. To elaborate, “the American way of life” is equated to being white, this is also apparent in the whitewashing of the term working class, previously seen in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. The interchangeable and exclusive relationship between whiteness and being American is ethically problematic by nature, especially when combined with racial and global status threat, psychologically this can cause white Christian American males to think they are suffering the most. The political slogan MAGA, provides reassurance that the status quo and racial hierarchies of the past are not something of old but can be achieved again. Those that find themselves in the intersectionality of perceived status threat, are at risk of being exploited by the scarcity tactic, especially since they are emotionally vulnerable, hence rationality can be overwhelmed. In line with (Cialdini, 2007, p. 266) scarcity obstructs our “ability to think”. This makes sense
when (Bhambra, 2017, p. 226) establishes that perceived status threat actually amounts to a “relative loss of privilege”, in other words white Americans are starting to lose their unjust advantage which derives from the times where America was “great”. Nonetheless, people are predictable, (Cialdini, 2007, p. 3) famously labelled our mechanical fixed-action patterns as “click, whir” reactions. Therefore, regardless of ethical rational, many white Americans are more inclined to prevent the loss of privilege rather than the gain of racial equality (Cialdini, 2007, p. 263). Although ethically questionable, Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign successfully exploited the perceived status threat in the United States at the cost of fuelling racial tensions in an already divided country.
Published as the original submitted document, unedited. 85% is the coursework mark for this module — the degree award (First Class Honours, BSc Marketing & Management, Queen Mary University of London) is a separate, single claim and is stated on the record page.