|
The Danger of Trump’s Politics Lies Not in His Conservative Policies, but in His “Tribalization” Tactics That Divide Society and Subordinate National Interests to a Select Group Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office for the second time, the United States has not become “great again” as he claimed. Instead, it has fallen into a predicament of deepening internal division and deteriorating foreign relations. The root cause lies in his relentless pursuit of tribalist politics. In sharp contrast, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding prime minister, with his vision and broad-mindedness, actively promoted ethnic harmony on multiple fronts and successfully steered Singapore away from the trap of tribalism. This stark comparison further highlights the flaws in Trump’s political approach.
Tribalism originally describes a survival mechanism in early human societies, where groups formed based on blood ties or GEOgraphy to protect themselves in a harsh “survival of the fittest” environment. Its core principle is “in-group priority”: members within the group shelter and share resources with one another, while adopting a highly defensive—even hostile—attitude toward outsiders. In primitive societies, this model was a necessary means of survival. However, when it seeps into modern politics, it gives rise to a host of severe problems.
Tribalist politics absolutizes identity, tying individual worth entirely to the group one belongs to—whether defined by political party, religion, or ethnicity. It rigidly divides society into “us” and “them,” a binary logic that eliminates middle ground and space for rational dialogue. Public policy devolves into a zero-sum battle between adversaries or a tool for patronage, making it impossible to forge shared interests or value consensus. In terms of interest distribution, tribal politics is highly exclusionary: it prioritizes safeguarding the resources of “our people,” even at the expense of the public good. It also demands irrational loyalty, requiring members to submit unconditionally and place group unity above rational judgment.
With the development of industrialized and information-driven societies, the “tribes” of modern tribalism are no longer limited to traditional blood or geographic ties. Instead, they are defined by new identity markers: political party affiliation, ideology, cultural attributes, and even consumption habits. Algorithmic recommendations on social media trap people in echo chambers, exposing them only to information that aligns with their existing views. This further reinforces the closed-off, confrontational nature of tribes, eroding space for dialogue between different groups and reducing the public sphere to a battlefield of mutual denigration.
Trump is a master at manipulating tribal politics, and his rhetorical strategies and policies have taken tribalism to its extreme. First, he has absolutized identity by framing white blue-collar workers, evangelical Christians, anti-establishment figures, anti-immigration advocates, and opponents of “left-wing political correctness” as “true, patriotic Americans.” By implication, other groups are painted as unpatriotic, unjust, or even treasonous. His policies—including tax cuts, protectionist measures for manufacturing, opposition to abortion, and support for gun rights—are all tailored to secure the interests of this core tribal base.
Trump has also entrenched a binary “us vs. them” divide at home and abroad. Internationally, he has championed the “America First” mantra, labeling countries with which the U.S. runs a trade deficit as “enemies” that exploit American interests. Domestically, he has cast the left, immigrants, Muslims, and ethnic minority rights movements as “threats” to America’s traditional values and national interests. While this binary narrative has rallied his supporters, it has also deepened rifts within American society.
The interest distribution under Trump’s leadership is highly exclusionary. His energy policies, which revive fossil fuel production, cater to the short-term interests of the energy industry and blue-collar workers but ignore the global challenge of climate change. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he downplayed the need for 防疫 measures (epidemic prevention measures) out of concern for the economic interests of his core voters, inflicting enormous costs on public health nationwide. Finally, Trump demands irrational loyalty: after the 2020 election, he repeatedly claimed “election fraud,” and despite courts dismissing these claims for lack of evidence, his supporters clung to the narrative—culminating in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Since his second term began, he has pardoned all those convicted of involvement in the Capitol riot and severely punished judicial officials who participated in investigating, prosecuting, and sentencing the rioters.
This not only reflects the blind trust of Trump’s fans in their leader but also signifies the erosion of democratic institutions by tribal politics. The danger of Trump’s politics lies not in his conservative policies, but in his use of “tribalization” to divide society and prioritize the interests of a select group over the nation’s collective good.
In stark contrast to Trump stands Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding prime minister. Singapore is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation, where significant differences in language, religion, and culture across ethnic groups could easily spark conflict. Yet under Lee’s leadership, Singapore successfully avoided the trap of tribalism, achieving ethnic harmony and social stability.
Lee Kuan Yew was far-sighted and deeply understood the importance of ethnic harmony to national development. He actively promoted a multi-cultural policy that respected and protected the linguistic, religious, and cultural traditions of all ethnic groups, ensuring every community felt a sense of belonging in Singapore. For example, Singapore adopted a system of four official languages to safeguard the linguistic rights of all ethnicities; it also built religious sites for different faiths, upholding the freedom of religious belief.
At the same time, Lee focused on building cross-ethnic public values. He emphasized that Singaporeans should transcend ethnic boundaries, prioritize national interests, and cultivate a shared sense of national identity and belonging. Through education system reforms, values such as national consciousness and civic responsibility were integrated into school curricula, enabling a new generation of Singaporeans to grow up with the awareness that “I am a Singaporean.”
Furthermore, Lee implemented fair and equitable policies to ensure all ethnic groups enjoyed equal rights and opportunities in politics, economy, and society. Politically, he introduced a multi-party system and democratic elections to safeguard the political participation of all ethnicities. Economically, he pursued proactive industrial and employment policies to promote balanced economic development and equal job opportunities across groups. Socially, he established a comprehensive social security system and public services to provide equal welfare and access to public facilities for all ethnic communities.
Purely from an ethnic demographic perspective, Singapore could have easily become a country where a “Chinese tribe” dominated other ethnic groups. That it avoided falling into the trap of tribalization—thanks to Lee Kuan Yew’s vision—is truly remarkable.
To sustain and build on this achievement, several steps are essential. First, it is crucial to consolidate a political culture that transcends tribalism and continues to emphasize public rationality. Political discourse should center on policy effectiveness and the public good, rather than dividing people into friends and enemies based on identity labels. Media and the intellectual community must actively provide platforms for rational debate, guiding society away from positional confrontation and toward discussions grounded in facts and shared values.
Second, the neutrality of institutions must be strengthened. Institutions such as the judiciary, electoral systems, and media oversight bodies must be shielded from political party interference and maintained impartially. This is the only way to prevent public resources from being reduced to tools for tribal patronage.
Third, cross-tribal public values should be established to unite society around core principles—such as fairness, justice, science, and the rule of law. These universal values are the “common denominator” that binds an entire nation. Additionally, fostering diverse dialogue in civil society is key: education and civic movements should emphasize respecting differences and listening to opposing views, rather than one-sided indoctrination. If a society can learn to coexist with diverse groups, it can weaken the confrontational nature of tribalism.
Political leaders must refrain from relying on tribal mobilization as their primary governing tool; instead, their highest goal should be social integration. Leaders bear the greatest responsibility in this regard. If a leader only seeks to consolidate support among “their own people,” they will accelerate social division. Only by embracing the role of a “president for all” or a “government for all” can leaders truly resolve tribal antagonisms, sustain ethnic harmony, and preserve a rational public sphere. |
