A Gent(i)le Clarification of the White Trash Theory of Donald Trump

“Is Donald Trump a white trash icon?” Begins the July 6th New Republic article by Sarah Marshall. A thought-provoking question, to be sure.

The author evokes images of Mencken’s southern Bozart, comparing Trump with the likes of Dolly Parton and Tammy Faye Bakker. References are made to overalls, “old economy jobs” and mobile homes, ostensibly low symbols of an ostensibly low people. This is typical ideological pablum most of us can remember consuming in our formative years.

It doesn’t surprise me that our modern intelligentsia, steeped in alienation masked as detached supremacy, seems unable to understand or empathize with their people. Neither am I surprised that the political machine attempting to grind its native population to historical dust seems baffled and frustrated by Trump’s resilient support base.

Historian Nancy (((Isenberg)))’s work “White Trash” attempts to present matters in the West as a simple narrative of class struggle, where the “trash people” exist as an exploitable tool for enacting social change. “Our very identity as a nation, no matter what we tell ourselves, is intimately tied up with the dispossessed,” writes Isenberg. While it is interesting to see Marxian rhetoric applied to the native people of this country, I come away thinking Isenberg put no serious effort into considering the unique cultural character of the White peoples in this country.

Being the appropriate sort of modern, Marshall is more interested in Isenberg’s “cool” subversion of the Founding Fathers mythos. An all-too-typical university student, Sarah seems bored with any serious introspection or application of the narrative. Marshall makes no serious effort to examine the appeal of folksy elements in our media throughout time, or consider the cultural ennui underlying hipster culture (for instance, shape note or Sacred Harp singing has seen a renaissance with hipster interest. Which leads to wonderful youtube videos like this… But I digress).

This brings us to the author’s clumsy conclusion, which I quote in full:

“If Donald Trump sees white trash as his core demographic, he isn’t telling. Doing so, after all, might mean facing the fact that his constituents are drawn to him not because they are impassioned by his message, but because they have been rendered voiceless for so long that they are happy to have anyone speak on their behalf. It might mean facing the fact that his own rise, in business and in politics, is based on exploiting others’ weakness. It might mean realizing that such a vast class of desperate, marginalized people has always existed but does not need to exist, and that, if America was “great,” there would simply be no one left to vote for him.”

Trump undoubtedly sees white trash as his core demographic, which is why he doesn’t dismiss them as trash. This refusal to "name the trash" goes some way towards explaining why the bourgie urbanite finds Trump so deeply offensive. One has to chuckle at Sarah’s insinuation that people who have no voice are somehow unable to be galvanized by a message, or that somehow only the trash of society lack agency or mindlessly follow a strong leader; it is quite obvious this writer has never applied the same sort of scrutiny to the other side of the political aisle. Marshall’s exploitation remark is laughable, implying exploitation is a priori bad or evil, implying that she has established a moral system by which to judge such things. Finally, desperate and marginalized people will always exist; privilege and material comfort are what is truly transitory in this life. The assertion that we have somehow solved inequality and that men like Trump have somehow hidden this paradise from humanity is quite frankly retarded.

I wish I could be surprised that a woman pursuing a terminal degree concludes with such easily refuted, childish prattle. Alas, the red pill.

It’s old hat to point out the Marxian’s inability to accept that revolution fails when isolated to a single class; this article misses so much more. What crunchy women and historians with echoing surnames fail to understand is that “white trash” in the context of our current year is a denigration meant to apply to the entire White race. In the globalist paradigm, we are expected to accept our role as a disposable people, a fading remnant of an ignoble era. It speaks volumes that these detached, insular elites are genuinely surprised with this backlash from the people they are systematically dispossessing. The notion that you cannot buy off or paper over a cultural, racial identity is frankly alien to them.

What these arrogant idealists seem incapable of understanding is that they’ve birthed a revolution, a genuine one, and not of the stillborn purist variety à la Marxism or Libertarianism. What these traitors need to realize is that White people exist and deserve to exist, and that for America to be great again, this progressive narrative will be removed in toto.

Author image
Bulbasaur is a blue collar worker and part-time polemicist from the Southern U.S.