The Trump Presidency and China’s Cultural Revolution

When the liberal critics of Trump’s presidency rushed to traction since January, it seems that the historical measurement everywhere: “If you want a model of what is happening to America,” the economist Paul Crowagman wrote in April, “Think of Mao Cultural Revolution.” from New York Times to Guardian To a large number of researchers, commentators Donald Trump presented as an incarnation of the United States to the great passengers.

Like Mao Zaidong, as these critics say, Trump is filling in a rebel base to destroy the bureaucratic and cultural elites, and has created worship from the character in which the leader exceeds everything else, and he is not tolerant brutally for his ideological enemies.

Like Mao Zaidong, as these critics say, Trump is filling in a rebel base to destroy the bureaucratic and cultural elites, and has created worship from the character in which the leader exceeds everything else, and he is not tolerant brutally for his ideological enemies.

How strong is this comparison, though? Are the trainees at the Ministry of State efficiency really generate the Red Guard? It may be a short historical summary. The Cultural Revolution 1966-1976 was almost shocked at every school, university and workplace in China. Mao has mobilized millions of Chinese people to break the competitors who considered them anti-revolutionary. A man was shared by one man expelling the base under the law or by the party.

At the first stage of the most radical stages of the campaign, between 1966 and 1969, a series of violent power attacks by students and workers invaded political institutions at almost all levels of society. Red Guard – most of them are school students and university students who were completely taught to worship Mao – sometimes directed intellectuals, killing, killing, and anyone seen as contaminated with European or American culture. The country stumbled on the edge of the complete civil war, which was alerted due to mass killings (the number of deaths in the campaign may have approached two million) and even eaten human meat as revenge on the “class enemies”.

Trump’s second presidency and cultural revolution offer some forms of superficial suspicions: the leader is revered at the head of the movement, and the attacks on governmental institutions and not presented (bureaucrats, media, and universities), and framing political battles as cultural wars. Mao and Trump designed themselves as strangers with the love of rebellious chaos.

But the points of difference are more convincing. In the 1960s, China (a young Leninist dictator was reeling from civil wars and political campaigns) a completely different society from the contemporary United States. The cultural revolution was immersed in the Chinese society with terrifying levels of brutality, from the central leadership to the popular parties, which the United States has not spared yet.

Even with the Supreme Court’s decision to last year on presidential immunity, the United States still has a legal system (if tense) has repeatedly prevented Trump’s actions. This barely resembles the base through the emotions with which Mao removed any restrictions on his orders.

Foreign policy offers another decisive point. Mao was an ideological expansion, as he aspired to win in China, instead of the Soviet Union, the leadership of the global revolution. In contrast, Trump is making America a great time by reducing American obligations abroad. Mao expressed his hope that the cultural revolution will arise, then export communism to those who struggle against colonialism in Africa, Asia, Latin America and even cafes, universities and factories in Western Europe and the United States.

Trump rushed to dismantle Pax America, prevailing since the end of World War II, and gave up the global system based on the rules established by his predecessors and defended him. “America first” indicates a completely different direction from the global Maawiya platform presented by the cultural revolution.

Why did many commentators turn into this measurement? At its primary level, the cultural revolution completes a previous wave of liberal comments that have presented European fascism as a model of Trump’s height. Supporters of measurement offer both a waking and fragmentation call. It is clear that this is a moment of crisis, they give up, but what can be more American than the cultural revolution? In Trump’s founding as President of President Mao, he can be revealed as a strange threat to American life.

A number of correspondents specialized in China provided analogy of the cultural revolution with their appearance directly from the Chinese people-a warning that has become more authentic because it comes from the source of that disaster. But for the largest part, it was Western commentators who seemed to be alert about the Maoism in America. When doing this, perhaps inadvertently, they wrote the latest chapter on a long history to make China a source of American diseases. The first large number of population targeted federal immigration restrictions in the eighties of the nineteenth century was Chinese. Doubt in the Chinese influence of the United States and its allies during the Cold War. This fear was restored in American politics and culture with great strength in 2010 and 2020.

Fears were evident about China’s capabilities in breaking the United States -led global system among liberal policy makers and commentators for more than a decade. The Barack Obama axis of Asia, which was aimed at reducing Chinese influence, was revived by Joe Biden, who also maintained the customs tariff and hostile rhetoric of the Trump’s first administration. The idea that the United States may not only be superior to Communist China, but also to restart its most destructive disasters that make Thoric cultural measurement horrific and not resist equally.

But the truth remains that the most persuasive historical analogy and the roots of Trump’s second presidency remain local. From the law of foreign enemies in 1798 to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Law, the Trump war on immigrants did not require a new legislation. Its comprehensive use of executive orders is based on a tradition created by former former White House and responds to a functional, functional legislative system that no entire American leader has eaten, not to mention the attempt to reform it.

NATIVISM has deep roots in the history of the United States, and the design of Trump’s signature from “America First” summarizes the sympathetic Nazi discourse in the period between the two wars. The cultural revolution may be useful to see what makes Trump distinctive, not familiar. But if we ignore the local roots, the moment of Maga in search of a strange analogy, it becomes difficult to see all the risks and the potential treatments for the current crisis.