The Illusionist
America’s recent political choice reflects a powerful, almost desperate desire to reject the status quo. The election results are a cry against an establishment many feel has failed them.
This week, voters once again embraced the candidate who promised to “drain the swamp,” making a clear statement: they want to disrupt entrenched powers.
Yet, in the pursuit of anti-establishment change, Americans have rallied behind a figure who, ironically, embodies the very corporate interests fueling the establishment they seek to dismantle.
The Corporate Reality Behind Anti-Establishment Rhetoric
Former President Trump positioned himself as an outsider, a champion for the “forgotten” Americans.
He resonated with those who yearned for a leader outside the power structures they feel have worked against them.
However, his first term reveals a pro-corporate agenda cloaked in populist language.
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for example, slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Creating record profits for corporations and substantial gains for the top 1%.
Meanwhile, real wages for everyday Americans saw minimal growth; the promised trickle-down effects simply didn’t materialize. While Americans struggle with grocery bills, corporations report record-breaking profits under Trump’s tax reforms.
The funding for these corporate gains came at a cost. Attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and reduce support for essential social programs—such as food assistance (SNAP) and affordable housing—left vulnerable families and working-class individuals at even greater risk, undermining the support systems intended to provide basic security.
Additionally, rolling back protections like overtime pay eligibility and workplace safety standards weakened safeguards for countless workers. These protections are vital for fair wages and safe conditions, especially for middle- and low-income individuals. By promoting these pro-corporate policies as populist measures, Trump effectively strengthened the establishment he claimed to oppose.
The result?
Wealth is concentrated further among the elite, with corporate interests prioritized over public welfare, leaving middle- and low-income Americans even more vulnerable.
Exploiting Values and Fears as Tools of Manipulation
In both campaigns, Trump harnessed cultural fears and religious values as tools of political manipulation. Aligning himself with “Christian values,” he tapped into fears surrounding immigration, gender identity, and a perceived loss of national identity, positioning himself as a defender of a traditional moral order.
Yet, these values often act as a smokescreen, distracting from policies that overwhelmingly benefit corporations over individuals.
Here lies a paradox: Trump appeals to religious voters by promoting traditional values, yet his personal life tells a different story. With multiple divorces, affairs, and questionable business practices, his choices often contradict Christian teachings on humility, faithfulness, and kindness.
While championing corporate interests, he uses Christian values to gain trust, turning faith into a political tool rather than a source of genuine conviction.
Control Over Conviction: The Political Weaponization of Values
By invoking Christian values, Trump and other conservative leaders have pushed for laws that restrict individual freedoms and enforce narrow worldviews.
The notion that “our interpretation of God’s intent is true, and He knows what’s best for you” has become a political stance, justifying policies that impose selective beliefs across society.
While these cultural issues feel important to many, they often distract from policies that directly impact daily lives.
This appeal to values is less about genuine conviction and more about control. It taps into people’s deeply held beliefs, masking the true effects of pro-corporate, pro-establishment legislation.
Using Fear to Justify Restrictions and Narrow Worldviews
The recent election results will likely empower those who claim to protect “freedom” while reinforcing existing power structures.
The Republican Party often frames freedom as a fight against exaggerated—or even imaginary—threats, rallying voters by stirring fears of differing values.
For instance, legislation aimed at “protecting children” from learning about race, gender, and challenging aspects of history often censors educators, granting the government control over school curriculums. This approach paves the way for Orwellian-style oversight, eroding critical dialogue and limiting exposure to diverse perspectives. For those who agree with the overseers, this might seem benign—but how long until opposing views take charge?
Similarly, the surge in book bans in conservative states targets works on racial inequality, LGBTQ+ themes, and uncomfortable parts of history. These bans, framed as “preserving innocence,” limit open dialogue and push us toward a government enforcing specific ideologies. Ironically, this resembles the very control our founders left England to escape.
This inconsistency extends further: many who resist “protect the children” arguments around gun control quickly support restrictions on information under the same reasoning. They resist firearm limits yet accept restrictions on books and classroom discussions—all under the banner of protecting children. By racing to enforce values, they curtail their own freedoms.
What the Win Could Mean
This decisive Republican win may embolden the more radical wing of the party.
We can expect attempts to enforce far-right ideals, with more legislation aimed at expanding federal control. Framed as “protection,” these policies ultimately limit personal freedoms.
Historically, Republicans often champion “freedom” but have a record of supporting measures that curtail individual rights.
Some of the most significant restrictions came from Republican-led initiatives following 9/11, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
These actions expanded surveillance, centralized immigration enforcement, and limited due process—all under the banner of security.
Now, with a focus on perceived “enemies within,” what new laws might be imposed “for our own good”?
The Power of Divisive Campaign Tactics
The success of divisive campaigning reveals the state of American politics.
It is sobering to consider that a campaign built on:
– Vilifying immigrants and refugees, including proposing travel bans on predominantly Muslim countries
– Promoting anti-LGBTQ+ policies, such as banning transgender individuals from the military
– Equating Christianity with patriotism while marginalizing other faiths, thereby undermining religious freedom
– Stirring racial tensions by defending Confederate symbols and portraying racial justice movements as threats
– Supporting authoritarian tactics and undermining democratic processes by questioning election integrity
…has gained such momentum.
Right-wing leaders have learned to tap into these emotions like an oil well of votes, using them to gain power while deflecting from policies that ultimately serve corporate and government interests.
Trump: The Anti-Establishment Figure Who Reinforces the Establishment
Comparing the 2024 campaign talking points to the reality of 2016-2020, we see a striking paradox.
Here is a candidate who convinces millions he stands against the establishment while his policies reinforce corporate power. Here is a leader who claims to champion Christian values while his personal life tells a different story.
For many Americans, traditional Christian values are a major motivator.
Yet Trump’s record shows a pattern of using these values rather than embodying them.
To be fair, he did advance a Christian nationalist agenda that appealed to key conservative priorities, appointing three conservative Supreme Court justices and setting the stage for overturning Roe v. Wade, expanding religious exemptions, and supporting policies like the Mexico City Policy, which restricted funds for abortion services.
These actions solidified his popularity among Christian conservatives, but they favored corporate or religious freedoms over individual rights.
Reinforcing and Expanding the Establishment
To those who still view Trump as anti-establishment, let’s look at his record.
Under Trump, government power expanded in several key areas.
- By declaring a national emergency at the border, he bypassed Congress to fund the border wall, setting a precedent for executive overreach.
- His strict immigration policies and expanded border surveillance granted agencies like ICE and DHS greater unchecked authority.
- Deploying federal agents to protests raised concerns about federal control over local matters and civil liberties.
- His conservative judicial appointments strengthened law enforcement powers and broadened executive authority, further consolidating government control over individual rights.
By focusing on divisive cultural issues, Trump effectively distracted from policies favoring corporate profit over public welfare, and control over freedom.
The Illusion of Anti-Establishment Change
The drive to challenge the establishment is genuine and, some argue, urgent. Yet if history is any indication, this 2024 election will not dismantle the establishment—it will only consolidate it further in the hands of corporations and elites.
By appealing to Christian values and anti-establishment sentiments, Trump has crafted an image that resonates with voters’ hopes while advancing policies that serve a different agenda.
This paradox forces us to ask: Have we traded our rights in the name of religious conviction, surrendering personal freedoms under the guise of protection?
In our pursuit of change, have we inadvertently strengthened the very systems we sought to escape?
Final Thoughts
In the name of tradition, we may be chipping away at the principles that have historically defined America: respect for individual freedoms a pluralistic society, and a government that serves all, not just the privileged few.
We risk surrendering immense power to leaders who wield faith as a tool of control. Many Christians seem willing to sacrifice freedom to impose selective interpretations onto the nation.
Meanwhile, other voters are endorsing a candidate who promises change but acts in the interests of billionaire allies, eroding the rights they hold dear—all in the name of restricting others’ freedoms.
How do we safeguard the core values of freedom, fairness, and respect for individual rights that should be the foundation of our democracy?
In seeking change, have we handed over our power to leaders who exploit our values, only to empower the establishment further?
Time may reveal the true cost of this paradox, but we must ask ourselves now: What freedoms are we willing to sacrifice in the name of symbols that promise change but deliver control?
Sources by Subject:
Corporate Profits and Tax Cuts:
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: Corporate profits increased by 15% in 2018 following the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “National Income and Product Accounts,” 2018.
Congressional Budget Office: The TCJA disproportionately benefited the top 1% of earners.
Source: Congressional Budget Office, “The Distributional Impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” 2018.
Wealth Inequality and Middle-Class Impact:
Federal Reserve: By the end of 2020, the top 1% held over 30% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 50% owned just 2%.
Source: Federal Reserve, “Distributional Financial Accounts of the United States,” Q4 2020.
Income Growth Disparities: Analysis on income stagnation among middle and lower-income groups.
Source: Federal Reserve, “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2016 to 2019,” 2020.
Impact of Deregulation on Wages and Working Conditions
Economic Policy Institute: Deregulation and reduced wage growth in sectors such as retail and manufacturing.
Source: Economic Policy Institute, “The State of Working America 2020,” December 2020.
Trump Rollback of Overtime:
Information about the Obama-era overtime expansion and the rollback to a lower threshold by the Trump administration.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, “Overtime Final Rule and Overtime Update,” 2016;
Effect on Workers: An estimated impact on 2 million workers no longer eligible for overtime pay under the Trump threshold.
Source: Economic Policy Institute, “The Trump Overtime Rule,” 2020.
Workplace Safety Standards
Reduced OSHA Inspections and Staffing Cuts: A report detailing the reduction in OSHA inspections and its impact on workplace safety.
Source: National Employment Law Project, “OSHA’s Capacity to Protect Workers Is Dwindling,” October 2019.
Record-Keeping Rule Change: Information on the Trump administration’s change to injury and illness record-keeping requirements.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, “Occupational Safety and Health Administration Record-Keeping Rule,” 2019.
Silica and Beryllium Exposure Standards: Details on the rollback of protective standards for silica and beryllium exposure.
Source: Left in the Dust
Joint Employer Standard Rollback
Obama-Era Joint Employer Rule and Trump Administration’s Changes: An overview of changes to the joint employer rule under the Trump administration.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, “Joint Employer Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” 2020.
Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/16/2019-28343/joint-employer-status-under-the-fair-labor-standards-act
Impact on Industries with Subcontracting: Economic Policy Institute analysis on how the narrowed definition affects industries with subcontracting practices.
Source: Economic Policy Institute, “Changes to the Joint Employer Standard and Impact on Workers,” February 2020.
Paid Sick Leave and Family Leave
COVID-19 Exemptions for Large Employers: Information on exemptions provided to large employers under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, “Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Employer Paid Leave Requirements,” 2020.
Impact on Low-Wage Workers: National Partnership for Women & Families report on the impact of paid leave exemptions on workers.
Source: National Partnership for Women & Families, “Paid Leave and COVID-19 Response,” 2020.
Voting Patterns and Voter Motivation Support
U.S. Census Bureau: 2018 midterm voter turnout reached 50.3%, a significant increase from 36.7% in 2014.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2018,” April 2019.
Pew Research Center: In 2020, 60% of voters ranked the economy as their top issue.
Source: Pew Research Center, “Economy and Health Care Are Top Issues in 2020 Election,” August 2020.
Pew Research Center (2020): In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, 79% of registered voters identified the economy as a “very important” issue influencing their vote. This was the highest percentage among all issues surveyed, indicating the economy’s paramount importance in voter decision-making.
Source: Pew Research Center
AP VoteCast (2020): This extensive survey found that 35% of voters considered the economy the most important issue in their presidential vote. Among these voters, a significant majority supported Donald Trump, highlighting the economy’s role in shaping voter preferences.
Source: statista
Ipsos Poll (2024): A 2024 Ipsos poll revealed that 52% of Americans viewed the economy and inflation as the most important issues determining their presidential vote. This underscores the continued prominence of economic factors in voter motivation.
Source: Ipsos.com