Author Dr. H. Doctor of Political Communication
Recently, three seemingly irrelevant major events have taken place in the United States: Trump vowed to remove the Federal Reserve, Trump was forced to oppose and amend the new H1B visa policy after he rushed, and right-wing opinion leader Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
However, Together they reveal not isolated political conflicts or emergencies, but the same deeper crisis:The conspiracy theory, which Trump has been advocating since the 2020 election, has not only shaken the legitimacy of the election results, but also shaken the underlying architecture of American liberal democracy – the norm of “losers’ consent” (that is, the defeated party in the campaign is defeated through effective institutional designs), making it the basement of all the conspiracy theories that consolidate his ruling position.
Note: On November 6, 2020, a demonstrator stood outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, along with other supporters of President Trump. At the time, the center was counting the ballots, while MAGA demonstrators shouted out “Stop manipulating the election outcome” (John Minchillo, Associated Press reporter).
Trump: “The vote is over, but believe me, I lost a lot of women’s votes because of something that never happened!
When people talk about “American political polarization,” they often refer to the opposition between Republicans and Democrats, as if it were just the difference between votes and policy positions. But today’s polarization has gone far beyond party differences and spread to macroeconomic governance (which should have been independent of the party) systems, immigration policies, and even the life and death of politicians.
If we put these phenomena in a longer historical context, we will find that they are not accidental events, but the product of long-term changes in the structure of the two parties in the United States: in the 1970s, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party gradually formed a fragile alliance in financial liberalization, globalization and immigration policies. On the one hand, they reaped short-term economic dividends, on the other hand, they constantly overdrafted the institutional trust and political resilience of the society. Today, this crack has been torn apart by Trump’s “fraud” narrative and the MAGA mobilization, which has exposed American democracy to its foundation that has long been shaken.
01 Tear at the institutional level: From the "New Deal Order" to Trump's Fed battle
As the center of the American financial system, the Federal Reserve has long been shaped as a neutral institution dominated by technocrats. Whether it is the Republican Party, which emphasized fiscal discipline and stability during the Cold War, or the Democratic Party, which promoted the expansion of social welfare, although there are differences in policies, they all recognize the institutional position of the Federal Reserve in "maintaining market trust." This kind of institutional trust, just like the legitimacy of elections, has been the “foundation of consensus” on which American liberal democracy relies.In other words, the Federal Reserve’s independence and the “loser’s consent” belong to the same core principles of democracy: Even if they are not satisfied with the result, all parties still need to accept the institutional ruling to ensure the continuation of the system.
However, after the inflationary crisis of the 1970s (i.e. high inflation and low growth), Debates around financial control, inflation and deficits continue to tear consensus.The Reagan administration prioritized "fighting inflation" in the 1980s. Support for Fed Chairman Paul Walker’s austerity monetary policy (high interest rate policy)In addition, through tax cuts, easing controls, suppressing trade unions (such as vacancy workers’ strikes) and cutting social benefits, Reagan has established a governance logic dominated by market efficiency, free flow of capital and the vitality of the private sector. This is the starting point for the institutionalization of U.S. neoliberalism. This neoliberalistic shift has left Keynes’ expansionary fiscal and monetary stimulus gradually unjustified, and has established a new consensus on economic governance at the institutional level.
Since then, even the Democratic Party of the Clinton era has gradually accepted and continued this framework, increasingly converging with the Republican differences in macroeconomic governance in the process of promoting globalization and financial liberalization. As a result, macroeconomic governance gradually depoliticized and condensed into a cross-party consensus, whose institutionalized symbol isFederal Reserve Independence and Technical Bureaucracy。
Caption: From left to right are Hayek, Frickman, Reagan and Thatcher
However, Trump has portrayed the Federal Reserve as a tool of "elite monopoly" and publicly threatened to abolish the board seats (See previous articles in this account"Who will I use who will obey": From removing Cook, see why Trump has to take the FedThis is not only a question of the system, but also of the entire post-war U.S. technical bureaucratic governance model.
But reality quickly hit him in the face: Trump demanded continued rate hikes while the Fed launched a massive rate cut. Although Trump challenged the authority of the system by threatening to impeach the Fed governor, he failed to really rewrite the rules and could only continue to emphasize his anti-elite image in the MAGA narrative as a "failed rebel".
Just as Trump refused to recognize the results of the 2020 election, his attack on the Federal Reserve also denied the legitimacy of the institutional ruling, describing unsatisfactory policy results as "manipulated conspiracies". In other words,The Federal Reserve's independence and the outcome of the election originally matched the "institutional failure" that needs to be accepted by everyone in the democratic order, but Trump refused to admit the failure, turning it into the narrative of "institutional corruption", thus shaking the most fundamental trust mechanism of liberal democracy.
Caption: Trump staring at the Fed. By PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFPAgence France-Presse/Getty ImagesKatie Images, jjgervasi/iStock, GrashAlex/iStock
02 The struggle for immigration policy: from the post-Cold War globalization consensus to the failed reform of H1B
If the Federal Reserve dispute symbolizes a crackdown on the legitimacy of the financial system, the H1B visa reform shows how immigration policy has become. Political Polarization and the Struggle for National Identity。
After the end of the Cold War, there was a pragmatic consensus between the two U.S. parties on immigration: Republicans wanted to supplement labor by immigration, while Democrats emphasized pluralism and human rights values. The H1B visa was established in the 1990s and became an important tool to attract highly skilled labor, providing technical and intellectual support to Silicon Valley and Wall Street. This system was originally seen as a symbol of U.S. technology hegemony and economic prosperity.
However, the 2008 financial crisis and the recession of globalization dividends quickly turned the issue of immigration into a focus of identity politics. H1B is no longer just economic policy, but is portrayed as a channel for “elite conspiracy.”: Silicon Valley depresses the wages of American workers by introducing cheap Chinese and Indian engineers, and even "takes over" the whole high-tech industry. This narrative is highly consistent with the "substitution theory", that is, "Real Americans" are being replaced by foreign populations and globalized capital.
China and India engineers in Silicon Valley. image source South China Morning News
Trump hastily launched the H1B New Deal, requiring applicants to get at least $100,000 in employer sponsorship to show "protecting domestic employment". The political effect of this policy is far greater than its economic significance: It symbolizes a line that tells voters who deserves to be “Americans.”In this logic, H1B workers are not only foreign workers, but also an embodiment of identity threats.
From “election scams” to “foreigners taking over Silicon Valley”, Trump uses narrative logic as the same.This conspiracy narrative not only undermines the consensus of immigration policy, but also exacerbates the fundamental struggle for “American qualification.” In other words, the H1B New Deal is not a mere economic measure, but a “great alternative” conspiracy narrative projection at the institutional level. Like Trump’s allegations of electoral fraud, the H1B New Deal also transforms an original economic policy into an adjustment to the MAGA and calls them “victims of globalization.”
Note: On April 18, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a speech during a visit to Snap-On’s global headquarters in Guinness, Wisconsin, and subsequently signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to propose changes to a temporary visa scheme. The scheme was intended to introduce foreign workers to the U.S. for highly skilled work. However, the background of his speech was “Buy American goods, hire Americans” (Kevin Lamarque / Reuters image).
However, the H1B new policy has been strongly opposed by U.S. large corporations, because it is not in line with market logic and threatens U.S. advantage in global talent competition. At present, the new policy is still under debate and repeatedly amended, and Trump may not the victory in this policy campaign as he pledged. This not only reflects Trump's weakness in the face of technical bureaucracy and capital interests, but also reveals the current situation. The Paradox of Polarized Politics： On the one hand, Trump wants to meet MAGA’s “exclusion” sentiment, and on the other hand, he is unable to touch the globalized order that underpins the U.S. economy.
03 The collapse of "non-violent game": Charlie· The “martyrdom” of Kirk.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk pushed this logic to the extreme: if the narrative of “election fraud” shattered the legitimacy of democratic competition, then The assassination of public figures directly denies the premise of a non-violent game.Trump’s half-flag at the White House, including Kirk’s death in the “victim narrative,” is similar to his post-election gesture of stressing that he was “the stolen winner.”
On September 10th, at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, 31-year-old Charlie Kirk, a famous American conservative political online celebrity, was shot in the neck and fell to the ground during his speech. He was soon declared dead.
Kirk is one of the representative figures of the young conservative movement in the United States and founded Turning Point USA (TPUSA)The organization focuses mainly on university campuses, promoting conservative, anti-woke, and pro-capitalist themes. Ideologically, Kirk is highly aligned with Trump’s “America First” line: Emphasize nationalism, anti-globalization, criticize "elites", and remain consistent with the MAGA camp on issues such as immigration, guns, and culture wars。
Kirk’s influence helped Trump’s MAGA speech spread to a younger, networked audience. Trump’s relationship with Kirk is a relationship between “leaders and youth speakers/mobilizers.”Trump represents the top political symbol of the MAGA movement, while Kirk, as a youth conservative opinion leader, takes on the role of “dispersing down.”
Note: In this media photo of March 22, 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump shrugged his hand with conservative activist Charlie Kirk at the Next Generation Summit forum in the White House in Washington, D.C. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Kirk’s assassination changed this identity fundamentally: He is no longer just an opinion leader, but is quickly shaped into a “victim martyr” and a symbol of the MAGA movement “Real Americans are being attacked.”Trump dropped half the flag at the White House, emphasizing Kirk’s sacrifice and incorporating his death into the victim narrative. This operation not only continued Trump’s gesture of victim who claimed himself to be “stolen victory,” but also gave the MAGA movement a new moral capital.In other words, Kirk’s life was politized and his body became a “sacred thing”: its fall was seen as a symbol of America’s future attack.
This operation is also highly consistent with the “Big Alternative Conspiracy Theory” logic.: If the H1B visa is described as the Chinese and Indians "taking over Silicon Valley", then Kirk's assassination is described as the "Americans" being attacked on their own soil. This has turned violence into fuel for identity politics, further highlighting the struggle for "who is qualified to support a family in the United States, speak out politically and represent the future of the United States".
Just as he refused to acknowledge the election outcome and accused him of “system fraud,” Trump did not regard violence as an individual extremist act after Kirk’s assassination, but described it as “a fraud”. “Institutional hostility to ‘true Americans’”The proof .
Social media played a mechanism of amplification in this process. Kirk’s images and memorial activities were highly encoded on platforms such as X, Telegram, forming labels, slogans and memoirs, further strengthening his “martyrs” image. This networked reproduction not only expanded Kirk’s influence, but also made his assassination a political resource for unlimited calls in a polarized society. In this sense, Kirk’s sanctification did not originate from personal charm, but originated from Polarizing Politics for the Demand for “Märtyrs”。
Caption: Trump's eulogy to Charlie Kirk "Great, even legendary, Charlie Kirk has passed away. No one knows American youth as well as he does. He is loved and respected by everyone, especially me. But he is no longer with us. Melania and I extend our sincere condolences to Charlie's beautiful wife and family. Charlie, we love you!"
The dispute between the Fed and H1B reflects the challenges the neoliberal consensus faced during the Trump era. Still the framework of "technocrats vs. populist politics"。 However, when this institutional dispute cannot be resolved within policies and procedures, polarization escalates to personal attacks. When the competition between the institutional and policy levels is blocked, violent incidents are included in the victim narrative to rebuild cohesion and legitimacy.
The assassination of Kirk is the typical expression of this logic: in the context of the “de-institutionalization” of democratic systems, politics no longer relies on procedural consensus, but rather on the process.Maintain the sacredness and continuity of the movement through sacrifice, sacrifice and martyrdomThis phenomenon also confirms the crisis of the theory of “defeated voters acknowledging”: when the defeated party refuses to acknowledge the outcome of the system, the legitimacy of democratic competition collapses, replacing the legitimacy reconstruction based on martyrdom and violent sacrifice.
Picture: Charlie Kirk was called "the saint" by his followers. Picture taken on September 14, 2025, Phoenix, Arizona, for Kirk's nightlife campaign. Photo by Jennifer Sandlin
Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the Assassin was a white Mormon, which is inconsistent with Trump’s long-shaped enemy narratives (such as illegal immigration, leftist mobs) and instead highlights the uncontrollable and irrationality of violence in a polarized society. Faced with this incident, Trump chose to drop half the flag at the White House, trying to turn Kirk’s death into a collective victim narrative, thereby re-consolidating the legitimacy of MAGA. However, this tactic is more like “stopping thirst”: it can’t compensate for his defeat in the battle of the Federal Reserve, it can only normalize violent politics in the social imagination by constantly creating a “warfare atmosphere.”
The Grasslands of History: From Loss of Institutional Consensus to Antidemocratic Establishment
To understand the current situation of extremism, we must go back to the historical context of the U.S. bipartisan political pattern. During the Cold War, while the U.S. democracy was full of party competition, itined some sort of “elite consensus” at the institutional level: Republicans and Democrats generally recognized the constitutional framework, respected the technical bureaucracy, andined the stable functioning of the state machine. For example, although the controversy over McCarthyism and Southern apartheid was fierce, it did not rise to the point of abolishing the core system or massively denying the legitimacy of the system.
However, since the 1970s, this consensus has gradually collapsed. The oil crisis and stagnant inflation have led to the loss of legitimacy of Keynesism and neoliberalism as a new ideological pillar. At the same time, the South’s white voters’ “party restructuring”, the rise of cultural wars, and The slogan “government is the question” promoted by the Reagan Revolution raised Republicans’ doubts about the legitimacy of federal power and technical bureaucracy.In the aftermath of the Cold War, the uneven distribution of globalized dividends and the impact of the 2008 financial crisis accelerated this loss of consensus.
This historical institutional crack eventually evolved into today's comprehensive polarization.Party opposition is no longer a difference in policy choices, but a denial of the legitimacy of the system.: Financial hubs like the Federal Reserve are shaped as "elite conspiracies", the immigration system is seen as a channel for "outsider invasion", and even the physical safety of public figures has become the target of violent attacks.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk is the concentrated expression of this anti-* institutionalization.
The oneThe assassination itself represents a fundamental denial of democratic politics' "non-violent play." Politics is no longer resolved by debate and voting but directly to physical violence, meaning the rules of the game of democratic competition are collapsing.
The secondMr. Kirk himself is not a politician in the traditional sense, but a grassroots opinion leader who relies on social media and campus speeches. He is both a lobbyist and an amplifier of polarized narratives. In contemporary America, with the help of algorithms and network communities, non-builders can also have a huge influence in public opinion.For this reason, they have also become the most easily "targeted" symbols in polarized society.
The Three, the Kirk incident highlights the institutionalization of the current victim narrative. Trump's flag at half-mast at the White House seems to be a mourning for Kirk, but in fact it is to re-unite MAGA's collective identity with the help of violence. This kind of operation shows that when the battle at the institutional and policy level fails, Instead, violence has been mobilized as political capital, becoming an important tool for continuing leadership and legitimacy, just like the political gains that Trump himself brought from his assassination before the U.S. election last year.
From this perspective, Kirk's assassination is not an isolated incident, but the latest node of "anti-* institutionalization" of American political civilization after the collapse of institutional consensus, echoing Trump's narrative of "election fraud". Together, they weaken the most fundamental constraints of a democracy — the belief that losers recognize the outcome — at which point the polarization of contemporary America is no longer a disagreement in policy choices, but a fundamental challenge to the underlying framework of liberal democracy.
The return of political violence, the rise of grassroots opinion leaders, and the boost of social media algorithms , together constitute a new cycle: the disintegration of institutional consensus → the intensification of social contradictions → the diffusion of victim narratives → the normalization of violent politics.This process has gradually separated American politics from the traditional bipartisan game logic and turned to a zero-sum confrontation about "who can represent the United States and who can decide the future."
Trump’s “failed victory” in the MAGA campaign
From the Federal Reserve to H1B, to the assassination of Kirk, these three things seem to be dispersed. Different exports of the same polarization process: Institutional legitimacy, immigration legitimacy, and the premise of non-violentization of political debate are torn apart. They all ultimately point to the “democracy unreliable” narrative Trump has shaped since the election: electoral fraud, systemic corruption, people’s suffering, layering, forming the most fundamental denial of American liberal democracy.Trump lost in the institutional and policy campaigns andined the MAGA’s cohesion by further amplifying the violence.
History tells us that the polarization of American politics is not overnight, but the result of long-term structural changes.When the consensus between institutions and policies is lost, politics turns into a fundamental struggle about “who is entitled to govern, who is entitled to represent the future.”
Note: This article is grateful to Tencent news author "Michigan Book Shyam" for the amendments to the "losers' consent" section.
This article is published exclusively in Tencent News.