Make America Great Again was a simple and effective campaign rallying cry

The argument

The slogan captured hope for Americans who believed the greatness of their country had been lost. It was simple and memorable and provided a beacon of hope for dissatisfied US citizens. America’s greatest time was in the past and had been under decline in recent decades as a result of deindustrialisation and international competition. Trump's supporters voted for him as they believed he would restore the country to its former greatness. The MAGA slogan recalled a happier time in American history and sounded reassuringly patriotic to voters. It appealed to optimists, as well as to resentful voters who wished to go back to previous times.

Context

The "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) slogan used in US politics was popularised by Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign. Variations of the campaign phrase have also been used by Ronald Reagan in 1980 (“Let’s Make America Great Again”) and Bill Clinton in 1992. In his book, Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again, Trump frames his slogan and agenda as that of “American exceptionalism”. The ideology of American exceptionalism argues that the United States is unique from all other nations because it is based on the principles of liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy, and laissez-faire economics. Trump believed that America was no longer as great as it used to be and that through his leadership, he would be able to restore it to its former glory.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The MAGA slogan has been accused of being "tone deaf" and alienating marginal communities including ethnic minority groups. For such communities, America has never been "great", and has improved massively for these groups in recent decades in terms of employment, home ownership, education and lowering crime rates.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise slides from a claim about the slogan to a claim about the country. That the message was memorable and patriotic is one thing; that American greatness had in fact declined through deindustrialisation is a separate contention, offered without evidence and disputed by the counter-argument, which notes that conditions improved over the same period for groups previously excluded. [Rejecting P2] Even granting the slogan's appeal, the conclusion overreaches. The question asks why Americans voted as they did, and an effective slogan is compatible with all three positions here — voters may have responded to the promises it stood for, or to their dislike of the alternative, and this argument offers no way to distinguish them. "Appealed to optimists as well as to resentful voters" also concedes that the same words served opposite motives, which makes the slogan a poor instrument for identifying any single one.