This article examines how communicative practices, emotion, and everyday experiences of insecurity interlink in processes of populist political mobilization. Combining insights from international security studies, political psychology, and populism research, it demonstrates how populist political agents from the right of the political spectrum have constructed a powerful security imaginary around the loss of past national greatness that creates affinities with the experiences of those who feel disempowered and ties existential anxieties to concerns with immigration, globalization, and integration. As we show, within the populist security imaginary, humiliation is the key discursive mechanism that helps turn abstract notions of enmity into politically consequential affective narratives of loss, betrayal, and oppression. Humiliation binds together an ostensibly conflicting sense of national greatness and victimhood to achieve an emotive response that enables a radical departure from established domestic and international policy norms and problematizes policy choices centered on collaboration, dialogue, and peaceful conflict resolution. Cet article examine la mesure dans laquelle les pratiques de communication, l’émotion et les expériences quotidiennes d'insécurité sont liées aux processus de mobilisation politique des populistes. Il allie des renseignements issus d’études internationales sur la sécurité, de la psychologie politique et de recherches sur le populisme pour montrer la manière dont les agents politiques populistes de droite ont construit un puissant imaginaire de la sécurité autour de la perte de la grandeur nationale passée. Cet imaginaire crée des affinités avec les expériences des personnes qui se sentent mises à l’écart et associe les anxiétés existentielles à des préoccupations liées à l'immigration, à la mondialisation et à l'intégration. Comme nous le montrons, dans l'imaginaire populiste de la sécurité, l'humiliation est le mécanisme discursif clé qui permet de transformer des notions abstraites d'inimitié en récits de perte, de trahison et d'oppression qui font appel à l'affectif et ont des conséquences politiques. Cette humiliation associe deux sentiments ostensiblement contradictoires, celui de grandeur nationale et celui d’être victime, qui amènent à une réaction émotive conduisant à s’éloigner radicalement des normes politiques nationales et internationales établies tout en trouvant problématiques les choix politiques centrés sur la collaboration, le dialogue et la résolution pacifique des conflits. Este artículo investiga de qué manera las prácticas comunicativas, las emociones y las experiencias cotidianas de inseguridad se conectan con los procesos de movilizaciones políticas populistas. Combinando los conocimientos de los estudios de seguridad internacional, la psicología política y la investigación del populismo, demuestra cómo los agentes políticos populistas de la derecha del espectro político han construido un imaginario de seguridad poderoso en torno a la pérdida de la grandeza nacional pasada, el cual crea afinidad con las experiencias de aquellas personas que sienten que carecen de poder y relaciona las ansiedades existenciales con las preocupaciones por la inmigración, la globalización y la integración. Tal como lo presentamos, dentro del imaginario de seguridad populista, la humillación es el mecanismo discursivo clave que ayuda a convertir las nociones abstractas de la enemistad en discursos afectivos de derrotas, traiciones y opresiones que son relevantes en términos políticos. La humillación une un sentido ostensiblemente opuesto de grandeza nacional y victimismo para lograr una respuesta emotiva que permita la divergencia radical de las normas políticas nacionales e internacionales establecidas y problematiza las elecciones políticas centradas en la colaboración, el diálogo y la resolución pacífica de conflictos.

Please refer to published version for the most recent bibliographic citation information. If a published version is known of, the repository item page linked to above, will contain details on accessing it.

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP URL' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. Even observers that have conceded that Obama's foreign and security policy carries elements of a realist 'offshore balancing' strategy however, tend to frame the pivot in contrast to his focus on restraint. Here, Obama is seen as pursuing a grand strategy of selective engagement, designed to 'safeguard continued preponderance in the Asia-Pacific.' 5 This article suggests that a critical analysis of the discursive construction and practical impact of American grand strategy under the Obama presidency reveals a more complex and contradictory picture of the Asian pivot that questions the coherence and consistency of the rebalancing in both ideational and practical terms. First, the article will demonstrate how the 'Obama Doctrine' attempts to 3 reconfigure America's global leadership role through 'burden sharing' and greater military restraint. Here, President Obama has frequently invoked the rhetoric of American primacy while pursuing practical measures more in line with strategic options of cooperative engagement and realist offshore balancing.It will then examine in detail the diplomatic, economic and military measures undertaken since the announcement of the pivot and how these practical initiatives served the stated strategic objectives: maintaining security and stability in the region; strengthening existing alliances; developing new partnerships; and engaging China as a 'responsible stakeholder.'Here, the analysis suggests that increased cooperative engagement with U.S. allies and partners in the region has in turn fueled Chinese fears of American containment, resulting in geopolitical and geo-economic counter-measures aimed against U.S. hegemony in the region. Finally, the article will consider the issue of the credibility of the pivot, both in the United States and abroad. Here, the focus lies on the fiscal effects of budget sequestration on U.S. defense policy, the domestic impact of American politics on the rebalancing, and how America's enduring global commitments affect its ability to concentrate strategically on the Asia-Pacific. The article concludes that the strategic dilemma at the heart of the rebalancing 4 results from the competing impulses of hegemony, engagement and restraint prevalent in U.S. foreign and security policy. While this basic tension is unlikely to be fully resolved, seeking greater cooperative engagement with China could address some of the imbalances that have accompanied the pivot since its inception. President Obama and American grand strategy: Sustaining American leadership through engagement and restraintA grand strategy is supposed to provide orientation about a country's role in the world, and to dedicate the nation's power and material resources towar...

No abstract

The discursive domain of (in)security is integral to nationalist populism, as documented in the political rhetoric of Donald Trump. This article combines insights from political psychology on blame attribution with scholarship in International Relations on security narratives to show how the reframing of national identity through a populist security imaginary elevated internal ‘enemies of the people’ to an ontological status of equal, or even superior standing to that of external threats to national security. Portraying internal and external Others as equally existential threats endangering the ‘real’ United States informed both foreign policy choices and mobilised voters through an affective persuasion of audiences, actively dividing society for political gain. Populist appeals to resentment, fear, and anxiety constituted a shared affective space between Trump and his followers that provided a source of mutual ontological reassurance and the legitimation of America First measures from immigration restrictions to trade protectionism and a Jacksonian foreign policy.