Historically, the “winner-loser” mentality has been a defining feature of American culture, emphasizing competition and individual achievement. Over the past few decades, however, this perspective has become increasingly embedded in U.S. economic and political policy, as some administrations have built their strategies around this competitive framework. The first significant instance of this was during Ronald Reagan’s administration in the 1980s, which marked a shift away from post-war Keynesian principles toward a free-market approach focused on individual success. Reagan’s policies emphasized significant tax cuts, particularly for corporations and high-income individuals, under the belief that economic growth at the top would eventually benefit everyone (a concept known as “trickle-down economics”). This focus on economic “winners” influenced subsequent policies, setting the stage for a more divisive approach that was later amplified by Donald Trump. Under Trump, the “winner-loser” mentality became a major element not only of economic policy but also of social dynamics and foreign relations, with lasting consequences.
One of Trump’s most prominent policies during his first term, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, exemplified his administration’s commitment to rewarding economic winners. This legislation, intended to stimulate growth, disproportionately benefited corporations and the wealthy. While some argued that it would encourage job creation and economic expansion, the policy primarily increased income inequality. Wealth became more concentrated, while the gap between the rich and “the rest” of society continued to grow. Without sufficient support for middle-class Americans, advancing economically became even harder, making it almost impossible to “win” in an economy increasingly out of reach.
Beyond economic policy, Trump’s “winner-loser” mindset deeply impacted social cohesion. Instead of promoting individual responsibility within the framework of collective good, Trump’s most popular promises in his 2016 campaign were fueled by division. He quickly depicted certain social groups as threats to American prosperity, promoting competition and opposition among people. This was especially evident in his stance on immigration, where he portrayed immigrants as competitors for jobs rather than contributors to national success. This climate of hostility signaled the beginning of the end for the ideal of “one nation”—a principle rooted in uniting all groups to strive for shared prosperity, mutual respect and collective progress.
This divisive approach extended into other areas, such as healthcare, education and especially social welfare. While the erosion of social safety nets like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) began decades earlier, particularly with the 1996 welfare reform under President Bill Clinton, Trump's policies took the situation to an entirely new level. The original reforms, though framed as efforts to promote self-sufficiency, led to stricter eligibility criteria that already left many vulnerable families struggling to access basic support. However, rather than addressing these long standing issues, Trump's administration chose to double down on cutting aid to those most in need. Trump’s proposed cuts to programs like SNAP and Medicaid were not merely budgetary adjustments, but instead a part of a deliberate strategy to demonize poverty, portraying those who rely on social programs as "losers" unworthy of support. The goal was not only reducing dependency but punishing those who found themselves at the bottom of the economic ladder. By cutting back essential services, his administration intensified food insecurity, left millions at risk of losing healthcare and widened the gap between the rich and poor.
On the global stage, this winner-loser mentality proved isolating. Unlike previous administrations that prioritized alliances and long-term cooperation, Trump adopted a transactional approach to foreign policy, viewing international relations as a zero-sum game. His administration focused on short-term “wins” for the United States, often at the cost of long-standing allies. This was most evident in the trade war with China, he prioritized immediate economic gains over global stability. As a result, both allies and adversaries began to question U.S. intentions and reliability. By turning away from cooperative strategies, Trump’s policies ultimately weakened alliances, leaving the U.S. more isolated,reducing its diplomatic influence worldwide.
Now, Trump’s second term may shape the course of America’s future — with deepening inequality, fractured alliances abroad and a nation more divided than ever. Meanwhile, as the foundations of democracy start to crack under Trump’s dichotomy between “winners” and “losers”, it begs the question: can a country truly succeed if its survival depends on so many being left behind?
Autoria: Nina Neves
Revisão: Isabelle Moreira, Manuela Ferreira
Imagem de capa: Political Cartoon
References
Reagan, Ronald W. “Inaugural Address.” Washington, D.C., January 20, 1981.
Trump, Donald J. “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” Public Law No. 115-97, December 22, 2017.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. The Price of Inequality. W.W. Norton & Company, 2012.
Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press, 2014.
Dalio, Ray. Principles for Navigating Big Debt Crises. Bridgewater Associates, 2018.
Commentaires