TRUMPISM – A RISKY TRANSITION?

Some 75 million votes, more than for any previous President, were cast in favour of Democrat Joe Biden who is to be the next president of the United States. Many breathed a sigh of relief, but over 70 million Americans voted for Donald Trump (DT) to have another 4 years in office, indicating a continuing hunger of a great many Americans for something different from the old establishment politics from which they feel removed. Commentators often refer to this voting phenomenon, as they do in the case of the overwhelming endorsement of Boris Johnson as UK Prime Minister in 2019, as a populism which they decry as dangerous and anti-liberal. But the old status quo is not returning, and it is important not to dismiss the undercurrent of feeling that resorts to supporting a man like DT. People talk of Trumpism as if it is a philosophy or movement. Maybe, instead, it should be thought of as a random set of reactions and behaviours of a self-obsessed individual where the purpose is but one, making DT a winner with all the accompanying attention that may bring.

TRUMPISM – WHAT DID DT DO AND WHAT DRIVES HIM

So perhaps Trumpism does not really exist beyond the ego which invents and markets it.

But did Trump do anything as President that can be regarded as lastingly worthwhile? First, he got elected in 2016 defying the pollsters. His ticket was to offer to those people who felt disenfranchised or cut out of the benefits of America the hope that they matter and have a chance of a bigger slice of American pie, flouting and attacking established norms, abusing and creating the news whether true or false. 

When in office, he did some of the things he said he would. His image of the deal maker who always wins drove certain behaviour. His view that the United States was being “done” by China when it came to trade drove him to the ambition of a new trade deal. He is right, not necessarily because he understood China’s strategy, but an effect has been that the Western world now understands that its naïve view that China would embrace democratic capitalism was blind hope; now it sees that China seeks economic and general world hegemony at the expense of Western values, marketing despotism as more attractive and successful than Western democracy. That appreciation of imperial ambition of Chinese leadership, with hopefully more realistic Western attitudes, may be a Trump legacy.

He reneged on the Pacific trade treaty, and that with Canada and Mexico, and improved the deals America has, he would say.

Then with NATO, he called out the bad deal which many other Western members were dishing out to the U.S., with their abusive reliance on American generosity in defence and not paying their way. This too works in the interests of the UK.

He called out Iran and broke off from the nuclear treaty, untrusting of their commitments. He may have been right. And with North Korea, there seemed to be hope of their re-joining the world but that is now probably forlorn. It is clear that his unpredictability and volatility made leaders of all countries, whether despots or elected, take note and proceed with caution: he got their attention and, in those words, may lie the only strategy and philosophy DT has – to get attention. 

Until Covid-19, the U.S. economy looked healthy, and he took credit for that, rightly or wrongly. Then there was so much damage; his denial of climate change defies sense but suits his contrary approach: there has to be doubt as to whether he cares at all on that front. He is also a Covid-19 denier and portrays the pandemic as on the run when it remains rampant in America. But by luck they may have escaped the worst of the CV damage that might have been done. The CV havoc is ongoing, though may be saved by a vaccine.

So, DT has done things which can be seen as positive and he cannot be seen as an abject failure. The problem is that, rather than the achievements justifying and establishing principles and a philosophy, because they are not the product of a coherent political plan, those courses of action are only coincidently beneficial as they happen to match DT’s need to be seen to be a winner.

 His niece, Mary Trump, in her book, “Too much and never enough”, opines that DT has no strategies or agendas or organising principles. For her, he is a narcissist to whom” lying, spinning and obfuscating” are his normal weapons to bolster his standing, which is his primary purpose at all times. She sees him as a pathetic individual always vying for attention. According to her “He sees everything through the prism of money”. The Mary Trump view is interesting and will chime and add up for lots of people, given DT’s egotistic behaviour. She may of course to some degree have an agenda herself in writing this book born out of her and her father’s experience and suffering at the hands of DT, as for example it is reported that she claims he deprived her of her inheritance. She seems to hate him.

However, it is possible to conclude from DT’s daily tweets alone that the truth is not his driving mantra. His arrogance and self-importance are brazen and transparent to all who care to see. That the book “Kill the President” was written so soon after he took office, illustrates how readily his nature and the risks it poses were understood, though of course the fictional president in that book is never named; in that story it was financial corruption that finally laid the leader low rather than him losing an election. But the leaders of the world paid homage to DT as he holds the most powerful office in the world. Republicans rallied behind him, and his loyal voters have been willing to accept his inhumanity and immorality as just what comes with the DT package and ignore them. It seems that all financial and other conflicts of interest surrounding him have been conveniently downplayed or swept under a carpet, at least for now. 

Given their reaction to DT back in 2016, is it possible that many Republicans in Congress in fact believe in a lot of DT’s policies and his approach? While they have backed him until now as there was no other real choice, many perhaps swallowing hard, there must be doubt as to whether his star will stay high in the Republican sky once he is stripped of his title. DT’s refusal to recognise electoral defeat and his litigation alleging a corrupt election has not brought outcry from Republicans in number, but the fact George Bush is openly congratulating Joe Biden on success indicates a groundswell of possible disapproval. Larry Hogan, Governor of Maryland, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Mitt Romney are distancing themselves from the allegation the election has been stolen from DT.

However, it was concerning to witness Mitt Romney televised declaring that the political “gorilla” DT is and will remain a, or the, key figure in their party after 20 January. There is speculation that maybe he will stand again in 2024 but that should for now be dismissed as journalistic irrelevance. He first needs to leave the White House.

IS NOT DONALD TRUMP A GOOD LOSER?

DT, the loser, is not a role he would ever admit for himself. As he pursues his voting fraud lawsuits, his tweeting and his loyal allies will continue to push the corrupt election message, creating more division. It is clear some of his voters believe the story. If the public stance of his lawyer, Rudi Giuliani, that Joe Biden himself may have voted 5,000 or 50,000 times using the postal system reflects his private advice to DT, then DT may remain in his parallel universe where he is the winner for some time. Will he in fact leave the White House on time? 

Normally outgoing and incoming Presidents would have their staff cooperate to ensure a smooth transition. The limbo period of 10 weeks while DT remains president with the full panoply of powers could prove dangerous for all unless he recognises the need to behave appropriately, which is not a state associated commonly with DT. Will he follow a scorched earth policy leaving destruction in his wake, constantly deprecating Joe Biden, tweeting malevolence and calumny? Will he pardon all his associates who may have committed crimes in pursuit of DT’s fantasy? Will he sign a programme of executive orders to fulfil his unfinished business? Could he so fire up his most extreme supporters, fully armed, into violent protest: particularly dangerous when extreme agitators on the other side likewise are armed?

Mary Trump in the Observer of 8 November wrote “his meltdown will worsen, as he lashes out, wreaking havoc in the wake of defeat”. She predicts a wave of orders and that he will probably finish up in prison. Her article points to madness, a sociopath, as does her book. It is to be hoped she is wrong on most counts.

Is it not a possibility that, after leaving the White House, still asserting the election was stolen, that he will turn his hand to using, to his best monetary and personal advantage, all the political capital and advantages he has gained from being President? His continued interference in politics could be explosive if he seeks to undermine efforts to re-unite the country and represent a real challenge to the Republican party as to how to react. Various commentators have suggested that Trumpism will continue long after his presidency. Perhaps though there is no such political ism as Trumpism: what DT has shown is that whatever policy or decision or action is at the relevant moment in time best likely to make him look a winner, or get attention, is the one he adopts. That can change from day to day and it is axiomatic that he has no problem with night being day if that is necessary. If that is true, and there is no Trump strategy behind his daily actions, then there can be no Trumpism without him calling all the shots. If Trump leads the Republicans, then Trumpism survives. If he does not, it is dead by definition. However, it remains a worry for all in America and globally that DT may find withdrawal from the attention overdosing that the Presidency provides and the power it projects for him impossible to bear.

Republicans would be best served perhaps by working out what they stand for, as should the Democrats, and seek to act, as Joe Biden promises, for all Americans.

JOE BIDEN AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

No attempt is made here to analyse Joe Biden’s policies. Sorting out the pandemic in America comes first for him, and he promises to represent all Americans – winning over those who voted for DT, the forgotten workers in part but also voters of all races and expelling the Trump influence. It is to be assumed that he will be a fairly centrist, a little bit to the left, President. The Western and democratic Asian world perhaps needs him to put America back at the centre of the world stage, united, not at loggerheads, with its allies, who also need to help America regain respect across the globe. How will the UK relationship fare?

A trade deal with the UK will not be at the top of his agenda, but was it ever really at the top of DT’s? The UK will continue trading with the U.S. as it does now unless and until a trade deal is done, if ever. It is telling how the UK media, for example the BBC and the Times, see the changeover to Joe Biden as a trade and general problem for UKGOV. Doing a deal with any country is not a matter of the interests of UKGOV, but of the interests of the UK. Instead they see life through a lens of what makes life difficult for the politicians rather than the country. Should not they instead be supporting the UK?

Will the UK suffer because Joe Biden is not, as the UK media report, at least yet, a friend to Boris Johnson, citing how DT is such a friend? First, it is probably a nonsense to suggest DT has any friends: rather people are a tool perhaps to be used for the greater good of DT. Once usefulness is outlived, maybe he rejects his one-time allies. The revolving door of supporting executives at the White House illustrates the point. Boris Johnson will stretch out the hand of alliance and assistance to Joe Biden, recalling that there is much more in common between the U.S. and the UK than divides, including UK common ground on climate change, defence, security and approach to authoritarian regimes. The history of mutual support should count for something. Joe Biden perhaps will rightly rebuild bridges with the EU, which is also in the UK’s interests. The EU, it seems sometimes to be forgotten, will be an ongoing best friend of the UK after 2020 as it is in their mutual interests for that to continue.

Joe Biden is regarded by many as an intelligent and good man in the round, in which case his likening of Boris Johnson to DT will soon end. (While blond hair may be a common feature, philosophy on for example immigration, the environment, global markets, liberalism and CV are not.) Joe Biden thinks Brexit is a poor move by the UK. Barrack Obama, close friend of Joe Biden, even interfered in the UK Brexit process with his views, most unwise. The UK’s new independence will most likely be thoroughly respected by the new President. Again the media in the UK has been spending a lot of energy pushing the line that this relationship may struggle: it is in the interests of the UK for its relationship with the United States to thrive at every level, and the media should perhaps serve the UK better by reflecting and encouraging that, while objectively reporting facts. It seems that the first foreign leader spoken to by President elect Joe Biden may have been Boris Johnson, dampening the media fires that he would seek to snub him. Should not the UK media be pleased at this encouraging start?

It may even prove true that the UK will produce, as it has so far, medical advances against the march of CV from which the U.S. will gain considerable benefit. The UK may be instrumental in Joe Biden dealing with his most urgent problem, the pandemic. If Joe Biden turns out to be a President on whom the free world can rely to apply true democratic and decent values to his decision-making, not prejudice and self- interest, it is hard to believe that the UK, as well as the EU, will not renew a trusting partnership with the United States, with all the mutual benefits and perhaps more world stability.