Connect with us

Americas

The Rise of Trumpism

Luis Durani

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] W [/yt_dropcap] ith the elections over and a new president elected, half of the electorate is still reeling from the surprise upset created by Donald Trump. Due to the mechanisms behind the American democratic system, Donald Trump has managed to assume the highest office in the US and perhaps the world.

Trump managed to break all electoral rules and surprised the media and pollsters by the different electoral demographics he won. Trump’s victory is not so much a testament to his campaigning ability but more of the people’s ennui and wearisome of politicians, both parties, and the system. Trump represents the repudiation of the system. Trump managed to tap into the distress among people of all ages, color, creeds, and education level. Despite what he may have said about certain groups, the majority of the country had reached a boiling point with the status quo and decided to elect him to change things up.

After 8 years of George Bush and his failed adventurist foreign policy in the Middle East as well as enlarging the leviathan that is government by skirting constitutional restraints, Barack Obama swept into the presidency with the promise of hope and change for a new generation of voters and those looking beyond failed wars and a languishing economy. Unfortunately to the chagrin of many supporters, Obama became a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as Oliver Stone put it. Obama dismayed, disappointed and pushed many voters away from the Democratic Party.

After decades of hoping either Democrats or Republicans would help remedy the concerns of the American voters, people became exhausted, hoping that a new kind of candidate, even one not fully qualified, would bring the change and hope they yearned for. But in a larger picture, the world is undergoing a rise in populism once again. Countries are beginning to turn away from the so-called establishments that have ruled their countries to populist candidates. Trump may have begun the domino the effect that will see a rise in populism Trump-style or Trumpism.

Why Trump Won

Voter Apathy

As the media continues to scramble to explain the major surprise of why Trump won, most of the mainstream media that had blatantly opposed Trump in favor of Clinton characterized the victory as “Whitelash”. The media did what it was best at, sensationalized the election as a reflection of identity politics. White America was sick and tired of a black president and vociferous minorities; at least this is how the media was able to explain their failure in not being remotely close to predicting the victory of Donald Trump. As a result, a large group of voters have begun to protest the presidency of Donald Trump by chanting, “Not my President.” Yet these same voters claimed bigotry about those who protested against Obama as not my president. The media characterized the Trump campaign as racist and sexist. While the campaign did, without a doubt, engage in questionable and downright unsavory actions, the victory of Trump isn’t due to a racist or sexist America, but a failed America due to decades of neglect by America’s elite.

It’s the economy again, stupid. Despite claims of the sexism, almost 45% of all women voted for Trump. Trump managed to outperform previous Republican presidential candidates in winning the minority votes. Finally, Trump’s key to victory was being able to demolish the “Blue Wall” as it was labelled. These rustbelt voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. tilted to Trump and his promise of bringing jobs back. The white working class here that voted for Trump was the same voters who had elected Obama in the previous two elections. Nobody can deny that certain racist voters came to show their support for Donald Trump due to the nationalist tone he took during the campaign, but the preponderance of his white working class voters came from those who had formerly supported an African-American Democratic president in the previous elections. So despite casting this election as a repudiation of a Black president by white voters as the media is doing, it is perhaps a refutation of his predecessor and his policies, especially the failure in his ability to revive the economy as he promised in the past 8 years.

Economy

The main reason Trump won was due to the economy and the failure by the Obama administration to resuscitate it in the past 8 years despite what the President claimed. Despite the administration asserting that the unemployment rate dropping to new lows, in reality for those who do not understand, the job reports is an example of accounting voodoo that goes back several administrations. A more realistic indicator is the participation rate, which is still stagnating at 63%. The unemployment rate that is conveyed is one value of many. It doesn’t include those who have given up for work and trapped in part-time jobs wanting full-time. Accounting for those, the unemployment rate climbs up to at least twice as much it is now, 10%, if not more. Some economic experts believe it hovers even higher around 15-20%, reflecting recessionary and even depression-like numbers.

In addition, the quality of jobs is not accounted for. Most jobs that are created are service type jobs rather than high-skill high-paying jobs that many Americans are nostalgic for. The country has become a 1099 economy focused on service jobs such as uber. In addition, the so-called utopia that globalization promised to produce has failed instead resulting in more outsourcing of low and high-skill jobs abroad while corporations amass wealth.

The economy is key to any leader’s longevity. Not only has the American economic recovery failed but the global economy is flailing as well. The European Union is on the brink of collapse and with Brexit, it needs just an additional domino to bring that whole entity down. China, the second largest economy, may end up being the black swan for bringing the entire global economy into another depression. China is currently buried under a series of bubbles, whether it is the stock market or real estate, one market or another will trigger its meltdown.

Media

The media is another medium that has turned off many voters. The mainstream media who has been trusted as the fourth estate to check the overreach of the government has turned into the fifth column. The failure of the mainstream media is abundantly clear in its overall dropping of viewership whether it is Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. The incestuous relationship between the media and politicians is explicit and recognized by many. The media has created a bubble around themselves that is absent of reality and this was perfectly displayed by the election results in claiming a landslide victory for Clinton by all media outlets. Nontraditional outlets on the internet as well as WikiLeaks helped show the aristocratic system that has been in play for a long time between the media and political institutions. Despite their many attempts to hide Hilary’s failing, Trump with his many faults won. This election has begun to reveal the dislike of the voters, on both sides, for the establishment class.

Clinton – The Weak Candidate

One thing that many voters are continuing to overlook in their distaste for Trump is that the flaws that Hilary Clinton possessed overshadowed Donald Trumps. Despite Trump’s lack of depth in certain subjects as well as flip flopping on others, Clinton epitomized the pinnacle of the establishment class. She represented everything wrong with the system and the voters used that as a target for their rage. Clinton lacked credibility and trust with the voters; despite her credentials, her shortcomings dwarfed her strengths. While Trump stated certain statements that brought fear to many rightfully so, Clinton demonstrated through actions her hypocrisy and failures as a president to be. Even though the economy was the overriding factor in the elections for many, for more educated voters, Clinton’s actions demonstrated a failed to be president versus the unknown that a Trump presidency would be. Clinton not only supported the Iraq War, which resulted in at least 1-2 million people dying, but continued to endorse the neoconservative agenda for war. She was deemed the hawk candidate between the two major party’s candidates. Clinton not only supported trading treaties that would have further enhanced globalization such as the TransPacific Partnership (TPP), but she helped orchestrate the myriad of wars that continue to plague and destroy nations in the Middle East and the world such as Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia, etc. along with Obama. In addition, she continued to support the growing government security apparatus with Obama by helping craft the NDAA or Patriot Act 2.0. Clinton created a veneer of progressivism to appease the Democratic base but in reality she was more of the same. This façade of being genuine is what perhaps hurt her more so than anything else.

The Rise of Trumpism

With the economic downturn in America and the rest of the world, people are turning to populist leaders to help give that last iota of hope; first was Brexit and now Trump. As the economy of the world continues to languish, the marching victory of populism will continue with the Italian referendum. Italy will vote on amending the constitution in a big way since the end of its monarchy. If the vote does not go in the direction Prime Minster Renzi expects he will resign, which is most likely the case. Italy will probably be the next major country to depart from the EU as well, perhaps initiating the end of the economic union altogether. In France, President Hollande sits on single digit approval ratings with Marine Le Pen’s national front in the lead in recent polls. Once again, a populist candidate/platform appears to be heading to victory. The tide appears to turning against Merkel in Germany as well. Other nations are undergoing this trend as well with the recent ushering of President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, the Filipino Trump.

One by one countries around the world are turning towards strong leaders that are populist in nature rather than the establishment. As the global economy slides towards recession once again, more Trump-like leaders will begin to rise. It has been said that good times lead to weak leaders and weak leaders lead to bad times, perhaps society is undergoing such a phase.

Luis Durani is currently employed in the oil and gas industry. He previously worked in the nuclear energy industry. He has a M.A. in international affairs with a focus on Chinese foreign policy and the South China Sea, MBA, M.S. in nuclear engineering, B.S. in mechanical engineering and B.A. in political science. He is also author of "Afghanistan: It’s No Nebraska – How to do Deal with a Tribal State" and "China and the South China Sea: The Emergence of the Huaqing Doctrine." Follow him for other articles on Instagram: @Luis_Durani

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Trump’s New Wall? Mexico’s Southern Border

Lisdey Espinoza Pedraza

Published

on

For much of modern history, Mexico defined itself in opposition to the United States. In recent years, the two countries stepped up cooperation on almost all relevant issues, and the two nations are now deeply intertwined politically, economically and culturally. This is bound to change. After months of ignoring Donald Trump’s provocations, López Obrador reacted rapidly to Trump’s shakedown and agreed to a number of resolutions of extraordinary scope and urgency: the new Mexican administration agreed to deploy the country’s federal police to its southern border to crack down on immigration; and opened the door to the controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy that would turn Mexico into a Third Safe Country in less than a month from now.

As stated in the agreement, Mexico would take in all the refugees that the US decides to send back to Mexico to await resolution of their asylum process. This could take years, given the substantial immigration backlog in American courts. The agreement goes further: Mexico is responsible for the provision of education, health care and employment for such refugees. This could easily lead to a serious humanitarian crisis that Mexican institutions will be unable to deal with.

This approach contradicts previous Mexican presidential vows for regional development and humanitarian relief rather than confrontation and enforcement. Conditions on the ground in Mexico are far harsher than the Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister, Marcelo Ebrard and the President, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, would like to admit, and this is partly due to the current administration’s miscalculations: López Obrador has dramatically cut the budget for governmental agencies responsible for managing refugees and processing removals. Mexican border towns are also ill-equipped for handling transient migrant populations; and Mexico also faces other more systematic challenges, such as corruption and lack of rule of law enforcement. The new policy agreed with the American government is likely to result in a significant increase in claims filed for asylum in Mexico. Mexico’s immigration bureaucracies are utterly overwhelmed, and López Obrador’s misguided budget cuts have exacerbated their failings.

Mexico’s immigration policy is now bound by an immoral and unacceptable deal that will effectively turn Mexico into Trump’s border wall. The global system for the protection of refugees is based on the notion of shared responsibility among countries. It is very dangerous for the US to use Mexico as a pawn to set an example and ignore its international responsibility. This agreement also violates international law on refugees: Mexico is a life-threatening country for undocumented migrants. Human trafficking, recruitment for organised criminal organisations, abduction, extortion, sexual violence, and disappearances are some of the issues migrants face in Mexico. Finally, Mexico’s National Guard, the agency that will be in charge of monitoring the southern border, was created by López Obrador to tackle domestic crime. Its members have no training nor knowledge on immigration matters. It is an untested new military force that could end up creating more problems than the ones it is trying to solve.  Deploying agents to the border could also have a high political cost for the president.

The agreement with Trump gives López Obrador 45 days to show progress. If Mexico fails, Mexico will be forced to set in motion some version of Safe Third Country agreement, or face further tariff bullying from the US. This deal has been sold by the new Mexican administration as a victory over the US. More migrants, less money, extreme violence and a recalcitrant, unpredictable northern neighbour are the ingredients for a potential, impending refugee crisis, not a diplomatic victory.

Could Mexico have taken a different approach? Yes. Trump’s decision to impose tariffs would exacerbate the underlying causes of immigration in the region and do nothing to address it. His bullying to force Mexico to crack down on immigration was a cheap electoral ploy to mobilise its base with a view to winning the 2020 elections. This is nothing new. Trump is not seeking a solution; he is seeking a political gain. He built his first presidential campaign on an anti-Mexico and an anti-immigrant rhetoric. It worked in 2016, and he is planning to repeat the same formula.

The Mexican administration lack of knowledge on diplomatic matters, and their inability to play politics let a golden opportunity go. Using trade to bludgeon Mexico into compliance with an immigration crack down makes no sense: Mexico is not responsible for the increase in migratory flows. Central America’s poverty and violence trace back to American policies in the 1980s. Mexico is not responsible either for America’s famously dysfunctional immigration system. Trump’s economic threats against Mexico may not even have been legal: both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the newly agreed US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) require most trade between members to be tariff free.

Mexico could also have hit back with by levying tariffs that would have hurt swing-state voters, and in turn hurt Trump. This was the golden opportunity Mexico let slip from its hands. Mexico could have responded by hitting Trump where it hurts: Tariffs on American goods heading south. Mexico responded in a similar manner in June last year in response to the steel and aluminium tariffs. Mexico could have raised those tariffs each month in tandem with American levels.

This retaliation would have highlighted the gap between Trump’s anti-Mexican rhetoric and the underlying interdependence of the US and Mexico with stark consequences for the US presidential elections of 2020. Many of the biggest exporters to Mexico such as Arizona. Florida. California, Michigan and Illinois are swing states. New tariffs could have thrown Texas into recession and put its 38 electoral votes into play. It is all too late now, Mexico could have inadvertently helped Trump to get re-elected. Mexico has less than a month left to show some backbone and demand real American cooperation on the region’s shared challenges and rejecting Trump’s threats once and for all. The relationship between Mexico and the US could have been an example of cooperation under difficult conditions, but that would have required different American and Mexican presidents.

Continue Reading

Americas

Scandinavia Veers Left plus D-Day Reflections as Trump Storms Europe

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

Mette Frederiksen of the five-party Social Democrat bloc won 91 of the 169 seats in the Danish parliament ending the rule of the right-wing Liberal Party group that had governed for 14 of the last 18 years.  The election issues centered on climate change, immigration and Denmark’s generous social welfare policies.  All parties favored tighter immigration rules thereby taking away the central issue dominating the far-right Democrat Freedom Party which has seen its support halved since the last election in 2015.

Ms Frederiksen promised more spending to bolster the much loved social welfare model and increased taxes on businesses and the wealthy.  A left wave is sweeping Scandinavia as Denmark becomes the third country, after Sweden and Finland, to move left within a year.  Mette Frederiksen will also be, at 41, the youngest prime minister Denmark has ever had.

Donald Trump has used the 75th anniversary of D-Day commemorations to garner positive publicity.  The supreme promoter has managed to tie it in with a “classy” (his oft-chosen word) state visit to the UK spending a day with royals.  It was also a farewell to the prime minister as her resignation is effective from June 7.  Add a D-Day remembrance ceremony at Portsmouth and he was off to his golf course in Ireland for a couple of days of relaxation disguised as a visit to the country for talks — he has little in common with the prime minister, Leo Varadkar, who is half-Indian and gay.

Onward to France where leaders gathered for ceremonies at several places.  It is easy to forget the extent of that carnage:  over 20,000 French civilians were killed in Normandy alone mostly from aerial bombing and artillery fire.  The Normandy American cemetery holds over 9600 soldiers.  All in all, France lost in the neighborhood of 390,000 civilian dead during the whole war.  Estimates of total deaths across the world range from 70 to 85 million or about 3 percent of the then global population (estimated at 2.3 billion).

Much has been written about conflict resolutions generally from a cold rational perspective.  Emotions like greed, fear and a sense of injustice when unresolved lead only in one direction.  There was a time when individual disputes were given the ultimate resolution through single combat.  Now legal rights and courts are available — not always perfect, not always fair, but neither are humans.

It does not take a genius to extrapolate such legal measures to nations and international courts … which already exist.  Just one problem:  the mighty simply ignore them.  So we wait, and we honor the dead of wars that in retrospect appear idiotic and insane.  Worse is the attempt to justify such insanity through times like the “good war”, a monstrous absurdity.

It usually takes a while.  Then we get leaders who have never seen the horror of war — some have assiduously avoided it — and the cycle starts again.

Continue Reading

Americas

To Impeach Or Not To Impeach? That Is The Question

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

Robert Mueller let loose a thunderbolt midweek.  Donald Trump had not been charged, he said, because it was Department of Justice policy not to charge a sitting president.  Dumping the issue firmly into Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lap, he reminded us of the purpose of the impeachment process.  According to Mueller there are ten instances where there are serious issues with the president obstructing justice adding that his report never concludes that Trump is innocent.

So here is a simple question:  If Mueller thought the president is not innocent but he did not charge him because of Justice Department policy, and he appears also to favor impeachment, then why in heaven’s name did he not simply state in his report that the preponderance of evidence indicated Trump was guilty?

Nancy Pelosi is wary of impeachment.  According to the rules, the House initiates it and when/if  it finds sufficient grounds, it forwards the case to the Senate for a formal trial.  The Senate at present is controlled by Republicans, who have been saying it’s time to move on, often adding that after two years of investigation and a 448-page report, what is the point of re-litigating the issue?  They have a point and again it leads to the question:  if Special Counsel Mueller thinks Trump is guilty as he now implies, why did he not actually say so?

Never one to miss any opportunity , Trump labels Mueller, highly conflicted, and blasts impeachment as ‘a dirty, filthy, disgusting word’,  He has also stopped Don McGahn, a special counsel at the White House from testifying before Congress invoking ‘executive privilege’ — a doctrine designed to keep private the president’s consultations with his advisors.  While not cited anywhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held it to be ‘fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the Separation of Powers under the Constitution.’  Separation of powers keeps apart the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary, meaning each one cannot interfere with the other.

Nancy Pelosi is under increasing pressure from the young firebrands.  Rep Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has already expressed the view that it is time to open an impeachment inquiry against Trump given the obstruction of lawmakers’ oversight duty.

Speaker Pelosi is a long-time politician with political blood running through her veins — her father was Mayor of Baltimore and like herself also a US Representative.  To her the situation as is, is quite appealing.  Trump’s behavior fires up Democrats across the country and they respond by emptying their pockets to defeat the Republicans in 2020.  Democratic coffers benefit so why harm this golden goose — a bogeyman they have an excellent chance of defeating — also evident from the numbers lining up to contest the Democratic presidential primaries, currently at 24. 

Will Trump be impeached?  Time will tell but at present it sure doesn’t look likely.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy