US Presidential Elections Produced Trump, Mediocrity and Hopes, Viva America!
The last US presidential elections are over now and the big nation has a new big President. As it seems, his biggest feature amongst all is his age. Some people are surprised by Trump’s victory and others are even disgusted. The pre-election polls failed in their entirety as inaccurate in predicting his convincing winning, too. The democratic part of humanity in and outside of America is, as it seems, only happy with the election outcome when it puts on some hypocritical clothes of demeanour and self-effacing. Which is not extremely difficult after all. But the just realism should tell us a simple truth – Trump becoming President is not a surprise, it might turn up surprise if Harris has got the post instead. Now with Donald in the office, everybody may keep hopes – his supporters because they believe that he will make America great again and his opponents because they cherish assumptions that he would not carry out all the verbal trash he has shared generously with humanity as promises. Therefore, Donald holds a trump card – he conceives hopes for many kinds of people. Harris promised nothing meaningful when she had to propose radical decisions to important problems. As a result, she holds only her mediocrity and conceives no hope. The lack of hope everybody knows that does not bring happiness. And the unhappy people are not great. It is the same with the nations. That was why Donald won.
Well, but Ms. Harris had to start her campaign under the umbrella of Biden’s mediocrity. And it was really bad. Mr. Biden failed at least four times while he was also supposed to initiate radical decisions from scratch during his presidency for cases two, three and four in the list of his four omissions here-below or: first, he has not been able to evaluate rightly his own physical and mental condition in 2024, losing thus valuable time for Harris’ campaign evolving, second, he has never tried to swim against the wide current of opinions deeming that the US economy misfortune solutions possess domestic root but not in foreign trade, third and referring to the second, he has never had a boldness to declare openheartedly that the US economy cannot develop further sustainably without re-industrialization, i.e., without becoming globally more competitive and all the rest coming from domestic tensions in it was secondary in importance (IRA and Chips Act introductions were less than a minimalistic approach for competitiveness improvement). Lastly (fourth), he did not win the war in Ukraine in its first 6 months but announced something as a ‘war of attrition’ to Russia which Ukraine is more and more prone to lose nowadays under the philistine pacifism and modest investment wisdom of the West. Summing up all that, Ms. Harris received a heritage of a loser instead of a winner and no time to correct the situation reasonably by herself. However, this fact alone does not excuse her own lack of decisiveness and honesty, because Ms. Harris like her predecessor has never talked in the election campaign about re-industrialization, supply chains restructuring, state re-shoring support through more subsidies extension and winning the war in Ukraine by backing immediately American investments in the defense industry of the country. She spoke however more often than not about abortion rights and Trump’s personal idiotism. Then by presumption, her campaign had no potential to win. She had even chosen a wrong strategy apart from what she talked about most intensively, prioritizing the bribing of numerous lumpenized masses in a strongly wealth-polarized society by a housing policy draft promotion and groceries price gauging promise instead of laying out a comprehensive programme draft for global economic competitiveness improvement. This made her simply dishonest in a situation where she had despite all, meager chances to use any kind of formula aimed at reaching success. Least of all the emphasized attitude in favour of the LBGT groups and abortion rights was possible to correct economic and national security lapses in her election strategy after she had already once underscored her ethical duality by supporting on equal grounds the carbon industries and the green ones, staying tight-lipped on the minority rights of infirm people missing suitable infrastructure or the vegans. To her disadvantage, her duality could not be justified only by the need to encounter the traditional sexism of the average American male (incl., his religious conservatism), following popular modernity or by Ms. Harris’ scientific thinking in principle (e.g., it is even hard to see the gender paradigm as deterministic behavioural truth from a scientific viewpoint), but can be explained instead by a shallow underestimating the right of the average American male with his religious conservatism not to figure out the sex attraction as an icon of love and socially balanced materialization of individual freedom. The latter acquired a significant weight as a factor within a culturally and wealth-polarized society, especially if supporting LBGT groups often may cost staging solely of a few slogans in the right place, while the support to infirm people and vegans usually requires extra public spending on whose need Ms. Harris preferred to cast cosy silence.
Consequently, If the Democrats do not take into consideration how wrong it was not to be bold enough in the economy, ecology, geopolitics and culture, they are doomed to continue keeping their mediocrity line. This will prove further two things: in a highly polarized society it is more sustainable for your political identity to try to be honest instead of prioritizing the explicit but formal consolidation of the society at any rate and if you fail to acknowledge that, then the dullness and lies of your opponent(s) can prevail over your own mediocrity. Unfortunately in both cases, no big nation can appear great or competitive. It was the case with the Americans in their last elections.
Even so, if we could see how mediocrity is hopeless, we should at least analyse what authentic hopes the dullness and lies can conceive. Let us speculate about it a little bit on the perspectives before Trump’s ideas transformed into practice.
Foreign Policy
In defense and security policy, we can anticipate a return of a “peace through strength” approach. This will mean big investments in US defense capabilities to strengthen deterrence and use force decisively if deterrence fails. Trump will rightly ask allies to contribute more to ensure US alliances in Europe and Asia have the capabilities they need. But who can rely on what Donald has ever said? And then will Donald be in a strong position to negotiate with Putin or Putin will be in a stronger one in Ukraine? After obviously Donald should contact first Putin if he really wants rapid peace there, it does not seem plausible that Vladimir will give in to something important having the initiative on the battlefields. Besides, if China has a larger industrial capacity than America, why should comrade Xi be afraid of the U.S., let us say, during a global economic recession inflicted by the hazardous tariffs of Trump and not invade Taiwan? Speculating on these terms we should be slightly optimistic all the same – Donald could turn out not to be so dull as many expect him to be and make more decisive things in Ukraine than Biden or eventually avoid such tariffs introduction that can bring the West and/or the world to recession. In both speculations, we are entitled to nourish some slender hopes if we want to sleep peacefully at night. Due to it, I do not care much that the self-imposed economic isolationism of America will facilitate the rapprochement between China and the EU as well as it will refresh possibly some historical tensions within Europe of the nations or encourage Putin to enhance his influence in Eastern Europe sweeping off the democracy in the region.
Immigration
Central to Trump's incendiary rhetoric during the election was his focus on illegal immigration. The topic has been a mainstay of his political career.
His "Agenda47" platform — so named because Trump will be the US' 47th President — describes undocumented migration as an "invasion" and its first two promises are to close the nation's borders and deport undocumented migrants, estimated to number around 11 million.
The nonpartisan American Immigration Council estimates that deporting this many people, as well as the most recent arrivals, in a "one-time mass deportation operation" would cost at least $315 billion, with the amount spread across arrests, detention, legal processing, removal from the U.S. and the impact on the economy due to their removal. It also estimates an $88 billion bill for just one year of such an operation. Vice President-elect JD Vance claimed that 1 million undocumented migrants could be deported within the first year of the Trump presidency. Great then, America is a rich country and this fact gives flesh to such a fresh hope!
Trump has also suggested use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport migrants although the use of this law requires America to be actively engaged in conflict with a person's country of origin to enact deportations. And the Brennan Center for Justice says courts could strike down peacetime use of this law should it be challenged in court. This is again a hope!
While a central Trump promise, mass deportations have been cited as a costly exercise that, in tandem with the tariffs and tax reduction proposals, could increase the US inflation. And Americans hate more inflation than unemployment. It is then scarcely possible that Donald will hold on his pre-election promise at its face value. Is it not also another legitimate hope for all the people who are not exactly Donald’s fans? As you can see, Donald brings in only hopes if we analyse the situation with the immigrants, to top it off, various in nature hopes!
National Economy
The promised by Trump tariffs combined with the taxes cut and the growing budget deficit will drive the American economy to inflationary hikes and export fall. Later, perhaps, will follow some GDP shrinking, too. Donald likes to appease his opponents that the deficit in the budget will be compensated at least partially by the new tariffs, but if they are to be really protectionist who will pay them then? If they will not be protectionist why on the earth do they need to be introduced at all? In this situation will it be sufficient to curb the inflation by cutting only expenditure on social programmes in the budget? But even it may be sufficient how will then Donald help his electorate wounded by the recent and current inflation after it will reveal at last that the rich people (i.e., Donald’s cronies) are not the best defenders of lumpens’ interests? And what will happen if Donald’s protectionism increases in parallel the Chinese deflation and the EU stagnation? Probably, it will result in a global recession. It by itself and together with retaliatory tariffs abroad will draw back seriously the American economy so that the hiking inflation in it will be kindly supplemented by growing unemployment. The perspective seems very gloomy, indeed. But I am certain that Donald believes in God, I believe also in Him and that is why, this evening I shall go to my bed with a regular heart rate despite of all. Biden and Harris did not guarantee me such a rate. Viva , Donald!
Global Trade
What will the Trump administration do about global trade? This is the thirty-trillion-dollar question. It was what every finance minister and central bank governor at the recent International Monetary Fund-World Bank Annual Meetings wanted to chat about privately. Here is what we know.
The important question about Trump and trade is: Will he do what he says he will do on tariffs? That answer is more likely yes than no, but it will not happen overnight. Trump’s trade views were shaped in the 1980s during Japan’s quick economic growth. He views trade in binary terms, with bilateral imbalances the key determinant of whether a policy is succeeding or not. The first step in his trade policy will be, somewhat surprisingly, to try and revise the Phase 1 trade deal with China that he brokered at the end of his first term. The deal was largely judged a failure since China did not live up to any of its commitments, but the excuse given is that the pandemic prevented what would have been a successful first step. That is more likely initially than a 60 percent tariff on Chinese imports, because after Donald is a God’s man, he feels compassionately what the inflation could make for America and him personally. His self-preservation instinct will switch on supposedly.
Once he tries to revive (or, as Trump trade people say, “finally enforce”) the China trade deal, Trump will turn his attention to the European Union. Here there will be a deep divide, and Donald will seek reciprocal tariffs on a range of products—many of which he will be able to impose unilaterally. His blanket tariff promise of 10 percent (but why not 20% as he once noted) seems unlikely in the near term, but instead a scattershot of specific tariffs will be a signal to countries—both allies and adversaries—that this is just the beginning. The likely response will be a tit-for-tat escalation that will be inflationary in the United States and for the global economy. While the Trump economic team disputes this, citing the fact that Trump’s first term did not produce inflationary results, the size and scale of what is being proposed now is vastly different. But Donald as I said above, is not so stupid as many see him to be and this raises a hope that if he would deteriorate the geopolitical competitiveness of the U.S. by its isolationism and make Europe and China to re-approach each other at American expense, then the US middle-west patriots will benefit protected by tariffs. Biden and Harris had no plans for the middle-west people and did nothing for concluding Trans-Atlantic Global Agreements in place of the tariffs. That is why they should stay silent now when they were helpless to give a little hope at least to the middle-west Americans. Donald will teach them how hope should be gifted.
The War in Ukraine
The greatest national security threat to the United States, its fellow NATO members, and other US allies is the increasingly aggressive partnership of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The focal point of this threat is Ukraine, where Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war of conquest is just a prelude to more provocations and, potentially even war further west, against NATO’s eastern states. A victory in Ukraine for Russia, which is now bolstered by North Korean troops fighting in Europe, will encourage a Chinese move on Taiwan.
It is not clear that Trump fully acknowledges this challenge. But whether he understands it or not, his administration will have to deal with it and its most dangerous point of confrontation: Ukraine. It is difficult to anticipate Trump’s policy on the war because his team contains personnel with very different views. One group advocates sharply reducing aid to Ukraine—a view many associate with Trump. This group is naive about the Kremlin’s policy toward the United States—Putin states plainly that the United States is adversary number one—and clueless about the danger of a Kremlin victory in Ukraine. The other camp recognizes the threat to US interests in Europe and elsewhere if Washington were to abandon Ukraine. This group would pursue a Reaganesque policy of peace through strength and, unlike the Biden team, not be intimidated by Putin’s nuclear bluster. The first clues about Trump’s policy will be the appointments he makes to senior national security positions. So, we have again hopes which were impossible with Biden’s attrition war and the Harris silence on the conflict. Trump encouraged these hopes by offering to Zelensky an interim peace plan envisaging Ukraine loss of territory and another hope – the country may enter NATO after 20 years. Who said then that Donald is not a smart guy?
NATO
For much of the past year, Europeans have been asking if NATO can be “Trump-proofed,” hoping they would never have to find out. But with Trump on his way back to the White House, European leaders, in particular NATO’s new secretary general, Mark Rutte, will have to show they have a plan to work with the new administration.
The first thing to note about the new Trump administration’s NATO policy is that anyone claiming to know definitively what that policy will be—beyond the inevitable calls for Europeans to shoulder more of the Alliance’s responsibilities—should be treated with significant skepticism. Trump’s diplomatic approach is to always keep others—friend and foe alike—off balance. It is to make a virtue of unpredictability. Some say it is dull. However, for an Alliance that prizes stability and reliability, NATO (especially Rutte) will have to relearn how to deal with Trump’s brinkmanship, drama, and unpredictability. Otherwise, NATO will be duller than Trump.
The second is to acknowledge that Trump world’s leading foreign policy practitioners are not monolithic. Views on NATO among potential administration personnel range from the true-believing, isolationist “America first” crowd (in reality a relatively small group in elite circles), to the “division of labor” school (which holds that the United States needs to focus exclusively on the Indo-Pacific and leave Europe to the Europeans), to the Reaganite Cold Warriors. Vice President-elect JD Vance has straddled these first two groups. While he recently reaffirmed his commitment to NATO, he also said that the United States needed to recognize that NATO is “not just a welfare client” and that “it should be a real alliance.” The relative sway of these differing factions will have significant bearing on the policy direction of the new administration. The lack of clarity in this aspect now sprouts in a hope that tomorrow we shall have more of it. However, the main problem about NATO is the same as the one related to the other policies of Donald – you should never believe him at a hundred percent whatever he says. This brings joy in the international relations beyond any reasonable hope and one should love Donald for that!
Competition with China
Trump’s policy toward China in his second administration will likely be similar to the approach during his first term. He has already shown a continued fixation on trade and outlined a plan to impose high tariffs, which will reignite disputes with Beijing over this issue and likely prompt retaliation against US businesses. In other respects, Trump may actually ease tensions with China—but not to the benefit of US strategic interests. Trump’s stated Russia-friendly position on the war in Ukraine will remove a point of contention with Beijing but also serve Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s geopolitical agenda. Trump has already signaled a lack of support for Taiwan and seems to believe that he can deter Chinese military action through personal charisma. Xi is not likely to be bedazzled, and Trump’s display of weakness could embolden Beijing to take an even more aggressive stance toward the island’s democratic government. More broadly, Trump’s overt contempt for Washington’s traditional allies will likely complicate collective action towards China and open divisions for Xi to exploit and expand Chinese global influence. Trump promises a focus on issues of minimal strategic importance to the United States that nevertheless will lead to Beijing and Washington bickering, along with a withdrawal of US global leadership that allows Xi to promote Chinese power at Washington’s expense. All that reminds inevitably Biden’s mediocrity. No signs for hope here can be discerned, especially when Donald refuses to demonstrate a will to compete directly China in the global economy and trade instead of hiding behind tariffs plus some verbal hula-bulla. But Donald is a lucky guy, do not get despaired.
Finally, Trump gives a hope that he can deny the myth about the American Dream by failing in almost everything which he intends to do. He is an honest man to whom you should not believe about anything, but even so, he is so honest that he loves to deny myths. This denying would be a useful historic experience for millions of Americans to learn at last that the national economy should not be run as a private business and the extreme individualism in the global world (i.e., one of the American Dream basic roots) masked as a nationalistic myth for greatness is doomed to crash nowadays. Such a sobering experience would be important for a society that has indicated in the last decades growing levels of lumpenization. Biden and Harris were so helplessly mediocre that they were not able to teach the lessons about the American Dream which Donald will elaborate on through his honesty. Viva, America!