The Trump Phenomenon

On November 8^th, 2016, when the announcement of demonetization shocked and awed India, another drama unfolded on the international scene which left most of the international community in shock and awe.  It was the election of Donald John Trump as the forty-fifth President of the United States.  The Unite States being the sole superpower in the world today, election of its President is quite a momentous event as the person elected as President can pursue policies that can have far-reaching effects on the world as whole in terms of war, peace, economy, environment and other issues that affect humanity.  In that regards, the US Presidential election holds much interest to the entire world, and the candidates are carefully scrutinized.  Trump, who at best appeared as a frivolous candidate to the international audience, in the fray only by some inexplicable accident or quirk of events, was seen as the most unlikely candidate to win a US Presidential election.  In contrast, his opponent Hillary Clinton, a career politician, well-known democrat nationally and internationally, supported by liberal establishment media was seen as a sure-shot winner, in a no-brainer contest for many.  However, as all eyes glued to the election hoping for a predictable outcome, defying all polls and media pundits’ predictions, in a stunning and historical upset, Trump won.  The errors in some state polls were later partially attributed to pollsters overestimating Clinton's support among well-educated and nonwhite voters, while underestimating Trump's support among white working-class voters.  The election of Trump proved how much liberal media was out of touch with reality; their polls, opinions, experts, punditry were all proven wrong, became virtually meaningless.  One cannot but wonder how far off they were from the pulse of people.   

Although Trump lost the popular vote by 2% to Hillary Clinton, he won the electoral college vote that decides the US presidency by a landslide; summarily beating Hillary Clinton 306 – 232, in a comprehensive margin.  It is rather unfortunate that I could predict Trump’s victory after seeing him in Republican primaries, and keeping ears to the ground.  I watched haplessly as two of the worst presidential candidates fought each other for the top prize.  The whole premise of election was who was the worse candidate.  As we shall see, Trump won because Hillary deserved to lose more than Trump deserved to win.  After George Bush in 2007, Trump’s victory marks the regaining of control of White House, and two chambers of Congress by Republicans.  It will have far-reaching implications in terms of domestic and foreign policy. 

Donald J Trump is a billionaire real estate developer who started his real estate career by borrowing a million dollars from his father who too was a real estate developer in the New York metropolitan.  He expanded his father’s business successfully, and later became a reality TV star.  He sought limelight on TV and otherwise and owned Miss Universe franchise for several years.  His extraordinarily privileged life allowed him to focus on himself to an extent that bordered on narcissism.  Trump does not belong to the “old-money” class where the inheritors are highly educated, well-spoken, art enthusiasts and usually very well connected or part of the ruling elite (it is another matter how they amassed so much wealth).  Although Trump has an undergraduate degree in Economics from Wharton in University of Pennsylvania (an Ivy League school), he is rather brash, outspoken, crude and an outsider to the elite power circles.  He was never directly involved in politics and has never held a public office.  He switched his loyalties between Republicans and Democrats over the years as it suited him.  His political leanings and positions were hardly consistent.  He did mull on running for the President before but it was finally in 2016 that saw him run on a Republican ticket.  His conservative attacks on Obama and racist tendencies aligned him to the Republican ticket more than Democrat.  

Despite all Trump’s flaws and his billionaire status, Hillary Clinton was up there with him as one of the two most hated candidates who ever ran for the office.  It is instructive to see why Hillary Clinton lost to an apparently obnoxious candidate like Trump who in an ideal situation should have lost with a big margin.  To understand this, it is necessary to examine the political and economic conditions in the country, and his opponent Hillary Clinton, where she stood on policy issues, and what choices she presented to American people.  Without this perspective, it is puzzling to understand how Trump could rise to the position of the President of the US given his serious failings as a person.  It is important to note that Hillary presented herself as a privileged Washington insider and a power elite, who after losing to Obama in Democratic primaries eight years ago, now “deserved” to be the President of the US as it was her turn.  She in fact represents the ultimate decline of Democratic party who are so entrenched in power mongering that they have lost touch with conditions on ground.  We can then contrast this with Trump’s stance who entered the scene as a political outsider, routed his Republican presidential opponents simply by speaking truth on many issues, and emerged as a demagogue taking full advantage of the failures of policies of Obama administration and Hillary’s political baggage. 

Despite Trump’s past misogynistic behavior and comments, bigotry and open racism he struck a chord with white underclass and rust belt which Hillary could not.  Hillary Clinton could not even rally progressives behind her.  She was largely perceived as a liar, untrustworthy, war-monger, an agent of wall street and a neocon willing to do anything to grab power.  Her large Wall Street donors filled her coffers with millions of dollars for election as she was the establishment candidate very much in the know.  She charges Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs upwards of six-hundred thousand dollars for a private speech to the banker.  She was actively behind TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership), a trans-Pacific trade deal that aims to undermine nations, labor, environment and anything that can come in the way of profits for trans-national corporations.  Even after tremendous progressive pressure during election campaign she could not clearly break herself from this neoliberal project.  Trump hammered her on this point in presidential debates including NAFTA which caused millions of job losses both in the US and Mexico.  With her policy positions on labor, she did not appear to be a friend of American working class.

Her primary contestant Bernie Sanders rose from nowhere promising a political revolution and presenting a progressive platform on all domestic issues, including reigning in wall street, writing off student loans, making college tuition free, making social infrastructure stronger, increasing minimum wage, taking a lead in climate change, ending illegal wars abroad, single-payer health-care, making social security and medicare even stronger and reforming the political process.  He was sympathetic to Black Lives Matter movement that has gained momentum and currency in the wake of blatant and brutal police murders of black youth under Obama presidency.  Hillary Clinton at best balked at these issues, and constantly harped on the “impossibility” of these things getting done in Washington due to partisan issues.  She represented a status-quo compared to Sanders who came as a breath of fresh air to millennials and other young people.  Clinton was extremely unpopular among young voters and despite being aware of the fact, she smugly ignored their issues.  Till the very end she could not sway them to their side, not even all young women.  She got Madeline Albright, ex-Secretary of State for help (who notoriously said that, “death of five million Iraqi children due to sanctions was worth”) who exhorted young women to vote for Hillary, or else they had a place reserved in hell!  This evangelical and threatening posture repulsed many young progressive woman voters who were not to be coerced into voting for Hillary.  The “woman” card did not work, as voters were increasingly aware that the root cause of their misery was economic and refused to be played by identity politics.      

Clinton also boasted on her friendship and mentorship from Henry Kissinger in foreign policy in a debate with Bernie Sanders who decimated her on this evil connection, rightly pointing out how Kissinger was responsible for millions of deaths in the most brutal and unnecessary wars in Indo-China in modern history.  Hillary constantly displayed credentials that showed her connections to the power elite who were not only responsible for status quo but had also been the architect of worst crimes against humanity in history.  Obama is running seven wars right now, none of which he thought of taking approval from Congress.  Clinton promised to continue the legacy of expanding wars even more.  Clinton’s avowed policy of getting into direct conflict with Russia over Syria by creating a no-fly zone for Russia was a direct provocation to Russia and had the potential to trigger third world war.  She repeated it many times during her campaign and presidential debates.  She literally bayed for blood which rightfully earned her a title of “red-queen” in progressive social media circles.  Most of American public is tired of foreign wars which they don’t understand and have become sick of chasing an imaginary enemy.  They have come to realize that wars are costly, with trillions of dollars going into them while their own economic condition at home continues to deteriorate.  Hillary’s war-mongering did not sit well with a large portion of populace.  Trump as in his Republican primaries continued to openly say what a disaster was Iraq war and it was Hillary Clinton who supported the invasion of Iraq war.  He lambasted her for regime change policy in Libya, and correctly pointed out that ravaged Iraq was birth-place of ISIS.  Clinton could not defend herself convincingly against these attacks.

Her near refusal to take a stand against Keystone pipeline unmasked her hypocrisy of being serious about climate change.  In fact, Obama administration worked arduously throughout the Obama presidency years to not let advance any serious action on climate change.  Bush in fact has a better record for climate change action, who at least signed the treaty in Kyoto.  The Paris Agreement, much to the fault of Obama administration is voluntary, there is nothing binding on nations in it.  Keystone pipeline issue revealed that Hillary like Obama was all talk and no walk, paying only lip-service to an issue that can potentially wipe out humanity within a century if remained unchecked.  Bernie Sanders on the other hand clearly advocated against Keystone XL pipeline. 

Bernie Sanders on all key policy positions represented a departure from status quo and provided people with a glimmer of hope that people could trust.  In the process, he excited a mass base of youth for elections.  He has been an independent senator from Vermont for decades now and has fought elections as an Independent.  As a young man he walked along with Martin Luther King Jr for civil rights, and has most untarnished and clean image.  He however caucuses with Democrats and mostly votes along Democratic lines barring a few exceptions.  He ran the Democratic primary on a Democratic ticket, and at the beginning of his campaign he promised to support the Democratic candidate for election if he lost the race.  Sanders refused to take any corporate money and with average donation of $27 from common people, he raised millions of dollars to fight the primaries.  It was a remarkable achievement.  Very quickly, from being a relatively unknown figure, he rose to such prominence that he directly threatened the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.  The millennials and left threw their lot behind Bernie but he suffered a virtual blackout by media that was only interested in covering establishment candidate.  Even though he spared Clinton on the email issue where she used private server for classified emails, a serious security breach that could destroy any average person’s life (but not Clinton’s), he came ahead of her in all issues mentioned above that directly or indirectly affected common man.  He became extremely popular as he vowed for political revolution and reforming Democratic party.  However, as DNC’s (Democratic National Committee) leaked emails show, under the leadership of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the whole Democratic party machinery went after him to destroy him and steal primaries from him.  It was so embarrassing that Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign from the Chair.  She was immediately re-hired as Clinton’s special advisor.  Clinton was just insensitive to people’s feelings at every step of the way.    

Bernie Sanders conceded defeat in an ignominious way, and later campaigned for Hillary whom he had bitterly opposed during the primaries.  His 13 million supporters were stunned!  It was nothing short of betrayal for them.  Unfortunately, my prediction about Bernie Sanders also came true that he was a hired sheep dog to energize Democratic party base, a job well done by him.  With regressive Obama presidency, the Democratic base was just exhausted, exasperated, dejected, hopeless and in tatters.  Somebody outside the establishment needed to encourage them and Bernie got them into the fold again.  Without Bernie’s efforts, Clinton would have lost even the popular vote.  However, a majority of Bernie Sanders’s supporters vowed not to vote for Hillary even if their leader Bernie was urging them to do so, pointing out how dangerous it would be to elect Trump.  Most of Bernie’s supporters refused to budge; they either voted third party or stayed home on the election day.  They correctly concluded that building a movement for change was easier under Trump’s presidency compared to Hillary’s as Democrats kill or co-opt progressive movements.  A lull sets in as people falsely pin their hopes on progressive action from Democratic party.  This time there was no illusion, progressives had seen how Occupy movement was brutally suppressed and how the anti-war movement had been co-opted by the Democrats, despite US being involved in many theaters of war in different countries.  Hillary still remained smug; she never tried to reach out to Bernie supporters assuming they had no choice but to vote for her.  Her reasoning – how could they vote for a horror like Trump, or allow him to win by not voting?  But that is what exactly happened.  Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago had once insulted the Democratic voters by saying, “progressives are f***g retards, what choice they have?”  This correctly sums up the attitude of Democratic party and Hillary Clinton towards Democratic base.  They had to pay the price.  This was the strangest, most bitter, most heart-breaking, most pivotal election in American political history. 

What worked for Hillary are social issues, she is for marriage equality, for equal rights of LGBTQ community, pro-choice, favors some semblance of regulation, for gun-control, for protection and continuation of bodies like EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), advocates women’s rights within the US, continuing ACA (Affordable Care Act) which offers some necessary improvements, and a liberal persona typical of a New Yorker who accept diversity and are not xenophobic.  She offered a status-quo which was being sold as better than reversal of all gains that have been achieved over the years.  It is due to these attributes that liberal class supported Hillary Clinton; some like Noam Chomsky who are well aware of her shortcomings, supported her as she was the lesser evil and would not dismantle the social security fabric completely as they suspected Trump would.  Chomsky’s typical comment was, “hold your nose and vote for Hillary, as the alternative is horrible.”  People strongly on the left like Chris Hedges, argued that policy of voting for lesser evil is making the system eviler ultimately, and a real revolution was the need of the hour.  They supported third party candidate Jill Stein of Green Party who was left of the two major candidates on every issue.  The other argument against Hillary correctly pointed out that Democrats and Republicans were virtually indistinguishable except for some positions on social issues.  Democrats under Obama compromised on virtually all issues to Republicans and hardly presented any fight for progressive values.  The reason rightly understood was that Democrats were not interested in any progressive reform in the first place; they were happy serving Wall Street and other powerful business interest, a trend started by Bill Clinton who proved to corporate America that their interests were served better with Democrats; in turn getting massive funding for the party.  In that regards Democrats needed a lesson from the electorate; Vladimir Putin aptly rebuked Democrats that they had forgotten the meaning of the name of their party.  Clinton could only falsely blame Russia for the DNC email hacks that revealed all the conspiracy of Democratic establishment against Sanders.  The election was dirty from the beginning with players in their defined roles.

It is under these conducive circumstances that Trump rose to prominence and ultimately won the presidential election.  One can see that Trump only needed to be clever to beat Hillary and that he did.  He appealed to Sanders’ supporters to vote for him, at the same time appealing to white supremacists.  He pandered to gun lobby getting support of NRA (National Rifle Association), one of the most right wing and dangerous organization in the country that aims at putting gun in every single person’s hand.  He threw political correctness out of the window, and maligned Muslims, Mexicans, people of color and women.  He made fun of people with disabilities, but despite all his horrible statements, the appeal of his rhetoric was just unstoppable, as it was with Modi in India, his supporters worshipped him as a hero.  Trump famously said that, “even if he shot someone at Park Avenue in New York, his supporters will still support him, that’s amazing.”  He campaigned tirelessly compared to Hillary Clinton who in her smugness refused to campaign despite the polls showing only modest advantage of her over Trump.  Trump uncannily had his hands on the pulse of people.  He lambasted trade policies like NAFTA and TPP, and promised to negotiate new trade deals that would be advantageous to the US worker.  He appealed to the racism of the white underclass and situated the undocumented Mexican workers as the chief cause of their woes and unemployment.  Trump’s statements and assertions throughout the election campaign were full of lies, distortions, contradictions and one-upmanship but that did not hurt his popularity.  The more the media ridiculed him, the more popular he grew.  He was saying things that the white underclass wanted to hear, flight of manufacturing jobs to China due to bad trade policies of the government, declining wages, rampant unemployment, deteriorating infrastructure, an impetus to create a New Deal like development program that would create millions of jobs, bad wars, ISIS and hence Muslims as main enemy of the US, creating Muslim registry, taking better care of veterans, creating stricter laws for immigration, creating a wall on Mexico border etc.  He went to the extent of saying that he would “clean up the swamp in Washington” and “would prosecute Hillary Clinton for her email scandal.”  He generated same enthusiasm among his supporters as Bernie generated for his.  Like Bernie, Trump was seen as an outsider who was free from the corruption and machinations of Washington politics.  His success in business gave credence to his repeated assertion that he would “fix the broken system in Washington.”  He purported strong positions against abortion, gay and lesbian rights to enthuse evangelical base.  His whole persona as a fixer and a savior who was going to relieve the white underclass from the economic misery fitted well with the evangelical perception of angels and savior.  It can be easily seen that despite his conservative positions on social issues, core of his appeal was economic, with racism as a tool to explain the misery.  This is classic demagoguery; which history has shown us that such rhetoric can result in rise of people like Hitler (who situated Jews in the same way) when there is economic despair. 

Trump was against increasing the minimum wage at the federal level (fortunately, many states like California have already raised the minimum wage).  Though he had mentioned his position against raising minimum wage (which hurts the white underclass the most), still his supporters continued to believe in him as a “fixer” who would work for them.  His supporters believed him despite his billionaire status as he continuously empathized with them.  He was the only candidate to recognize more than 40% unemployment in black youth and terrible living conditions in the inner cities.  This contradicted with his unwavering support for law enforcement and police that have been responsible for reckless shootings of unarmed African-American men.  Filled with contradictions, Trump still managed to chug along as the candidate standing opposite to him was not even talking about these issues.  Although, the southern states where African-American population is highest, voted for Clinton, Trump did not forget to point out in presidential debate that during Bill Clinton’s presidency, she had called African-American men as “super-predators.”  Clinton’s condescending racism was recognized by a portion of black population, who rather voted for Trump as he came across as honest and forthright in his views and feelings.  He did not pretend to be what he was not.  His personal failings were overlooked by his supporters as the issues at hand were larger.  The only person who could have beat him given the political system of election, was Bernie Sanders.  The Democratic establishment refused to recognize the anger of the people hungry for real change, and the support Bernie had garnered in a relatively short period of time.  He was neck and neck with Hillary Clinton in terms of raw votes had it not been massive voter fraud and manipulation conducted by the Democratic establishment.  Unlike Republican party, Democratic party has this rule of support from super-delegates that finally counts in the selection of the Democratic candidate for primary elections.  Given the stronghold of Clinton over Democratic party, and Bernie Sanders technically being Independent did not have enough support from the super-delegates.  The Democratic establishment despite all signs of falling credibility of Clinton propped her as the presidential candidate completely ignoring the popular mood.  Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson polled 8% nationally, and attracted some Republican voters.  The scenario again favored Trump.       

Unfortunately for his supporters, as any demagogue would do, as soon as the purpose of demagoguery and rhetoric was served, i.e. winning the election, Trump started to go back on whatever he said.  In a rally after his win he declared, “there ain’t no swamp in Washington” and “no need to prosecute Hillary now.”  His policy positions during his campaign were either left of Democrats or right of Republicans.  The most likely scenario is that he will pursue conservative policies than liberal or progressive.  He had snubbed and crushed mainstream Republican politicians like Paul Ryan before the elections, but after the elections, he got them on his staff.  Now, with his staff picks for running various departments, it is clear that he has made most conservative choices, and the people he has picked are billionaires or millionaires, completely out of touch with realities on ground.  It is the richest cabinet ever in history, and probably will work to dismantle most of the social benefit programs the US government has starting from education to elderly benefits.  His picks include climate-change denier, non-believer in public education system, oil and drilling enthusiasts etc.  None of these people are going to do anything that is going to bring any relief to common American who is reeling under stagnant wages and low-paying jobs.  The Trump Presidency may turn out to be disastrous for average Americans as he pushes for privatization of public services and education keeping wages low.  Given Trump’s unpredictable nature and egomaniacal disposition, what he will do regarding trade is really not known.  His stance was nationalist during his campaign but due to lack of any concrete plan, it all appears to be rhetoric at best.

It is still to be seen if Trump remains as hawkish as his neo-liberal predecessors Obama and Clinton in foreign policy.  Trump’s stance towards Russia till now is soft and conciliatory.  This is a marked departure from previous Democratic and Republican political establishment.  Trump stunned the media and establishment by asking on national television, “why can’t we get along with Russia and China?” during his election campaign.  The anchors just wanted war, and could not believe a peaceful proposition by a presidential candidate.  Mainstream in the US have donned the role of servers for the neo-liberal establishment and salivate in war-mongering and Putin bashing.  It sent tremors in political and media establishment when Trump hinted that NATO was virtually obsolete and Japan and other countries should pay for the protection the US is providing to those countries.  This obviously shows his lack of knowledge of US history of intervention, and how things unfolded towards the end of second world-war.  Still, it appears that no-fly zone over Syria would not be instituted once Trump takes over office.  As for other issues, this too remains very unpredictable, as the deep state in the US (Pentagon, CIA etc.) and powerful defense contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing etc.) thrive in a state of war, and one US President has seldom been able to check their outreach.  One sign of compliance from Trump is evident in his now strong support for Israel.  His position on Israel during the start of his campaign was neutral.  Following his typical business instincts, he wanted to pull out from everywhere internationally which was not “profitable” for the US.  As can be seen he is relatively a novice in the imperial empire machinations that the US has constructed since the second world war.  Trump has already threatened to reverse the US position in the UN when Obama abstained from voting in condemnation of Israel.   

The best hope from Trump presidency can be that he does not start third world-war as Hillary Clinton was adamant on it, and ends the US policy of intervention and regime as he avowed to follow.  A relative peaceful Trump presidency will be a welcome change for the world.  At home, he is already faced with massive protests like “Dump trump” and “Not my President” and it will keep his feet to fire on domestic policies and domestic front.