No one that I know has identified Donald Trump's politics sufficiently to be sure into what category they might fall.
What they are not is neoliberal. The absence of a commitment to global free trade guarantees that, although we have no idea what he will deliver, of course.
In that case has Obama been the last neoliberal president?
Perversely, does Trump open a new political era even if it is one many outside the US, at least, would not want in the form that he says he wants to deliver it?
I may well be clutching at straws here, not least because I think Trump will not be able to stop himself becoming the worst US president for a century or more, but he may just break a pattern that does as a result open an opportunity for real change.
As I said on Sunday, all I have left right now is hope.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Do you have insight into his likely approach, based on his advisors and so on?
I don’t think you’re straw-clutching. There is hope is every situation. This is a wake-up call to those who naturally assume a right to govern – however distasteful the catalyst is.
Given he’s the direct beneficiary – in fact owes everything he has – to the neoliberal system I doubt that when push comes to shove he’ll make much effort to change it, Richard. Whereas he could get away with his ignorance and lack of interest in policy detail on the campaign trail now he’s president it won’t be long before people start explaining what happens to X if you do A and B. I suppose the only question is whether he pays any attention to advisors and other republican politicians. What I think we can be sure of is that this will be the most nepotistic administration ever, that changes in personnel will be many and frequent, and that by the end of his first term corrupt/questionable practices will simply be the way business is done. What the policy outcomes are of such an adminstration is anyone’s guess, but they will certainly usher in a deeply troubling era in American history.
Much there to agree with Ivan
I wonder, will he make a term in office?
Might he just not be able to compromise to the degree that requires?
It’s just an idea
Given that Clinton’s friends would have done all they could to uncover corruption by Trumpt and have failed to do so, this suggests that your claims are misplaced. There are plenty of question marks about Hilary’s conduct and credibility, however.
Not tax for nearly twenty years?
Massive lies?
Several bankruptcies?
Not ashes at all
Trump has been the beneficiary of public subsidy, like his dad, who: ‘During his business career was investigated by a U.S. Senate committee (1954) for profiteering from public contracts, was investigated by the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division (1973) for civil rights violations .’
No change there, then -these creeps know how to use Government.
Richard -I think many of us are clinging on to that hope. It might be that the Left will pick up from the ‘rubble’ of a Trump incumbency. Unfortunately , the signs that what purports to be the Left can de-neo-liberalise itself are just not there-so I hold onto that hope whilst despairing at the same time.
What worries me is that when Trump shows he can’t deliver where will the anger go?
All good points Simon
He’s on many occasions mentioned the crumbling bridges and other infrastructure problems (Flints water poisoning etc), and a boost to spending on infrastructure could well be supported by the GOP House and Senate, and will produce lots of jobs, at least in the short term. That’s where I think he’ll start.
But he has to offer a proper explanation of the funding
So far he has not
MMT is one way he could do it – but he needs to say so
He has alluded to some aspects of MMT, for example, he “corrected” journalists he accused of misrepresenting him about the US defaulting on debt, stating that (as MMT also claims) the US won’t default since it prints its own money.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-no-debt-default-222957?cmpid=sf
Horrified as I am on Trump’s election, there is hope that he will “shake up” the political system as he proclaims. After all, wasn’t he originally a democrat? (one who is on record saying that, if he ever stood for president, he would stand as a Republican, since he believed they were the voter base “stupid enough to vote for someone like him”)?
He did indeed say the US could not default
He may know more than we give him credit for
The joint political shocks of first Brexit, and now President Trump, must signal an end to the era of the neo-liberal economics as we have known it. Whatever Trump turns out to be, he is certainly no neo-liberal, and his policies on restricting free trade and expanding fiscal spending for infrastructure spending will certainly set him at odds with his own party.
Far less clear is how deep cuts in business and personal taxation will help the “ordinary working Americans” who he claims to represent. Trickle-down economics failed to raise wages over the last 30 years, and there is even less chance of it working in future, as new technology is likely to lead to more jobless growth.
On the upside Trump has shown a better understanding of the realities of life for working Americans than the Democrats ever did. One of the most telling examples was his line about Flint in Michigan, where he said “We used to make cars in Michigan, and Mexico had unsafe drinking water. Now its the other way around.” This explains how he has managed to tap into the anger running through middle America today.
Now Americans as well as Brits have voted for change and a better future for ordinary workers. The sad part is that in both cases the people they have put in power have no idea how to deliver it.
If I may Robert, I think that it is a bit more weird than that.
The Americans have just voted in the same party that ushered in neo-liberalism in the first place. Even if they voted for Trump and Trump genuinely wants to improve the lot of the people, will the Republican party let him do what he has said he wants to do?
They might and they might not. We might get a reindustrialisation of the USA to the benefit of the poor and working poor there but also a state that ruthlessly ejects Mexicans without work permits and punishes women who have been raped and left pregnant.
Trump might cause major problems with Iran but settle for a more peaceful relationship with Russia. I think that we will know what sort of President Trump will be and what progress he is making when we see the policy mix his administration comes up with.
I for one will not rue the passing of NATO. But then if I think about what might replace it I might change my mind!
The worse case scenario is that the old alliances are ripped up but what replaces it is some sort of power sharing agreement between certain large states. Or that America starts to pull up the draw bridge, isolates itself and then sets out its foreign policy in total ignorance of other states positions.
Will Trump support Nato when his friend Putin invades the Baltic states? Somehow I doubt it.
What utter rubbish. What incentive does Putin have for invading the Baltic States? If you want to cite Crimea, well there was a referendum, you know, and it is of extreme strategic importance to Russia when Nato increasingly threatens Russia’s and even China’s borders. It is one small glimmer of hope re Trump that he may reject Nato’s expansionism. (In no way do I approve of Putin – in fact he rather resembles Trump in his vanity and gross populism.)
There will be that fateful meeting between the new president elect and those who REALLY run the USA. I wonder if Trump will still be his own man after that?
On some points I hope so (a wave of investment is needed in the US). The American people deserve this (just like us in the UK do after having to contend with 6 years of austerity and yet more to come up to 2020 if recent reports can be believed).
On others I hope that he changes his mind (the list is too long but I’m sure readers will know what they are).
In the future, straw clutching will be the norm as we come to terms with the consequences of this result. And that future is now folks.
As hinted at – for all we know, his party might try to get rid of him. But if they are really clever they will use him. This is where strange things might happen.
A rascist, sexist President who at least really improves the condition of his people? Does that sound that bad?
I do believe that most Americans are like me – flesh and blood – and just want a chance to work hard and live well and be free of fear. Mainstream politics has failed to deliver this for these people (the world over too) and played dangerous games with describing the root of such problems. And this is what you get.
Trump signifies the failure of modern politics as does UKIP and BREXIT. The Tories are now scrambling to adopt UKIP policy and be seen as pro-BREXITEERS in order to get an electoral advantage. The Republicans might do the same to Trump.
If he is more officially co-opted into the Republican party, how much will Donald let himself be compromised? Now is the time to watch and listen closely.
What is truly over though is that dream that the Left has that there will someday be an epiphany of sorts amongst the electorate who will then flock into the arms of Labour or the Democrats.
This will not happen because to paraphrase the singer/sonwriter Grant Lee Buffalo said:
“They’ve’ve been lied to………
Now they’re fuzzy”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILpq6LDrUWQ
There are no such people who run the USA
Sorry – just not true
Richard
If that comment is directed at me then let me be clear that my original comment is referring to the prevalence of ex-Goldman Sachs and other economic actors who were around and implicated in the 2008 crash and who were retained by Obama even when he came to office.
The ‘advice’ that Clinton #1 got from Greenspan for example (a follower of Ayn Rand) that led him to abandoning his plans for the country and then making savage cuts to welfare instead.
Such people like Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Hank Paulson have had a big impact on the management and aspirations of the USA and its Presidents and not for the better. You don’t even have to think of conspiracy stories either. They have been manifestly there looking after No.1 and that No.1 has not been the majority of the American people.
Thanks,
PSR
I don’t dispute those facts
But Obama is a neoliberal
We all knew that
As I’ve tried to explain to my kids – who are horrified – when the political, commercial, corporate, professional and academic elites treat so many ordinary people with contempt and abuse and exploit their, it is ineviatble in a free democracy that a pluraility of voters will turn on them. Trump had to play hardball because Hillary tried to wrap all the smug sentiments of political correctness, faux equality and unfundable entitlement around here. The penny may have dropped with the GOP – it certainly hasn’t with the smug, arrogant, greedy elites in Britain. It looks like the days of small government Republicanism are over for a while. There’s going to be a badly needed re-balancing of monetary and fiscal policy. Trump is a capitalist buccaneer, but he’s no friend of corporate capitalist America. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a bit of trustbusting akin to the Teddy Roosevelt era.
Thing is, the Tories think they’ve coralled all the antis into their satellite party, UKIP where they act as their useful idiots. When is rural and small town britain going to wake up to how little the Tories do for them?
Whatever label one puts on his economics, progressive wouldn’t be one of them. If I may be permitted a cross-post, this from Michael Roberts gives a realistic appraisal of what he’s up against: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/donald-trump-and-the-poisoned-chalice-of-the-us-economy.
As with the Brexit campaigners, it’s easy to tap into people’s fears & frustrations but probably impossible to deliver on the promises. It’s all just more snake oil salesmanship.
No tax, because of massive carried forward losses – I thought you were meant to be the ‘expert’ on tax?
I am
No one can show how he funded a loss that big
So you’re disputing the IRS figures? On what basis? What contrary evidence do you have?
I am saying he should show how he funded $916 million
Why not?
He should have published his tax returns
He should have published them but he has not. Is there anything that can force him to publish?
From what I have see, for example –
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2016/10/12/windfall-the-best-explanation-of-donald-trumps-916-million-tax-loss/ – the losses come from a quirk of the US tax system, due to the unintended interaction of two bits of the US tax code, and do not require Trump to have suffered an economic loss of the same amount. As I understand it, debt written off would usually be treated as taxable income, unless the debtor is insolvent. If the debtor is insolvent but tax transparent, the write off still does not count as taxable income of the investor, but it does (stupidly) increase the investor’s basis in the entity. The increase in basis allows the investor to claim tax deductions against other income for the real operating losses incurred by the insolvent entity (presumably funded by the third party debt that has been written off). The upshot is essentially free tax deductions for the investor, without suffering the economic loss. A real economic loss was suffered by the lenders, who don’t get their loans repaid (but they presumably also get to claim a tax loss for their failed investment).
If I might reply to Carol Wilcox’s robust reply to my post on the Baltic States, I notice that she omits the Russian use of native Russian inhabitants as a pretext for the annexation of eastern Ukraine. Thirty per cent of Estonians are of Russian background, speak Russian and remain culturally attached to their land of origin, watching Russian TV, for example. Putin is an amoral nationalist who will use any means to destabilise the west, which he regards as degenerate and increase Russian influence. It is an error of the left to allow a (justifiable)hatred for American imperialism and a dislike of NATO to blind them to the what Putin’s Russia has become and what it plans to do.
Robert P Bruce
“On the upside Trump has shown a better understanding of the realities of life for working Americans than the Democrats ever did. One of the most telling examples was his line about Flint in Michigan, where he said “We used to make cars in Michigan, and Mexico had unsafe drinking water. Now its the other way around.” This explains how he has managed to tap into the anger running through middle America today.”
But this is a guy who regularly doesn’t pay his suppliers and has employed illegals to build his edifices; outsourced work to China. When he had his bankruptcies losing $1bn, you can guarantee that not all that $bn was owed to the IRS or the finance houses. There were lots of ‘little guys’ in there who, thanks to trump’s contempt for the little guy (and everyone else who isn’t in his circle at a specific moment in time) will have been, if not impoverished, certainly not enriched by having had dealings with him. We should look at what the guy has done, not what he says.
I’m really not sure that we know what Trump is even vaguely likely to do. He is not someone to worry about taking an attitude at variance with that of his campaign. Before he became a candidate for president he was actually fairly liberal and would have been easily mistaken as a Democrat. He has a history of supporting human rights and was a staunch pro-choice advocate. As soon as he needed the support of the poor evangelical right he changed his projected views quite radically. He’s perfectly capable of turning them back again.
But he does seem to understand the left-behind of America who are in so many ways very similar to the left-behind of the UK and who voted for Brexit. The left-behind in the UK are just going to get more hardship as the hard right push for a hard Brexit. It is a good opportunity for Labour to look more creatively at many of their policies and to tailor them for the left-behind.
There is always hope! His son was quoted as saying that you have to understand that Trump is a blue-collar worker but with a much bigger bank balance. Who knows how Trump will turn out? Just when we thought politics was quite interesting enough, all this happens!
It’s terrifying to think that those very small hands hold such immense power. Not only will he be President, but will have both houses of Congress behind him and he will appoint the Chief Justice. And as someone pointed out on the telly just now, he totally owns the Republican Party, with all those elected under Trump’s heel because of the jubilant masses who voted him in.
It has been mooted that Trump ran for president on a whim. It could well be that he is as amazed as the rest of us that his “locker room” banter and outlandish, and unsubstatiated claims, have delivered the White House. Is he really up for 24 hour attention to other folks’ problems? No time for his business interests, no time for his family, and surrounded by grim faced gorilla’s?
I felt for his son. The wee chap looked lost on the stage. In some ways Trump’s biggest challenges may be personal.
I draw some, slight feelings of optimism that his appointment may draw some of Putin’s power and win grudging respect from other undemocratic governments, but as always his actions in office will speak louder than words. One thing is for certain he will need to deliver on his promises, or else!
I remain (almost completely!) convinced that Trump began his candidacy with no expectation or desire to achieve anything at all but further publicity for himself – which is, of course, just about his favourite thing in the whole world.
As his campaign began to gain traction in the primaries thanks to the paucity/insanity of some of his opponents, I think that his ever more outrageous outbursts were initially intended to rule him out of the contest. Of course, they actually had the opposite effect and just garnered even more publicity for him, winning the nomination.
I’m still not quite sure whether or not Trump ever really thought he would win. The tenor of his speech and comments this morning were somewhat out of character, to say the least. Was this the new Presidential air that the pundits have been expecting to hear from him for some time now, or just a big gulp moment as he realises what he’s got himself into?
There is a good chance you are right
Chief Engineer of Trump Tower (massive ego, eh?) who worked with him years ago and fell out with him eventually, said on radio this morning that he’d talked about being President for years. I guess ‘The Simpsons’ writers must have been aware of this.