U.S. Elections: Trump Triumphs – But At What Cost

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

Trump Triumphs!

The Democratic candidate in the U.S. Presidential Election, current Vice President Kamala Harris had a never-ending uphill task – like the one for the legendary Sisyphus.

Actually, she never had a realistic path to victory.

In hindsight, all the polls were highly deficient and predicted a neck-on-neck race – even photo-finish – and failed miserably to register the deep, underlying dissatisfaction of the majority of the electorate.

All the while, Trump was constantly drumming – falsely -- that he alone could fix the deep malaise, and the majority of the American people fell for his unsubstantiated lies, falsehoods and wild claims.

But as the perspicacious French philosopher and diplomat said:

         “Every nation gets the government it deserves.”

And given Trump’s deeply flawed character, lack of competence and vision, the American people are in for a great disappointment – and even awakening, because the leopard cannot change its spots!

Trump, Back into the Fire

Asked by The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board last month whether he would deploy the US military to break a Chinese blockade of Taiwan, if faced with such a crisis, Donald Trump responded in typical nonsensical and idiotic fashion: “I wouldn’t have to, because [Chinese leader Xi Jinping] respects me, and he knows I’m fu. .ing crazy.”

 Heading back to the White House, Trump and his signature erratic style will confront a world newly marked by geopolitical chaos, CNN’s brilliant Fareed Zakaria quotes Reuters Matt Spetalnick (Fareed’s Global Briefing, Nov. 7, 2024).

Barring elusive peace deals, wars in the Middle East and another in Ukraine will greet Trump after his inauguration.

Tensions with China loom, as always.

Spetalnick writes” “America’s friends and foes alike remain wary as they await Trump’s return to office in January, wondering whether his second term will be filled with the kind of turbulence and unpredictability that characterized his first four years.”

However, unpredictability is part of the point, Alec Russel writes in a Financial Times feature.

Some view it as a central element of Trump’s approach to foreign policy.

“Yet on some issues his aides say he is crystal clear,” Russel writes.

“They insist that he will be ready to act with vertiginous speed to end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East…

“All the while, he plans to threaten ever-higher tariffs [on friend and foe], to push America’s allies to spend more on defence and to equalize their trading relationship with the US – while also maintaining pressure on China…

“The audacious ‘America First’ global agenda envisaged by Trump’s allies, advisers and former – and would-be future – aides, is one in which friends and foes alike will be judged by the same simple metric: their bilateral trading surplus with the U.S.”

What a Second Trump Term Could Look Like

For the many people who dislike Trump, his win requires a bitter readjustment.

The Atlantic’s David Frum writes: “Above all, we must learn to live in an America where an overwhelming number of our fellow citizens have chosen a president who holds the most fundamental values and traditions of our democracy, our Constitution, even our military in contempt.”

[And given Trump’s history, his temperament and his highly divisive rhetoric during the campaign, he is most unlikely to heal the festering wounds of the nation].

Many Trump critics fear his second administration will be much wilder and less constrained than his first.

As Peter D. Feaver wrote in a Foreign Affairs essay, Trump will no longer be surrounded by solid establishment aides seeking to blunt his wild impulses.

The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser wrns of big changes: “Already, one of Trump’s transition chairs, the billionaire Howard Lutnick, has said publicly that jobs in a new Administration will go only to those who pledge loyalty to Trump himself…

“Having beaten off impeachment twice, this second-term Trump will have little to fear from Congress reining him in, either, especially now that Republicans have managed to retake control of the Senate [and possibly the House of Representatives]…

“And the Supreme Court, with its far-right majority solidified thanks to three Trump-appointed Justices, has recently granted the Presidency near-total immunity in a case brought by Trump seeking to quash the post-January 6th cases against him.”

Trump has indicated a desire to hound his political opponents, and warnings of a Trumpian Judgment Day are chilling.

The New York Times editorial board warned explicitly to take Trump at his word.

Set against that alarm is the impression, or [forlorn] hope, that Trump might not be serious.  

In a Foreign Affairs interview, Stanford political historian Stephen Kotkin remarks [possibly/probably minimizing the acute danger]: “Yes, it is worrisome to hear rhetoric that is expressly antidemocratic, but some of that rhetoric is about stirring the pot, driving the other side into a frenzy, and whipping up your side, especially in this social media age.”

Either way, Trump has won a mandate.

Zakaria writes: Unbelieving critics could disregard his 2016 election as a fluke, but a second election and a majority in the popular vote reveal the breath of his support undeniably.

Trump’s victory “marks a new era for the US and the world, reflecting a sharp rightward lurch in the American electorate, which has not only embraced Trump’s brand of demagoguery, but also his ‘America First’ nationalist agenda,” James Politi and Stefania Palma write in the Financial Times.

“Trump will now feel vindicated to press ahead with plans that he has laid out throughout the campaign: high tariffs on a vast swath of imports, more confrontational relationships with traditional US allies and a massive crackdown on illegal immigration.

What Just Happened – A Political Earthquake, A Tsunami?

It’s worth marveling at the scale of Trump’s remarkable comeback.

The New York Times’ Shane Goldmacher, Magie Haberman, and Jonathan Swan describe its far-reaching arc: “He overcame seemingly fatal political vulnerabilities – four criminal indictments, three expensive lawsuits, conviction on 34 felony counts, endless reckless tangents in his speeches – and transformed at least some of them into distinct advantages…

“How he won in 2024 came down to one essential bet: that his grievances could meld with those of the MAGA movement, and then with the Republican Party, and then with more than half the country…

“His mug shot became a best-selling shirt…

“His criminal conviction inspired US $ Dollar 100 million in donations in one day…

“The images of him bleeding after a failed assassination attempt became the symbol of what supporters saw as a campaign of destiny…

“Voters unhappy with the nation’s direction turned him into a vessel for their rage.”

[There was, therefore, nothing that Kamala Harris could say or do that could stem the tide!]

Zakaria notes that much has been (and will be) said about the demographic and geographic shifts seen in this election – and about the broader question of whether Americans have moved to the right, politically, en masse.

Among the major story lines are Latino men voting for Trump and sour views on the economy.

Republican strategist Sarah Longwell tells NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly: “I do focus groups all the time, and I always start them by asking people, ‘How do you think things are going in the country?’

“And for years now, people have been saying they do not think things are going good…

“Inflation has been killing them…  

“You know, they’re frustrated with immigration…

“They know exactly how much eggs cost…

“They’re very sensitive to the price of gas…

“In the inflationary environment that we had post-Covid, this has felled incumbents across the globe.”

[After all, Trump was voted out of office because of the mess he made of Covid and his administration].

Dissecting Harris’s Loss

On the question of what went wrong for Kamala Harris, a long and painful exegesis has already begun for Democrats, writes Zakaria.

The BBC’s Courtney Subramanian notes Joe Biden’s unpopularity, Harris’s struggle to build on his coalition, and a tendency to present the election as a referendum on Trump.

Asking Biden aides where they think Harris erred, The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer heard gripes that she abandoned anti-big business populism and failed to counter Trump’s culture-war ads about gender transitions for prisoners and detained migrants.

At The New Statesman, Sohrab Ahmari argues: “Harris might have done better had she enthusiastically articulated the populist elements of her boss’s vision: the industrial policies, the rural development, the tariffs, the anti-trust crusade…Her surrogates bashed tariffs as a ‘tax on consumers’, seemingly unaware [rather ignoring] that Team Biden had retained and expanded Trump’s [tariffs] on Chinese goods…It was hard to discern a story beyond ‘defend democracy’ and protecting women’s right to an abortion…

“In place of a cohesive narrative, Harris offered a barrage of lame micro-policies: small-business loans, homebuyer grants, handouts to the scammy crypto industry, encouraging black marijuana entrepreneurs, scrapping tax on restaurant tips (a gimmick lifted from Trump’s agenda) and so on…

“What happened to the sorts of things that used to make left parties attractive to ordinary people: Medicare for all? Student- and medical-loan forgiveness? Peace in the Middle East?”

[But when all is said and written, we have to recognize in hindsight that Kamala Harris attempted her quest with terrible odds – beginning with the fact that she started her campaign much too late. Trump, on the other hand had a head start – since the time when he challenged his loss, back in 2020! For Harris, in fact, it was Mission Impossible! ].

Test Case: Putin’s Ukraine War

Trump has boasted that he could end the Ukraine war in a day. He has also suggested Ukraine should have made a deal with Russia earlier in the conflict.

CNN’s Zakaria suggests that this has led Ukraine’s Western supporters to worry that Trump would force a lopsided war settlement favouring Russia (Global Briefing, Nov. 8).

Curiously, the world’s richest man and CEO of ‘X’ [formerly Twitter] Elon Musk joined Trump’s post-election call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, adding to the mystery of where this is all heading. Musk is slated to assume a leading and guiding role in Trump’s administration.

Considering that Trump has also had communication with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump and his cohorts are swiftly overtaking Biden in policy matters, even before he formally takes office, reducing the Biden administration to a lame duck one.

As a dire warning of what could happen, we had Trumpist Republicans blocking extending aid to Ukraine last year.

Rajan Menon writing for the left-leaning British newsmagazine The New Statesman states: “what Ukraine needs on the battlefield above all is weaponry. And European countries, partly because of their decades-long underinvestment in defence…would not be able to fill the gap should Trump taper, let alone end, the American arms supply.”

At the same magazine, Andrew Marr warns: “There will be demands in London for European countries, particularly Britain, to take the lead in fresh military moves to protect Ukraine, urgently sending more long-range missiles and allowing the targeting of Russian sites [which Biden had forbidden]…

“But without US support, this becomes incredibly dangerous for western Europe…

“Of all the urgent debates coming now, this is the most urgent one of all…

“There are no good answers. Unless he dramatically changes his mind, a Trump-imposed settlement, giving Putin the eastern third of Ukraine [plus Crimea], would surely result in the fall of Zelensky, further Russian advances, and then Russian – and now North Korean – troops pushing against NATO’s borders.”

The writer can be reached at: [email protected]