Yesterday I described a Trump win as inconceivable. Today it is of course a reality. Donald Trump has won, getting only slightly more votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012 and (according to the BBC website right now, though the final count is not yet in) slightly less than Hillary Clinton managed. It seems that too many democrat voters were just unable to make the grown-up choice of the least-worst option.
I heard Anne Applebaum talking on BBC Radio 4 this morning, interspersed with Donald Trump's acceptance speech, in near apocalyptic terms. "This is the end of NATO", we were told (in as many words), the "end of a world ruled by law".
Personally, as I am still somewhat punch-drunk from the Brexit result, I did not find this result quite so shocking as I did the result of the referendum on EU membership, which, in the words of a fellow Remainer, felt "like a death in the family" for days afterwards. That does not mean I do not think it is bad.
Whilst I think there is at least some scope to hope that Trump will be moderated by his advisers, that he may be controlled by the US constitution, and that much of what he said on the campaign trail may not have been meant sincerely, he is clearly unqualified for his post either by experience or temperament. His tendency to over-react is well known. His complete lack of morals is public knowledge.
A Trump win makes it more likely that Germany and France will have to work together to develop a replacement for NATO. Trump has clearly signalled that a US under his leadership will not be a reliable ally. Eastern Europe in general and Ukraine in particular may find themselves threatened or even attacked by Russia without US assistance.
This clubbing together of European states will inevitably have a knock-on effect on Brexit, making an easy deal for the UK less likely. Similarly, Trump has taken a hard line against international free trade deals, so it is hard to see Brexiteer's plans for free trade deals coming to much in a world that is turning towards isolationism, even if Trump's team has also expressed interest in a deal with the UK.
A Trump win makes a PRC threat against Taiwan, or even outright aggression, much more likely. Of course the likelihood of something like this was always going to rise over the next decade or so regardless of who sat in the White House, simply as a result of Chinese defence spending approaching, and in due course surpassing, that of the United States, but Trump's proclamations about not coming to the aid of supposedly back-sliding allies who don't pay their fair share makes this more likely still. Barring a (highly unlikely) sudden acquisition of nuclear weapons it is hard to see what the Taiwanese can do to counter this.
A Trump win brings into horrifying focus all those things that Obama was supposed to fix about the Bush years but has not yet done so. Torture was never properly outlawed, and so may be implemented anew by a president who has stated publicly that he wishes to bring it back. The prison in Guantanamo Bay has not been closed, and so remains open to receive new inmates sent there by a president who has said that he wants to "load it up with bad dudes".
Above all a Trump win damages the image of democracy itself. If people can make such an obvious bad decision, then where does this leave democracy's claim to being the best system of government? This. at least, will be the rhetoric coming from government-controlled media in China and elsewhere as the Trump presidency unfolds.
Personally I take consolation in simply remembering the democracy is not the best system, it is merely "the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The people of the US will survive to make a different, better choice some point in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"Above all a Trump win damages the image of democracy itself. If people can make such an obvious bad decision, then where does this leave democracy's claim to being the best system of government?"
I've been thinking this for a long time. :-(
Like I said, democracy is not the best system, it is merely the least worst. Ultimately the choice of Trump to the post of the US presidency is better than what now appears to be the effective installation of Putin and Xi Jinping as dictators for life.
I agree democracy is better, but I often think people are looking so much at dictatorships that they lose sight of weaknesses in the current democratic systems. A lot of this is often down to various details on the systems work. For example, I could spend hours on discussing how, for example, the US system could be improved by abolishing ancient practices like the electoral college. This discussion is poorly lacking.
People in democracies have made such bad choices before. Italians elected Berlusconi three times overall. Italian democracy survived, although his rule did the country much harm. And Trump and Berlusconi are pretty much the same thing.
Elections are not the best thing about democracy, since most people, let's face it, are not well-informed and have values more regressive than those who rule them. But elections are the guarantee that democracy and all its other trappings won't disappear altogether.
You are right about this being a propaganda boost for China, although as I have argued in my blog just now, much of the Chinese public quite likes Trump, and don't seem to see him for the buffoon he is.
About Taiwan, I wonder if Trump can really overturn the US's security commitment to Taiwan. Or perhaps the issue is whether the Chinese believe so. But an actual invasion of Taiwan would probably bring about guerrilla resistance and urban warfare, and half the world would boycott China. I don't think people would just accept it like they did Crimea, especially since most Taiwanese would be horrified. Also, what' going on in Hong Kong is showing the Chinese rulers how difficult it is for them to rule over a territory where most of the people haven't grown up under them and don't think the way Mainlanders do. Perhaps they would rather not actually have to rule Taiwan.
"Italians elected Berlusconi three times overall. Italian democracy survived, although his rule did the country much harm. And Trump and Berlusconi are pretty much the same thing."
Indeed. Just as an Italian friend was pointing out on Facebook yesterday.
"much of the Chinese public quite likes Trump, and don't seem to see him for the buffoon he is."
Culturally there is often an equation of wealth with ability/intelligence in China.
"About Taiwan, I wonder if Trump can really overturn the US's security commitment to Taiwan. Or perhaps the issue is whether the Chinese believe so."
As commander in chief it is entirely within the president's power not to intervene in an act of aggression against Taiwan, even if the Taiwan Assistance Act does commit the US to aiding Taiwan. Trump has said he won't defend back-sliding allies (and to be frank, Taiwan hasn't exactly been very active about upgrading its defences). Domestically it is hard to see a US administration simply abandoning Taiwan, but then this used to be thought about South Vietnam.
"an actual invasion of Taiwan would probably bring about guerrilla resistance and urban warfare, and half the world would boycott China. I don't think people would just accept it like they did Crimea, especially since most Taiwanese would be horrified."
I have friends in Taiwan who say they would take to the mountains in an invasion, but there are many who would simply knuckle under if the PRC successfully invaded the island, and as a tyranny the PRC is not limited in what it might do to suppress rebellion the way other countries are.
As for global reactions, our economies are integrated with China to a point where it may not be possible to simply boycott China. Barring actual war between the US and European states and China, it is hard to think that a boycott would occur.
"Also, what' going on in Hong Kong is showing the Chinese rulers how difficult it is for them to rule over a territory where most of the people haven't grown up under them and don't think the way Mainlanders do. Perhaps they would rather not actually have to rule Taiwan."
The salutory effects of this lesson may be somewhat lost on the CCP leadership, who are only too willing to believe (or at least engage in double-think about) stories of how everything that is going wrong in Hong Kong can be blamed on "evil foreign forces".
Ultimately I doubt the CCP leadership, and Xi especially, care any more about the opinions of the Taiwanese people than they do about those of the people of Hong Kong.
Election turnout has usually been around 55 to 60 percent during much of the past century, but I think one shouldn't leave the relative majority of people out of the account who haven't voted. Turnout was reportedly somewhat lower this time, than in 2012. It should be interesting to know what caused the difference.
It's only a small one, 2016 on 2012 - but in a race as narrow as the one last week, every bit can matter. And besides, in absolute numbers, a majority chose not to vote at all - they have done so for decades.
" I think one shouldn't leave the relative majority of people out of the account who haven't voted"
You mean a plurality, right? Obviously 35-45% is not a majority.
This topic gets raised a lot in the UK (which gets higher turnouts for nationwide elections/votes than the US - typically 60-70%) as the Corbyn campaign believes that it can jump over its low poll ratings by reaching out to non-voters. Ultimately, I don't think you can read too much into the views of non-voters, whose views seem to broadly mirror those of the rest of the population ( http://survation.com/apathy-in-the-uk-understanding-the-attitudes-of-non-voters/ ).
As a Briton, you are supposed to refer to this as a relative majority, Foarp. Americans may refer to it as a plurality, and Germans may choose freely from the two terms. ;-)
Ultimately, I don't think you can read too much into the views of non-voters, whose views seem to broadly mirror those of the rest of the population
They may or may not differ from those who turn out to vote. But their decision to stay away differs for sure.
Post a Comment