Over at Down with Tyranny, I had the chance to read something of the Economist’s reasoning for calling Donald Trump a global threat. Don’t get me wrong, he is truly a threat, but their list gives away a lot of what the fear of the Establishment is all about. While we’re worried about living in a Nazi state, they have more prosaic concerns:
Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies– and these tend to be prone to constant revision– but a few themes have become apparent. First, he has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA, and has repeatedly labelled China as a “currency manipulator.” He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil). In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war– and at the least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February 2016. His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the U.S.) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.
Although we do not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn. It is worth noting that the innate hostility within the Republican hierarchy towards Mr Trump, combined with the inevitable virulent Democratic opposition, will see many of his more radical policies blocked in Congress– albeit such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.
There’s a lot to dislike about the Donald, so it’s amazing that the *Economist* managed to concentrate fire on many of his positions that come close to making sense. China probably is a currency manipulator, so it’s hard to take issue with the Donald on that one. The Mideast stuff is truly horrible, all sane people (are we in the minority now?) can agree on that. But an awful lot of us would just love to see him “scupper the Trans-Pacific Parnership”, and it’s on the financial issues that really affect the 1% that the Economist gives itself away.
What should be odd about their fear of the TPP being scuppered is that according to the words presently coming out of her mouth, the Economist’s preferred candidate is going to scupper the TPP if she gets elected. So, on that issue, there’s no difference.
But of course we all know that, in fact, she wouldn’t scupper it. In that, she’s probably no different than the Donald, who, despite what he says, would probably not scupper it either. He has, after all, made it abundantly clear that he feels licensed to do or say whatever it takes to get what he wants. Once he gets what he wants, he feels under no obligation to deliver on his promises. When he was a businessman, he did as a businessman does, and now that he’s a politician, he does as a politician does, and when he decides not to scupper the TPP, that’s exactly what he’ll tell his army of dupes. When Clinton announces that she won’t scupper the TPP, she’ll tell us that she modified it in some minuscule way that makes all the difference, and it is no longer objectionable. Since she hasn’t, at least to my knowledge, said exactly what has caused her to change her mind and want to scupper it, it will be easy for her to claim that a minor modification is sufficient to keep it afloat.
In any event, it’s remarkable that the threat the Economist perceives is not that the world’s most powerful country might be led by a fascist, but that it might refuse to surrender its sovereignty to corporate interests.
Post a Comment