The Trumpian revolution that shocks America and the world

Like Brexit in Britain, the election of a new US president last week has sent shockwaves around the world. On June 23, the British people voted to leave the European Union, and on November 8, the American people elected an extremely controversial figure, Donald Trump, as president. One British newspaper dubbed Trump’s victory “Trumpquake”, as in earthquake, and a German paper said “The world is upside down”! These were exactly the same reactions to the Brexit vote. Both events were truly epochal; they turned political logic on its head, and defied pollsters, analysts and experts, who said they won’t happen.

Brexit and Trump’s victory are, indeed, inseparable. For in Brexit lies the intellectual explanation for Trump’s win; and, more broadly, in Brexit you will find the phenomenon that is now spreading across the world and threatening to destabilise established political orders. Brexit has entered the global dictionary as a definition of voter defiance, of the rebellion of working-class people, economically marginalised people, against the political elites and the establishment in many countries.

In Britain’s EU referendum, people in the deprived regions, who felt neglected by politicians and bureaucrats in London and Brussels, voted massively to leave the EU. Ditto the US presidential election. The non-college educated white voters, who are largely blue-collar workers, voted massively for Trump, by 67% as against 28% for Clinton. For these people, the issues were declining standards of living, plummeting wages, job losses and uncontrolled immigration. And their battle cry was radical change!

This was the populism that Donald Trump tapped into; he exploited the frustrations of working and poor Americans, and presented himself as an outsider, a non-politician, who was not part of the Washington establishment that had been responsible for their plight. His election slogan was “Make America great again”, just as the mantra of the Brexiteers in Britain was “Take Back Control”. It was not surprising that Trump was a big supporter of Brexit, and boasted before his election that his victory would be “Brexit plus, plus, plus” or “Brexit times ten”! And he pulled off the remarkable feat.

Yet, here was someone who had never held a political office or served in the military in his life running against someone who has been in public life for 30 years, and has been a senator, first lady and secretary of state. As one commentator put it, the presidential election was Hillary Clinton’s to lose – and she lost it. Why?

Well, first, Mrs Clinton was a victim of her own success. Her 30 years of public service was an albatross rather than an advantage. For voters who were deeply disenchanted with the status quo, and who wanted radical change, Mrs Clinton’s longevity in public life made her part of the political elite they hated so much. She was a quintessential insider, who knew the ins and outs of Washington politics. Pitted against a maverick outsider like Trump, a self-made businessman and billionaire, who promised to shake up the Washington establishment, Hillary Clinton, a dynastic politician, stood no chance in the eyes of millions of American voters, who were desperate for radical change.

But apart from her guilt by association, Mrs Clinton’s own personal flaws were some of her greatest undoing. Clearly, her aloof insularity did not endear her to most American people. Unlike the straight-talking and shoot-from-the hip Trump, Clinton was seen as too secretive, which created a serious trust deficit, a fatal problem for any politician. Unfortunately, some of her own actions gave ammunitions to those who believed she couldn’t be trusted. I mean, how would you explain her decision to use her personal email server for her official work as secretary of state, thus, potentially endangering state secrets?

The FBI described her action as “extremely careless”, and it seriously damaged her electoral chances when, ten days to the election, the FBI director, James Comey, shockingly told Congress that the FBI had discovered new 650,000 emails that could lead them to reopen criminal investigations against her. Although the FBI director later told Congress, just two days to the election, that the new information did not establish criminality, the damage was already done. Her opinion poll lead of nearly 10%, following the revelation of Trump’s tawdry comments about groping women, precipitously crashed to just about 1 or 2%. It was as if the stars had aligned against her, but, in truth, her misfortune was largely self-inflicted.

In the end, not even the massive support of the political, economic and entertainment elites, such as Beyonce and Madonna, could save Mrs Clinton’s bacon. Donald Trump lacked significant celebrity or elite endorsement. In fact, his party’s grandees, such as former President George W Bush and his father, former President George H Bush, and key Republican politicians, like former secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, distanced themselves from Trump. But the silent majority, with whom his message of change resonated, were with him, and they struck decisively on November 8.

I stayed up late to watch the results. It was shocking to see Hillary Clinton lose not only the swing states of Florida and Ohio, but also the traditional Democratic states of Pennsylvania and Michigan. She ended up with just 228 electoral votes, out of the 270 needed to become president, while Trump had 279. Her only consolation was that she won the popular vote, with 59.7 million (47.7%) as opposed to Trump’s 59.5 million (47.5%), having 200,000 more votes than Trump across the country, a situation similar to the Gore-Bush election in 2000, when Bush won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote to Al Gore. Of course, in the US, it’s the electoral votes that matter!

Now, elections have consequences. So, what are the implications of the Trump’s victory for US and global politics? First, in terms of domestic politics, the biggest loser is President Barack Obama. The president and his wife, Michelle, campaigned vigorously for Hillary Clinton. But the reason was obvious. Obama knew that only Mrs Clinton could protect his legacy; Trump would tear it into pieces. Indeed, as Obama told the black community: “I will consider it a personal insult – an insult to my legacy – if you don’t vote for Hillary”.

Surely, now that Trump has won, that legacy is, potentially, in tatters. For instance, Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, Obama’s flagship healthcare programme. Trump also vowed to repeal most executive orders signed by Obama, including those relating to immigration reform (Trump promised to remove the more than two million illegal immigrants in the US) and environmental regulation. What’s more, as president, Trump would appoint conservative Supreme Court justices that would support his conservative views on social issues, such as abortion, immigration and gun control, whereas had she been elected president, Mrs Clinton would have appointed more liberal ones. So, make no mistake, Trump’s victory would result in the reversal of most, if not all, of President Obama’s domestic programmes.

It is, however, Trump’s international outlook that has troubled most people around the world. First, he vowed to build a wall against Mexico to prevent immigrants and criminals from getting into the US. Furthermore, he would renege on the nuclear deal with Iran, withdraw US’s support for the Paris climate change agreement (as he regards climate change as a hoax), take less interest in NATO unless the Europeans share more of the burden, develop a cordial relationship with Russia, and aggressively attack ISIS, presumably with Russia’s backing. Trump’s proposed cosier ties with Russia and his seeming lack of enthusiasm for NATO would, of course, delight President Putin, but unsettle US’s Western allies, and Russia’s vulnerable neighbours.

What’s more, the global economy faces real dangers if Trump pursues his proposed policies. For instance, he threatened to tear the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada and Mexico, and impose 35% tariffs on imports from Mexico. He would label China a currency manipulator, and impose 45% tariffs on Chinese imports. His government would also scrap the free trade agreements, negotiated or being negotiated by the Obama administration, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the EU, and try to renegotiate them in line with his “America first” policy. A protectionist US would certainly provoke trade wars and seriously harm the global economy.

That said, in fairness to President-elect Trump, he has been sounding more conciliatory since his election, promising to be president “for all Americans” and telling the international community that the US “will seek common grounds, not hostility; partnership, not conflicts”. These are a far cry from his confrontational and divisive rhetoric during the campaign, but they are welcome. Yet, there is a risk that if Trump’s actions in office do not match his election rhetoric and promises, including the promise to create jobs and regenerate the inner cities, his disenchanted and angry supporters would be extremely disappointed, with a possible backlash. He must address their economic and social challenges, but must be under no illusion that America can turn its back on globalisation and economic liberalism from which it has benefitted enormously.

To be sure, President-elect Trump rode to power on the wave of populism. But when he is sworn in on January 20, he will be the leader not only of America, but also of the free world. He must lead in a way that engenders security, stability and inclusive economic prosperity in the US and in the world. I wish him a successful tenure!