And what are you looking at...?
The best conceivable scenario may indeed harken further back, to the redefining surge of Warren Harding, which I will return to. Unfortunate, as we are to know, the Donald will not be an ignominious, but soon-to-pale mock repeat of the Goldwater effort in 1964 (though, given the implications of that comparison of a later, more advanced and successful repeat of that effort, I would perhaps prefer the present to a successful Trump, or Bryan, of greater ambition and capacity in 2020 or 2024).
Last century's model? Or precedent?
Harding was indeed laughed out, an extrovert figure with a shallow charm, a warming wit and mild interest in the machinations of governing, which he handily left to his cronies - in fairness, a set of such illustrious minds as Charles Evans Hughes, Herbert Hoover, Harry Daugherty and Andrew Mellon, who successfully steered the United States into the early years of the roaring and peaceful, reassuringly bloated 1920s. I much reject the notion that even a united Republican party successfully united would be able to successfully withdraw from world and conflict and both as Harding did, and repeat the economic miracle upon which his memory ought perhaps be remembered. And if you think it merely incurred a debt of suffering for fellow humans, living and yet to be born, then look to his undeservedly forgotten speech in Birmingham, where for zero political gain he called for equal political rights to the cheer of the segment of the population to whom few would look even for tacit support.
And for those who think the race was all about but race and the preference of any man over a particularly colourful and ambitious woman (this being literally true of course, though not in the positive light herein stated). In the case someone cannot read it due to monthly restrictions (and thus doing well with your news coverage; if not up for subscription, do check into The Guardian while it's still doing its civic duty by being free of charge), I will quote a succinct piece;
Instead of bias, what animates these voters, whatever their race of political orientation, is a profound distrust and resentment of wealthier, educated Americans, a group they say lacks a connection to them and does not care about their economic situation. And to them, Mrs. Clinton seemed at least as elite as Mr. Trump, if not more so.
Two sentences to speak life stories and the hopes they fuel. And these stories are both legion and disturbingly "European"; see us now. We are real. We are dissuaded by a two-party system. We oppose and reject (as in repeal and replace) the globalised economy and trade deals that merrily ships our jobs overseas, as we will not. We reject multiculturalism which has not only subjected us to demographics change, but now an authoritarian brand of cultural radicalism. If someone moves to our edge of the bar, we will - in the end - respond to the advance, rather than Hemingway's proverbial rejection of death, and a surrender to obscurity. And if the offer means lighting the rest of the bar, our fears, hopes, desires ablaze, we will readily offer the flame - end of figurative quote.None of these points are without justification, but all have been tried and tested in practice, usually to the detriment of the party - Denmark being a good exception to the rule, which has swamped both the partisan system, replaced the established conservative party as the long-term conservative option and self-handedly dragged all others into a new paradigm. But with the GOP - long conflated at least to the history-blind and more generalising surveyors to the sentiment that has permeated collectivist-populist parties not-of-the-left, but with a nostalgic view to the welfare institutions, the security, the general sub-national society of the mid-1900s - acting as host, it could be devastating to the world economy as well as geopolitical realities.
Five reasons or repudiations
But, more broadly speaking, beyond this single story - which you ought all read, to inspire some predictions of different futures as well as empathy for the average rust-belt Trump voter - what brought us here? In short, 2016 was the story of five repudiations; a repudiation of the globalist neoliberal economics, the perceived decline inherent within its duration, its maintenance by an unimpeachable two-party duumvirate in spite of the likewise perceived interests of the (Northern, South-of-Canada) American worker, and overall the desire and hope for this policy to be reversed, the arm of the clock turned neatly back to Mr. Perot's menacing statement of a great sucking sound.
Second, a repudiation of identity politics and the rise of a counter-balancing, very much ragtag, but also very real and even intellectual... sometimes... brand of white identity politics focused on a distrusted and increasingly marginalised, soon-to-be minority WASP bloc under perceived (and, as far as facts go, very real) siege, and the recognition that if there is a racial as well as cultural clash of views coming up, they ought line behind the one vote perceived, and sometimes hootered by the left, as their representative.
Third, and more importantly for the world stage; a repudiation of the consensus upholding the global world order under the American empire and its perceived missionary status in world affairs, of top meetings, climate change debates and bombs over deserts turning to Jihadis requiring more discussion involving more bombs, the seemingly exhausting cycle paid in dollars as much as blood and flesh. The repudiation of Wilson, Truman, Reagan and, yes, Obama in favour of resurging isolationism.
Fourth, and equaled on the other side of the partisan fence but for more temporal reasons - a repudiation of Clinton, of her name, her husband and their ilk, of political dynasty and political professionalism (this ties in neatly with the first argument, and the near-messianic search for Change).
Fifth and finally, a repudiation of the Hayekian thesis of rules, not rulers, which I consider the epitome of the American spirit, as we knew it. We need a fixer above the system, not a fixed system (my quote). What could be more un-American, let alone anti-republican?
Trump's and Clinton's starkly different Americas. A nation divided against itself - but will it stand?
Of this attempted reversal of seventy years' of orthodoxy (arguably not well-represented by the likes of Nixon, or even Reagan) by an Independent candidate of a populist brand, or rather one entirely his own, effectively wearing the garbs of an elephant in order to neutralise its candidate and thus an unpredictable (but predictably two-party) race, the one I am certain will fail is the supposed reversal foreign policy in nostalgia of the age of peace at home, non-intervention abroad. For this, the Republican Congress will certainly prove an obstacle that will not be conquered in the upcoming term, and has every ability at its disposal to impeach him. Speaker Ryan may not be easily described as a neoconservative, but as shown clearly by the candidacy of young Marco, the brand of not only American exceptionalism and power, but "restorers" crying rather for a Reagan-era of fledging supremacy and conquest of space (last harkened by the possible next Secretary of State Newt Gingrich, alongside a "a clear-cut idea about America's enemies" supposedly of Andrew Jackson's brand, a recyclable, breathing time bomb criticised in his day not only by Thomas Jefferson, not only for his harshness and bad temper not only towards the native population of the country, but English POWs protected by the Jus in Bello as well; "Kill them!"*) is here to stay as well.
Which Donald Trump then, given General Jackson's tenaciously mortal state, is the American people - and the world - going to get? What was purchased, and how long will it last? With what has already been stated in mind, I move on to ideas, possible and unlikely.
The Pinocchio
The perhaps most likely course, and easiest to envision. The role of either wooden or puppet seems to go in spite of everything that seems apparent of Mr. Trump's personality. Likewise, as far as his ambitions may already have been reached, and in light of the presidency's need of congressional support - which, bar cooperation bordering submission, would be hard to secure - he will have to coalesce to both the Trumpian throng and congress Republicans, with their inherent many factions but broad strokes not sympathetic to the vies of a radicalised mass movement. The latter will be considerably easier to placate, with symbolic concessions viable with large segments of the Breitbart-reading ragtag faction, such as appointments, statements unaccompanied by policy, starker measures against immigrants with (proven?) criminal records, an extended fence along the border of "wall-y" features, a threat to allies to increase their defense spending - arguably among the most dangerous things he has said - a flying carpet descending slowly over the last strongholds of the alleged Caliphate in Raqqah and all its works, a freeze on further global integration (for now) and a barking threat on a review on NAFTA, the last would prove a red line for a war with Congress. Alternately, such a move might precipitate impeachment proceedings, which once commenced will easily end in defeat. Democrats will only be held back by the threat of the alternative, and any better legal excuse would sway them. Enter President Pence, with a proudly shorter nose, limbs already clattering as they move in unison with too-apparent strings.
The Silvio Harding-Grant
It is true, as I stated, that Harding would be the ideal example for a Trump presidency, and in spite of the Ohio Senator's likability and lack of strongman ambitions, such as his lack of enthusiasm in the nomination, the comparison is not without justification. "USA First", "a return to normalcy", the repudiation of Wilsonian idealism (but certainly not all of his agenda) in favour of domestic policies and domestic growth are all concerns for the new Republican coalition - a phenomenon only partly overlapping the party's already crowded factions, and the relation between the voters and votaries of the administration and their supposed brand will be tested.
I pray, do not take them for different branches for the same agenda, I predict they will clash as much as conservative Democrats did in the lead-up to ObamaCare, and perhaps place a President Trump in the seat of Obama, without any of the ex-Senator's intellectual or political capacities, which I admit have been considerable (and beneficial in almost every regard but the continuing deficit, which I hope would have been quelled under his successor). Whether this clash will be or the catalyst of a catastrophic meltdown of support, with Trump's temperament married to the immense powers vested in the Commander-in-Chief, or mere puppet to more ambitious (if not more illustrious) men of lesser acclaim with the Populus, we shall yet see. This approach involves less controversy than most followers of the campaign would expect, but may not work out too smoothly with his (supposed) intra-partisan allies - which may yet see the response made against Tyler or even Andrew Johnson - disownment or impeachment. The latter may seem dramatic, but was predicted by the not yet discredited Alan Lichtman, and given the factual basis for it - as well as the half-baked attempt already made - not entirely without justification.
Regardless of which, let us throw in Johnson's (actual) successor. The eighteenth president of the United States was an unprecedented hero of his day and profession, but has largely been forgotten. In his heyday he was praised, beloved, entirely without political experience and, in lack of a more conclusive summary, trumped by his many mistakes - most involving less forgivable mishaps committed by his appointees, a phase that is already being carefully studied and almost certainly will lead to controversy. With further lawsuits coming up, regarding scrupulous affairs of both kinds well-known to prestigious male politicians, is another feature we may yet see. Throw in a few shady deals, a press beacon of lubricious scandal, continuous appearance in the court, and cosying up to offshore dictators and the upcoming administration might rather be compared to Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, unlikely ever-resurgent strongman and vindicator of the populists who now - I think - seen his demise. (I bid, however, that his face never shows up on the $50 bill.)
The Chavez, north of the Gulf
Given his New York City origins, his brash style and strongman personality, I was tempted to name it "the Teddy Roosevelt crybaby", but decided that core ideological and personality differences were too stark, if not overwhelming, to merit the comparison. But certainly there is something in common which may be felt also with the more contemporary example the late Venezuelan strongman, who came from unlikely beginnings, without political interest or experience, to rally against a dysfunctional two-party system with militant demagoguery, including a coup de-legitimising the existent framework before rising on the back of its disgruntled to conquer and explode it from within. A new constitution, a new legislature (with an abolished Senate), curtailed power of the courts, an entire new party scope - until his last agonising months dominated by its creator - and re-naming the country after his favourite dictator (literally, as I have stated in my previous post about his disciple's last, controversial re-election).
Trump would, to small doubt, want to achieve many of those points, and may wage a constitutional war using the masses who lifted him to prominence. The benefit of the American one is the refusal to admit a national poll, most often discredited given the increasing number (now five) opportunities for the electoral college to trump the aggregate result of state (and district) polls, which could hypothetically be called by Trump, and preceding administrations, to bypass the will of Congress. Given the often fluctuating turnout - which should be the Democratic party's main priority - this should be considered a democratic as well as political blessing. Trump's tools to upset a system far more established, and still held in greater regard, are restricted in ways the Hugo's were not, and if he has stimulated cohorts of following, from frenzied young men to middle-aged women openly inviting his audaciously versed advances, his following its capped by legions of reluctant voters of self-interest, from the professional unemployed to skeptic middle-class core Republican, both of whom will turn their backs once they realise how deeply they have been screwed.
The question is what will be between now and the defining moment - in Chavez' case, quite a lot - and what will be the less peripheral consequences. How the path is paved, given the obvious and already-seething conflict of interest between committed constitutional conservatives, state-level moderates interested in growth-through-pragmatism, quieted Tea Parties and their Senate scions, and the Kekist zeal of revolution and pre-apocalyptic faith in government (what could be less American, and harken better its past greatness?) is yet to be seen.
The The Donald J. J. R. (Tolkien) Ewing Atreides
Emphasis on the last name, if you don't appreciate the purely surreal. Trump rose from a staircase of backs of the small, bare-footed, small-town conservatives dissatisfied and often ignorant about far-away wars (my last reference to Tolkien, and merely a semantic stepping stone). The movement he has crafted, now grown into a fully-fledged coalition as separated from its oarsman as from its part-Tea Party pedigree, is no more his creation than the cataclysmic changes within the Republican party occurring since the Bush years, but has already shown to transcend it. If Trump had emerged as a trapped Guy Fawkes on the early 9th of November a further, more successful darling of the Kekists - though mayhaps sprung from his own loins - could less surprisingly have emerged from the muck overshadowed by an ineffective, politically compromised Clinton administration.
Either way, and echoing the words of President-elect Matthew Santos in an alternate 2006, the vision starkly professed, and at any rate believed by the disciples of the green ruler will outlast the Trump administration and be a core feature of his legacy. The potential of a Donald Atreides, without the hair, the vulgarity, the accent, straddling and straining a powerful movement of more than bleating frogs that can truly challenge American constitutional democracy.
Bringing us back to 2016. At the height of summer I asked, predicting (and perhaps failing to segregate prophesy from a degree of desire) a Clinton victory and the continued decline of the Republican party onto which path the Democrats - with their many factions and failure to articulate a clear agenda for the continued progress or existence of the American experiment - would lead not merely their own country, but the world. Now I ask the question again, from the fractions of division rather than lack of enthusiasm or zeal; whereto, now that the Republicans want to lead? Given that the multitude of answers is sure to tower over a singular one - the latter being impossible even with the most successful, and harrowing, subversion of the party to the whims and frenzy of a sure-to-be fragile Trump coalition - how far can it lead? In reflection of the answer which was never given in response to an aggressive, conservative caller to CSPAN regarding the claim that the Beatles "wrecked this country" - if it could not survive the dreaded hair and vocal abilities of Ringo Starr, it was not a country worthy, or remotely possible to preserve. If Emperor Donald, which by then he must be, survives the Constitution it was a document failed as it was written, except as poetry. The American experiment predated it, and as known from the debate which included a model closer to the one that emerged in Maastricht - or Vienna eighteen decades before - and may survive it as well.
* In fairness to Jackson's temper and presidency, I believe both served in the cause of the most drastic expanse of the suffrage which has ever taken place, rivaled only by the efforts of Johnson, Grant, Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens, of Wilson and the brave and tenacious supporters of the 19th Amendment - which, however, had been an ongoing struggle for more than a century, since the days when women of New Jersey could vote on equal terms as their male peers and Thomas Paine called for female emancipation to occur as well as part of the greater American revolution of mind. For this, further generations, including names mentioned, owe him and his temper a grudging hiss of gratitude. Consider it earned, every time you see the portrait, and let Winston suffer no more.
