As the inauguration of US president-elect Donald Trump approaches, the best way to assess the incoming administration might be to focus on the ultimate factors that led to his victory. Trump was not elected in a vacuum and as his agenda takes shape we can start to gauge its effect on the political economy whence his candidacy emerged.
Trump won by challenging the credibility of the political and academic establishments, relentlessly highlighting discrepancies between their depiction of the US’ political economy and the reality that many voters experienced. Like US Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primary, he started drawing large crowds by breaking ranks with his party’s mainstream. While Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican rivals such as then-Florida governor Jeb Bush and US Senator Marco Rubio tried to build coalitions based on cultural issues and partisan traditions, Trump and Sanders set their sights squarely on what mattered most to voters: a political economy in which elected officials strongly promoted a broad-based prosperity that included them.
How did the other candidates miss this central theme? My sense is that they did not; rather, their efforts to attract a broad spectrum of voters were constrained by a system that makes it extremely difficult to fund a credible political campaign without catering slavishly to the wealthiest sliver of US society. That system invited rebellion, and Trump and Sanders — by self-financing and grassroots fundraising respectively — were ideally positioned to lead one.
The other candidates were also constrained by party orthodoxy, which has long kept Democrats and Republicans alike from willingly addressing the structural inequities in the US economy head-on.
Doing so would require candor about hard issues such as technological disruption and globalization. It would also require confronting the legacy of decades of lobbyist-written free-trade agreements, regulations, bailouts and tax policies that have been funneling economic gains up the income ladder, while imposing budget austerity in response to the needs of most Americans.
The story Trump told of a “rigged” system resonated with voters more than anything they had heard from their political leaders in quite some time.
This points to a second, closely related misrepresentation: for many voters, the “expert” consensus about globalization does not ring true. Economists, in particular, have touted free trade and global markets as an unalloyed good.
With few exceptions, such as Harvard’s Dani Rodrik and the Nobel laureate Michael Spence, none pointed out that many workers would be displaced and receive little or no compensation and that rapid globalization can thus stretch a country’s social fabric beyond its elastic limit, but any real expert on US political economy could see plain as day that the US would provide inadequate compensation to those disrupted by foreign competition.
Much of that disruption has come from US’ free-trade relationship with China, a large country that has a far lower per capita income.
A recent paper by Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s David Autor and others shows that the social distress caused by US-China trade has polarized US politics and probably increased certain voting cohorts’ support for “nativist politicians” such as Trump.
In his 1922 essay “The Dismal Science,” H.L. Mencken suggested why economists would ignore the negative social effects that globalization can have on an advanced economy such as the US.
Such misrepresentations, Mencken wrote, reinforce the power of those who already hold it.
Wittingly or not, experts know that they can curry favor and stay out of trouble by either keeping silent or affirming the policies that make the powerful better off.
However, eventually, something has to give. As wealth becomes ever more concentrated, a body politic suffering from widespread economic insecurity will begin to search for scapegoats — and the experts and pundits themselves were an ideal target this time around.
This dual crisis of representation — political and intellectual — has become a toxic brew. Critiques of Trump’s policies gain no purchase with his supporters, because they come from experts who have lost their trust. This credibility deficit gives Trump latitude, but it also poses a challenge for him as he moves from campaigning to governing.
As president, Trump will need to devise remedies to the social, economic and political problems that he has described, but to do that, he will have to work within the same “rigged” system that he ran against and he will have to craft policies that are actually feasible and will have a positive effect on Americans’ lives.
To be sure, the Republican-controlled Congress might work with Trump to implement a mini variant of then-US president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, but without reform of the “rigged” system it is likely that Trump’s proposed fiscal expansion will again disproportionately benefit the wealthy, without “trickling down” to the rest of Americans.
“Public-private partnerships” have been championed as a means to direct capital toward a national rebuilding effort; but such measures can be manipulated and often lead to “heads, I win; tails, the taxpayer loses” outcomes of the type that have benefited Wall Street and Silicon Valley in recent years.
Surely this is not what Trump supporters were attracted to when he declared he would “Make America great again.”
Twenty-three Democratic senators, plus two independents who caucus with the Democrats, and only eight Republican senators are up for re-election next year. If the Republicans pass a Keynesian growth package in the next two years that tightens labor markets and raises wages, they could secure their grip on power for many years to come. This, in turn, would enable them to appoint new Supreme Court justices willing to ignore or undercut women’s and workers’ rights, environmental protection and public education.
Such an outcome, given Trump’s campaign rhetoric, would be farcical, if it were not so tragic.
Trump, a child of inherited wealth, now has a chance to define his place in history. Let us hope that he can rise to the challenge, imagine his role as one of repairing the flaws of US democracy and not settle for presiding over a set of “deals” with, and for, the powerful.
A US that broadens economic prosperity and makes its political system more democratic will require reforms that reduce the power of money and increase responsiveness to citizens.
Anything less would constitute a failure by Trump to honor those who brought him to power. A failure to live up to the US’ founding principles has long created a tension that provides impetus for the country’s political, economic and social progress.
If Trump refutes those principles — and if, in the despondency that follows, invoking them comes to be seen as a sentimental, romantic act — the price of the failures of representation that led to his election will be high indeed.
Rob Johnson is president of the Institute for New Economic Thinking and a senior fellow and director of the Global Finance Project for the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry