I frequently travel overseas and invariably my foreign friends ask, with varying degrees of bewilderment: What in the world is going on in your country?
Here is what I say.
First, do not misinterpret last year’s election. Contrary to some commentary, the US political system has not been swept away by a wave of populism. True, we have a long history of rebelling against elites. US President Donald Trump tapped into a tradition associated with former US president Andrew Jackson and former US secretary of state William Jennings Bryan in the 19th century, and former US governor of Louisiana Huey Long and former governor of Alabama George Wallace in the 20th century.
Yet Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million.
He won the election by appealing to populist resentment in three Rust Belt states — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — that had previously voted Democratic. If a hundred thousand votes had been cast differently in those states, Trump would have lost the Electoral College and the presidency.
That said, Trump’s victory points to a real problem of growing social and regional inequality in the US.
J.D. Vance’s best-selling book Hillbilly Elegy compellingly describes the vast difference between California and Appalachia.
Research by the Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton shows that the demographic trends among lower-income whites without a college degree are worse than those for African-Americans, who historically anchored the lower extremes of inequality. In 1999, mortality rates among whites with no college degree were about 30 percent lower than those of African-Americans; by 2015 they were 30 percent higher.
Moreover, manufacturing employment, once a prime source of high-paying jobs for working-class whites, has fallen sharply over the last generation to just 12 percent of the workforce. These previously Democratic voters were attracted by Trump’s promises to shake things up and bring back manufacturing jobs.
Ironically, Trump’s efforts to repeal former US president Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation would make their lives worse.
The second thing I tell my foreign friends is not to underestimate Trump’s communications skills. Many are offended by his tweet storms and outrageous disregard for facts, but Trump is a veteran of reality television, where he learned that the key to success is to monopolize viewers’ attention and that the way to do that is with extreme statements, not careful regard for the truth.
Twitter helps him to set the agenda and distract his critics. What offends commentators in the media and academia does not bother his supporters, but as he turns from his permanent self-centered campaigning to trying to govern, Twitter becomes a two-edged sword that deters needed allies.
Third, I tell my friends not to expect normal behavior.
Normally, a president who loses the popular vote moves to the political center to attract additional support. This is what former US president George W. Bush did successfully in 2001.
Trump, by contrast, proclaims that he won the popular vote and, acting as though he really did, appeals to his base voters.
While Trump has made solid centrist appointments to the US departments of defense, state and homeland security, his picks for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services are from the extremes of the Republican Party. His White House staff is divided between pragmatists and ideologues, and he caters to both.
Fourth, no one should underestimate US institutions.
Sometimes my friends talk as though the sky is falling and ask if Trump is as dangerous a narcissist as former Italian prime minister Benito Mussolini. I tell them not to panic. The US, for all its problems, is not Italy in 1922. Our national political elites are often polarized; but so were the US’ founders.
In designing the US Constitution, the founders’ goal was not to ensure harmonious government, but to constrain political power with a system of checks and balances that made it difficult to exercise. The joke goes that the founders created a political system that made it impossible for King George to rule over us — or for anyone to ever do so. Inefficiency was placed in the service of liberty.
It is still early in the Trump presidency and we cannot be sure what might happen after, say, a major terrorist attack, but so far the courts, US Congress and the states have checked and balanced the administration, as it was intended, and the permanent civil servants in the executive departments add ballast.
Finally, my friends ask what all of this means for US foreign policy and the liberal international order led by the US since 1945. Frankly, I do not know, but I worry less about the rise of China than the rise of Trump.
While US leaders, including Obama, have complained about free riders, the US has long taken the lead in providing key global public goods — security, a stable international reserve currency, relatively open markets and stewardship of the Earth’s commons. Despite the US-led international order’s problems, the world has prospered and poverty has been reduced under it, but one cannot be sure it will continue. The US will need to cooperate with China, Europe, Japan and others to manage transnational problems.
During last year’s election campaign, Trump was the first major party candidate in 70 years to call the US alliance system into question. Since taking office in January, statements by Trump and his appointees suggest that it is likely to persist. US hard and soft power, after all, stems largely from the fact that the US has 60 allies (while China has only a few).
However, the stability of the multilateral institutions that help manage the world economy and global commons is more uncertain. Trump’s budget director speaks of a hard-power budget, with funds cut from the US Department of State and the UN system. Other officials advocate replacing multilateral trade deals with “fair and balanced” bilateral arrangements and Trump is repudiating Obama’s efforts to address climate change.
I tell my friends I wish I could reassure them on these issues, but I cannot.
Joseph Nye Jr, a former US assistant secretary of defense and former chairman of the US national intelligence council, is university distinguished service professor at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations