The drama of US President Donald Trump’s time in office has centered around whether an extremist president would be able to carry out an extremist policy agenda against the will of the majority of Americans. So far the answer has been no, and the midterm elections make it far less likely.
Yet, Trump’s rising frustrations could push him over the edge psychologically, with potentially harrowing consequences for the US’ democracy and the world.
None of Trump’s extremist policy ideas have received public support. The public opposed last year’s US Republican-backed corporate tax cut; Trump’s effort to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare; his proposed border wall with Mexico; a decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement; and the imposition of tariff increases on China, Europe and others. At the same time, contrary to Trump’s relentless promotion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), the public favors investment in renewable energy and remaining in the Paris climate agreement.
Illustration: Tania Chou
Trump has tried to implement his radical agenda using three approaches. The first has been to rely on the Republican majorities in the two houses of US Congress to pass legislation in the face of strong popular opposition.
That approach succeeded once, with last year’s corporate tax cut, because big Republican donors insisted on the measure, but it failed with Trump’s attempt to repeal Obamacare, as three Republican senators balked.
The second approach has been to use executive orders to circumvent Congress. Here the courts have repeatedly intervened, most recently within days of the midterm elections, when a federal district court halted work on the Keystone XL pipeline, a project strongly opposed by environmentalists, on the grounds that the Trump administration had failed to present a “reasoned explanation” for its actions.
Trump repeatedly and dangerously oversteps his authority, and the courts keep pushing back.
Trump’s third tactic has been to rally public opinion to his side. Yet, despite his frequent rallies, or perhaps because of them and their incendiary vulgarity, Trump’s disapproval rating has exceeded his approval rating since the earliest days of his administration.
His current overall disapproval rating is 54 percent, versus 40 percent approval, with strong approval from about 25 percent of the public. There has been no sustained move in Trump’s direction.
In the midterm elections, which Trump himself described as a referendum on his presidency, US Democratic candidates for both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate vastly outpolled their Republican opponents.
In the House races, Democrats received 53,314,159 votes nationally, compared with 48,439,810 for Republicans. In the Senate races, Democrats outpolled Republicans by 47,537,699 votes to 34,280,990.
Summing up votes by party for the three latest election cycles (2014, 2016 and 2018), Democratic Senate candidates outpolled Republican candidates by about 120 million to 100 million votes.
Nonetheless, Republicans hold a slight majority in the Senate, where each state is represented by two senators, regardless of the size of its population, because they tend to win their seats in less populous states, whereas Democrats prevail in the major coastal and midwestern states.
For example, Wyoming elects two Republican senators to represent its nearly 580,000 residents, while California’s more than 39 million residents elect two Democratic senators. Democrats win more votes, but Republicans win more seats.
However, without control of the House, Trump will no longer be able to enact any unpopular legislation. Only policies with bipartisan support would have a chance of passing both chambers.
On the economic front, Trump’s trade policies will become even less popular in the months ahead as the US economy cools from the “sugar high” of the corporate tax cut, as growing uncertainty about global trade policy hamstrings business investment and as the budget deficit and interest rates rise.
Trump’s phony national security justifications for increasing tariffs is likely to also be challenged politically and perhaps in the courts.
True, Trump would be able to continue appointing conservative federal judges and most likely win their confirmation in the Republican-majority Senate. And on issues of war and peace, Trump would operate with terrifyingly little oversight by Congress or the public, an affliction of the US political system since World War II.
Trump, like his recent predecessors, would most likely keep the US mired in wars in the Middle East and Africa, despite the lack of significant public understanding or support.
Nonetheless, there are three further reasons to believe that Trump’s hold on power will weaken significantly in the coming months.
First, special counsel Robert Mueller might very well document serious malfeasance by Trump, his family members and/or his close advisers. Mueller kept a low profile in the run-up to the election, but will most likely be heard from soon.
Second, the House Democrats would begin to investigate Trump’s taxes and personal business dealings, including through congressional subpoenas.
There are strong reasons to believe that Trump has committed serious tax evasion and has illegally enriched his family as president (a lawsuit that the courts have allowed to proceed alleges violations of the emoluments clause of the US constitution). Trump is likely to ignore or fight the subpoenas, setting the stage for a major political crisis.
Third, and most important, Trump is not merely an extremist politician. He suffers from what author Ian Hughes has called “a disordered mind,” filled with hate, paranoia and narcissism. According to two close observers of Trump, the president’s grip on reality “will likely continue to diminish” in the face of growing political obstacles; investigations into his taxes and business dealings; Mueller’s findings; and an energized political opposition.
Trump’s behavior has already become erratic and aggressive since the midterm elections.
The coming months might be especially dangerous for the US and the world. As Trump’s political position weakens and the obstacles facing him grow, his mental instability will pose an ever-greater danger. He could explode in rage, fire Mueller and perhaps try to launch a war or claim emergency powers in order to restore his authority.
Trump has yet to be seen in full fury, but might do so soon, as his room to maneuver continues to narrow. In that case, much will depend on the performance of the US’ constitutional order.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of sustainable development and health policy and management at Columbia University in New York, and director of the school’s Center for Sustainable Development and of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers