Features
Donald Trump’s second tenure and the US’ ‘democratic health’
Are they comfortable with the fact that he tried to wreck their country’s democratic process by seeking to overturn the presidential electoral verdict that brought Joe Biden to the pinnacle of governance in ‘the world’s mightiest democracy’ in 2020?
These are merely two of the most basic questions that Trump supporters need to ideally address. The US is far from being the proverbial ‘beacon of light’ for the rest of the world in quite a few respects but from the viewpoint of democratic development the US has thus far been considered foremost.
It follows that what the US does with its democracy, given this reputation, has an impact on the rest of the democratic world. Bad examples ‘from the top’ at whatever level or sphere tend to have a strong ‘copycat’ effect. That’s the troubling prospect for the admirers of the US in general and for Trump supporters in particular.
It was in Donald Trump’s narrow interests to get back to power. For some time at least it would ensure a spell of relative security for himself from the numerous lawsuits which were brought against him and their troubling legal consequences. It would also enable him to continue with his financial empire-building and ensure the seeming consolidation of what has come to be labelled as the ‘free enterprise system’ in the US. But what’s in Trump’s comeback for his supporters? Particularly those supporters who tried to savage the presidential election result of 2020? How do they stand to gain from their electoral decision?
Right now, if these rank-and-file Trump supporters believe that their personal lot would be any better under Trump, they are in for a huge disappointment. The fact is that inflation and related economic hardships would not only continue to plague them but would worsen in the future since Trump has announced no-holds-barred trade wars between the US and the foremost of economic powers, such as China.
For that matter how could any economy hope to be in one piece by having troubled economic links with China, the world’s second most vibrant economy and the world’s number one exporter of goods and services? Right now, there is no country that is not dependent to some degree on Chinese goods. Apparently, Trump supporters have bitten off more than they could chew by depending on some kind of ‘Trump magic’ to deliver them from their economic woes.
Besides, are die-hard Trump supporters expecting the US to be the number one world power indefinitely? Right now, the US is the foremost power alright but this position is not going unchallenged. There is of course China to consider. There is also the fact that India is fast catching up on both these powers. It wouldn’t be too long before India would prove no easy ‘push-over’ for the rest of the world’s foremost powers.
India’s current achievements in science and technology speak for themselves. Besides, India is the US’ topmost trading partner. China has been elbowed out of contention in this respect. For example, it is reported that India’s bilateral trade with the US would ‘cross the $ 200 billion mark in 2024 from $ 195 billion in 2023.’ Accordingly, international economic realities are increasing in complexity.
It would be foolish on the part of any section to think in simplistic terms on these questions. It would smack of naivety, for instance, to see the US’ seeming economic supremacy going indefinitely unchallenged. As matters stand, international economics would primarily drive international politics.
Considering even only the foregoing it seems that considerable sections of Trump supporters thought naively when they voted Trump back to power. Apparently, they fell for Trump’s rhetorical claims of the kind that the US would be made ‘number one’ in the world once again. Apparently, rationality was not their strong point.
But these supporters could not be judged harshly. An economically battered people easily fall for election platform rhetoric. This has time again been proved even in Small Sri Lanka; once described as South Asia’s ‘five star’ democracy.
Even on the foreign relations front, there are complex realities that the average US voter needs to ponder over. The Middle East is where a Trump administration’s foreign policy sagacity would be tested most. In that ‘powder keg’ region a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is believed to be taking shape, but much give-and-take between the warring sides is called for.
Getting the hostages back is compulsory for both sides but there needs to be a guarantee that there would be no reversion to bloodshed and contention once this is done. Right now, it is open to question whether the incoming Trump administration could provide this ironclad guarantee.
To begin with, Trump would need to get tough with the Netanyahu regime and the political right supporting it. Since the Trump administration is itself backed by the extreme political right on the domestic front and is hand-in-glove with religious fundamentalist opinion in the US, it is doubtful whether Trump could deliver a durable peace in the Middle East.
It ought to be equally thought-provoking for the impartial commentator that considerable sections of Trump supporters apparently allowed themselves to be carried away by his racist slogans. Illegal migration is a major issue in US politics and there need to be legal ways to manage the crisis, but a successful democracy stands or falls by the way it treats its minority communities.
Considering the foregoing what one could gather is that the majority of Trump supporters were egged-on by emotion rather than reason when they opted to vote for him. It ought to have been clear to them that there are no quick-fixes for the ‘foreigner presence’ in their midst.
For instance, they ought to have seen that to act heavy-handedly towards ‘foreigners’ was tantamount to vitiating the values of tolerance and fair treatment which are central to the democratic ethos, which hitherto have been considered a defining essence of US governance.
However, Trump appealed to the gut emotions of his hardline supporters when he claimed, for instance, that the US public needed to protect their pets from migrants. The implication was that the latter were indiscreet flesh eaters. Such claims would have undoubtedly turned credulous sections in the US against migrants and compelled them to see in Trump a savior of sorts. Thus, Trump’s incendiary rhetoric translated into votes.
However, the upshot of these developments and more was that the democratic system in the US was exposed as vulnerable to rabble-rousing presidential contenders. The democratic vibrancy or ‘health’ of US governance has thus come into question. It’s an issue the US polity needs to address urgently.