Oct 1st 2016

Treating Donald Trump as Just Another Republican Presidential Nominee

by David Coates

David Coates holds the Worrell Chair in Anglo-American Studies


Just because Donald Trump is so unconventional a presidential candidate, it does not automatically follow that we should immediately abandon our conventional criteria for judging his adequacy for the position. On the contrary, the reverse is more likely to be true: that the more unconventional he attempts to be, the more determined should we be – as the ultimate arbiters of his electoral fate – to insist that what worked well in the past as a guide for voting should work equally well this time.

Presidential candidates in the past have invariably been judged on the quality of the policies they propose, and on the adequacy of the policies of the party that they ostensibly lead. It is true that it is more difficult to mobilize the first of those judgment-calls this time around because of Donald Trump’s disinclination for policy-formation, but that lack of policy detail is itself something on which a judgment is required. And since voting for Donald Trump rather than for Hillary Clinton will likely bring yet more Republicans to public office further down the ballot, judging Trump as the Republican flag-bearer becomes all the more pressing the more difficult it is to judge Trump himself.

So let us do both jobs. Let us take stock of Trump the presidential policy-setter, and Trump the Republican, setting both against their Clinton alternative. Each stock-taking will only make it ever more obvious that the one thing which sane people should not do on November 8 is to vote for Donald Trump.


Judging Trump as a Policy-setter

Given the paucity of detailed policy proposals available on the Trump campaign web-site, and the regularity with which big policy positions are first announced by the candidate only to be then qualified or abandoned,[1] many of us have been forced back these many weeks onto an indirect calculation. We have been forced to ask ourselves what can we deduce about possible future policy from his past record as a businessman, from the content of his stump speeches, and from his demeanor at both the rallies and (as of last Monday) the presidential debates. The results of that indirect calculation are invariably disturbing ones, and are even at times literally terrifying. As I have noted before,[2] and as have many others,[3] this particular Republican presidential nominee often appears to be simultaneously misogynistic, racist, and homophobic. His language seems occasionally to invite violence from others, and is certainly suggestive of a propensity for bullying opponents rather than for debating with them. Others have seen potential elements of danger in Donald Trump’s character,[4] suggesting that he is now (and therefore might be as president) excessively narcissistic, and as such prone to be both quick to anger and slow to forgive. Thin-skinned and loose with facts, a recurrent fear among his political opponents is that being president would only intensify these character defects, whilst encouraging the more reactionary of his supporters to give vent to their equivalent propensities for discrimination and political violence.

                Some of this character-analysis – perhaps even all of it – has to be provisional and speculative. But what is not so uncertain is what a Trump presidency will do in relation to the few specific areas of policy on which the Trump campaign website is clear: on immigration, on trade, and on taxation and the economy.[5] On immigration from Mexico, for example, an incoming Trump administration will immediately build a very large wall – and have Mexico pay for it. Quite how Mexico will pay for it is still not fully clear, but the determination to impose those costs on Mexico is. On immigration from the Islamic world, a Trump Administration will build new obstacles to entry in the name of greater national security. Quite how such an Administration will square its toughness on Muslims with its need to maintain close working relationships with Muslim allies abroad is also not clear, but apparently Donald Trump as president will somehow manage both those things at the same time. On trade, a Trump administration will renegotiate its export and import relationship with a string of overseas economies and governments that are now using currency manipulation to worsen the US trade deficit, but again quite how that will be done – and in particular how China will be quickly brought to heel – is nowhere explained in detail.

But there is detail on the Trump website on one important thing at least – tax policy as a trigger to economic growth under a Trump presidency – and on this at least Donald Trump could not be more conventional. For all his railings against the bankrupt policies of the past, and against the inadequacies of the politicians who have advocated them, Donald Trump has chosen to tie his core domestic policy-flag to the oldest and most inadequate Republican Party policy of all – trickle-down economics. The Trump tax proposal cuts taxes on the biggest corporations and the richest individuals by Trump-like huge chunks, the better to enable them to create new jobs here in America. That tax cut is linked, in the Trump proposal, to the culling of regulations on a whole set of business practices – not least regulations on environmental protection – supposedly realizing via this bonfire of controls a rapid return to American shores of production lines based in cheaper labor markets abroad and of profit-accumulations now held off-shore. Again, however, key details remain unclear. Not least how a deregulating Trump Administration would compel US firms to stop outsourcing their production if simple tax changes are insufficient to that task. And more broadly, how a Trump Administration would prevent a re-run of what happened the last time a US President went in for large-scale tax cuts on the rich amid a bonfire of regulatory controls. The last time trickle-down economics was tried, by George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, job-creation rates slowed to a post-1945 record low, and the deregulation (particularly of Wall street) eventually culminated in the worst financial crisis since 1929.

So we have to ask Donald Trump: how/why will economic life be different this time around – and we will need an answer from him that has more substance to it than simply that it will differ this time around because he is in charge. Narcissism is no substitute for policy, and bluster no substitute for analysis: so anyone keen to assess Donald Trump in the normal presidential way needs to press him hard on the detail of his economic policy proposals and on the adequacy of the analysis underpinning them. That pressing will be difficult, given how adept the candidate is at not answering direct questions; but to the degree that it is achieved, it is bound to leave the presser ever more convinced that a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for economic disaster.[6]


Judging Trump as a Republican Policy-setter

If that is not bad enough, think what will also come down the pipe if all three branches of government are in Republican Party hands from next January. At home, we will see at the very least a Supreme Court with a restored ultra-conservative majority, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and a budget cutting welfare payments to the poor under the disguise of returning welfare policy to the states. Abroad, we will see an even greater involvement in the Middle Eastern quagmire: more involvement in Syria, possibly even American troops back on the ground in greater numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If Paul Ryan remains Speaker of the House and Mitch McConnell remains Majority Leader in the Senate, will a Donald Trump in the White House veto a Republican budget that – according to the calculations of the non-partisan Tax Policy Center[7] – would by the time it is fully implemented in 2025 sent 99.6 percent of the tax cuts it contains to the richest one percent of Americans? (If the Tax Policy Center figures are right, the Trump plan would give further tax relief for the richest one percent of 10.6 percent of their income, compared to tax relief equivalent to just 0.5 percent of their incomes for the poorest 20 percent, and an actual tax hike for upper middle class families (those between the 60th and 95 percentiles).) No, of course there will be no such veto. Instead, a Trump-led Administration, should one occur, will preside enthusiastically over more policy-induced income and wealth inequality.

There are flickers of progress in some of the Trump policy proposals that do not sit well with mainstream Republicanism – a first stab at paid maternity leave and enhanced child-care support, thanks to the prodding of Ivanka Trump, and a willingness to fund much needed infrastructure investment – but even these policy commitments sit uneasily alongside a broader (and very mainstream Republican) campaign promise to reduce government debt while increasing military spending. And of course, there is only the most rudimentary level of detail on any of this currently available to us from the Trump campaign. Compare that to the range, detail and integrated nature of the many policy initiatives already planned and publicized by Hillary Clinton and her campaign team. The scale of the planning is so different in the Clinton case: in early September, more than 100,000 words in total in published plans, compared to only 9000 in the case of Trump.[8] The origin of these plans is so different too: teams of academic experts, experienced policy-makers and think-tank researchers in the Clinton case; with – for Trump – a near total dearth of academic experts, balanced by the pressure of the Trump children and the support of a string of business cronies.  And not all the Trump children are pressing progressive causes on their father. If his comments on Syrian refugees are any guide, Donald Trump Jr. for one most certainly is not.[9]

At the heart of the Republican Party’s 2016 economic platform, as at the heart of Donald Trump’s, stand commitments to tax cuts and business deregulation. The contrast with the content of the Democratic Party’s 2016 economic platform, and with that now on offer from Hillary Clinton, could not be starker. Radicalized to a degree by the bruising primary fight with Bernie Sanders, the Clinton economic plan mixes infrastructure spending and tax increases on high earners with tax incentives for profit sharing, a higher minimum wage, subsidized college costs, an easing of student debt, greater trade union rights and a commitment to equal pay.[10] The question before us on November 8, therefore – issues of character and candidate aside – is which economic policy package is the more appropriate for the needs of the age.

My own view is this. The great myth that Republican presidential candidates peddle, election cycle after election cycle, is that the US economy struggles because it is over-taxed and over-regulated. The truth, by contrast, is that the US economy is struggling still primarily because middle-class wages are only now beginning to rise again after a decade of recession and its aftermath. We do not need more neo-classical supply-side economics favoring the already rich and privileged. What we actually need is more Keynesian-style strategic government investment, as part of a consciously designed and implemented Industrial policy geared to raising the minimum wage and strengthening the bargaining position of American workers. Neither candidate’s present economic package is fully adequate for the job, but there can be no doubt that a Trump-led Republican Administration and Congress would move us away from the adequate fulfilment of those needs, and that a Clinton-led Administration and Congress would move us nearer to their realization.


The Importance of the Moment

Which is why this upcoming election is so important, and why normal criteria need to be applied. Donald Trump promises rapid and qualitative change without saying how he will deliver it. Hillary Clinton promises incremental improvements to an economic trajectory already set in place by the Obama Administration. Incremental and detailed policy may not be as easy to sell on the stump as is a grand rhetoric of change without detail: but since in politics the devil does so often lie in the detail, the absence of such detail in the Trump case should give us all reason to worry. If there was ever a time to unite behind the candidate who is promising steady progress to a better future, rather than one who is full of bombast, it is now. It is time for intelligence in politics. In the choice between bluster and gender, it is time to vote for Hillary Clinton. Let us simply hope that by the time that election day comes around, that truth is clear to more and more Americans; and that lower down the ballot, the Clinton coattails prove strong enough to bring at least the Senate back under Democratic Party control.

 

First posted, with full academic citations, at www.davidcoates.net



[1] NBC News found 117 distinct policy shifts in 20 issue areas by Donald Trump since his campaign began. This in Editorial, “Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President,” The New York Times, September 25, 2016: Available at XXXX

 

[3] Most notably the editorial in The New York Times cited above

 

[4] See, for example, Joseph Nye, “Trump’s Emotional Intelligence Deficit,” posted on Social Europe , September 15, 2016: available at https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/09/trumps-emotional-intelligence-deficit/

 

[6]See, for example, Mark Zandi et al, The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr. Trump’s Economic Policies,  Moody Analytics, June 2016: available at https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/free/283579

 

[7] See Max Ehrenfreund, “Analysis: By 2025, 99.6% of Paul Ryan’s tax cuts would go to the richest 1% of Americans,” Washington Post, September 16, 2016: available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/16/analysis-by-2025-99-6-of-paul-ryans-tax-cuts-would-go-to-the-richest-1-of-americans/

 

[8] Bill Scher, “On Policy, It’s No Contest. Clinton: 112,735 words, Trump: 9,000,” posted on Campaign for America’s Future September 7, 2016: available at https://ourfuture.org/20160907/on-policy-its-no-contest-clinton-112735-words-trump-9000

 

Browse articles by author

More Essays

Mar 8th 2024
EXTRACT: "This study suggests that around 10% of people diagnosed with dementia may instead have underlying silent liver disease with HE causing or contributing to the symptoms – an important diagnosis to make as HE is treatable."
Jan 28th 2024
EXTRACT: "Health disparity is a powerful weapon in the savage class warfare otherwise known as neoliberalism. (In 2020, the RAND Corporation did a study of the transfer of wealth over the last several decades from the working-class and the middle-class to the top one percent. Their estimate is a staggering $47 trillion – that is how much the “upward redistribution of income” cost American workers between 1975 and 2018.) Neoliberalism is a brutal form of labor suppression, which uses health as a means of maintaining and reproducing a condition in which wealth is constantly being redistributed upwards, and the middle-class is kept in a constant state of fear of sinking into the ranks of the poor. Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcies in America – and that’s according to the American Bankruptcy Institute. The ballooning costs of healthcare serve to maintain a system marked by morally unacceptable health inequity and injustice."
Jan 28th 2024
EXTRACT. "But living longer has also come at a price. We’re now seeing higher rates of chronic and degenerative diseases – with heart disease consistently topping the list. So while we’re fascinated by what may help us live longer, maybe we should be more interested in being healthier for longer. Improving our “healthy life expectancy” remains a global challenge. Interestingly, certain locations around the world have been discovered where there are a high proportion of centenarians who display remarkable physical and mental health. The AKEA study of Sardinia, Italy, as example, identified a “blue zone” (named because it was marked with blue pen),....."
Jan 4th 2024
EXTRACT: ""Tresors en Noir et Blanc" presents 180 prints from the collection of the Musee des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Paris, also known as the Petit Palais.  The basis of the museum's print collection is 20,000 engravings amassed by a 19th-century collector, Eugene Dutuit, " ----- "This wonderful exhibition, the tip of a great iceberg, serves to emphasize how unfortunate it is that the tens of thousands of prints owned by the Petit Palais are almost never seen by more than a handful of scholars who visit them by appointment.  Nor is the Petit Palais the only offender in this regard,....."
Jan 4th 2024
EXTRACTS: "And that is the clue to Manet’s work. He paints painting, regardless of his subject: he paints the medium itself, it as if he is constantly reminding us that this is a painting," ..........."This is a new conception of painterly truth at play here, a new fidelity to truth. Manet is the Kant of painting because he initiates a similar kind of “Copernican revolution” – we do not see the world as it is but as we are. " -------- " Among the most remarkable but unfamiliar of Manet’s work on display are those depicting the bloody aftermath of the Paris Commune of 1871.There is no question regarding Manet’s condemnation of the Versailles government’s actions following the defeat of the Commune, when some 25,000 Parisians were gunned down, including women and children."
Dec 27th 2023
EXTRACT: "Think of our brain like a map. When we’re young, we explore all corners of this map, sending out connections in every direction to make sense of our environment. Before long, we figure out basic truths – such as how to secure food, or where we live – and the neurological paths that make up these connections strengthen. Over time, a network emerges that reflects our unique experiences. Regions we re-visit often will develop established paths, whereas under-used connections will fade away. ---- Conditions such as addiction, chronic depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are characterised by processes such as repetitive negative thinking or rumination, where patients focus on negative thoughts in a counterproductive way. Unfortunately, these strengthen brain connections that perpetuate the unfavourable mental state."
Dec 14th 2023
EXTRACT: "While no one was looking, France has become a melting pot of European peoples. Its neighbors have traditionally been welcomed, and France progressively turned them into French boys and girls in the next generation."
Dec 4th 2023
EXTRACTS: "Being rich is essentially about having more stuff in general, including bigger houses." "..... if SUVs had not become widely adopted largely as a status symbol for the global middle classes, emissions from transport would have fallen by 30% over the past ten years. For the largest class of SUVs, six of the ten areas of the UK registering the most sales were affluent London boroughs like Kensington and Chelsea."
Nov 11th 2023
EXTRACT: "By using these “biomarkers”, researchers have discovered that when a person’s biological age surpasses their chronological age, it often signifies accelerated cell ageing and a higher susceptibility to age-related diseases." ----- "Imagine two 60-year-olds enrolled in our study. One had a biological age of 65, the other 60. The one with the more accelerated biological age had a 20% higher risk of dementia and a 40% higher risk of stroke."
Nov 6th 2023
EXTRACT: "We are working on a completely new approach to 'machine intelligence'. Instead of using ..... software, we have developed .... hardware that operates much more efficiently."
Nov 6th 2023
EXTRACTS: "When people think of foods related to type 2 diabetes, they often think of sugar (even though the evidence for that is still not clear). Now, a new study from the US points the finger at salt." ...... ".... this type of study, called an observational study, cannot prove that one thing causes another, only that one thing is related to another. (There could be other factors at play.) So it is not appropriate to say removing the saltshaker 'can help prevent'." ..... "Normal salt intake in countries like the UK is about 8g or two teaspoons a day. But about three-quarters of this comes from processed foods. Most of the rest is added during cooking with very little added at the table."
Oct 26th 2023

 

In 1904, Emile Bernard visited Paul Cezanne in Aix.  He wrote of a conversation at dinner:

Sep 11th 2023
EXTRACT: "Many people have dipped their toe into the lazy gardener’s life through “no mow May” – a national campaign to encourage people not to mow their lawns until the end of May. But you could opt to extend this practice until much later in the summer for even greater benefits. Allowing your grass to grow longer, and interspersing it with pollen-rich flowers, can benefit many insects – especially bees. Research finds that reducing mowing in urban and suburban environments has a positive effect on the amount and diversity of insects. Your untamed lawn won’t only benefit insects. It will also encourage more birds, such as goldfinches, to use your garden to feed on the seeds of common wildflower species such as dandelions."
Aug 30th 2023
EXTRACT: "Eliot remarked that Shakespeare's greatness not only grew as the writer aged, but that his development became more apparent to the reader as he himself aged: 'No reader of Shakespeare... can fail to recognize, increasingly as he himself grows up, the gradual ripening of Shakespeare's mind.' "
Aug 25th 2023
EXTRACTS: "I moved here 15 years ago from London because it was so safe. Bordeaux was then known as La Belle au Bois Dormant (The Sleeping Beauty). It's the wine capital of France and the site of beautiful 18th century architecture arrayed along the Garonne river." ---- "What’s new is that today lawlessness is spreading into the more comfortable neighborhoods. The favorite technique is to defraud elderly retirees by dressing up as policemen, waterworks inspectors or gas meter readers. False badges including a photo ID are easy to fabricate on a computer printer. Once inside, they scoop up most anything shiny as they tip-toe through the house."
Aug 20th 2023
EXTRACT: "The 1953 coup d'etat in Iran ushered in a period of exploitation and oppression that has continued – despite a subsequent revolution that led to huge changes – for 70 years. Each year on August 19, the anniversary of the coup, millions of Iranians ask themselves what would have happened if the US and UK had not conspired all those years ago to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected leader."
Aug 18th 2023
EXTRACT: "Edmundo Bacci: Energy and Light, curated by Chiara Bertola, and currently on view at the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, is the first retrospective of the artist in several decades. Bacci was a native of Venice, a city with a long and illustrious history of painting, going back to Giorgione and Titian, Veronese and Tiepolo. As a painter, he was thoroughly immersed in this great past – as an artist he was determined to transform and remake that tradition in the face of modernity and its vicissitudes, what he called “the expressive crisis of our time.” That he has slipped into obscurity affords us, at the very least, an opportunity to see Bacci’s work essentially for the first time, without the burden of over-determined interpretations or categories."
Aug 12th 2023
EXTRACT: "Is Oppenheimer a movie for our time, reminding us of the tensions, dangers and conflicts of the old Cold War while a new one threatens to break out? The film certainly chimes with today’s big power conflicts (the US and China), renewed concern about nuclear weapons (Russia’s threats over Ukraine), and current ideological tensions between democratic and autocratic systems. But the Cold War did not just rest on the threat of the bomb. Behind the scientists and generals were many other players, among them the economists, who clashed just as vigorously in their views about how to run postwar economies."
Aug 5th 2023
EXTRACT: "I have a modest claim to make: we need Bruno today more than ever. This is because he represents an intellectual antidote to the prevailing ideology of today which tells us that we are doomed to finitude, which comes down politically to the assertion that there is no alternative to the reign of global capitalism. Of course, Bruno did not know about capitalism, globalization or neoliberalism. What he did know however is that humanity is infinite. That we are limited only by our own narrowness of vision."
Jul 26th 2023
EXTRACT: "We studied 55,000 people’s dietary data and linked what they ate or drank to five key measures: greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, water pollution and biodiversity loss. Our results are now published in Nature Food. We found that vegans have just 30% of the dietary environmental impact of high-meat eaters. The dietary data came from a major study into cancer and nutrition that has been tracking the same people (about 57,000 in total across the UK) for more than two decades."