I was not at all surprised when Donald Trump secured his reelection as President of the United States on 5th November. I had a similar feeling when he won for the first time in November 2016. He and Vice President Kamala Harris were level pegging in the polls leading up to 5th November this year, while Hilary Clinton was ahead as her campaign drew to a close in 2016. In both cases, however, they did not have the lead they needed to win under the US Electoral College system that currently favours the Republicans. Ultimately voters in the US were split down the middle between those who supported Trump and those who do not.

The reasons for Trump’s win

I believe that I would have voted for Kamala Harris if I had the right to vote in US elections, but it would not have been an automatic decision on my part. While Trump is a very crude person (as we saw early on when he mocked a disabled reporter during the election campaign in 2016) and has been found by at least one court in the US to have committed criminal offences, he nonetheless appeals to voters on certain issues that cannot be ignored. The key one appears to have been the state of the economy and its impact on the ‘average American’ over the past few years. While the US has enjoyed higher growth than other advanced countries over the past five years, much of that growth has accrued to a small percentage of very wealthy Americans and corporations. The after tax earnings of the average person have kept pace with inflation but, as in other western countries, have not exceeded inflation by a wide margin. This has been an issue in western countries generally since the Financial Crisis in 2007/2008 and we are now seeing the consequences. Governments are increasingly unable to keep pace with demands for more state provision within the limits of the taxes they are able to raise. I am sure this was one of the reasons why the Conservative Party lost to Labour in the UK general election in July of this year, and also why the French and German governments are currently in serious trouble. It is also why Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party in Canada will likely go down to a resounding defeat in next year’s Canadian election.

Two other issues that clearly influenced American voters are the following:

• Opposition to ‘woke’ politics – It appears that Kamala Harris and the Democrats generally failed to register the opposition of many voters to Democratic policies that they considered to be ‘woke’. I share some of these concerns myself but would be loath to go into detail about them because of the ‘offence’ my views would no doubt cause to many people. In any case, Trump was clearly seen as a Presidential candidate who would oppose woke policies.
• Concerns about ‘forever wars’ – The Biden administration in the US has been closely involved in the conduct and financing of the Russia/Ukraine war and the Middle East war between Israel and the Palestinians. It has also given the impression it would be prepared to support Taiwan in a war about mainland China. Quite apart from the horrifying loss of life and injuries resulting from these wars, Americans have seen huge amounts of government money paid out to supply weapons to one side in each of the wars. That has come at a time when many Americans feel strapped for cash and in need of more support from their government.

In view of the above factors, it is not surprising that Trump has been reelected as President for a second term. The question is what we can expect to happen now.

The likely impact of Trump’s second Presidency outside the US

As a non-US citizen living in the UK, I am mainly concerned about the impact of Trump’s second term on countries outside the US and in particular those of us who live in Europe. It appears we are likely to face the following key challenges:

• Trump will insist that European countries including the UK devote more spending to their own defence. I am wholly in favour of this, as I have long doubted the commitment by the US to defend European countries in the event of attack by Russia or another power (despite the commitment in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty that requires each member state to regard an attack on one state as an attack on all the other states). Trump is making explicit what has been implicit for many years, i.e., that European countries will likely have to survive on their own if they are attacked, as indeed they did in the early years of both World Wars I and II. I am hopeful that when European countries do take steps to increase their defence spending, they will also work to create an independent strategy for defending Europe. Emmanuel Macron has been promoting this idea for some time, but other European countries including the UK have not yet agreed to support him. In the end, Europe’s politicians will have to explain to their voting publics that increased spending for defence will of necessity entail less spending on public provision and benefits that have long been taken for granted.
• We in Europe, along with people in many other parts of the world, will also face higher tariffs on exports to the US. This is likely to affect some countries more than others, in particular those that export large quantities of manufactured goods. Germany and China are therefore likely to face big challenges in dealing with increased US tariffs. I suspect the Chinese will take steps to reduce the value of their currency (which is probably appropriate in any case), as well as direct more exports to countries outside the US and Europe, as they have already been doing for some years. There must also be scope for increased trade between Europe and China, particularly in relation to vehicles, but this may be stymied by Trump threatening even higher tariffs to stop it.
• As for the broader geopolitical picture, I believe that Trump will take steps to ‘resolve’ the Ukraine and Middle East wars in any way he can do so using American pressure. In the case of Ukraine, this could result in a messy compromise which may not prevent war erupting again after a short period. European countries will have to take great care to prevent this. In the case of the Middle East, Trump’s reported comment two days ago that Hamas will have ‘all hell to pay’ if the Israeli hostages are not released by January, suggests he may support Israel in a horrific final assault on Gaza. I cannot possibly predict where that will lead.
• Trump’s China policy is likely to prove the most consequential of all his policies in the long term. The rise of China’s economy and its growing military might have ushered in a new world in which the US is increasingly one large country among many (albeit with a vast stock of weapons). The US will promote its interests using the powers it has to hand, while China (plus India, Brazil, Argentina etc) will do the same. It will be difficult for any one country or group of countries to gain the upper hand on a long-term basis. Trump’s pragmatism and predilection for ‘deals’ may prove more useful in this respect than the traditional US reliance on principles of ‘democracies versus autocracies’, ‘human rights’ and ‘liberalism’.

Trump‘s Weak Points

Trump may well run into serious difficulties early in his second term, for the following reasons:

• He will have a limited time to make an impact, as it is unlikely he will be physically and mentally fit to run for a second term. Given his age, he also has a 20% chance (based on his life expectancy) of not making it through his four year term. He may therefore soon be seen as a ‘lame duck President’. That could result in Republican senators who are themselves in their last terms or who have personal ambitions to replace Trump, to block legislation he wants to put through Congress. That could also explain why he has jumped the gun (almost two months before his inauguration on January 20th next year) in warning Canada, Mexico and China that he will increase tariffs if they do not take steps to reduce illegal migration and imports of fentanyl compounds into the US. Trump is clearly an ‘old man in a hurry’.
• He is a ‘one trick pony’ in his desire to use tariffs to achieve his aims. He is likely to secure some early gains from countries frightened of the impact of higher tariffs on their economies, for example Canada, Mexico and (possibly) Germany. However, if he actually imposes new tariffs they will increase living costs in the US. Countries affected by the tariffs, in particular China, are likely to take counter measures, either imposing counter measures (as China has already done in the case of rare minerals) or reducing the value of their currencies. The tariffs and counter measures combined will damage the interests of the many low income Americans who voted for him. Trump is bound to have difficulty in satisfying both the plutocrats and the millions struggling to get by on monthly pay checks, who supported his reelection.
• Trump’s efforts to wind down the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East could have unpredictable consequences, and might even serve to intensify those conflicts.
• Trump’s Cabinet picks may create damaging controversy. Edward Kennedy, Jr. in particular appears to be a wild card. He has laudable aims to reduce the inefficiencies of the US health system and improve food quality. However, he is also prone to conspiracy theories (e.g., his opposition to life saving vaccines and his weird focus on ‘seed oils’). He is very dilettantish and I think it unlikely he will be able to focus on one or more key policies in which he would have a real chance of success.
• There are also bound to be ‘events’ that will severely test Trump’s capabilities. The pandemic had a huge impact during his first term and likely contributed to him losing the 2020 election. This time around there could be a run on the US dollar or a bond strike by lenders who are concerned about unsustainable debt levels. Or there could be another ‘unknown unknown’ like the pandemic.

A final point I would make is that Trump’s reelection reminds me of Boris Johnson’s resounding victory in the UK election of 2019. Johnson’s key policy was to ‘get Brexit done’ and this had great appeal to the British public. He did succeed in ‘getting Brexit done’, but was unable to pursue any other policies because of deep divisions among Tory MPs. His large majority in the UK House of Commons proved to be of little value. He was then undone by his poor management of the response to Covid and allegations about his behaviour during the pandemic period. His predecessors Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak were also unable to make progress because of the continuing obsession with Brexit and disunity among Tory MPs. The negative influence of Brexit in reducing the UK’s trade with EU countries also became clear to all, leading in the end to the election of our Labour government in July 2024.

Johnson’s failure was a classic failure of a populist leader whose policies turn to dust when confronted with reality. Trump may in the end find he shares the same fate.

Michael Ingle (michaelingle01@gmail.com)

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: boris johnson, China, donald trump, economy, edward kennedy jr, Politics, tariffs, unknown unknown