There is much with which to agree with in BM's take on who/what Trump is. A few comments:
Pavkovic - above - is correct that Trump knows next to nothing about the Founding Fathers or what they thought. Our host is a bit off on what they thought: They did not wish to avoid foreign entanglements because they thought the new USA was strong and self-sufficient. (Among other things, at the time it extended only as far west as the Mississippi. It wasn't until Jefferson picked up the greatest bargain of the 19th Century from Napoleonic France that dreams of "from the Atlantic to the Pacific" rose to the fore.) On the contrary, they knew the new USA was small and weak, and getting involved in European great power conflicts might just lead to the early extinction of this small new nation. (They soon found that avoiding foreign involvements was not so easy, in their conflict with the North African privateers -- usually styled in our mytho-history as "the Babary Pirates." And fending off Britain in 1812-1815 improved their confidence.)
There is another element of Trump's ideological equipment that BM overlooks, which is is autocracy. Yes, he is not an actual fascist; for example, he has no actual affection at all for the Republican party. He didn't build it, and at first it was hostile to him. He has just learned to manipulate it to his own benefit. But he does believe greatly in executive power, as long as he is the on exercising it. He thinks, and every so often attempts to act on it, that what he says should go - with Constitution and laws an obsolete irrelevancy when he is in the seat of power.
Agree on both points (more or less). Yes, US was not very strong when Washington warned against "entanglements" but it was already by then rich (in terms of real wages) and everyone who thought about it realized US vast potential. Adam Smith in the WoN published in 1776, before the outcome of the American revolution was clear, saw the Colonies as a future Empire In fact, the WoN ends on that note. On the executive power, yes. He believes that the executive power of a president is the same as that of a company owner.
Any evidence that Trump knows anything about the Founding Fathers? More likely, he has a transactional view of the US military/geopolitical involvement: the US wars and interventions bring no gain to the US and are usually costly failures.
One possible reason why we think that some people do not have ideology is that it’s the same as ours. And since it is ours, it cannot be ideology, just normal, rational thinking.
Branko -- agree, sorta. If Trump has any principles at all they are transactional and adversarial. Any relationship is based on what he can get out of it and what he has to give up. It's a religion of beggar-thy-neighbor. Above all he lacks empathy, even with his own children.
He's by no means a free marketeer. He's happy to use the instruments of the state for his own benefit, and he admires others who have done that as well. Musk and Ramaswamy have both profited from the fraudulent manipulation of market institutions.
His lack of empathy and imagination means that he will choose short-run expediency over longer-term,... growth, among other things. Sell state secrets now, 'cause we're all dead in the long run and -- to slightly mis-quote a famous first lady -- I really don't care about my grandchildren; do you?.
Is Trump a fascist? Yeah. He'll arrogate authority where it suits him, manipulate public institutions for his own benefit, and violently suppress opposition. Is this the manifestation of some long-held philosophy? No. It just happens to be, conveniently, the combination of behaviors that he believes yields the greatest return.
Hope all is well, in spite of this and other unbelievable horrors.
Whilst not disagreeing with your thesis, there seems to be an underlying sentiment of you saying, “Hey folks, it might not be so bad.” This I would take issue with. My concern for Trumps policies has always been about his complete disregard for any suffering, both personal and global, that they will cause.
'a full country: the number of people per square kilometer in the United States is 38 while it is 520 in the Netherlands'
Being from the NL i can inform you that the majority of liberal and progressive (as far as looking away from anti semitism, intimidation of women ((get used to it and shut up, or even better: just avoid those neighborhoods and pretend there's nothing going on)) and immigrant nationalism - the Turkish diaspora in the NL is so overwhelmingly pro Erdogan they should, and probably want to, be considered Erdogan loyalists first and Dutch second) are now in favor of curbing immigration.
While Muslim voters have voted in droves for...Wilders (and this was not the first election they did that) or they voted for DENK ('think'). A Muslim party started out a few years ago as a progressive split-off from the Labour party (Labour didn't serve the ambitions of the two leaders well enough). It was first led by two Turkish/Dutch consultants/managers. After they got embroiled and in the cross hairs of the legal system (fraud) new leadership took over and the party now serves the conservative segment of Dutch Muslims.
As Dutch Muslims may have voted labour in the past (if they voted) they never were progressive themselves - at all. They vote Wilders because of wage competition from newer immigrants and because the dominant lgbt culture of 'progressive' parties is absolutely not to their liking.
And since religious minorities can have their own schools subsidized in the NL, the by now well entrenched Muslim school system (don't forget to cover up girls) obviously has no appetite for the lgbt directives of the Ministry of Education.
To test our multi culti paradise just put on a scarf or a kippah, take a walk, and find out which protects you better.
This story about "lack of integration" is similar across the Western Europe. I recently spoke with a "white" person from a German speaking country who nostalgically remembered how good the immigrants from the Balkans were - compared with the new ones. This unexpected status-upgrade of Balkaneese is alas less related to their own thriving and social climbing, than with their new invisibility in racially mixed societies. Moreover, Balkaneese always knew their assigned place in the host society, remained quiet, thankful and modest. Deliberately small. Almost white skin! Perfect integration implies invisibility. The preference of our first-world hosts for Balkaneese immigration is therefore understandable - but will remain unfulfilled, this pool is all but empty.
During the wars in Yugoslavia which lasted (with interruption) for almost a decade I have never heard of a single instance of the people from different groups getting into a fight in Europe or America, and much less attacking domestic police. They spoke and thought of each other pretty bad things. But they were all afraid to annoy their hosts and went silent. his is not the case with Palestinians and many Arabs. They actually have much more of skin the game, stronger culture, or rather belief in own culture, and self-esteem.
True and interesting observation - someone should write a 300-page book about it.
In my opinion the anarchic behaviour of Arabs in western host societies roots in the lack of statehood at home and lack of credibility of statehood in the host societies.
- Large portion of this wave of migration happened by illegal border crossing - and the host legislation answered "oh - no problem at all". This small remark de-legitimized the sovereignty of state not only for immigrants, but also for local far-right groups who since act subversively.
- Prone to violence and ethnic revenge are (single) young males socialised in societies lacking clear political and legal rules. Even if Turks and Iranians of Western Europe are equally angry, not many of them go out and run riots. Same with terrorism - Turks and Iranians do not fly planes into buildings. One reason might be that those ethnical groups are anchored with the strong statehood of their origin countries, they obey laws. The statehood of Arab countries is on the contrary not reliable - they are either hereditary monarchies or military dictatorships. Always dependent on will of a foreign power, they appear temporary, volatile and not binding.
The Ex-Yugoslavians of the 1990s were accustomed to strong law-and-order states both at home as on their destination. This is why they play by the rules. In the mid-1990s, the "de-facto refugees" from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were suggested to leave their host countries in the Western Europe, which they obeyed (unless having already obtained regular "green card"). "The boat is full" was a common sense of the 1990s.
The criteria for immigration has changed completely. I myself was rejected a Western citizenship after 12 years of living there, degree from a local STEM university, worked for years, spoke quite good, bookish German, lived with an "autochthon" partner etc... was not enough. My was an experience of almighty state that can act unpredictable. Now the people that have crossed German border illegally can become citizens within 2-3 years.
Several academic analyses have pointed out that Trump’s ideology seems to have tenets of national rebirth under a militaristic strongman who appeals to racial supremacy and machismo, tradition, law and order, and violence as an ends in order to mobilize a cadre of revolutionary supporters against the liberal democratic order, the press, unions, certain immigrants, and allies, while making an uneasy but effective alliance with conservatives and the business class. It would certainly fit Griffin’s and Paxton’s definitions.
As for Trump’s foreign policy, he has said he would be willing to take Libya’s oil “on a humanitarian basis”, take ISIS’ oil after “bombing the excrement out of them”, and gotten in a military standoff with Iran. If there’s any indication of U.S. revanchism from him, it’s in the Middle East and North Africa
White nationalism is written into the US constitution and case law (Dred Scott); fascists target a scapegoat (immigrants) exactly as trump has done. In what way do mass deportations NOT fit into a fascist ideology?
"The second part is a million-dollar question because if we could piece together Donald J, Trump’s ideology, we would be able to forecast, or guess (the element of volatility is high), how his rule over the next four years might look like."
It's a very worthwhile and interesting enterprise to analyse Trump's ideology, but on the other hand, if Trump's recent appointees are anything to go by, it won't give us much of an ability to forecast future policy. It seems like the upcoming Trump administration will be as much Musk-ist, as well as bearing the stamp of other wealthy lobbyists and collaborators, as it will be Trumpist. Actually it might be interesting to compare the ideology of Trump with that of Elon Musk?
"(iii) emphasis on the power of the state as opposed to private individuals and the private sector"
Also, I won't quibble too much with your definition of fascism as it's not the main focus of the post, but I do find this interesting. It's definitely an understanding I hear a lot, and it's widely accepted, but on the other hand a) Ishay Landa and others have documented how fascism was as much about the glorification of a particular category of individuals as against "the masses", and b) I think the state under fascism could be better described as a fusion between certain elements of the private sector and the state under the auspices of the fascist movement. It's a little similar to how in Roman history the idea of there being a "public sphere", in the enlightenment sense of a space defined in opposition to the private sphere, with the former emphasised over the latter, is a bit anachronistic. In reality Roman nobiles drew no fine distinction between public office and private dignity, and saw the city less as a distinct public space in our sense of the word, and more as being "theirs", a fusion of the private and the public. I know the distinction between capital/state fusion and state domination of capital is a very slight one, but I think it's important because it helps us to distinguish fascism from other social forms.
What is Fascism? I don't use this word as media slang. I derive my thinking on this subject from Marxian thinker Daniel Guerin and his fascinating book 'Fascism and big business' (first edition 1936, 2nd ed. 1973 is the best). And my conclusion is that Trump indeed is a Fascist or Fascistic, with several overlaps with Fascist ideology. The "ideology" of Fascism is defined by Guerin almost a century ago when this phenomenon emerged in Europe. Some of the elements of this phenomenon are also mentioned by Polanyi in his book 'The great transformation' which clearly overlaps with Trump & his MAGA movement of REACTION in modern day. This is a lengthy subject so i won't go into all details.
Fascism, among other things, is a Psychological phenomenon, like a religion. I would highly recommend book 'The dangerous case of Donald Trump' 2019 edition by Bandy Lee on this. Even before one gets into economic and foreign policy ideology of a politician, for a person like Trump, it's essential to look into his psychology and personality. You can't understand anything about Trump without first understanding his personality. I would strongly suggest book The dangerous case of Donald Trump for all scholars.
Psychology shapes perspectives, ideology and thinking of a leader which deserves much attention when understanding Trump.
Indeed, “fascist” and “populist” are used so often and indiscriminately to discredit an opponent’s political views that they have become all but meaningless. The latter in particular, assuming that a politician should express not popular views but a higher and more esoteric truth inaccessible to “simpletons.” I assume the sentence “It really stands for the leaders who win elections but do so on a platform that “we” do like.” should read in the end ‘“we” don’t like’?
I would not say that trump is an anti-imperialist - rather he believes in running the empire in the immediate economic interests of the US and himself. The defence of East Asia and Europe are not obviously profitable, so he aims to downsize them or make them pay for themselves. But in the Middle East he has not been anti imperialist because he sees it as a region where it is possible to extract a lot of profit ("Take the oil"). Thus he maintained very strong relationships with the gulf states in exchange for personal benefits via Kushner, and he has acted very agressively towards Iran. the same might be observed with regards to Latin America, where he attempted regime change in Venezuela and Bolivia. The possible benefits for well connected Americans if regime change should succeed in either cases are obvious.
in other words, Trump does not believe in any of the human rights empire nonsense, nor in the "liberal international order". he believes in old fashioned openly self serving empire. clashing with strong nations like Russia and China is simply not beneficial to the economic interests of the US. Quick smash and grab expeditions in Latin America and the Middle East on the other hand can line many pockets.
Trump is easy to understand. He has inherited, and he is kind of lazy; laziness also effects education. Everybody in their right mind gets quickly bored by dealing with builders, contractors, etc. Anyway, he likes glamour, glamour chicks, glamour tv presence, and, yes, he decided he can become president.
And yes, he was right. If I remember the bunch of faceless Marco Rubios in 2016 or the Viveks 2024 - all nobodies who slicked up for playing a role, Trump the only one with a degree of authenticity.
Trumps only conviction is capitalism, as this s the only thing he knows. He is not a racist, but he uses racist talk because he knows it win votes. Like Europe, where every country that was given half an chance, broke up along ethnic lines when given half a chance after 1989. Notwithstanding their supposed diets, he employs lots of Haitians. They are cheap. Capitalists value that.
Trump is transactional, yes. Therefore he lowered taxes for the top 1%, with a "burger cut" for the rest (their cuts afford them a hamburger). It did not quite work out as intended. Nevertheless, in the last campaign zios have blown about 200m up his rear. He will probably honour that as much as he can. In his first period he accepted that a number of US soldiers were given lasting headaches by Iran after they returned fire after Soleimani's killing and decided that it is not worth killing people after the shooting down of an extremely expensive American drone - probably all after listening to advice from the Pentagon.
I don't think, "ideology" is anything that helps us to "explain" Trump. Probably he is just less vile than his opponents. Eg. Biden who brought the world into vicinity of two nuclear wars plus close to a potential third. And he is also not suffering from such tremendous lack of intelligence than his last main opponent. He is not much good, but less of a worry than Hillary, Joe and Kamala.
I doubt you can really have mercantilism and nationalism without imperialism though. In a world where nations cannot reliably trade for what they need, they will be more likely to try to seize those resources. And in a world where the masses are poor with no prospect for peaceful development, those masses will form coalitions against the rich states, which will have to use physical repression to keep them at bay. The endgame of Trumpism is to turn America into something like the space station from the movie Elysium, and even in that movie the people from the space station require a military presence on the Earth to do their dirty work of keeping the people stuck on Earth down. Trump has so far been appointing pro-imperialism Republicans to high positions rather than Republicans with more anti-imperialism views.
There is much with which to agree with in BM's take on who/what Trump is. A few comments:
Pavkovic - above - is correct that Trump knows next to nothing about the Founding Fathers or what they thought. Our host is a bit off on what they thought: They did not wish to avoid foreign entanglements because they thought the new USA was strong and self-sufficient. (Among other things, at the time it extended only as far west as the Mississippi. It wasn't until Jefferson picked up the greatest bargain of the 19th Century from Napoleonic France that dreams of "from the Atlantic to the Pacific" rose to the fore.) On the contrary, they knew the new USA was small and weak, and getting involved in European great power conflicts might just lead to the early extinction of this small new nation. (They soon found that avoiding foreign involvements was not so easy, in their conflict with the North African privateers -- usually styled in our mytho-history as "the Babary Pirates." And fending off Britain in 1812-1815 improved their confidence.)
There is another element of Trump's ideological equipment that BM overlooks, which is is autocracy. Yes, he is not an actual fascist; for example, he has no actual affection at all for the Republican party. He didn't build it, and at first it was hostile to him. He has just learned to manipulate it to his own benefit. But he does believe greatly in executive power, as long as he is the on exercising it. He thinks, and every so often attempts to act on it, that what he says should go - with Constitution and laws an obsolete irrelevancy when he is in the seat of power.
Agree on both points (more or less). Yes, US was not very strong when Washington warned against "entanglements" but it was already by then rich (in terms of real wages) and everyone who thought about it realized US vast potential. Adam Smith in the WoN published in 1776, before the outcome of the American revolution was clear, saw the Colonies as a future Empire In fact, the WoN ends on that note. On the executive power, yes. He believes that the executive power of a president is the same as that of a company owner.
Any evidence that Trump knows anything about the Founding Fathers? More likely, he has a transactional view of the US military/geopolitical involvement: the US wars and interventions bring no gain to the US and are usually costly failures.
One possible reason why we think that some people do not have ideology is that it’s the same as ours. And since it is ours, it cannot be ideology, just normal, rational thinking.
Branko -- agree, sorta. If Trump has any principles at all they are transactional and adversarial. Any relationship is based on what he can get out of it and what he has to give up. It's a religion of beggar-thy-neighbor. Above all he lacks empathy, even with his own children.
He's by no means a free marketeer. He's happy to use the instruments of the state for his own benefit, and he admires others who have done that as well. Musk and Ramaswamy have both profited from the fraudulent manipulation of market institutions.
His lack of empathy and imagination means that he will choose short-run expediency over longer-term,... growth, among other things. Sell state secrets now, 'cause we're all dead in the long run and -- to slightly mis-quote a famous first lady -- I really don't care about my grandchildren; do you?.
Is Trump a fascist? Yeah. He'll arrogate authority where it suits him, manipulate public institutions for his own benefit, and violently suppress opposition. Is this the manifestation of some long-held philosophy? No. It just happens to be, conveniently, the combination of behaviors that he believes yields the greatest return.
Hope all is well, in spite of this and other unbelievable horrors.
Whilst not disagreeing with your thesis, there seems to be an underlying sentiment of you saying, “Hey folks, it might not be so bad.” This I would take issue with. My concern for Trumps policies has always been about his complete disregard for any suffering, both personal and global, that they will cause.
Eh?
The state of play right now with ICBM's launching all over seems to suggest that you have a touch of the ol' TDS.
'a full country: the number of people per square kilometer in the United States is 38 while it is 520 in the Netherlands'
Being from the NL i can inform you that the majority of liberal and progressive (as far as looking away from anti semitism, intimidation of women ((get used to it and shut up, or even better: just avoid those neighborhoods and pretend there's nothing going on)) and immigrant nationalism - the Turkish diaspora in the NL is so overwhelmingly pro Erdogan they should, and probably want to, be considered Erdogan loyalists first and Dutch second) are now in favor of curbing immigration.
While Muslim voters have voted in droves for...Wilders (and this was not the first election they did that) or they voted for DENK ('think'). A Muslim party started out a few years ago as a progressive split-off from the Labour party (Labour didn't serve the ambitions of the two leaders well enough). It was first led by two Turkish/Dutch consultants/managers. After they got embroiled and in the cross hairs of the legal system (fraud) new leadership took over and the party now serves the conservative segment of Dutch Muslims.
As Dutch Muslims may have voted labour in the past (if they voted) they never were progressive themselves - at all. They vote Wilders because of wage competition from newer immigrants and because the dominant lgbt culture of 'progressive' parties is absolutely not to their liking.
And since religious minorities can have their own schools subsidized in the NL, the by now well entrenched Muslim school system (don't forget to cover up girls) obviously has no appetite for the lgbt directives of the Ministry of Education.
To test our multi culti paradise just put on a scarf or a kippah, take a walk, and find out which protects you better.
This story about "lack of integration" is similar across the Western Europe. I recently spoke with a "white" person from a German speaking country who nostalgically remembered how good the immigrants from the Balkans were - compared with the new ones. This unexpected status-upgrade of Balkaneese is alas less related to their own thriving and social climbing, than with their new invisibility in racially mixed societies. Moreover, Balkaneese always knew their assigned place in the host society, remained quiet, thankful and modest. Deliberately small. Almost white skin! Perfect integration implies invisibility. The preference of our first-world hosts for Balkaneese immigration is therefore understandable - but will remain unfulfilled, this pool is all but empty.
During the wars in Yugoslavia which lasted (with interruption) for almost a decade I have never heard of a single instance of the people from different groups getting into a fight in Europe or America, and much less attacking domestic police. They spoke and thought of each other pretty bad things. But they were all afraid to annoy their hosts and went silent. his is not the case with Palestinians and many Arabs. They actually have much more of skin the game, stronger culture, or rather belief in own culture, and self-esteem.
True and interesting observation - someone should write a 300-page book about it.
In my opinion the anarchic behaviour of Arabs in western host societies roots in the lack of statehood at home and lack of credibility of statehood in the host societies.
- Large portion of this wave of migration happened by illegal border crossing - and the host legislation answered "oh - no problem at all". This small remark de-legitimized the sovereignty of state not only for immigrants, but also for local far-right groups who since act subversively.
- Prone to violence and ethnic revenge are (single) young males socialised in societies lacking clear political and legal rules. Even if Turks and Iranians of Western Europe are equally angry, not many of them go out and run riots. Same with terrorism - Turks and Iranians do not fly planes into buildings. One reason might be that those ethnical groups are anchored with the strong statehood of their origin countries, they obey laws. The statehood of Arab countries is on the contrary not reliable - they are either hereditary monarchies or military dictatorships. Always dependent on will of a foreign power, they appear temporary, volatile and not binding.
The Ex-Yugoslavians of the 1990s were accustomed to strong law-and-order states both at home as on their destination. This is why they play by the rules. In the mid-1990s, the "de-facto refugees" from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were suggested to leave their host countries in the Western Europe, which they obeyed (unless having already obtained regular "green card"). "The boat is full" was a common sense of the 1990s.
The criteria for immigration has changed completely. I myself was rejected a Western citizenship after 12 years of living there, degree from a local STEM university, worked for years, spoke quite good, bookish German, lived with an "autochthon" partner etc... was not enough. My was an experience of almighty state that can act unpredictable. Now the people that have crossed German border illegally can become citizens within 2-3 years.
Several academic analyses have pointed out that Trump’s ideology seems to have tenets of national rebirth under a militaristic strongman who appeals to racial supremacy and machismo, tradition, law and order, and violence as an ends in order to mobilize a cadre of revolutionary supporters against the liberal democratic order, the press, unions, certain immigrants, and allies, while making an uneasy but effective alliance with conservatives and the business class. It would certainly fit Griffin’s and Paxton’s definitions.
As for Trump’s foreign policy, he has said he would be willing to take Libya’s oil “on a humanitarian basis”, take ISIS’ oil after “bombing the excrement out of them”, and gotten in a military standoff with Iran. If there’s any indication of U.S. revanchism from him, it’s in the Middle East and North Africa
White nationalism is written into the US constitution and case law (Dred Scott); fascists target a scapegoat (immigrants) exactly as trump has done. In what way do mass deportations NOT fit into a fascist ideology?
Yes, it's past time the "fascist" tag was buried. He is primarily, as you say, a mercantilist and profit-taker.
"The second part is a million-dollar question because if we could piece together Donald J, Trump’s ideology, we would be able to forecast, or guess (the element of volatility is high), how his rule over the next four years might look like."
It's a very worthwhile and interesting enterprise to analyse Trump's ideology, but on the other hand, if Trump's recent appointees are anything to go by, it won't give us much of an ability to forecast future policy. It seems like the upcoming Trump administration will be as much Musk-ist, as well as bearing the stamp of other wealthy lobbyists and collaborators, as it will be Trumpist. Actually it might be interesting to compare the ideology of Trump with that of Elon Musk?
"(iii) emphasis on the power of the state as opposed to private individuals and the private sector"
Also, I won't quibble too much with your definition of fascism as it's not the main focus of the post, but I do find this interesting. It's definitely an understanding I hear a lot, and it's widely accepted, but on the other hand a) Ishay Landa and others have documented how fascism was as much about the glorification of a particular category of individuals as against "the masses", and b) I think the state under fascism could be better described as a fusion between certain elements of the private sector and the state under the auspices of the fascist movement. It's a little similar to how in Roman history the idea of there being a "public sphere", in the enlightenment sense of a space defined in opposition to the private sphere, with the former emphasised over the latter, is a bit anachronistic. In reality Roman nobiles drew no fine distinction between public office and private dignity, and saw the city less as a distinct public space in our sense of the word, and more as being "theirs", a fusion of the private and the public. I know the distinction between capital/state fusion and state domination of capital is a very slight one, but I think it's important because it helps us to distinguish fascism from other social forms.
What is Fascism? I don't use this word as media slang. I derive my thinking on this subject from Marxian thinker Daniel Guerin and his fascinating book 'Fascism and big business' (first edition 1936, 2nd ed. 1973 is the best). And my conclusion is that Trump indeed is a Fascist or Fascistic, with several overlaps with Fascist ideology. The "ideology" of Fascism is defined by Guerin almost a century ago when this phenomenon emerged in Europe. Some of the elements of this phenomenon are also mentioned by Polanyi in his book 'The great transformation' which clearly overlaps with Trump & his MAGA movement of REACTION in modern day. This is a lengthy subject so i won't go into all details.
Fascism, among other things, is a Psychological phenomenon, like a religion. I would highly recommend book 'The dangerous case of Donald Trump' 2019 edition by Bandy Lee on this. Even before one gets into economic and foreign policy ideology of a politician, for a person like Trump, it's essential to look into his psychology and personality. You can't understand anything about Trump without first understanding his personality. I would strongly suggest book The dangerous case of Donald Trump for all scholars.
Psychology shapes perspectives, ideology and thinking of a leader which deserves much attention when understanding Trump.
Indeed, “fascist” and “populist” are used so often and indiscriminately to discredit an opponent’s political views that they have become all but meaningless. The latter in particular, assuming that a politician should express not popular views but a higher and more esoteric truth inaccessible to “simpletons.” I assume the sentence “It really stands for the leaders who win elections but do so on a platform that “we” do like.” should read in the end ‘“we” don’t like’?
Thanks for pointing out the mistake. I corrected it.
There’s at least one major imperial enterprise that this article ignores, that Trump favors
True. I could not discuss all. Ukraine & Gaza are absent.
I would not say that trump is an anti-imperialist - rather he believes in running the empire in the immediate economic interests of the US and himself. The defence of East Asia and Europe are not obviously profitable, so he aims to downsize them or make them pay for themselves. But in the Middle East he has not been anti imperialist because he sees it as a region where it is possible to extract a lot of profit ("Take the oil"). Thus he maintained very strong relationships with the gulf states in exchange for personal benefits via Kushner, and he has acted very agressively towards Iran. the same might be observed with regards to Latin America, where he attempted regime change in Venezuela and Bolivia. The possible benefits for well connected Americans if regime change should succeed in either cases are obvious.
in other words, Trump does not believe in any of the human rights empire nonsense, nor in the "liberal international order". he believes in old fashioned openly self serving empire. clashing with strong nations like Russia and China is simply not beneficial to the economic interests of the US. Quick smash and grab expeditions in Latin America and the Middle East on the other hand can line many pockets.
Trump is easy to understand. He has inherited, and he is kind of lazy; laziness also effects education. Everybody in their right mind gets quickly bored by dealing with builders, contractors, etc. Anyway, he likes glamour, glamour chicks, glamour tv presence, and, yes, he decided he can become president.
And yes, he was right. If I remember the bunch of faceless Marco Rubios in 2016 or the Viveks 2024 - all nobodies who slicked up for playing a role, Trump the only one with a degree of authenticity.
Trumps only conviction is capitalism, as this s the only thing he knows. He is not a racist, but he uses racist talk because he knows it win votes. Like Europe, where every country that was given half an chance, broke up along ethnic lines when given half a chance after 1989. Notwithstanding their supposed diets, he employs lots of Haitians. They are cheap. Capitalists value that.
Trump is transactional, yes. Therefore he lowered taxes for the top 1%, with a "burger cut" for the rest (their cuts afford them a hamburger). It did not quite work out as intended. Nevertheless, in the last campaign zios have blown about 200m up his rear. He will probably honour that as much as he can. In his first period he accepted that a number of US soldiers were given lasting headaches by Iran after they returned fire after Soleimani's killing and decided that it is not worth killing people after the shooting down of an extremely expensive American drone - probably all after listening to advice from the Pentagon.
I don't think, "ideology" is anything that helps us to "explain" Trump. Probably he is just less vile than his opponents. Eg. Biden who brought the world into vicinity of two nuclear wars plus close to a potential third. And he is also not suffering from such tremendous lack of intelligence than his last main opponent. He is not much good, but less of a worry than Hillary, Joe and Kamala.
I doubt you can really have mercantilism and nationalism without imperialism though. In a world where nations cannot reliably trade for what they need, they will be more likely to try to seize those resources. And in a world where the masses are poor with no prospect for peaceful development, those masses will form coalitions against the rich states, which will have to use physical repression to keep them at bay. The endgame of Trumpism is to turn America into something like the space station from the movie Elysium, and even in that movie the people from the space station require a military presence on the Earth to do their dirty work of keeping the people stuck on Earth down. Trump has so far been appointing pro-imperialism Republicans to high positions rather than Republicans with more anti-imperialism views.