Donald Trump Phenomenon and

Lessons Therein
When Trump contested for the presidency, all forces and
apologists behind the current neo-liberal globalization
process went against him. The global news media and all
pollsters predicted that he would be the loser. They were
pathetically biased. It is understandable if a leader of a
country took a position on the American presidential
elections, given the highly polarized political positions
between the two candidates.

by Laksiri Fernando

( November 13, 2016, Sydney, Sri Lanka

Guardian) At the recently concluded US presidential elections,
both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump represented two political
extremes with dubious personal track records. It was no surprise,
therefore, that in this biggest Western democracy in the world,
only 56 percent of voters turned up at the polling booths to cast
their votes. Another reason for this disillusionment was the
acrimonious way the competition and the debates were
conducted by the two candidates and the two parties. There

were many who openly said that they have no faith in either of
them prior to the polling day. Now the leaders have come
together at the White House, aftermath of the elections, the
people are still protesting in streets misguided by acrimonious
campaigns.
Berny Sanders, the soft socialist from the democratic party could
have tread a middle path both in American and world politics, if
he was given a fair chance and if not for the family ambitions of
the Clinton clan. While Clinton was advocating an extreme version
of globalization along with some of the true believers in
European countries or the European Union, Trump went to the
other extreme by denouncing globalization, free trade and most
disturbingly, protection of the environment. The French
Ambassador to the UN tweeted against Trump, during the
elections, and then retracted after seeing the sings of defeat for
Clinton.
Trump in Contrast
In his version of economics, America should get back to the old
capitalism of national economy, industrial development and for
the latter purpose, massive drive for infrastructural development.
What it proves perhaps is Arnold Toynbees theory of historical
circularity. It is possible that Trump might moderate some of his
positions, judging from his victory speech, where he talked about
binding the wounds of division and so on. He appealed To all
Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation,
I say it is time for us to come together as one united people. I am
quoting verbatim from his speech. He further pledged I will be
president for all Americans, and this is so important to me.

Trump characterized his campaign as a movement, and opted to

say Its a movement comprised of Americans from all races,
religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect our
government to serve the people, and serve the people it will. It is
true that at later stages of his campaign, he moderated his
positions on the question of race, although he first started
barraging the Muslims and the migrants to suspect his
movement to be a white supremacist movement. Perhaps
because of this change, the African Americans and Latinos are
reported to have voted in significant numbers in his favor.
Nevertheless, the extreme nationalist groups all over the world
are jubilant about the Trump victory, including in Australia and Sri
Lanka.
The main planks of his campaign or promises might not change.
He talked too much of building a border wall between America
and Mexico to keep away the illegal migrants whom he named as
drug peddlers, criminals and rapists. It would be interesting to
watch how this promise is going to be implemented. It is possible
that even the old migrants from Mexico or from other Latin
American countries were not in favor of illegal migrants crossing
the border, gatecrashing their opportunities. This is a sentiment
prevalent even in Australia.
Another policy difference between Trump and Clinton (or Obama
for that matter) was about migration in general. Trumps
opposition was not only against illegal migrants. His
administration would be extremely cautious about receiving
refugees, perhaps zero from Muslim countries, and negative on
migrants in general except certain categories of family or
selected skills. Therefore, what can be expected is more of a
closed-door policy. The sailing in this policy direction might not be
that difficult since a President has enormous discretion on this
matter, and any legal hurdles could be overcome as the
Republican Party now controls both Houses of the Congress. What

might create problems in this direction would be when and if

Trump intends to deport large number of refugees or illegal
migrants to where they had initially come from.
Globalization
During the presidential campaign, Clinton was quite flamboyant
about her globalist policy of open borders, even disregarding the
recent Brexit experience. Similarly, a more liberal administration
in Australia is contemplating a lifetime ban on refugees who has
tried to come by boat and now languishing in offshore refugee
camps. Closed or guarded borders is also Australias current
policy. Trump repeatedly complained or accused the previous
administrations, including the republican ones, for creating a
mess in the Middle East. In his opinion, the current refugee
exodus in the world is largely a result of this mistaken or reckless
policy. He was at least correct in that count.
Trump clearly said that he opposed the US intervention in Iraq. He
also differed from the current Obama policy on Syria which in his
opinion has created the specter of ISS in combination with the
previous ousting of Saddam Hussein. He was not mincing his
words however about Islamic fundamentalism. One of his shortterm objectives might be to defeat or eliminate the ISS in
cooperation with Russia.
On the above Middle East policy, he was correct whether he would
be able to unravel it or not. In contrast, Clinton was quite reckless
even in her utterances and said during the debate with Trump
that she would arm the Kurds in fighting against the ISS! The
arming of different extremist groups at different times has been
the US policy for some time in the Middle East and even
elsewhere, with considerable repercussions. I have seen (Hilary)
Clinton jubilant (said Vow!) when the news was delivered that

Gaddafi was captured and killed in Libya. That time (October

2011) she was the Secretary of State and the whole thing
appeared her plan and scheme. Not that anyone could approve
Gaddafis dictatorial rule in Libya. But it was up to the people of
that country and not to the US to instigate his ousting let alone
killing.
The globalization, particularly in the political sphere, advocated
by these True Believers appeared a new type of imperialism. It
was not internationalism or any kind of international responsibility
or generosity to make the present world a better place for the
billions of poor people to live. If latter was the case, then the US
and the EU should have given more aid and economic assistance
to the poor countries and poor people instead of placing sanctions
on countries to punish finally the poor and not the rulers. The
rulers in any country are the privileged lot.
Economic Policies
What the Trump victory shows is a rebellion from below. That is
what exactly happened in the Brexit vote as well. This is not to
say that Trump would fulfill the aspirations of the ordinary people
who voted for him; who were called uneducated and backward
by the Clinton supporters. After all, Trump himself is part of the
establishment, particularly of the business elite. The difference
maybe that he was not a multinational operator. However, the
educated and the so-called forward people, including some
Marxists have neglected the ordinary working class grievances
and aspirations. They are mesmerized by some fancy ideas,
neglecting pathetically the basic human and material needs of the
working classes including the peasants and the farmers.

The globalization, even in the economic sphere, has gone too far
to the detriment of the ordinary people. It is interesting note that
within America itself, a friction has been created between the
national bourgeoisie and the multi-national bourgeoisie. The
weakening national bourgeoisie has opted to utilize the situation
like at the Brexit. This is not the 25 thcentury, but just the
beginning of the 21st. The information revolution undoubtedly has
been progressive. As a benefit of that particularly our awareness
on climate change, and solutions also have progressively
increased. However, it has not reached the poor or the rural
masses in many countries including America. But the open
borders at this stage is questionable, along with the globalized
demand to give up national sovereignty of the nation states,
particularly in the Third World.
I recollect my participation at a conference on the subject at an
initial stage of this global change in 1984 in Ottawa. It was on
New International Division of Labor (NIDL) and Trade Unions in
the Third World. NIDL was the shorthand term for the initial
globalization of that period. Participated by both academics and
trade unionists, a main concern of many (also mine) was on the
questions of job security and wages, the multinationals pressing
for the downgrading or freezing of both in third world countries.
The current globalization since then has had a devastating effect
on trade union rights and concerns. My paper was on The
Challenge of the Open Economy: Trade Unionism in Sri Lanka.
Another interesting paper was on In Defense of Nationalism as a
Trade Union Perspective by Manfred Bienefeld. Manfred at that
time was from the University of Sussex.
What Trump highlighted during his campaign was about the
American workers losing their jobs because of the American
companies moving from America to Mexico. Jobs, jobs and more
jobs was his slogan. He also mentioned that then they bring the
goods to America without much or no tariff. In the Brexit

movement, the concerns were about Europeans coming and

taking the jobs of the British workers. Trump also highlighted the
high skilled migrants taking the occupations of the American
professionals. Everything indicated towards renewed American
nationalism and the sentiment became epitomized in the slogan
Making America Great Again.
Foreign Policy
There is much concern about his expressed foreign policy. I say
expressed policy because even Obama changed his stance after
becoming the President. However, his expressed appears to be
quite in line with his other policies. He appears reversing back to
a sort of isolationism characteristic of the American foreign
policy during the inter-war period. Until the last moment, the
Americans did not even intervene in the war against Hitler. This
may be of some worry to the Europeans and staunch globalist
advocates.
Even Trump might distance himself from the NATO. Whether this
is only a short term financial concern or a long-term policy is yet
to be seen. His policy seems to be to tell the other countries and
the allies that they should protect themselves. He might
withdraw America from the role of the World Policeman. Mixed
up with costs and benefits, he is asking particularly Japan and
South Korea either to pay more or rely themselves on defense
matters. This will also have some repercussions on Australia.
The threats or risks for these countries in the region would be
more, as far as they rely on a Super Power. If they depend on
America for security matters, they are also not completely
independent on other policy matters. It is good for them to look
after their own security. For example, Australia could become a
stronger country of its own, if it looks after its own security. This
may be costly in the short run, but at the same time it could boost
the economy in many ways. Anyway, America is not going to

weaken its military, security or defense. Trump was repeatedly

appreciative of the Generals who have clearly supported him for
the presidency. His military strategy may be to consolidate,
without dispersing energies in all directions. The result at the
global scale would be to have a more multi-polar world than at
present and that is good for international relations and
particularly for small countries like Sri Lanka.
There has been a clear preference for Russia in contrast to China
in Trumps many policy utterances. His antipathy for China
appears to be economic rather than political. During the open
debates with Clinton, he said China is a currency manipulator
and blamed the democratic administration and Clinton for
cuddling with China. On another occasion, he said China goes
down to 7 percent [growth], and what they do is devalue their
currency and they take more of our business and they start to go
up again. The policy to stop this manipulation appears to have
high tariffs (45 percent!) on Chinese imports. This is easier said
than done.
In contrast to China, Trump had many good things to say about
India. This is what might matter in the case of Sri Lanka. Speaking
to the CNN previously, he had said India is doing great. Nobody
talks about it. And I have big jobs going up in India. India is doing
great. Although, India did not figure during his election
campaign, he has repeatedly expressed previously that the US
and India would be best of friends. This liking for India might be
particularly in the context of combatting fundamentalist Islamic
terrorism. However, it could move beyond, even in the economic
sphere.
Conclusion

Trump being a Republican, it is difficult to understand his critical

policy declarations on free trade and globalization. If he is going
to be true to his words, there can be some reversals in the current
globalization trends and free trade agreements. Didnt Joseph
Stiglitz warn about some anomalies (Globalization and Its
Discontents) in the current globalization Process? If there is any
useful lesson from what Trump has said or what he represents,
the globalization is fine if it is anchored in preserving and
promoting national economies. That is what finally matters to the
workers and the ordinary masses. Globalization should be up to a
certain degree at least at this stage. Otherwise, political systems
would be in upheavals, sooner or later, like in the Brexit or the
Trumps triumph. Treading on globalization cautiously, might be
the best policy both politically and economically for any country.
When Trump contested for the presidency, all forces and
apologists behind the current neo-liberal globalization process
went against him. The global news media and all pollsters
predicted that he would be the loser. They were pathetically
biased. It is understandable if a leader of a country took a position
on the American presidential elections, given the highly polarized
political positions between the two candidates. Even that is within
certain limits. It was quite unprecedented, however, for certain
officials of the United Nations to criticize Donald Trump at this
election. This revealed something fundamentally wrong in what
we have been considering as the international community.
Posted by Thavam