I believe that for the most part, Trump’s Presidency will resemble those of previous Republican presidents. This is a conclusion based on my observations of his initial steps, his policy announcements, and the composition of his Cabinet, rather than the rhetoric. His discourse is racist and aggressive. He basically distracts public opinion with controversial statements while trying to implement Republican policies to the extreme.
First of all, he’s reiterated his intention to reduce taxes. This is something that every Republican administration has done. Tax reductions, as announced, would benefit mainly corporations and high income taxpayers. A tax simplification and a reduction in the number of tax brackets would also be introduced into the system. All of these measures, Republicans argue, would promote growth and private employment. Some short-term increases in private sector activities may well result from tax reductions and simplifications, but there is no hard evidence that such increases can be sustained over the medium and longer-term.
Second, Trump insists that because the US military has been “depleted,” its expenditures must be increased. The President has been insisting on the need to improve the capability of the Navy. He equated its present power with what is was at the end of WWI. Although this is a distortion, previous Republican presidential candidates McCain and Romney made similar claims. The US spends 36% of the world’s total military expenditures; as much as the next eight largest military spenders combined (1). The country’s fire power is unmatched. Its capacity to occupy other countries and sustain these occupations, however, has been proven limited by the political and tactical complexities associated with any occupation. Additional military expenditures would mostly benefit the military-industrial complex and it’s unclear whether they would enhance the USA military edge.
Third, Trump mentions the need for public investments in infrastructure. Obama did try, unsuccessfully, to get funds for a comprehensive public infrastructure program. The deficit in infrastructure is huge. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the investment needed through 2020 is of US$ 3.2 Trillion (2). Infrastructure projects can have high rates of returns. The combination of tax reductions and increased military expenditures, however, will leave little if any room for investments in infrastructure. It has been reported that Trump might propose “privatizing” investments in infrastructure which is not always possible, and would certainly face opposition.
Fourth, Trump and the Republicans insist that Obamacare is collapsing and must be repealed and replaced. That has been the Republican line for several years. They’ve disclosed no framework for any replacement, only general ideas. There are increasing reports of divisions among Republicans, many of whom are afraid of reducing health benefits to such a substantial number of their constituencies (3). The Republicans are facing a major dilemma: their ultimate agenda seems to be a return to pre-Obamacare days, but that would likely entail heavy political costs. This will probably be one the most protracted fights during the months ahead. Like many Republicans Presidents before, efforts to reduce health (or social security) benefits may fail.
Fifth, efforts to implement a reactionary social agenda are underway. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, as well as those for the Secretaries of Education, Labor and Energy conclusively prove that he plans to implement traditional, very conservative Republican policies. Public education will be under attack. Labor protection will be diminished. The interests of the petroleum and coal industries will take priority over environmental considerations. The secular nature of the state is already being challenged in the name of “religious liberty.” Comprehensive immigration reforms will be replaced by a “wall” which would be costly, cause environmental damage, and create conflicts with Mexico. The militarization of the police is likely to continue as well as the proliferation of privately-owned jails. Reforms to the Criminal Justice System are not even mentioned. The use of contraceptives and access to abortion might be constrained. All these objectives have always been major goals of the Republican agenda.
Sixth, I think that the proclaimed protectionist policies will not be implemented, or if they are, they will be implemented in a very symbolic and limited manner. Playing “macho” with a couple of companies, while making compensatory tax concessions, will not offend corporations. Trump may secure few jobs, good photo opportunities and some local support in individual cases. The overall impact of such actions on employment, however, would be minimal. Some re-negotiations of NAFTA and other trade deals might take place but it is unclear that they would lead to substantially different agreements than the ones prevailing at this moment. There is nothing here that is not broadly consistent with traditional Republican platform. Only the rhetoric may be different.
Seventh, I think that foreign policies will be aggressive and may lead to actual conflicts. That has been the case in every administration since President Reagan. Conflicts with Iran, North Korea or even China appear likely. Any of those conflicts would entail humongous economic, political, and even military costs if they developed into full confrontations. An aggressive stance as opposed to further negotiations with the involvement of the international community would be more in line with traditional Republican positions. In my view, there is a strong likelihood of military confrontations particularly with North Korea and/or Iran. Trump may try to find an accommodation with Russia on matters of common concern. This approach has been tried by every administration before. As differences of interests persist, however, such an accommodation is likely to be short-lived. Nevertheless, some accommodation may serve the interest of Exxon and other corporations with influence in the government.
Lastly, Trump’s Cabinet is made up of people coming mostly from Goldman Sachs, the petroleum sector, and the military. They will make sure that their interests are given the highest priority in policy decisions. During Obama’s time, these sectors lobbied the government and exercised a great deal of pressure on behalf of their interests. Now they practically own the government. It could therefore be expected that environmental policies will be downgraded and financial safeguards to protect consumers and control excesses will almost disappear. The expansion of military expenditures will guarantee the (perennial) power of the military-industrial complex… and the personal future of many members of the Administration.
Sound familiar?
(1) Wikipedia, List by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2016 Fact Sheet (for 2015).
(2) American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013 Report Card for America Infrastructure, 2017
(3) See The New York Times Editorial, February 8, 2017.