January 2021 - What state is America and the World in after Trump?

[viper37]

I agree in part - at some point the GOP will realize that being associated with Trump is hurting them more than it is helping them, and a turn will happen.

But I disagree that those on the front line will be seen as leaders.  They will be seen as turncoats, even if later on proven to be correct.  In Parliamentary systems it's never the first to come out against the leader who wins.  Loyalty to the party itself is too high a virtue.

Trump was the republican presidential candidate, not a leader of the Republican party.  I think your experience with parliamentary politics makes it hard for you to see how fundamentally different the presidential political system is.  Trump could run for the Republican nom even though he wasn't a Republican.  Sanders could run for the Democratic nom even though he's not a Democrat.  Republicans voted for Trump when the alternative was voting for a Democrat, but that doesn't make Trump a republican, nor does it mean that loyalty to him will be valued more than loyalty to Republican party members and values.

trump and Sanders have their core voters, those that value the candidate above any party, but that's not going to make party members choose to follow them when they go against party values.  Rules from the parliamentary system don't always apply.

Sanders became a Democrat just before running for the primaries and he quitted once he was not elected.

People knew who Trump was, many did not believe he would do what he said he would, but they voted for him anyway.  Right now, he's still extremely popular among republicans, and any attempt to resist him would see his vocal supporters campaigning against the Republican loyalists.

It seems that for many, it's a second American Revolution and he's some kind of George Washington, an idealized fictional Washington, without a fault, victime of the evil medias and the establishmennt.

[citizen k]

they used a phishing technique, with a false e-mail.  Common technique used by russian mobsters, but usually, they simply encrypt your data and give you a password in exchange for payment.

It was a classic whistleblower leak. The DNC dissenter physically handed off the emails to an ex-diplomat working with Wikileaks.
No Russians involved.

[dps]

I agree in part - at some point the GOP will realize that being associated with Trump is hurting them more than it is helping them, and a turn will happen.

But I disagree that those on the front line will be seen as leaders.  They will be seen as turncoats, even if later on proven to be correct.  In Parliamentary systems it's never the first to come out against the leader who wins.  Loyalty to the party itself is too high a virtue.

Trump was the republican presidential candidate, not a leader of the Republican party.  I think your experience with parliamentary politics makes it hard for you to see how fundamentally different the presidential political system is...    ...Rules from the parliamentary system don't always apply.

While it's true that the President isn't the formal leader of his party in the way that a PM in a parliamentary system is the leader of his party, the fact is that the President is the de facto leader of his party.  That's not to say that there won't be a successful challenge to Trump from within the Republican Party for the nomination in 2020, but it makes any challenger a distinct underdog.

And, something else I thought about today--the next few years for the Republicans are going to be something like what the years after 1896 would have for the Democrats if William Jennings Bryan had defeated McKinley that year. 

I think Bryan is the closest historical parallel to Trump--a populist buffoon whose views weren't necessarily entirely inline with his party's traditional positions, but who was able to gain the Presidential nomination because of his support among working class whites.  Bryan was more bigoted than Trump, but also more honest in his populism than Trump--Trump will say random things, and if some of them resonate, he'll keep saying them, whereas Bryan appears to have been sincere about the stupidity that came out of his mouth.

[The Minsky Moment]

they used a phishing technique, with a false e-mail.  Common technique used by russian mobsters, but usually, they simply encrypt your data and give you a password in exchange for payment.

It was a classic whistleblower leak. The DNC dissenter physically handed off the emails to an ex-diplomat working with Wikileaks.
No Russians involved.

Of course.  Just like the DNC whisteblower who "leaked" the documents out of the Watergate Hotel in 72.

[citizen k]

Just like the DNC whisteblower who "leaked" the documents out of the Watergate Hotel in 72.

I thought that was a break-in by Nixon operatives.  ]

[grumbler]

While it's true that the President isn't the formal leader of his party in the way that a PM in a parliamentary system is the leader of his party, the fact is that the President is the de facto leader of his party.  That's not to say that there won't be a successful challenge to Trump from within the Republican Party for the nomination in 2020, but it makes any challenger a distinct underdog.

And, something else I thought about today--the next few years for the Republicans are going to be something like what the years after 1896 would have for the Democrats if William Jennings Bryan had defeated McKinley that year. 

I think Bryan is the closest historical parallel to Trump--a populist buffoon whose views weren't necessarily entirely inline with his party's traditional positions, but who was able to gain the Presidential nomination because of his support among working class whites.  Bryan was more bigoted than Trump, but also more honest in his populism than Trump--Trump will say random things, and if some of them resonate, he'll keep saying them, whereas Bryan appears to have been sincere about the stupidity that came out of his mouth.

I'd argue Trump isn't even de facto the leader of the Republicans.  He's never run for office as  Republican, never campaigned for other Republicans (before 2016), and appears to have given as much, or more, to Democratic candidates as republican ones.

I think Andrew Jackson is as close to DT as we've seen before.  He had some experience in political office, and some previous campaign experience, but was so much out of the party mold that his supporters actually started a new party to get him elected president. He was clearly the leader of that party, but it was a one-candidate party for a few years when he started as its leader.  He was  a populist who said whatever he thought his supporters wanted to hear.  I think he had an ideology, though, which Trump conspicuously lacks.

[grumbler]

Sanders became a Democrat just before running for the primaries and he quitted once he was not elected.

Yes, that's my point;  like Trump, he is a carpetbagger.

People knew who Trump was, many did not believe he would do what he said he would, but they voted for him anyway.  Right now, he's still extremely popular among republicans, and any attempt to resist him would see his vocal supporters campaigning against the Republican loyalists.

It seems that for many, it's a second American Revolution and he's some kind of George Washington, an idealized fictional Washington, without a fault, victime of the evil medias and the establishmennt.

Trump isn't extremely popular among Republicans.  That's also my point.  His approval ratings suck.  For some, he may be a revolutionary figure, but the people who see him that way are as likely to be former Democrats as they are Republicans.  Republicans are having buyer's remorse.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think Andrew Jackson is as close to DT as we've seen before.  He had some experience in political office, and some previous campaign experience, but was so much out of the party mold that his supporters actually started a new party to get him elected president. He was clearly the leader of that party, but it was a one-candidate party for a few years when he started as its leader.  He was  a populist who said whatever he thought his supporters wanted to hear.  I think he had an ideology, though, which Trump conspicuously lacks.

That is the closest comp but it flatters Trump.  Jackson had quite a bit more political experience and was a successful, if brutal military leader.  Also having an ideology is a significant difference.  Jackson had definitive and strong views on many of the key issues of his day and no one was under the illusion that cabinet members or advisors might drive policy while Jackson amused himself, as many people speculate could happen now.

[mongers]

I must admit it's a pretty hard question I've set and so not surprised few have attempted to make concrete predictions.

My guesses:

Tensions/conflicts with China sure, all out war or the invasion of Taiwan, no. Though I don't discount some accidental military clashes.

With Russia, some thawing, perhaps an informal understanding about zones of influence in E.Europe. But no giving Putin a free hand in the East, besides I think Putin has now made his point there and perhaps decisively influencing the US election was revenge enough for him?

NATO and Europe, lots of bluster on Trumps part, but I think those two institutions are largely unaffected by that, maybe some countries up their defence spending, maybe as a result of living  in a more uncertain world.

The Middle East, I do see Trump accidentally being drawn into another war in the region.  I also think some serious fighting with Iran is a possibility, the potential is there for any incident to be blown out of all proportion by Trump and used as an excuse for him to strut his stuff.

North Korea, who knows, add one unpredictable leader to another unstable demagogue, what do you get?

International trade, I can't see Trump doing anything positive, but America need too much cheap ass stuff from the developing world for it to seriously damage trade with China et al.


I think what Trump will be worst at is managing America's long term relative decline, because he's unlikely to understand that 'fact', certainly never admit it. He must make America great again, perhaps at any cost?

That's in contrast to Obama, who I think understood this, but got a lot of flack for at times acting accordingly to such a process, hence the pull back from war in Syria and despite the widening drone policy, a desire to pull away from the all absorbing theatre of conflict these last 15/30 years.

There I've said it, lets see who was nearest the mark come 2021. 

 

[Jacob]

I think it'll be one of these three scenarios:

More or less status quo, but worse - 60%
American institutions will be severely degraded and numerous worrying precedents will have been set. There'll probably be one or more wars fought, but nothing of a magnitude larger than the Iraq War; while alliances will have been weakened they remain in a state where they are repairable. The Trump family will be significantly richer, as will assorted hanger on oligarchs, but the American public and nation will be poorer and governance will be in a shambles. It's about even odds that the American body politic will reject Trump vs his brand of politics taking more permanent roots.

Disaster for Trump - 20%
Trump overplays his hand somehow and some combination of scandal, corruption, and incompetence brings him down, potentially affecting his whole family.

Disaster for the rest of us and/or Major Realignment - 20%
Some combination of major wars that affect tens of millions of people in the West (incl. major US allies outside of Europe), dissolution of NATO and other cornerstone alliances, massive destruction of wealth on a global scale due to depression, the rise of violent nationalism on a global scale, open armed conflict between nuclear powers, that sort of stuff. I don't have a particular bet on what, though... there are so many different scenarios.

[Razgovory]

they used a phishing technique, with a false e-mail.  Common technique used by russian mobsters, but usually, they simply encrypt your data and give you a password in exchange for payment.

It was a classic whistleblower leak. The DNC dissenter physically handed off the emails to an ex-diplomat working with Wikileaks.
No Russians involved.

No more Zerohedge for you.

[dps]

I think Andrew Jackson is as close to DT as we've seen before.  He had some experience in political office, and some previous campaign experience, but was so much out of the party mold that his supporters actually started a new party to get him elected president. He was clearly the leader of that party, but it was a one-candidate party for a few years when he started as its leader.  He was  a populist who said whatever he thought his supporters wanted to hear.  I think he had an ideology, though, which Trump conspicuously lacks.

That is the closest comp but it flatters Trump.  Jackson had quite a bit more political experience and was a successful, if brutal military leader.  Also having an ideology is a significant difference.  Jackson had definitive and strong views on many of the key issues of his day and no one was under the illusion that cabinet members or advisors might drive policy while Jackson amused himself, as many people speculate could happen now.

I'd say that it's a major insult to Jackson.

[Zanza]

Will be interesting if the Republican party that Grumbler writes about still exists and will re-exert itself sooner or later or whether Trump did a hostile takeover and will push those "Old Republicans" from the GOP eventually and mould it in his view.

[CountDeMoney]

Will be interesting if the Republican party that Grumbler writes about still exists and will re-exert itself sooner or later or whether Trump did a hostile takeover and will push those "Old Republicans" from the GOP eventually and mould it in his view.

Trump, for all his bluster and the fact that he's got the White House, is so incredibly out of his depth.  He doesn't know policy or politics, and most of the people he is surrounding himself with don't, either.  The ones that do will eventually resign.  Despite their electoral victory, they are all on incredibly thin ice in Washington, DC.

The moment he puts his hand on the Bible on Friday, he will be impeachable.  If he threatens the traditional GOP legislative agenda that Priebus, Pence and Ryan want to run, he and his little group--psycho Flynn, the LL Bean Bond Villain, Uday and Qusay, Mr. and Mrs. Ivanka, and his cyclon wife--will find themselves on the outs very quickly.  The legislative avalanche will crush them, and if the GOP wants him out, he will be out. 

[grumbler]

Will be interesting if the Republican party that Grumbler writes about still exists and will re-exert itself sooner or later or whether Trump did a hostile takeover and will push those "Old Republicans" from the GOP eventually and mould it in his view.

The latter has certainly happened before.  Alas.

I just don't think Trump has the energy or ideology to do it.  he ran for office on a lark, and still can't believe he actually won.