What Happened and Why?
Donald Trump is a widely unpopular and flawed Presidential candidate. He just won re-election despite his offensive rhetoric, criminal convictions, and condemnations from many senior officials who had served with him during his first term. He won not just the Electoral College, by a substantial margin, but for the first time, the popular vote. The popular vote victory ran counter to the predictions of most national polls but arguably within the the margin of error, although just barely.
There will be a lot of finger pointing within the Democratic Party over this defeat. Most of the culprits deserve to have the finger pointed at them but, in my opinion, some don’t.
Joe Biden should have accepted his own declining capabilities as a candidate and bowed out earlier. I suspect his reluctance was partly because he was boxed into supporting a Kamala Harris candidacy and he knew she had significant liabilities. For that he has no one to blame but himself, for selecting her as his running mate in 2020.
Kamala Harris lacks the political skills of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, or even a Pete Buttigieg. When a difficult question is posed to her, she stalls and tends to fall back on platitudes unrelated to the question. Clinton, Obama and Buttigieg see the trap hidden in the question and deftly use the opportunity to make a related point that at least appears to be answering the question. Harris’ lack of skill in this area might come from her experience as a prosecutor and Senator. In both cases, she was always the one asking the difficult questions. She also had baggage from the 2020 primaries that was used to brand her as a far-left liberal on immigration and other issues. She re-enforced this impression by embracing the policies of the Progressive wing of the party on anti-gouging (price controls), and soaking the rich and corporations, i.e. making them “pay their fair share.” The bounce in the stock market after the election suggests that many thought these proposals would adversely affect valuations and, therefore, the value of 401(k)s and IRAs owned by many who do not view themselves as rich.
The Biden/Harris administration made some mistakes. They waited too long to address the illegal immigration issue. They were too sloppy in the choice of fiscal tools to address the Covid induced recession, leaning on spending that stimulated demand in the face of disrupted supply chains. They relied on unpopular and inefficient regulatory methods to promote a response to climate change, pushing the transition to EVs faster than the market could accept. They also used this legislation to reward favored groups like labor unions, undermining the claim that climate change is an existential issue and, rightly, acquiring Elon Musk’s opposition. But the worst thing was that Harris refused to acknowledge that mistakes had been made and offer a better path forward.
Many, including myself, would respond to these observations by saying Trump was so much worse. That may be true, but he had the benefit of being out of power.
What Can We Expect from Trump 2.0?
Trump not only won the Presidency, he also appears likely to have a Republican Senate and a Republican House. By virtue of his previous term in office, he has also transformed the Supreme Court so that it is likely to be sympathetic to his actions. He has learned from his first term in office to select aides who value loyalty to him above any other duty. In the case of aides who require Senate confirmation, he may well avoid what little constraint a Republican Senate would impose by appointing people as “acting” officials. All that being said, I fear we are likely to see a fully unrestrained Trump. What might this mean?
Foreign Policy
Trump is likely to favor unrestrained support for Israel and Netanyahu in the conflicts against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Where that will lead, no one knows.
He is likely to abandon support for Ukraine, or at least limit it. This might cause European countries to step up their aid to Ukraine. More likely, it will force Ukraine to negotiate an unfavorable settlement with Putin, which will give Putin time to rearm and attempt to seize all of Ukraine at some future date. In the meantime, Trump will probably undermine U.S. support for NATO, or even withdraw from it. If that appears to be happening, Putin will likely wait for it to occur before expanding his aggression to include NATO countries. Sadly, some NATO countries may respond to weak American support for NATO by accommodating their domestic and foreign policies to Russia, a process sometimes called Finlandization. (This is a reference to Finland’s method for dealing with threats from the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War.) Some might even “voluntarily” withdraw from NATO. Trump will claim “victory” for the brief period of peace that will accompany this pause in active conflict.
I am not sure what to expect with respect to Taiwan. Some in the Republican Party, like Vivek Ramaswamy, favor abandoning it. I would watch who Trump appoints as the Secretary of State and Defense for hints about the direction the Trump administration will take.
Tax Policy
Trump tossed out plans for tax cuts like candy on Halloween during the campaign. These proposals included excluding tip, overtime, and social security income. He has also suggested lifting the cap on state and local tax deductions and lowering the corporate income tax . All of these are ill advised for many reasons, not the least of which is the impact on the deficit. He has suggested that he would replace this revenue with hefty, across the board, tariffs on imports. Most economists agree that these tariffs will result in higher domestic prices, lower growth, and higher unemployment. They might well spark a round of retaliatory tariffs and a global recession. The best that can be hoped for here is that he gets some push back on these from Congress. Given the hold Trump and Trumpism have on the Republican Party, at this point, I would not count heavily on Congressional restraint.
Immigration
Immigration is, and has been, a signature issue for Donald Trump. He claims to want a mass deportation of illegal immigrants and a virtual sealing of the border against new illegal immigration. He might favor using the U.S. military to assist in this, despite the constitutional problems associated with that. The consequences for the economy if he succeeds in this effort would be dire in the agricultural, construction, hospitality, and home care sectors. If he gets push back, he is likely to just be far more aggressive in deporting or confining illegal immigrants with criminal arrests or convictions. He is also likely to be far more restrictive with respect to legal immigration, with negative impacts in the technology, medical, and finance sectors.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
I suspect that DEI programs within the federal government will disappear during Trump 2.0. He may go further and attempt to use the power of the federal government to discourage these programs in academia and the private sector. The Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action will probably facilitate efforts to limit the scope and effectiveness of DEI programs and the Trump administration will probably use that decision to accelerate the decline of DEI. While the motivation for DEI programs may have been noble, they have sometimes resulted in reverse discrimination or just become too offensively preachy to be effective. It will be interesting to see if dismantling these programs has a measurably negative effect on diversity in the workplace.
What is a Centrist Independent to Do?
Where to go from here for centrist independent voters depends on the reaction of the Democratic Party. In one scenario, the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party successfully persuades Democrats that they lost because they did not go far enough left. I am sure Sanders, Warren, and AOC and the rest of the “Squad” will argue this point of view. In another scenario, the Democratic Party places the blame on having gone too far left in its policy positions and offering candidates tied to far left positions.
If the first scenario happens, independent voters should start a third, centrist party, or try to turn “No Labels” into one. That party should offer centrists from both parties and thoughtful progressives a better alternative to long-term Trumpism. Progressives would be welcome but not the far-left policy positions that currently cripple the Democratic Party. There are risks to this solution, but an even more “Progressive” Democratic Party would have little chance for electoral success and would generally support bad public policies. The upside is a viable, centrist party that could govern long-term with a super majority.
In the second scenario, centrist independent voters should become active in the Democratic Party and attempt to pull it toward the center. This, too, could result in a super majority party capable of governing in a centrist fashion for the indefinite future.
In either case, I see no future in which an even more left-wing Democratic Party returns to power for an extended period of time.
Those are my views this morning. If you disagree, or would like to add something, please comment below.