A populist party and its unpresidential president

People as different as Paul Krugman, the economist and New York Times columnist, and Trevor Noah, the South African TV commedian, have noted that Trump's attitude towards public office resembles that of Central Asian or African leaders. Noah’s assessment is particularly funny of course. He points out the same things, however: Trump is known to lie, rely on cronies and promote his family's private interests. He shows disdain for constitutional checks and balances, and little interest in technically sound policymaking. He likes grand promises on which he cannot deliver and sees conspiracies everywhere. 

Immediately after his inauguration, he absurdly claimed that more people had attended than ever before, even though photos obviously proved him wrong. Then he issued a travel ban for people from seven Muslim countries, but parts of it were immediately struck down in a federal court because it was poorly drafted. The president's response was to complain about the “so-called” judge. Later he called media outlets that criticised him “enemies of the people”. At the end of his sixth week in office, he claimed, without any evidence, that his predecessor had illegally tapped his phones.  

Trump's national security adviser had to resign because he lied about his contacts with Russian officials. Because of a similar lie, his attorney general had to recuse himself from all investigations relating to the election campaign, during which Russian spies hacked the computer system of the Democrats, the party of Trump's main opponent, Hillary Clinton. 

All the while, Trump is serving his family's economic interests. His sons are managing his brand, which has become more famous due to the patriarch's rise to political power. A prominent White House aide told TV viewers to buy his daughter's fashion items. Before Trump, US presidents meticulously avoided conflicts of interest.

The emoluments clause of the US constitution does not allow presidents to get money, gifts of favours from foreign governments. The idea is to prevent foreign leverage. In February, however, China granted Trump the right to use his trademark in the People's Republic. That right can be of great business relevance, but Trump and his supporters tell everybody not to worry about the emoluments clause.

A particularly interesting question is whether the Trump organisation depends on any Russian money. He has a history of bankruptcies, so most US-based banks shy away from financing his business projects. Where did he get the funds needed for huge investments? And why does he not clarify all issues by publishing his tax returns? Shady finances, of course, is what despotic clans are known for.

At the end of February, many journalists praised Trump for addressing the US Congress in a relatively mild-mannered, non-insulting way. They said he finally acted “presidential”, but they were wrong. Fact checkers found many falsehoods in his speech. The Washington Post listed 13 “noteable” ones. Moreover, a president must do more than reiterate grand campaign promises. He must provide leadership to deliver. 

Two of Trump's major campaign promises were a comprehensive tax reform and the “repeal and replacement” of President Barack Obama’s health care reforms (“Obamacare”) with “something much better”. Trump has not used his first weeks in office to move such ambitious agendas forward, however, which is what newly elected presidents normally do.

Trump's party, the Republicans, control both houses of Congress. They could now enact legislation as they please, but their problem is that they are clueless. The truth is that the Republicans have been obsessed with impossible populist promises for years, as E.J. Dionne, the Washington Post columnist, has elaborated in his excellent book “How the right went wrong”. They have pretended that they can drastically reduce taxes, the size of the government and repeal Obamacare without impacts on US citizens' standard of life. In the real world, however, government services matter. The party is now in disarray because, whatever it does, it will disappoint masses of voters. Trump is not providing any leadership but merely reiterating the hollow promises. Making matters even more difficult, he wants to increase military spending dramatically. His and his party's promises simply do not add up to a coherent and feasible agenda.

In the meantime, US foreign policy looks rudderless. The government's stance on multilateral organisations from the WTO to the UN all the way through to NATO is unclear. Trump's secretary of state, who should be in charge of foreign policy, is largely invisible in Washington, whereas the White House pins great hopes on the diplomatic skills of the president's young son-in-law, who, it turns out, has also been in touch with the Russian ambassador. As in any autocracy, personal ties mean more in Trump's White House than formal ranks and procedures. 

Trump keeps promising to put “America first” and “make America great again”. So far, he has been unable to run the administration smoothly. Given that he and his party are struggling to deal with problems of their own making, there is reason to doubt they'll be able to handle any major crisis caused by outside forces. His administration is haunted by scandal and infighting. His predecessor's was not - and Barack Obama actually achieved things. Trump accused him of being a weak leader or not even leading at all.

Reference
E.J. Dionne, 2016: Why the right went wrong, New York: Simon and Schuster