The Choices

What is the appeal of a guy like Trump? The American Left’s “answer” to that question – white supremist, racism, gynophobia, xenophobia - never felt satisfying to me. While some fraction of his supporters definitely fall in those categories, surely not half of the country. How could half the country have turned into those things within months of Trump running for power the first time?

 

Andrew Sullivan’s post provided another answer, one which feels more likely. The one-line summary of it:

“Trump has grasped some core truths of our time.”

He expands on that.

 

First, immigrants in America. A part of that problem is the (relative) ease with which the Democrats want to grant even illegal immigrants eventual citizenship. But more than that, it is the change in who qualifies for asylum. In the Cold War era, asylum seekers were mostly to those escaping communism. This set was relatively small and thus manageable (most escapees went to Western Europe, not America); and Americans were united in their stance against communism. But in recent times, the criteria for asylum seekers has changed to include those running from (drug) gang violence and even economic hardship – this basically means all of the Americas from Mexico downwards. When millions of such people of various “ethnicities, languages and cultures at a literally unprecedented scale” land up, it is almost inevitable to “strain society’s cohesion and order”.

“It is simply not good enough to decry all anti-immigrant sentiment as racism, to rain contempt as well as chaos on people who were born and grew up here and feel like second-class strangers in their own land.”

 

Second, the cost of America playing global policeman (or bully, depending on your perspective). In the Cold War era, most Americans agreed the cost was worth it, the fear being communism. But in the post-Cold War era?

“Risking a nuclear holocaust to negotiate a new border between Ukraine and Russia or defend an island 100 miles away from China and 7,000 miles away from the US just will not fly with a majority of Americans for the next century. Something has to give; and Trump is the only one to admit it.”

On the other hand, the economic threat of China is very real to most Americans. Which is why Trump and his supporters are quite happy to start and continue trade wars with China.

 

Third, foreign relations with America’s allies. How much should the EU contribute to NATO? Why should the US foot a heavy part of the bill when it is mostly for Europe’s (not America’s) security? Or Israel, where it seems like a “huge indispensable support for the Jewish state has led to absolutely no influence over its decisions”, as seen in the ongoing Gaza war? Either the US should renegotiate some of these terms or (going back to the second point) step back from its global policeman role.

 

In Kamala Harris, the alternative to Trump is a person who “represents the status quo”. What does she stand for, what are her policy prescriptions? If there had been the contest of the primaries, one might have known.

“It is not her fault, of course, that she finds herself running for president. It is entirely because of Biden’s vanity in preventing a real primary for a successor, and the lies told by the smug, insulated clique that still surrounds him. It is vital to remember that no Democrat called out Biden’s near-incapacity to govern.”

 

Trump, on the other hand, represents a (valid?) set of concerns of many. But:

“The trouble with Trump, however, is not the message. It is Trump.”

And so this is setup of the American election:

“In the most important power center of the West, we have to choose between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the venal or the vacuous, the awful or the empty, the malignant or the mediocre.”