…And would the Russian Invasion of Ukraine be taking place if he was still in office? This essay was written as a response to a preface on an article by David French:
The argument that Donald Trump was an authoritarian doesn’t really hold water, although he was often effusive in his praise of authoritarian leaders and remarked upon his enthusiasm for certain authoritarian trappings (like military parades). But make no mistakes, behind the scenes he was quite a bit tougher than previous presidents in matters of policy. He penalised Russians over cyberattacks and election meddling, despite his rhetoric on the subject, he withdrew the US from the INF treaty- something previous administrations had been loathe to do, despite clear and ongoing violations by America’s principal antagonists, he imposed harsh penalties on Russia for evasions of sanctions against North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Venezuela and he placed strong sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, warning Germany and other nations about the dangers of relying on Russian energy.
Yet at home, despite his often tough talking rhetoric he was anything but an authoritarian. He left most decisions to the states, which is what an American president is for the most part supposed to do- even though during his watch over $2 billion in damages was caused by BLM and Antifa riots- when almost all previous Republican presidents and many Democrat ones would have sent in the National Guard. He avoided vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, letting the states decide policy for themselves. It’s one of the reasons why we now know masks, social distancing and lockdowns were mostly ineffective (with the exception of two countries with the unusual option of stopping Covid at the border, at least with the earlier variants), despite the fact that many people who were against them ultimately turned out to be against the one thing proven to prevent hospitalisations and death- vaccinations as a means of mitigating personal risks.
But even on vaccines there were myths, legends and outright lies. We know that with the advent of Delta vaccination only reduced the risk of catching and spreading Delta to others by about 40% (WHO source)- which given the infectiousness of the pathogen and its ability to circumvent human barriers to infect the immunologically vulnerable, was about as useful as a chocolate fireguard for the purposes of herd immunity.
By contrast Biden has been far more authoritarian and dictatorial. Mandating vaccines at the threat of people losing their jobs was a humanitarian violation of the first order, given we knew at the time the people who were dying from Covid were also overwhelmingly those who had refused the vaccine. It is a core tenet of medical ethics that one never forces treatment upon a patient if they refuse it, and for the most part this is something which our courts have upheld. But this is the type of cosmopolitan paternalism accomplished through the proxy mechanism of irrational fears for oneself (whilst virtue signalling concern for others), which typified the thinking of the 10% to 20% of Western populations whose opinions were the only ones which mattered.
But it shouldn’t surprise us. There has long been a well-established phenomenon which we’ve seen in less sophisticated cultures around the world- and unlike the whole mass formation psychosis fiasco, it is not some tenuous academic theory- it has been proven to exist through the study of various cultures around the world. It’s called Parasite Stress and has a proven link with nascent authoritarianism. We thought it was a superstition which we had put behind us, but it would appear that even the smartest and most educated cling to established anchor biases when said biases provide them with the self-comforting illusion of safety- and most especially clinging to obsolete notions when circumstances change. Many experts were loathe to admit, even to the themselves, that with the advent of Delta almost all levels of restriction were inevitably doomed to fail. Further, they didn’t stop to think that personal vaccination actually protected the overwhelming majority of people who had actually chosen to take the shots.
But the really bizarre thing is that had Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election, then it is highly unlikely that Putin would have dared invade Ukraine. Don’t take my word for it though- let’s here from a British citizen who also happens to to be a Russian expat and has family in Ukraine. He has been right about every aspect of Russian aggression and the Ukraine invasion (and out-predicted leading experts in the field), Konstantine Kisin:
(7.20) Kudos to Megyn Kelly for crediting a man who single-handedly inspired an entire stalking and harassment campaign against her.
Of course, I would argue (along with Megyn Kelly) that Trump’s strength wasn’t anything to do with his ability, his acumen of any grand strategy on his part- but rather that his erratic and unpredictable nature, often deferring to whatever the talking heads on Fox had to say on any particular issue, precluded any Russian aggression against Ukraine. One doesn’t give the order to execute a military campaign when the man in the White House might decide to bomb your troops simply because Fox encouraged him to do it.
I do find it ironic, though, that David French chooses to focus upon the Russian nationalist desire to overthrow the Western liberal order, when both Ukraine’s desire to assert their independence from the Russian sphere of influence and the very reason why they are resisting so fiercely is also borne of a nationalistic instinct.
One wonders whether if Steve Bannon had called it economic patriotism rather than economic nationalism, the whole concept might have been less thoroughly tarnished- but quite divisively, the Bannon strategy always revolved around using provocative language and political theatre to bring the crazy out of the Democratic Party. As a strategy it may well have proved successful (the numbers show that both independents and Democrats have been reregistering as Republicans in large numbers for some time)- causing the activist branch to create unforced errors for the Democrats with which the American people have little sympathy- but few can doubt that is has ultimately been corrosive to the American system of governance and established norms.
Populism was always going to happen. Although the neoliberal order was an absolute boon for the Developing world, raising over a billion people out of absolute poverty between 2000 and 2012, there can also be little doubt that it disenfranchised most blue collar workers in Western countries. It is why Trump-like populism is a feature throughout the West- with populist parties gaining ground at the expense of the cosmopolitan centre Left, throughout Europe and beyond. Quite often the populism manifests as Left populism, but it is a feature not a bug of neoliberalism- too many people have been left out in the cold as a result of societal labour shifts.
On a recent visit to Sweden, for my brother’s wedding, I was surprised to find that Sweden’s Nordic model had adopted an Australian-style point system for immigration. I wouldn’t even know about it- were it not for that fact that he plans to arrange a work visa, once he has finished learning Swedish, and happens to be lucky enough to score well in their somewhat newly introduced version of Australia’s Priority Migration Skilled Occupation List. The changes were introduced in mid-2016- at right around the time Trump was running for office and the rest of Europe was under siege from populist parties.
Trump was always the symptom not the disease. Australia stands alone as an example of an immigration system which can cope with a population which is compromised of 30% foreign-born citizens, where in most countries populism begins to rear its head at around the 14% mark. The key is in preserving blue collar interests- Australia was successful as a model because it prevented migrants from taking the types of blue collar labour jobs from those native-born kids who don’t do well at school. Tensions are particular acute when labour competition exists for coveted trade professional jobs (for which many migrants posses the off-the-shelf skills, learned in their own countries, which employers cannot resist- compared to the socially more beneficial apprenticeship route).
A more selective migration system in turn prevents the wage dilution and labour displacement which has long been proven by economic analysis of the socio-economic spectrum. Australia also benefits from the fact that people migrating into a country further up the socio-economic spectrum tend to self-sort by interest, income and occupation, rather than self-segregate (which only causes cultural friction). This in turn is a great aid to integration. There are plenty of jobs in the service sector which the blue collar class neither wants or needs- a more cogent system is the key to banishing populism for the foreseeable future, and it does so by addressing the concerns of so many who turned to Trump out of sheer frustration with the established political order.
Talk of minimum wages does little to help this largely unsung and underrepresented social class. If you are a roofer earning $22 an hour, when, without labour competition from migrants, you could easily be earning $30 an hours, then minimum wages are worse than an irrelevancy. It makes restaurant meals more more expensive and means that the wait staff lose more in tips than they earn through pay rises… Tipping makes people feel generous and appreciative, higher prices don’t.
To be clear - the correlation between vaccine status and death is an artifact of policy, not medical inevitability. Had effective, cheap, and widely available treatments, administered in the early stages of COVID during viral replication, been allowed and not punished as per de facto policy, the vaccine would not have been necessary and many hundreds of thousands of people, in the US alone, would still be alive.
But then a handful of oligarchs would not have made billions and pushed the world further towards their power-obsessed goal of one world governance.
I think there are 3 points that need to be dealt with that seriously impact on the supposition that Trump would have prevented a Ukrainian invasion. The first of these and perhaps the most important is Putin as an autonomous agent. Putin has his own worldview and opinions and it is very unlikely that Trump causes him any fear. If, as seems likely, his mindset is apolyptic (whether due to Parkinson's or not) then Trump's threats or actions would only bring WW3 closer. Putin has the view that the Western democracies are weak and despises weakness. He certainly pegged Trump as a braggart and would have factored that into his calculations.
The second objection relates to Trump. If you recall, he tried to blackmail Zelinsky into giving him dirt on Hunter Biden by witholding military aid. He was impeached over this and will remember the slight. Trump holds grudges and on evidence of past behaviour will take revenge. It is all too easy to see Trump washing his hands of the invasion and designating it 'an internal affair'.
The final point to look at is Trump's relationship with the rest of NATO. Here though it is more ambiguous. Would the NATO countries have rushed to help or increased their defence spending as quickly?
Once Putin decided to invade the West's options were strictly limited. To introduce sanctions earlier would have precipitated an earlier invasion and divided NATO. To oppose Putin with troops or a no fly zone would cause escalation. There really was only the option of diplomacy. Putin has no regard for democracies and Trump would have been included in this and what is more come under the classification of a 'useful fool'. Much as I hate to admit it Biden has played this limited hand very well. This really is an issue where political experience is essential.
So I was against Biden’s vaccine mandate - yet another executive overreach in a line of unconstitutional presidential actions going back to Clinton (and including every president in between) - but I don’t buy the “medical freedom” arguments from the new anti-vaxxers. I’m against government vaccine mandates (except for government employees - nobody has a right to a government job), but I also don’t lose sleep over them. Also SCOTUS overturned the OSHA mandate anyway so it’s not an issue anymore.
I disagree on Trump. I never bought the wild claims about how he was lord Voldemort in the flesh and all (you know, “democracy dies in darkness…”). If he really had been a fascist, I would have taken up arms to oppose his regime, but obviously we weren’t in that territory.
BUT, he did have authoritarian tendencies. Call it tyranny-light. He liked autocrats and liked the idea of being in charge. He wasn’t an autocrat. But he liked the idea of having power. The reason he wasn’t a fascist was that he liked the idea of power more than using power. He likes the trappings of success and power without any of the work that either require. The other main reason he wasn’t an authoritarian was that he lacked the intelligence, the wherewithal, the competence, and the will. Not that he wouldn’t have enjoyed it - he was just too weak to ever actually do what it took to be a leader.
I always scorned the “Trump’s an authoritarian” arguments until the 2020 election aftermath and January 6th and his call with Raffensberger. Those were all things I told people would never happen and I was wrong. Trump’s idiotic election fraud claims and subsequent attempts to actually steal the election proved he had authoritarian leanings. And as much as I think the guy was an idiot, he could be dumb like the fox so to speak. That speech he gave at the J6 rally - “march peacefully down to the capitol” - came off as a clever and successful attempt to try to get a riot without crossing the legal definition of incitement. He didn’t incite a riot. But he invited it. To paraphrase something I read at the time, if someone says, “don’t be naive - Trump clearly said he didn’t want a riot,” the response is, “now who’s being naive.”
Actually, America's legal immigration system, outside of the influence illegal immigration has had on it, doesn't look that much different than how you describe Australia's current system. That is why some minority groups -- primarily those who arrived recently and legally -- are among the most economically successful demographics in the country. South Indians, Persians, Nigerians, etc.
Were most blue collar jobs in the US lost to immigrants? I think not, but I've not studied it. Seems like comparative advantage took over once goods and money could easily flow over borders while people simply could not, including moves within the country that took from one group of blue collar workers and gave it to another set (like Boeing's move).
To be clear - the correlation between vaccine status and death is an artifact of policy, not medical inevitability. Had effective, cheap, and widely available treatments, administered in the early stages of COVID during viral replication, been allowed and not punished as per de facto policy, the vaccine would not have been necessary and many hundreds of thousands of people, in the US alone, would still be alive.
But then a handful of oligarchs would not have made billions and pushed the world further towards their power-obsessed goal of one world governance.
I think there are 3 points that need to be dealt with that seriously impact on the supposition that Trump would have prevented a Ukrainian invasion. The first of these and perhaps the most important is Putin as an autonomous agent. Putin has his own worldview and opinions and it is very unlikely that Trump causes him any fear. If, as seems likely, his mindset is apolyptic (whether due to Parkinson's or not) then Trump's threats or actions would only bring WW3 closer. Putin has the view that the Western democracies are weak and despises weakness. He certainly pegged Trump as a braggart and would have factored that into his calculations.
The second objection relates to Trump. If you recall, he tried to blackmail Zelinsky into giving him dirt on Hunter Biden by witholding military aid. He was impeached over this and will remember the slight. Trump holds grudges and on evidence of past behaviour will take revenge. It is all too easy to see Trump washing his hands of the invasion and designating it 'an internal affair'.
The final point to look at is Trump's relationship with the rest of NATO. Here though it is more ambiguous. Would the NATO countries have rushed to help or increased their defence spending as quickly?
Once Putin decided to invade the West's options were strictly limited. To introduce sanctions earlier would have precipitated an earlier invasion and divided NATO. To oppose Putin with troops or a no fly zone would cause escalation. There really was only the option of diplomacy. Putin has no regard for democracies and Trump would have been included in this and what is more come under the classification of a 'useful fool'. Much as I hate to admit it Biden has played this limited hand very well. This really is an issue where political experience is essential.
So I was against Biden’s vaccine mandate - yet another executive overreach in a line of unconstitutional presidential actions going back to Clinton (and including every president in between) - but I don’t buy the “medical freedom” arguments from the new anti-vaxxers. I’m against government vaccine mandates (except for government employees - nobody has a right to a government job), but I also don’t lose sleep over them. Also SCOTUS overturned the OSHA mandate anyway so it’s not an issue anymore.
I disagree on Trump. I never bought the wild claims about how he was lord Voldemort in the flesh and all (you know, “democracy dies in darkness…”). If he really had been a fascist, I would have taken up arms to oppose his regime, but obviously we weren’t in that territory.
BUT, he did have authoritarian tendencies. Call it tyranny-light. He liked autocrats and liked the idea of being in charge. He wasn’t an autocrat. But he liked the idea of having power. The reason he wasn’t a fascist was that he liked the idea of power more than using power. He likes the trappings of success and power without any of the work that either require. The other main reason he wasn’t an authoritarian was that he lacked the intelligence, the wherewithal, the competence, and the will. Not that he wouldn’t have enjoyed it - he was just too weak to ever actually do what it took to be a leader.
I always scorned the “Trump’s an authoritarian” arguments until the 2020 election aftermath and January 6th and his call with Raffensberger. Those were all things I told people would never happen and I was wrong. Trump’s idiotic election fraud claims and subsequent attempts to actually steal the election proved he had authoritarian leanings. And as much as I think the guy was an idiot, he could be dumb like the fox so to speak. That speech he gave at the J6 rally - “march peacefully down to the capitol” - came off as a clever and successful attempt to try to get a riot without crossing the legal definition of incitement. He didn’t incite a riot. But he invited it. To paraphrase something I read at the time, if someone says, “don’t be naive - Trump clearly said he didn’t want a riot,” the response is, “now who’s being naive.”
You range around a bit there Geary, I like it. Your focused essays are always good, but this more conversational piece was nice too.
Actually, America's legal immigration system, outside of the influence illegal immigration has had on it, doesn't look that much different than how you describe Australia's current system. That is why some minority groups -- primarily those who arrived recently and legally -- are among the most economically successful demographics in the country. South Indians, Persians, Nigerians, etc.
Were most blue collar jobs in the US lost to immigrants? I think not, but I've not studied it. Seems like comparative advantage took over once goods and money could easily flow over borders while people simply could not, including moves within the country that took from one group of blue collar workers and gave it to another set (like Boeing's move).