24 November 2016
Bad Hair, Good Hair
Just who is Mr Trump?
by J.R.Thomas
Mrs Clinton really does not help herself. Last week she appeared at a charity rally to give her first post electoral defeat speech. Her hair looked unwashed, she wore no makeup, she was down beat in a trouser suit. Observers split as to whether this was a beaten woman, a woman at last honest and true to herself, or a woman going for the sympathy vote. What slightly spoiled the whole thing was pictures which simultaneously appeared of her walking with Bill and their dogs in a wood near their Washington home, looking cheerful and posing for a selfie with a fellow dog walker. Which, you might ask, is the real Hillary?
But you might also ask, which is the real Donald? To avoid any accusation that these pages are sexist or indulge imbalance, we report that President-elect Trump has made numerous public appearances, generally on properties owned by Trump companies, that his hair is less bouffant, but his skin is still deeply tanned and he habitually wears blue suits and a red tie.
More surprisingly, his speeches tend to be moderate in tone; he is anxious, it seems, to strike notes of moderation and unification, and he seems to have nothing to say about the policies that brought him so much publicity during the campaign. So far as can be discerned, no train-loads of concrete blocks have been dispatched in a south westerly direction or even ordered, any friendly personal emails to and from Vladimir in Russia have not been made public, no plans have been provided for deportations to Mexico. Well, he is not President yet, but the lead-in to the inauguration suggests the most middle of the road Republican bridge building across the political community.
This week President-elect Trump (we keep writing that because it sounds so…. unexpected) has confirmed that he will not, as previously promised, prosecute Mrs Clinton for email fraud; no “lock ‘er up” for Hillary then. He has had friendly meetings not just with Nigel Farage, but, perhaps more relevantly for his presidency, with Prime Minister Abe of Japan. He has referred in admiring terms to Mrs Clinton’s professionalism and to President Obama, and promised not to scrap ObamaCare, so called, the President’s gesture to building a universal health care service. Admittedly, this surprising reversal of a core promise was rather hedged, but there seems little doubt that some form of free health care will survive. Perhaps that should not be such a surprise when considering the core of Mr Trump’s electoral appeal, drawn from so many of whom will be users of such a system. But it is certainly a surprise to a number of Republican members of Congress who would love to see the whole thing scrapped as un-American and ruinously expensive.
So is President-elect Trump (sorry) just a regular Republican who said all those startling things to get free publicity and mobilise a sector of the electorate which does not normally turn out? Or, are we seeing and living the greatest electorate drama of all time, the realisation of the Clinton double indemnity plan under which Donald was a stalking horse, the Republican nomination being seized by an unelectable candidate, but with the fall-back that even if that candidate unexpectedly won, Clintonesque policies would be enacted from the Oval Office.
It’s a wonderful concept; but we suspect Hillary is just too ambitious to let anybody else have even a pass key to the White House. And, as for Clinton Democrat policies in the Trumpian White House, well, that may coincidentally come to pass in some areas, especially economic but that is because on economics both President-elect Trump (eeek) and the Clinton Democrats come from a similar economic and philosophical foundation. They are perhaps not Keynesians, but certainly Keynesian-light, and they believe in government spending as a way of invigorating the economy. That means spending on infrastructure, which is simple and immediate and not terribly controversial (and in areas, vital, given the way roads and airports and government buildings have fallen apart over the last years).
Mr Trump has expressed considerable doubt about spending on military adventures abroad, and this we suspect might be a core view that he holds, so military spending may start to get cut, which puts him to the left of Hillary on that at least. His commitment to NATO is perhaps not so weak as often presented by commentators; his objection seems more that other members of that club are not contributing their promised share; and if they don’t, he may shut the club (he would know about that). That is good negotiating technique, especially for a a man who maybe close to President Putin – and a long way from those Russian tanks parked on eastern European borders.
Improving friendship with Mr Putin may also be a core policy for the Trump presidency; and why not? Putin probably worries about the West as much as the West worries about him, and it might be worth a try to make a mateship of Donald and Vladimir and agree some areas of neutrality and behaviour. As two property billionaires they should get along just fine… But hardly right wing Republican stuff – which is why there is muttering in Congress about that too.
But the truth is, that nobody knows yet what a Trump presidency will mean to any of us. It seems entirely possible that (just one more time) President-elect Trump may not know either. His life so far has been about reacting to events and seizing opportunities; about employing people to maximise his advantage in whatever comes along. And there we can see some signs that the new administration may be, just may be, more radical than you may be thinking from the tone of its leader so far. His campaign team is transforming itself into a support team; its quasi chief executive Stephen Bannon appears key to the appointments which The Donald is making to his cabinet. Mr Bannon is a man who can be expected to cleave close to the bones of the Trump presidency; he is a hawk, a right winger, not a man for compromise or subtlety, a man to whom Mr Trump owes a great deal, at least at the moment. If he goes, then we are in for something more mainstream, but so far he is firmly there and the cabinet picks reflect his view of life – Mike Pompeo, a hard line former army officer to run the CIA; Jeff Sessions as Attorney General – if he gets through the nomination hearings – there is an alleged history of racial remarks and behaviour there; Michael Flynn, a retired general of notably hawkish views as National Security Advisor (his hawkishness relates to the Middle East more than Russia); Reince Preibus as White House Chief of Staff, the essential liaison point with Congress, and sensibly, a mainstreamer Republican. But to ensure that there can be no slippage into bad old ways, Mr Bannon was appointed Chief Strategist, a role which seems to be maintain the faith – and to jointly occupy Mr Preibus’s chair to ensure good behaviour (or perhaps, bad behaviour).
Who has not been appointed so far is also interesting. Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey with that famous bridge problem seems to have been sent back home in disgrace – word is that Mr Trump was not impressed by the way he let his subordinates carry the can for the bridge scandal. Also no word on anything so far for Ben Carson, early Republican nomination front runner, who became a Trump loyalist.
That is not a lot of appointments and there are many more, and more important, to come. But, interesting, so far.
Whatever the President elect says, it is what he does that will matter and those he picks (all men so far, all white) to carry out his doing, all, so far, are tough Washington outsiders. Perhaps we can do at this point is to reword (badly) an aphorism from a close advisor to a former President:
What we thought we knew, we turn out not to know. What we think we know now, we don’t really know. And what we don’t know, we still don’t know
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
