“It is not simply being president that makes you powerful, it is the support you have in Congress, and that depends on the support you have in the country”
Donald Trump’s presidency will have geopolitical consequences. Most of the world wants to know what he will do. But that depends on what he can do. That, in turn, will be determined by the political dynamics within the United States as well as by counteractions of other nations. This is a case where politics rises to the level of geopolitics. Trump’s actions will be conditioned by the actions of other players, particularly in Congress. Trump, after all, will only be the president and his unilateral powers will be limited. For most of the things he wants to do, he needs Congress to go along. Therefore, the American stance toward the world will depend, for the moment, less on what Trump wishes than what Congress decides to do.
Trump has presented himself as a transformative leader, confronting a crisis in the U.S. with a radical new approach, both in policy and in political culture. Many presidents present themselves as transformative, but few are. In the 20th century, two were genuinely transformative. One was Franklin D. Roosevelt and the other Ronald Reagan. Both faced problems that the vast majority of Americans knew to be problems. Roosevelt confronted the Great Depression, Reagan the stagflation of the 1970s. Both also confronted significant geopolitical problems. Roosevelt had to deal with the emerging crisis in Europe and Asia, combined with his social and economic concerns. Reagan, in addition to an economic crisis, had to cope with the defeat in Vietnam and the subsequent relative increase of Soviet power.
It was clear that these problems originated in the prior political and economic culture and that being different on multiple levels from the conventional expectations of the past was essential. Roosevelt’s decision to fund massively federal programmes for the unemployed generated rage, as they ran completely counter to what was expected from a president. Reagan suffered the same public discontent. Early in his term, air traffic controllers went on strike despite laws banning them from striking. He fired them. Firing striking workers regardless of the law was considered unthinkable. He was vilified for the decision.
Walter Lippmann, one of the greatest columnists of the age, said of Roosevelt: “Franklin D. Roosevelt is no crusader. He is no tribune of the people. He is no enemy of entrenched privilege. He is a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President.” Roosevelt’s opponent, Herbert Hoover, called him a “chameleon on plaid” and criticised him for his “nonsense … tirades … glittering generalisations … ignorance” and “defamation.”
Of Reagan, one commentator said he was “the end product of television politics. … It is a show and he’s a star actor.” Jimmy Carter accused Reagan of injecting racism into the campaign by using “code words like states’ rights.”
It is i mportant to remember the venom in prior campaigns and to recognise the easy dismissal of the new. But Trump has a deeper problem. Roosevelt won about 60% of the vote and carried every state but Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. He blew Hoover away. In 1980, Reagan got 50% of the vote against Carter’s 41% (John Anderson was in the race and got the rest). Reagan also won every state except Georgia, West Virginia and Minnesota. It was another blowout.
Trump intended to be a transformational candidate. His problem was that he did not blow Hillary Clinton out of the water. Where Reagan and Roosevelt had enough muscle to force congressmen in their parties to vote with them, Republicans in Congress haven’t figured out whether they will want Trump’s support in the next election. The narrowness of Trump’s victory is not just an interesting footnote to history. It is a significant handicap to his plans, because while Republicans have a majority in Congress, their main concern isn’t settled.
What congressmen and senators want most is to be reelected. To be re-elected, they need voters’ support. Congressmen are all peering two years in the future, trying to guess whether by then Trump will have developed support that they can use to win, whether he will stay where he is now, or whether his support will deteriorate. If they follow Trump and his support declines, re-election will be difficult in many districts. If Trump increases his popularity, supporting him will be a stroke of genius. This may be regarded as cynicism, or as faithfully representing your constituency, but that is what they are thinking.
And this is what foreign governments are considering as well. They are asking themselves whether Trump will be strong enough in Congress to carry out all his initiatives, or whether he will be paralysed by a hostile Congress and poor political ratings. China, Mexico and Russia – as well as every other country – know that this election is not the end of the struggle, but the beginning.
Trump will need to substantially ratings to demonstrate to Congress increase that he his is positive trending