Despite alternative facts, reality will bite in the US
As a star of reality television, Donald Trump has made his journey to the Oval Office by promising to create an alternative to the politics that disappointed so many Americans. When he took up residence in the White House, both supporters and opponents hoped he would settle down into a more presidential and less combative frame of mind.
That has not happened. During his first week in office, he chose to pick an unwinnable fight with the media over his claim that his inauguration attracted record crowds. He sent his hapless press secretary out to bully the media into reporting what photographic evidence proved was not true.
In defence of the president, Kellyanne Conway, a close adviser, told the TV show Meet the Press that the press secretary was presenting “alternative facts”, to which the host replied “alternative facts are falsehoods” – the preferred Washington term for lies.
For Mr Trump’s supporters, this is noise that can be ignored, the death rattle of the “lying” mainstream media.
But to others it reveals that Mr Trump is still in a TV world where ratings are all. This view has been given added credence by his claim, which he is promising to investigate, that 3-5 million illegal immigrants voted in the presidential election, depriving him of victory in the popular vote. This is a bizarre obsession, given that he won the election fair and square according to the rules, and there is no serious contestation of his victory.
For a new president to seek to create a new reality is hardly big news. In the country that created Hollywood, dreams run riot. Barack Obama’s victory created a fantasy of a “post-racial” America, while the Nobel committee picked up the mood and awarded him the peace prize before he had done very much.
Ronald Reagan, coming from the movie business, bewitched the country with his cheery slogan: “It’s morning again in America.” He was not above creating his own reality. In 1983, when more than 200 US marines were blown up in their barracks in Beirut, he ordered a swift invasion of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada two days later, providing an alternative narrative of a victorious war.
But it is to the presidency of Richard Nixon that Washington commentators are turning for comparisons. His press secretary had to classify many of the president’s statements as “inoperative”, a memorable euphemism for false.
In Mr Trump’s case, it is possible to see a unique need for him to create an alternative reality. His promises for the domestic agenda are far-reaching, and in some case involve turning the clock back to the 1950s and 60s. He has promised to put well-paid manufacturing jobs at the centre of everything he does, ignoring the reality that the world has moved on from the time when American factory workers, alone in the world, lived a middle-class life.
There are some things he can achieve – but it would require a huge distrust of the media for most people to believe he had met his goals. He can bully corporations into building factories in Ohio, not Mexico, but they will be staffed largely by robots, not expensive American workers; he can renegotiate the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, which has turned the United States, Canada and Mexico into a single supply chain, but US business interests will ensure that this is just a rebranding and a tweaking; and he can order a wall along the Mexican border, but it is unclear if Congress will vote him the $4 billion (Dh14.7bn) that it is expected to cost.
If Mr Trump carries out his promise to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure, partially funded by a one-off incentive to get US corporations to bring home the $2.5 trillion they are keeping overseas, then an economy in hyperdrive will surely help the Trump brand.
Abroad the situation is more complex. The process of filling in the gaps left by a retreating Washington is well under way. In fact, it had already started pre-Trump due to the disappointment felt by the Obama administration’s passivity over the Syria conflict. We now see alternative realities springing up everywhere. Russia claims to be the dominant force of the Middle East, presiding over the latest Syria peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, while the US ambassador hides from the media.
China’s president Xi Jinping has stepped up to become the flag-bearer of globalisation, warning Mr Trump in phrases that might have come out of the old Washington playbook, such as: “Pursuing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room. While wind and rain may be kept outside, that dark room will also block light and air. No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war.”
Where is the (real) reality in all of this? There are two strands. The first is America’s geography. It is blessed like no other in its resources and its distance from any potential enemies. It is not surprising that in a world where America’s pre-eminent advantages are being chipped away, questions are asked about why Washington spends so much on the defence of other countries. Maybe it really is time to focus on the home front.
The second reality is that America – and the rest of the world – have thrived on free trade. Mr Trump’s belief that protectionism would make American richer and stronger could have devastating consequences for the US economy.
This is the dilemma that Mr Trump – or, rather, his cabinet and top officials – have to resolve. America, dominating its own hemisphere, is separate from the world in a geographical sense. Yet its prosperity and the flourishing of its major corporations depend on being intimately engaged with the rest of the world. No country is ready to take up the role of global leader, though of course China might in years to come. This is the reality – and no alternative facts are available. And a solution requires judgement, not spin.