Trump^s Sweeping Victory in a Failed Campaign

 A         The Blog Papers of Dr. Michael Sakbani; Economics, Finance and Politics

Dr. Michael Sakbani is a former professor of economics and Finance at the Geneva campus of Webster-Europe and Thunderbird-Europe. He is a senior international consultant to the UN system, European Union and Swiss banks. His career began at the State university of NY at Stoney Brook, then the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, followed by UNCTAD where he was Director of the divisions of Economic Cooperation, Poverty Alleviation, and Special Programs. Published over 1450 professional papers and co-authored six books.

The Intelligent Economist voted in 2020,2021 and 2023 michaelsakbani.blogspot.com as one of the top hundred blogs in the world. Dr. Sakbani is a research contributor to Brill and Kudos who disseminates his publications to research institutions throughout the world. 

Dr. Sakbani won numerous awards and prizes for scholarly distinction.

Trump`s Sweeping Victory in a Failed Campaign

                     revised from 13 November

                                     By

                     Dr. Michael Sakbani

 

Trump`s convincing victory

Indeed, the morning after, a miserable Wednesday, did not feel good. Not that my predictions were wrong, rather that logic and sense have led me astray.

Trump, the guy that says everything wrong, and writes for chaos its masterpiece, got elected by 77.1 million voters in the land. These include all ethnic groups, religious sects, color groups, young and old, males and even some females.  It was not a triumph on issues, or of articulation, or even of style, but that of amnesia and wishful thinking by the voters and an opposing  candidate who did not deliver well her message. The working class voted for a business billionaire who did nothing for them in his previous term against an incumbent of an Adminstration that who created jobs for them and protected their pensions. Black men voted, at double the rate they did in 2020 for Trump, a demagogue who vaunted his white skin, and more than half of the eligible Hispanic men voted for a guy who said their kins are rapists and he wanted to deport millions of illegals of their types. Who is off in this: those who voted with knowledge or the irrational voters?

It was all about how many votes he got and what she did not. He got 3 million votes more than he did in 2020.  But she got 7 million votes lesser than Biden did in 20230. In 1000 election -districts, she got less than Biden did; while she improved upon him only in 40 districts. At the end, she had 74,898,009 million votes, roughly, 7 million less than Biden had in 2020. Trump won the national vote by 1.5 percent advancing to 49.9 percent of the national vote. He advanced in the battleground states by only 1.6 percent but by 3.5 percent in the other states. That is a victory in a failed campaign where the voter turnout was 7.6 percent short of 2020. These totals were less than 2020 even though the population was 8 million larger. What happened to the so called “hundreds- of- thousands of volunteers, the millions of dollars of ads and TV videos? They seem to have fallen of their weight, considering that 81 million eligible voters did not vote. 

Harris`defeate 

Why did young voters, especially Hispanic men, find Trump a better choice than Harris? Was she a poor candidate running a bad campaign?  I certainly do not think so. She did far better than Biden would have done and ran a disciplined campaign. So, what went wrong?

The first thing was Biden`s late withdrawal; he should have stepped aside one year before he did in July or not run altogether. His ego and pride plus his family, led him wrong. Had there been a year of primaries and campaigns, the emergent candidate would have been much better prepared and with a much better message. Would that have been Harris?  My best guess is “not likely”. There are many better duos among the Democrats. She was simply the only person in the right place when the choice fell upon her. A campaign of some one year improves the candidates and test their metals. Obama was a mediocrity in the first 4 months of his campaign but became one candidate in a generation when he won the nomination. The idea is to win. Adlai Stevenson, a wonderful man who ran with style and eloquence against Eisenhower, was once complemented by a woman voter on his eruditeness and eloquence in his campaign. Stevenson thanked the lady and said, to have a good campaign madame, I need a majority of voters like you to win.  

 

The second thing was her refusal to part company with Biden and escape his unpopularity. Asked by an interviewer what she would have done different than Biden she froze and said nothing comes to her mind. That is admirable loyalty but lousy politicking for a candidate who claims to be one of change. She should have acknowledged the mistakes of the Administration and shown by specifics that she is a candidate of change and not by mere slogan. On immigration, she should have acknowledged the mistakes of the Administration in acting so late and in not enforcing the courts decisions regarding 1.2 million false asylum seekers who are still in the land. On her previous stands and pronouncements, she should have confessed her mistakes on several issues and explained why she changed position. On the economy, she could have acknowledged the dramatic increase of prices and explained that high prices and inflation were the results of exogenous world developments and supply- chain problems consequent upon Covid. Harris never outlined specific measures to reduce the high cost to consumers. She only offered targeted aid to specific groups. On the Gaza- Lebanon wars, she said nothing different than Biden. While the Arab and Muslim voters in Michigan were implicitly dismissed as a minor bloc. The impact of the war on the young and black voters was a factor in these groups defecting to Trump or staying home. 

 

A Vice President is an incumbent, but not the decision maker. If a VP wants to run as a candidate of change, then she had to disavow many of the incumbent stands and not just talk about turning the page. In all the recent elections in so many countries, voters have thrown out the incumbent administrations. This happened in Europe, in Asia and in many countries in the Americas. Knowing that she was an incumbent, the VP should have tried to run away from the record of the Administration in all areas that are unpopular. She should have distanced herself from Biden and showed in what way she is different. That is certainly cruel but is pragmatically necessary If she wants to win.  

 

Kamala Harris made pro-choice the main theme of her candidacy. She argued the case with eloquence and passion that impressed a large segment of female voters.  She also connected the issue to freedom and the preservation of democracy. However, this did not bring her enough votes to win because a great number of voters did not associate Trump with Republican pro-life extremists; they thought he is different. Unfortunately, exit polls showed that the issue was not as central as the economic or border issues.

 

Any person who looks carefully at the exit polls will concludes three things: it was more a Harris-democrat defeat rather than a triumph for Trump; secondly it was the inflationary price level that brought her and the Democrats down.  And third, it was the identity issues where she and her party failed.

 

The Democrats

The Democratic Party proved in this election, that it is a party in search of a message. Since 1992, it has become the party of the educated and professionals on the two US`coasts; the party of high earners in prosperous places. It has lost the working class and rural folks but has not compensated for that by appealing to the young and new male voters as its leaders wrongly thought it would. The Democrats spent more time on transgender issues (lesser than .05 percent of the population) than on the young white males’ issues (23 percent of the population). That amounted, in the opinion of a majority, to going on a tangent and losing relevance. This lack of balance explains why there are now as many registered Republican voters as Democrats, a sea change from what it was before when Democrats outnumbered Republicans by two to one. 

The groups that used to support the Democrats find their stand on cultural and social issues off balanced. The "Woke" culture is anathema to socially conservative Latinos, blue collars, and a majority of young white male voters. These issues upend now the classical economic divisions of rich and poor,left and right.

 

The economic, social and identity problems that Trump`s voters suffer find no answer from the Democrats and a false answer from the Republicans. Thus, the two -party system is not answering the questions posed by the independents, who are now the majority of US` voters. There are serious income distribution problems in the USA and evident corporate dominance and greed. Thanks to a series of US SC decisions, the money of corporate and of wealthy people controls the elections.  While young women and educated suburban are now voting for the Democrats, and young men are voting for the Republicans, these are not stable electoral partisans, because their interests are not aligned in the long run with their current party choices; they are choosing the lesser bad. The party of business cannot be the party of the working class and the party of the average American cannot be the party of the suburbs. That is why this election failed in the turnout vis -a- vis 2020 by close to 8 percentage points and 81 million eligible voters sat out the elections.

 

The absent economic message 

Trump won in a campaign where there were many economic complaints but no discussion of economic policy questions. He inherits from Biden an economy with a great strength but potential vulnerability. This vulnerability is a fault line that will become clearly more evident as Trump`s announced economic and foreign policy plans are put into practice. To deal with the deterioration of the US balance of trade, he wants to increase tariffs on all imports. The very substantial tariffs he is proposing will in the short run, increase consumer prices on all imports and will result in renewed inflation with the Fed again hiking up interest rates. The retaliatory measures of the affected foreign exporters will affect US farm exports as well as other exports resulting in domestic income decline as well as a worsening in US trade balance and a deterioration in US terms of trade. In addition, Trump`s intent of winding down the Ukraine war and Israel`s war in the Middle East will mean cutting off all the sums spent on purchasing US armaments for these wars. 

Candidate Trump wants to deport all the illegal immigrants from the US. This will involve millions of people and will require billions of government expenses. Contrary to what Trump maintained, most of these people work and pay taxes. Doing that will administer a double whammy to the US economy which has now more jobs than job applicants. illegal immigrants work largely in farms and construction. The result will be will an increase the price of farm products and a reduction of construction.

 So, putting these things together, there will be a decline in aggregate demand by some $150  - $ 200 billion. This will result in an immediate decline of US growth. If President Trump attempts to offset that by deficit spending, the US will face an increase in the budget deficit and further increase in public debt serviced at higher intertest rates. 

True to old Republican promises, President Trump wants to cut taxes while the US budget is in big deficit and the public debt is larger than the GDP.  In 2017, President Trump`s tax cuts benefited largely the wealthy and the corporations. In reality, the cuts did not filter into investment but augmented corporate profits which went to buying own equity and to higher corporate executive salaries. Tax cuts in a deficit situation means surely more public debt and more deficit spending. If the Republicans let President Trump  do that, they will prove once again that they are fiscal conservatives only when the Democrats are in power. Consequently, if President Trump follows through on his announced plans, he  will end up at the end of his term with the same complaints Biden has had. 

There is, however,  some uncertainty in all this. Trump might fail in convincing the Republicans to follow all his proposals, or he is really putting all these proposals as negotiating tactics.

 Candidate Harris facing all these manifestations of non-vertuous cycle, did not outline in anyway these problems.

 

Foreign Policy

Finally, foreign policy issues, which receive little attention in US elections, will this time if President Trump carry out his promises, have major consequences on the world and the US.  

Since the end of WWII, the US and its allies established a world order on four legs. The first was the international system of rules of behavior spelled out in the UN charter. The second was a system of military alliances for mutual defense embodied in NATO. The third was a multilateral economic system embodied in the Bretton Woods institutions and the various international trade agreements. The fourth, and no less important, is a financial system based on the US financial markets and the US dollar.

 President Trump has little use for this order. He believes in conducting bilateral transactions with other countries outside the multilateral system guided by his theme America first. The rules of behavior, spelled out in the UN charter, can be ignored, as he did in recognizing changes of border by military conquest as Israel annexed with US support, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. His views on NATO are transactional. NATO in his view is a club of subscribers who must pay their subscription as the US decides them and for the purposes it deems important to be entitled to mutual defence. His theme of America first and going alone as it sees fit, places little importance on US allies. He is a strong believer in protectionism as a national tool for fair international trade. Tariffs, he said, “is the most beautiful word in the dictionary”. These stands will harm international trade and the free movement of capital across markets. 

In his first term, he had contentious relationships with US allies. It is well to recall that with US allies, the West led by the US, accounts for 53 percent of the world economy while the US without it allies accounts for only 23 percent of the world economy.

President Trump wants to wind down the war between Ukraine and Russia. He promised to do that in 24 hours !!!. He also promises to end the war in the Mid -East. These are all fanciful wishes. He most certainly will not continue the military and financial support of Ukraine at the current scale.  He will force peace by a transaction imposed on Zelensky . Essentially, he will implement a ceasefire on the prevailing military lines and with a promise to Putin that Ukraine will not join NATO for decades. This leaves Europe on its own in this conflict and ignores who is the aggressor in this war. In the Mid-East, he will not be able to bring about any peace with Prime minister Netanyahu in power. There is already a declaration by the Arab States and members of the Islamic States Organization that no peace is possible with Israel unless there is a two -state solution for the Palestinians. Mr. Netanyahu is in sync with all the extreme right wingers in his cabinet in opposing a two- state solution. His long -standing game for 30 years has been ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and a Jewish state that encompasses Greater Israel. 

 

The prevailing world order fashioned by the US after WW II, will give way to a multi-polar system that is certainly not in the interest of the US, of its financial system and of the US dollar international status. The BRICS, accounting for 54 percent of the world population and close to half of its GDP, are already marching towards disputing the prevailing West dominated system and they have the numbers and economic strength to bring about the end of the West`s hegemony.   

Candidate Harris has the briefest of comments on all these issues.

 

The Presidency without checks

At the time of writing, President Trump will have a majority in the US `Senate, a likely majority in the House, a supportive and partisan Supreme Court. He learned from his previous term that to carry out his vision, he needs a loyal and acquiescing team; a team which does not place guard- rails on him. All his personnel choices up till now are hawkish loyalists, some of whom do not have the qualifications for the jobs they are slated for. He even signalled that, if needed, he wants to have recess appointments, thereby depriving the Senate of its constitutional right to advice and consent. I believe that Trump will get what he wants with perhaps very few exceptions. However, the precedent set by him will weaken the institution of the Senate and the system of checks and balances.

The Democrats are an opposition with no institutional teeth. Their only hope is that he overreaches and receives electoral punishment in 2026. But, for that to happen, they need to examine who they are. 

 

(Geneva, 25/11/2024.)

                                                              -------------------------