Donald Trump – thinking liberal

Liberation Day 3: could Trump’s term end early?

I don’t really like spending time on other countries’ politics. Domestic politics in Britain is interesting enough. Next week we have local elections and a by-election, and these will be highly significant – but I won’t comment until the results (all of them) are in, as I have no special knowledge or insight to impart beforehand. But current American politics is compelling and I had planned to do a third post following President Donald Trump’s Liberation Day tariff announcement, and so I am following that through, having returned from a lovely Easter break in Provence.

Immediately following Liberation Day, I sensed rout in the Trump administration, given the plan’s obvious insanity, and Mr Trump’s initial doubling-down. That made me think that he could be ousted before his term was up. The reversals he has made since have not shown the Trump regime in a good light, but they have defused the political danger that I sensed then. A policy rout may be occurring, but not a political one – Trump remains safe. Still it did get me thinking about what it would take to end his term early. There seem to be three ways: death in office; 25th Amendment; or impeachment. We can rule out resignation, except inasmuch as it might arise from the the drivers for 25th Amendment or impeachment. Being President is the ultimate self-affirmation for Mr Trump, and the status it confers goes to the core of his being. If seeing life beyond the presidency was beyond Joe Biden in 2024, it will be beyond Mr Trump ever. And he’s always been tenacious.

So death first. He is nearly 79 and so more susceptible to death from natural causes than most of the human race. But he doesn’t drink, smoke or over-work. Regular golf gives him moderate exercise. He’s not a healthy eater, and his obsession with media coverage isn’t especially healthy, but he doesn’t look unhealthy. He seems to be enjoying himself. So there’s a risk, but not an especially big one. Assassination is a possibility, but his security is very tight. And, Iran and some Arab nations excepted, most of the world’s unpleasant regimes probably want him in place for as long as possible. This looks even less of a risk. It is possible that the chaos of his style of government could compromise the security side of his administration – but my guess is that this is the one aspect that won’t be badly affected. So let’s put all that to one side.

What about the 25th Amendment, which provides for the Vice President to take over, temporarily or permanently, in the event of incapacity? On the assumption that Mr Trump would never admit incapacity himself, this would have to arise from a coup, by getting enough of the right people to certify him as incapable. That coup would in practice have to be led by the Vice President, currently JD Vance (and there is little risk of his premature departure). He is ruthless and ambitious enough, but he would need to mobilise the Trump base to ensure his re-election. For that to happen Mr Trump’s incapacity would have to be so obvious that even most of that base could be persuaded by it. That would require a significant change to his physical or mental health. See above.

Which leaves impeachment. For this you need a cause – “treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanours”. That’s the easy bit; Mr Trump’s disregard of legal niceties and eye for personal enrichment will offer lots of opportunities. Presidential immunity, extended by the Supreme Court last year, doesn’t apply; the presence of the impeachment process was one reason that immunity exists. The bar isn’t high: remember that Bill Clinton’s affair with an intern was enough. The Supreme Court has regarded impeachment as primarily a political process, so it wouldn’t get too involved in this. If it’s good enough for Congress, it’s good enough for them. A simple majority in House of Representatives is enough to set things off (which happened twice in Mr Trump’s first term), but it requires two-thirds of the Senate to remove him, following a trial. That has never happened.

The Republican majority in the lower house is thin, and could disappear even before the mid-term elections in 2026, after which a Democrat majority is expected. But the upper house threshold looks unattainable in pure party political terms, although I have read a couple of comments suggesting that a Republican rout in 2026 could get that far. But the Senate elects by thirds, so that is surely out of reach. And surely if it looked like a possibility, the Republicans would be breaking ranks. In practice successful impeachment would require a substantial Republican rebellion, and we wouldn’t have to wait for the mid-terms. What could cause that?

Any idea that such a rebellion could occur on matters of ethics or principle can be discarded; if it couldn’t happen after the Insurrection of January 2021, it never will. A sense of impending political doom amongst Republican lawmakers would be needed to overcome their fear of being ousted by Mr Trump’s base. Mr Trump’s election was based, to over-simplify, on a fanatical core vote (“the base”), and a substantial number of floating voters who were persuaded that since the economy went relatively well in Mr Trump’s first term, it would do so again in his second. Many others were persuaded by frustration with the Biden presidency and false reassurances from the Trump campaign. There were even significant numbers of Arabs campaigning for Trump because of Biden’s support for Israel. I wonder how they are feeling now. These floating voters are being systematically driven off; doubtless this includes many donors to the Trump cause too. The question is how much this haemorrhage will scare Republican congressmen.

I have no special insight on that I’m afraid. My sense is that things have to get really bad before the ice starts to break. The closest thing I can think of is the early years of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 to 1982. She imposed a new, harsh economic regime, and unemployment shot up, while inflation took its time to reduce; liberal elite types were up in arms as she bulldozed polite norms. Her popularity sank drastically, but the party remained loyal; she won a landslide in 1983, though largely because the opposition was divided. America’s political system is very different from the British one then – but in ways that made Mrs Thatcher less secure. She had a loyal base and that was enough. That’s my guess for this time too. It will take more than a recession for any serious breaking of Republican ranks.

But what about the base? If cracks form there things could start to move very quickly. At present it looks as solid as ever. They seem to care more about inflicting pain on the hated liberal elites than about bringing success to America – and on that score Mr Trump is doing well, exceeding expectations even. What will it take to shake them? I don’t know – though we should remember that this base is not as monolithic as our mental picture usually makes them. Elements of it could start to flake off before the hard core does. Still, I think it will take a fair bit more time before any doubt might creep in – another year at least.

One reason for thinking that Mr Trump can head off serious danger, even as the economy does badly, and other bits of the state start to fail, is that his own political instincts are so strong. He has an especially strong bond with his base. He knows what to say so that they are angry at anybody else but him. He is also able to convey the idea that any criticism of him is also a criticism of them. And he makes policy adjustments when things get too hot. These instincts were on display in the weeks after Liberation Day. He is no ideologue – unlike Mrs Thatcher.

So when assessing whether Mr Trump may be at risk, don’t look at economic performance, or popularity ratings – look for signs that core loyalists are dropping out or breaking ranks. By this I don’t mean people inside or close to the administration itself – as Mr Trump’s management method is bound to cause a steady turnover of personnel here. I mean people who aren’t directly trying to influence policy or personnel – as close as you can get to the actual core voters. Evidence of this might show up in disaffection in the House of Representatives – these are likely to the first victims of a Trump backlash.

A couple of other things are worth thinking about. If Mr Trump is removed then he is replaced by the Vice President. Mr Vance is more coherent and rational than Mr Trump – but he has some extreme views. He is very much an isolationist in terms of world politics, and he has even less respect for the rule of law. Replacing Mr Trump with him is not an inviting prospect, and that could cause opponents to hesitate. It is possible that he could be impeached as well, but that is much harder to do in coordination.

A further point is that the Trump administration might start to corrupt the electoral system to secure his Republican acolytes. One reason that I thought that Liberation Day might put him in danger is that he seemed to be moving too early – before any institutional consolidation of his power had taken place. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I am less worried about this now. Mr Trump has too much going on, and he’s not motivated to make life easier for his supporters – he’s the only person that matters to him. And the American system may be easy to corrupt at the edges (with strategic political appointees) but not so much at scale. The anti-Republican backlash is liable to be too big to stall with such tactics. Also he won’t be facing the electors again. His talk of a third term is more of a ploy to stop talk of succession, which would take the attention away from him and turn him into a lame duck, than it is a serious bid.

For now, Mr Trump has little to fear. But if there is danger it would be as Ernest Hemingway described bankruptcy: “gradually and then suddenly.”

First published on 24 April 2025 on Substack

Meanwhile, how is the Ukraine peace process going?

Donald Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs shocked even me. I want to respond to it in two ways – first to examine the economics, since I think that the understanding of comparative advantage, the driver of global trade, is weak amongst most commentators; second, the politics of it, and whether the backlash could lead to an early termination of the Trump presidency. But I think both commentaries would benefit from a little more time passing to clarify things. Before that, I want to look at the Ukraine peace process started by Mr Trump’s administration – about which I have commented here previously.

In those comments I suggested that the process would encompass three things: a ceasefire on something close to current front lines; ending sanctions on Russia; and ending US aid to Ukraine. Only a token effort would be made to tackling a longer-term peace treaty. The strategy was first to pressure Ukraine into going along with this broad strategy and then to tackle Russia. The pressuring of Ukraine has gone more-or-less to plan. The second step has got absolutely nowhere.

There was always a puzzle about this process. Why wasn’t the Trump regime placing any pressure on Russia? Instead Mr Trump and his allies repeatedly parroted Russian talking points about who started the war (Ukraine/NATO); the impact of US aid (overwhelming); the legitimacy of the Zelensky government (elections overdue); how the war was going (Russia dominant); and who was the main obstacle to peace (Volodymyr Zelensky) . Russia, meanwhile, made plain their objection to the ceasefire idea unless the settlement “dealt with the root causes” of the conflict. This is code for an effective capitulation of Ukraine. Those experienced in negotiating wondered by Mr Trump was being so soft on Russia when it was so clear that a lot of pressure was going to be needed on them in due course. Instead, Mr Trump suggested that Russia would be easier to handle than Ukraine, and that they would be compliant for reasons that only he understood.

Just what was going on? One well-rehearsed conspiracy theory is that Russia has private information on Mr Trump and that they were blackmailing him. I find this hard to accept: surely there really isn’t anything out there that could harm him? Corruption; illicit sex – you name it, Trump can shrug that kind of thing off. There is an ideological overlap between hardline MAGA Americans and Vladimir Putin’s stated ideology – the stuff about white-supremacy, “Christian” civilisation and so on – but I’m not sure this has much sway on Mr Trump himself – he’s a narcissist not an ideologue. I’m left with the conclusion that it is sheer stupidity. I would call it naivity except that Mr Trump has four years experience of the highest office. The Putin regime has sugar-coated its hard line with flattery, talk of its desire for peace and the promise of exciting business deals; Mr Trump doesn’t seem to have got beyond the sugar coating to the bitter kernel what Russia is actually saying. You would have thought that a New York property magnate would have an ear for bullshit – but apparently not.

Still, this is a bit of a gamble for the Russians. They are hoping that the Trump regime will lose patience, blame the lack of progress on Ukraine, and suspend aid and sanctions without a ceasefire. But I think Mr Trump is expecting serious engagement with the ceasefire idea, and will eventually notice that he’s not getting it. The Russians might then end up with nothing. There are some early signs of frustration from Mr Trump. Interestingly, he was especially annoyed by the Russian suggestion that the Ukrainian government should make way for a UN-led interim regime while elections were held. This seems to break one of the principles of Mr Trump’s negotiating approach – after investing so much into bullying Mr Zelensky, removing him would destroy that investment. And yet it’s all of a piece with those Russian talking points.

But I can’t be too optimistic. The Trump regime has an America-first attitude to Europe, in stark contrast to its attitude to the Middle East. There are benefits to the US, as they see it, from ending aid to Ukraine and the sanctions – and so they may very well be tempted to do this without a ceasefire. But the plaudits as a peacemaker that Mr Trump seeks would disappear. Mr Zelensky realises all this and is now playing his weak hand well. He has to give way to American bullying in order not to be seen as the problem party; and this he is doing without being too craven.

Meanwhile the war itself has slowed down. Russia made a strong bid to recapture the territory in the Kursk region it lost to a surprise Ukrainian offensive. They have pretty much succeeded – but casualties were high and progress elsewhere largely stalled. They are doubtless regrouping – but then so are the Ukrainians. A decisive military breakthrough seems a long way off. Two questions lurk. The first is how close is the Russian war effort close to failing from its losses? Some western commentary suggests that it is much closer than most seem to think. Still, the resilience of despotic regimes under pressure can be surprising. The second is how well could Ukraine hang on without US support? It would clearly struggle – but would not fold as quickly as Russia is suggesting, and the Trump regime seems to believe. But both Ukraine and the European powers are desperate not to put this to the test.

What of the European powers? These are being treated with contempt by America and Russia alike. But in a long game their influence is growing. They are putting a remarkable amount of effort into developing the idea of an armed+ presence in Ukraine to secure any ceasefire. This seems odd, as it is categorically unacceptable to the Russians, and the Americans seem uninterested; militarily it doesn’t make much sense either. It seems to be a way of reminding both that Europe has some weight to pull in this affair.

The biggest question of all is whether Mr Putin will break free of the Russian stated position, and agree to a ceasefire without major concessions, in exchange for lifted sanctions (including those from Europe) and a suspension of US aid. It is possible, even if it doesn’t look very likely from where I’m sitting.

First published on Substack

American winter – calamity awaits the once-great country

I was wrong. Before last year’s US presidential election I said that it wasn’t the most consequential in a generation (or such longer period offered by breathless commentators); it would be no more so that the elections of 2016 (which could have done for Trump altogether) or 2020 (a weaker argument there…). A new Trump administration would soon sink into chaos and drift – a bit like Boris Johnson’s British government following the December 2019 election. In fact the new US administration is revolutionary; it is changing things as radically as the Roosevelt presidency of 1933. The election of Kamala Harris would have stopped this, and probably done for Trump for good – though who knows what would have been cooked up for 2024.

Even after the election I compared the new regime to Mr Johnson’s, though I also offered Hitler’s 1933 ascension into the chancellery as a comparison. This latter is now looking the stronger parallel. Hitler was no details man, but set a vision in which groups of underlings competed with each other to destroy the old regime, with varying levels of competence, though with more violence than the current US regime has shown so far. The chaos that I predicted has indeed come to pass, but it has not stopped the destruction. And the checks to presidential power that I had thought might come into play seem to have been neutralised. Congress has been bypassed, and the Republican majorities seem to be shrugging this off, and offering little challenge. The courts have been stacked in the new regime’s favour – as evidenced by the shocking extension to presidential immunity made by the Supreme Court last year. A doctrine of unchecked presidential authority is taking hold. Even states’ power, a cornerstone of the Republican anti-establishment rhetoric until now, is being undermined. Mr Trump’s underlings, up to the level of Vice President, openly talk of ignoring court rulings anyway; it isn’t clear what could stop them. It will be no surprise if moves are made to further undermine the democratic standards of elections.

Pretty much all of this was predicted before the election, with plenty of evidential support. While I was broadly right on the administration’s economic policies, unlike many who really should have known better, I failed to understand what was coming for the reordering of the state itself. Not all that is happening is necessarily bad. Many aspects of the state work poorly, and sometimes shock treatment – “move fast and break things”- is the best way to achieve radical change. The problem is I have no confidence in the good faith or competence of this revolution’s leaders. This is the contrast with Roosevelt. They are leading their country to a bad place.

It starts with a complete failure to understand how a modern economy works. The country’s large trade deficit is not a sign of failure – of being ripped-off by foreigners – but a sign of economic success. As Americans become more wealthy, demand for non-tradable goods and especially services grows; to make room for extra supply of these things the country must import more tradable goods and export less. This is easy to fund as the country is attractive to foreign capital. It follows that trying to reverse this, by balancing trade and bringing more manufacturing “home”, the gains will be reversed. America becomes poorer. It’s worse than that, because the government is trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube, and its policies, notably punitive tariffs, are likely to to cause economic harm with doing much corresponding good. Whether this is leading to recession is an open question, but inflation and stagnation are a stronger bet. It is not what so many Trump voters thought they were going to get.

Then there is foreign relations, though this may be less of a concern to most voters. The abrupt tearing up of treaties and promises is destroying trust, which will ultimately make things harder for America. Bullying works by picking weaker subjects off; it doesn’t work when you are trying to bully the whole world. The regime might achieve a ceasefire in Ukraine, and at least a temporary halt to the killing. But its bullying of Ukraine while soft-pedalling Russia boads ill for longer term results. Likewise the regime is giving succour to the Israeli hard right, whose ultimate aim is ethnic cleansing. That does not bode well for long term peace. It will also ultimately undermine dealing with other Middle Eastern regimes. In the Far East things are unclear. The Trump regime is full of China hawks, but Trump himself is more ambiguous. The China hawks are useful for the securing of better relations with Russia, something Mr Trump clearly wants. But he can discard them when it comes to Taiwan, and China may get its opportunity to make the island into its control, which would be a disaster for America.

And what of Americans welfare (pensions and healthcare) and government services? These are being run down, and run by Trump loyalists rather than people with competence. These will surely be weakened. Corruption is likely to take hold.

Meanwhile Mr Trump has a solid base of fanatical support. These are a combination of frustrated conservatives who love that their side is doling it out to the hated liberals, and crooks and chancers who spy opportunities to turn a profit. They will not acknowledge failure, blaming things that go wrong on an array of conspiracies and usual suspects. There seem to be enough of them to keep the regime going. Others will be afraid to speak out or act out of line. Freedom of speech may have been a conservative rallying cry, but, likes states’ rights and rule of law, they don’t mean it.

The question now is whether things will go badly or very badly. In the latter case democracy is subverted and the current regime retains and extends power beyond Trump’s four year term. A successor is found – and there are clearly a number of candidates. I don’t think this is likely. The regime will increasingly be hobbled by infighting, made more vicious by a record of failure. Mr Trump’s charisma will start to fail. Opposition will cling on in many states, and even the judiciary might draw a line.

But a winter approaches. This is not a good time to be an American.

First published on Substack

Is America having a Brexit moment?

In my last post on the US election, I forecast victory for Donald Trump. That was just before Joe Biden stood down – which happened within hours. In a postscript I suggested that the economy and immigration would still swing the election for Mr Trump. So it proved, though as I watched Mr Trump melt down in the first months of Kamala Harris’s candidacy, I thought she might do it – even comfortably. But then Mr Trump’s campaign stabilised, and returned to consistently hammering the points that would swing voters, and he won comfortably. I thought Ms Harris fought a good campaign in the circumstances, but she had no answer on those two critical themes.

And so an earthquake has hit US politics. Mr Trump is much better organised than he was in 2016, and his personnel changes in the American state will be more sweeping. Meanwhile the complacency of the Democrats after beating him in 2020 has been badly exposed: there will surely be something of a clearout on their side. I don’t go along with the idea that this is the most consequential election of our times (which could be applied to 2016, 2020 or 2028 with equal merit) – but the changes will be drastic. To me it evokes nothing more than that what we experienced in Britain after the Brexit referendum in 2016.

Of course 2016 was when Mr Trump was first elected, and we thought that was a Brexit moment too. But his first administration descended into muddle and was reversed in 2020. The equivalent of the first phase of Brexit happened – the chaos after the referendum result as the country turned rudderless, but not the second – which started with Boris Johnson’s landslide election victory in December 2019. It is the equivalent of that second phase that is starting now in America. At first Mr Johnson’s election victory overawed everybody. His supporters projected their favoured outcomes onto the result, and there was much hubris, as his opponents retreated to lick their wounds.

The similarities between Mr Johnson and Mr Trump are striking. Both won by making a series of impossible promises and relying on humour and bluster to persuade voters to give them the benefit of the doubt. Both are personally quite transparent – what you see is what you get – giving a feeling of authenticity compared to other politicians. Both favour loyalty among their choices for political office over competence. They even both have brought in highly intelligent mavericks to spice up their administrations (Dominic Cummings in Britain, Elon Musk in America). It did not go well for Mr Johnson: his chaotic regime collapsed in not much over two years, getting himself replaced by an ideologue who destroyed what was left of his party’s reputation (Liz Truss) – a mess that his eventual successor, the lightweight Rishi Sunak could do nothing to reverse. It was the most spectacular reversal of political fortunes in British history. Will this history repeat? A chaotic regime which results in Mr Trump bowing out prematurely, followed by an even more disastrous lightweight ideologue (JD Vance)?

Maybe. But we need to think about the differences between the two situations. Firstly the two men. Mr Johnson is by far Mr Trump’s intellectual superior, but he had little organisational experience. He couldn’t run a whelk stall, in the British expression. Mr Trump is an experienced businessman, who certainly could run a whelk stall (“the best whelk stall in all the world”), even if his track record is nothing like as good as he says it is. He may not be particularly intelligent in the normally accepted (left-brained) sense, but he has drive, stamina, confidence and intuition that make him very effective in his own way. His management style is chaotic, but there is more method to his chaos than with Mr Johnson, and he is more adept at blaming others if anything goes wrong (Mr Johnson did this too, but without the same chutzpah). And America’s president is far more entrenched constitutionally than Britain’s prime minister, who is at the mercy of parliament. Mr Trump thrives on attention and status, which the job of US president delivers more than any other – it is hard to see him voluntarily letting go. This would take some sort of physical health issue – though this is a clear risk at his age.

But there are going to be problems. His administration will be peopled by chancers and mavericks, who will under-deliver. That happened last time, though in a different way to what is likely to happen this. In the short term I see this as doing little political damage to him though. There will be ethical issues galore – but (unlike for Mr Johnson) these have little capacity to damage him. Failure to deliver on practically anything doomed Mr Johnson and his successors (even Brexit had a big flaw in Northern Ireland); Mr Trump’s downfall is likely to be over-delivery. Mr Trump has made three major policy promises: the mass deportation of irregular immigrants; the raising of tariffs; and reducing taxes. Even partial delivery on these promises will make America worse off. They might have longer term economic benefits (though I’m a sceptic) but these will not come through in time.

It is very hard to see how Mr Trump’s deportation strategy will unfold – it is so unprecedented. But he has laid huge store on it. At a minimum it will create huge uncertainty in the country’s labour markets, and surely many labour shortages. He may try to releive the shortages by relaxing legal immigration, though this looks politically suicidal, but that won’t happen without massive disruption. This disruption will lead to inflation – with the highly sensitive area of food prices looking especially vulnerable. Inflation was the economic event that did most damage to Mr Biden’s reputation, and it will upset many of those that voted for him on the basis of his supposed economic competence.

Something similar will happen on tariffs. These are so obviously harmful that many of Mr Trump’s business backers assume that his policy is simply a negotiating tactic. Nothing, it seems, will dampen their wild optimism, reflected in a stock market rally. But tariffs are central to Mr Trump’s economic outlook. He appears to think that they will be costless to consumers, and raise revenue with which he can cut income taxes. Besides, it is surely hard to negotiate the kind of change to the terms in trade that he so wants. High tariffs will raise the prices of imported products and so inflation. This may not be as disastrous for America as it would be for some others, like Britain, who depend more on trade. But if prices are already going up because his migrant policy has disrupted labour markets, it doesn’t look good.

And then there are tax cuts. Many of Mr Trump’s business supporters set huge store on these, but there is a real problem with the country’s already-huge budget deficit. Adding to this deficit will be inflationary – one of the things that undid Mr Biden. His regime may want to balance this through drastic cuts to public spending (though not to defence), but there is not enough beureaucratics waste, wokery and foreign aid to deliver anything like enough – which would find him cutting into entitlements such as pensions (social security) and medical schemes. That won’t be an easy sell.

All three of Mr Trump’s main economic policy ideas point to inflation and administrative chaos. This will create stormy seas quite unlike his first administration. This is another difference from Brexit, which has proved to be a slow bleed rather than the big dislocation that some predicted. With his regime’s reputation for economic competence shattered there is liable to be a big backlash.

That should be an opportunity for the Democrats – just as Mr Johnson’s collapse was an opportunity for Labour in Britain. It is also possible that a different strand of populist radicalism emerges from the Republican side to take over. Meanwhile in the wider world, the retreat of America from its leadership position will force others to step up. There will be too much collateral damage for this to be a nice thing to watch – but it will be fascinating if you can see beyond that.

Coverage of America’s unpredictable election displays the usual bias

I asked Copilot for a picture of a squabbling crowd in America and this is the result. I suspect political guardrails prevent them including the US flag…

One of my rules here is that I don’t like to comment on elections before they happen. Most news reporting on elections happens before the results are known, because, I suppose, it is more newsworthy. And that’s fair enough if your audience are voters in that election – they have a decision to make. But for others the most important thing about an election is its outcome, the point at which most newsmen seem to drift away, for foreign elections anyway. But the coverage of the United States’ general election tomorrow has become a massive thing in itself. And I want to comment on that before we know the outcome.

The first thing to say is that the coverage here in Britain is massive. My main source of daily news is the BBC, and they are throwing huge resources at it. Alas they often don’t have much new to report. It is quite interesting to see in pictures, or hear real voices, to illustrate what I have read about in more substantial reporting in The Economist and elsewhere – but it has become repetitive. This is typical of the BBC’s “headless chicken” editorial policy. They let their agenda be set by other news outlets (as they see themselves as reporters of the news, not makers of it), set a time budget and fill it even if they have nothing to say – meanwhile suppressing coverage all sorts of important news in areas they consider less newsworthy. Things are not quite as bad as they are when there is a death in the Royal Family, but I’m getting some of the same feeling.

For somebody like me, endless repetition of messages by the BBC and others makes we want to challenge them. These include: this is a very close election; it will be decided in the seven swing states; it is the most consequential election in a generation (or more); American politics is toxic and dysfunctional (to be fair the BBC does not push such an opinionated view – though it is very widely held). All of these contentions have plenty of evidential support, but none of them should be regarded as established facts, as most coverage seems to imply.

Is the election close? Yes, all the respectable polling says so, and the campaigns are acting that way. But accurate polling is very hard to do. In the last two elections Donald Trump’s support was significantly underestimated. There are many unique characteristics about this election, and that is going to make it just as hard to predict: learning from past mistakes can simply lead you to new ones. You can make a case that there will be a comfortable Trump win (a repeat of previous polling error, resulting from a broadening of his appeal across ethnic groups, etc.) or a comfortable Harris one (more motivation from outraged female voters, etc.). We don’t know.

Will it be decided in the seven swing states, or perhaps just the biggest of them, Pennsylvania? A recent poll showing Kamala Harris ahead in Iowa (due to predicted high turnout among women voters) raised eyebrows as this is a regarded as safe for Trump, and may well be one of those polling outliers. But it is entirely possible that the intensive attention both campaigns have been paying to Pennsylvania make this an atypical state, and the winner there loses the overall election. Meanwhile it is possible that one of the parties will flip one or more states outside one of those seven and this could prove decisive.

This is the most consequential election in a generation? That is what both campaigns are saying, and it is what a lot of others were saying too. But it’s what they always say – and especially last time. A Harris win is not going to stop the backlash against “elites” from middle America, even if it means the end of the road from Mr Trump himself. She will not put into action the sort of radical programme that Joe Biden did – as she has not prepared a long for the job as he had, and she will be more constrained politically – she is likely to face a Republican-controlled Senate. And as for Trump, he may in some ways be much better prepared for power than he was in 2016, with many more loyalists ready for the call to assist his administration – but he himself is more erratic and even less focused – and as narcissistic as ever. We could well get a chaotic regime that achieves little and quickly becomes constrained by its unpopularity. Yes, the election will be highly consequential – but so was the last one, and the one before – and well you make the case for earlier elections too.

American politics is toxic and dysfunctional. Actually the first of those is pretty much incontestable – toxicity is a Trump and Republican strategy to help motivate their voters. Ms Harris is trying to break with that, which is welcome, but not necessarily a winning strategy. But dysfunctional? There is dysfunction – most notably with the failure of bi-partisan border legislation purely to make a political point. But The Economist Lexington column makes a good case that democracy is actually in quite good shape. The candidates are moving to the middle ground; party support is breaking out of its ethnic silos. And in today’s Financial Times Rana Faroohar points out that there is dysfunction in wider American society, with too much inequality and with governing elites obsessing about the wrong things. But there is widespread recognition of this wider dysfunction in American society, and perhaps the raucous debate, and highly contested nature of its politics will start to produce the sorts of changes it needs for renewal – and has a far better chance of doing so than if a more stable and controlled politics prevailed.

Humans are far from the rational creatures that many like to think they are. Our predictions for the future are too heavily influenced by our experience of the past. We think that our battles of the moment dwarf those of the past and future in their importance. Both biases are running rampant in the news coverage of this US election.

The American economy’s success is driving the toxicity of its politics

“Don’t bet against the American economy,” says The Economist in a recent special report. I understand where that sentiment is coming from. Over the years I have read many prophesies of doom, or at least of decline, for that economy, and often found them persuasive. On each occasion they have proved false. Two thoughts have struck me from this report: first that America’s success can’t be replicated by Europe, and that Europeans shouldn’t try; and second that America’s economic success, paradoxically, lies at the heart of its toxic politics. It is that last paradox which might cause the American success to unravel, as, to be fair, the report acknowledges.

My first insight flows from the principle of comparative advantage – a core economic insight originally articulated by David Riccardo in the 18th/19th Century. It is part of Economics 101, and is the critical idea about what drives international trade, and why such trade is mutually beneficial even if one economy imports stuff that it could make more efficiently for itself. It’s all about opportunity costs, as more modern language than Riccardo’s would have it. At a strategic level the theory of comparative advantage has massive predictive power – explaining so much of the world economy as we see it, including, for example, why exchange rates don’t match purchasing power parity. But as you try to get into more detailed, and tactically useful, predictions, economists have been unable to turn it into anything more precise, in spite of one or two attempts. Therefore it is left out the economic models that drive so much of the work of economists, and it does not progress beyond Economics 101. That is why so many economists, not least writers at The Economist, often forget that it is there and seem ignorant of how it actually plays out. So far as I can see, the great (and late) economist Paul Samuelson is one of the very few economists of modern times to properly have internalised its implications. He it was who pointed out that as undeveloped economies converged with advanced ones, the gains from trade between them would diminish, at the expense of the advanced economies. This does much to explain the relative economic stagnation of advanced economies since the financial crash of 2007-09, compared with the era of rampant globalisation before it (which happened after Samuelson died, having forecast it) – though there are other factors, not least demographics. And yet this is never mentioned amid the wringing of hands about the backlash against global trade, which is generally blamed on politics alone. And yet the invisible hand is so often behind the politics.

I have a another insight arising from Riccardo’s thesis. America’s recent success compared to Europe, as The Economist‘s report points out, is based on high-tech industries, where productivity has soared, while it has plodded elsewhere. This success is surely based on the scale of America’s market, and the relatively lack of legal and cultural barriers to trade and the movement of labour. This is clearly a source of comparative advantage over Europe – though not to China, which has a very similar advantage. This means that the relative productivity of the tech sector compared to others (making aircraft, for example) is always going to be greater in America than in Europe, apart from a few specialist niches. That will drive America to specialise in hi-tech industry, while Europe’s direct competitors will diminish – to the benefit of both, as an Economics 101 student can readily explain. If this the way of the invisible hand, then why does The Economist (and such luminaries as Mario Draghi the EU éminence grise with an economics training) spend so much time bemoaning Europe’s lagging hi-tech industry and urging it to to try harder? Economically literate politicians, like Mr Draghi, often do this sort of thing because it is a convenient argument for policies that are actually about economic efficiency in general . Journalists in more sophisticated publications have no such excuse. Europe is never going to match America, or China for that matter, in some areas and it will be a waste of effort trying. Meanwhile they are doing well enough exporting the many products where they do have comparative advantage – Europe does not operate with a large trade deficit, after all. Of course European leaders must keep trying to improve economic efficiency, and perhaps watching America will act as a spur, but a clearer understanding of the workings of comparative advantage would mean better-directed public investment.

Back to America. The Economist does not fail to attribute some of America’s success to an entrepreneurial zeitgeist – but it points to more solid factors too. First is that it has comparative advantage in industries that happen to be highly productive – not just in hi-tech, but also oil and gas. The former advantage stems from the size and flexibility of America’s product and labour markets – something that only China matches (India seems to be closer to Europe in this respect); the latter from a geological endowment. That’s all very well, but it creates tensions. The successful industries take off, but the corollary is that many others are left behind – and through the laws of comparative advantage – become less internationally competitive (as the dollar strengthens, and as they have to pay workers more to compete with the more productive sectors). This creates what Donald Trump calls “American carnage” – the flip side to economic flexibility, as factories close and more productive workers flee to the booming parts of the country. How much the imbalance between globally successful industries and the mainstream is driving high inequality is an interesting question. The Economist suggests that the poorest quintile has seen significant income growth in recent years with tighter labour markets – but in the middle of the income distribution there may be more stagnation – as the higher income groups continue to do fabulously. But if things happen quickly in America, the human cost is going to be high. Rapid growth breeds “carnage”.

A further source of advantage, according to The Economist, is access to large numbers of immigrants, and not least those flooding across the southern border. This seems to act as a lubricant: jobs get filled more quickly in the growing parts of the economy. Europe has immigrants too (though not China) but finds these harder to integrate. And yet this is a central driver to the country’s toxic politics.

And so the rapid change to the structure of the US economy, and the flood of immigrants that its success attracts, are driving a sense of dislocation among Americans, which in turn is driving the highly destructive direction of US politics. This is placing all its critical institutions under threat. Four dangers lurk in particular: the capture of US institutions by a big business elite (“rent-seeking” in economic jargon); rolling back international trade through tariffs and other measures; clamping down on immigration; and finally macroeconomic instability arising from public finances going out of control.

The concentration of big business, leading to capture of the political system and the corruption of institutions to protect established business from competition (often in the name of social stability), is a familiar process. We see variations of it in many places (although sometimes, as in Russia and Hungary, the relationship between political leader and business elite is more complex) – and , indeed, it is alleged to have happened in America in the late 19th Century. The concentration is happening in America now, as is the business elite’s dabbling in politics (most egregiously by Elon Musk) – but The Economist does not think it is leading to significant anti-competitive practices. Competition between the major hi-tech companies remains intense and the pace of innovative product development is hardly slowing. We might raise eyebrows about the way money buys influence in the US, but it does not appear to be a big threat to the US economy.

The backlash against foreign trade is a more substantive concern and especially the advocacy of tariffs. This seems to be mainly driven by Donald Trump – and as such it is one of his most distinctive contributions to economic policy – but the Democrats are copying him. It is hard to see how such policies will do much to help the American public – their main effect will be to raise costs. However it may not do much damage to the main drivers of US economic health: the technology giants and the oil and gas industries. It is not good news for the rest of the world, however, especially Europe.

Anti-immigration will also probably not hurt as much as it could – unless Mr Trump is actually tries to fulfil his campaign rhetoric about mass deportation. The Economist is also quite sanguine about the impact of public budget deficits, which few politicians seem to be taking seriously. There remains little threat to the US Dollar as the world’s preeminent currency, and hence the ease with which dollar finance can be obtained.

Still, there does seem to be an unhealthy cycle here. Growth in the American economy remains robust, but it is driving US society apart. Politicians and commentators alike focus on the choices at the next election, always described as the most important in modern times. But neither side is able to deliver a killer blow to the other. If Mr Trump wins next week’s election, his movement will have to find ways to survive his departure, amid the inevitable chaos of his administration. If Kamala Harris wins it is hard to see that she can convince Trump supporters that she is taking America along the right course, continuing to fuel the destructive radicalism of the right. One way or another this political toxicity will surely affect the astonishing robustness and resilience of the US economy that is one of its main drivers.

Time to get used to the idea of Trump’s return

Back in 2021 it had seemed impossible for Donald Trump to return to the White House. Even in 2022 it seemed that his brand was diminished – as candidates he endorsed did badly in Congressional elections. But we should have known better. For the first time in his political career, the man looks unstoppable. We must now think what many of us liberals had thought unthinkable: he will be President again.

Pretty much everybody I know regards the prospect of a repeat Trump presidency with horror, including a handful of Americans. Some Britons do like Trump, but most treat him as a bit of a joke – a caricature of the worst American stereotypes, and transparently narcissistic. This country has had enough of un-serious politicians after the chaotic period of Boris Johnson’s ministry, and his successors’ indulgence in gesture politics. It is one reason that Sir Keir Starmer’s popularity ratings are now high – seriousness is his most demonstrable virtue. You don’t have to be a liberal here in order to dislike Trump.

But it is clearly different in America. The first way that Mr Trump has been able to make a comeback is that he has fired up a supporter base that has enabled him to take over the Republican Party. He has made short work of his rivals, and any Republican law-maker that doesn’t pay homage to him will have their careers quickly terminated. Mr Trump has been able to forge a special bond with this supporters. He plays on their sense of grievance, and the feeling that the political establishment despises them (which they often do…). This seems is intuitive – I have called him a right-brained genius – following the once-fashionable idea that people are a product of a rational left brain and an emotional and instinctive right one. The irony is that this idea was promoted by liberal types to suggest that Western culture was excessively left-brained and destroying the world – and that the world needed more right-brained thinking. Alas this analysis turned out to be too left-brained.

The interesting thing about Mr Trump’s genius is that other conservative politicians have been unable to replicate it. Ultimately they are too calculating and they can’t hide it, and that undermines their authenticity. That fate has befallen Florida Governor Ron De Santis, once billed as being more dangerous, because more rational. We will have to see how Mr Trump’s Vice Presidential pick JD Vance works out. He is clearly a calculating man, but he gets much closer to his boss’s rhetoric than Mr De Santis did – and his empathy with white working class Americans is authentic.

The second reason for Mr Trump’s comeback lies with the current President, Joe Biden. He did well to beat Mr Trump in 2020 – and he has been highly effective in office. Too effective, perhaps. A narrow victory in a campaign that was mainly about the fitness for office of his opponent was not a mandate for many of the radical measures that he brought forward. There were two particular problems. The first was that inflation got out of hand on his watch. Some of the blame may lie with the fiscal generosity of his predecessor, and some arose from international events – but Mr Biden threw in plenty of fiscal generosity of his own. Inflation is now back under control (apparently) but it has left deep scars in its wake, notably with interest rates still high, and petrol prices over 20% higher than in his first year of office. Mr Biden’s supporters like to paint a rosy picture of their man’s economic achievements – but no amount of aggregrate economic statistics can mitigate the pain that many American people have gone through. The second major problem is the chaotic scenes on the border. Now I haven’t been following that particular issue closely, and it is clearly being hyped up by the Republicans – but there does seem to have been a lack of focus by the Biden administration in its attempts to play a number of competing interests.

And then there was the question of Mr Biden’s lack of physical fitness for office. His disastrous debate performance with Mr trump only confirmed what many people had suspected. As I write, he has now thankfully bowed out – but only after an obstinate period of denial. His likely replacement candidate is the Vice President, Kamala Harris. She doesn’t get a very good press (though how justified that is I find hard to assess). My feeling is that she would do a better job than Biden of mobilising the Democrat base, especially younger voters, but will struggle with neutral voters. But the Democrats campaign has lost momentum, and will need to be completely reset.

I don’t think Mr Trump’s survival of the assassination attempt will make more than a marginal difference. It gave him some momentum at a useful time, which doubtless helped bring some donations in. But he and his party reverted to type so quickly afterwards that surely few voters will be swayed.

Mr Trump still has those two big points in his favour: the economy and the border. For some reason many American voters, even those who are otherwise sceptical of Mr Trump, think that he is a better bet for managing both issues than whoever the Democrats throw up. In the case of the economy, that’s a bit bizarre. He plans to raise prices for ordinary Americans by imposing tariffs, while reducing taxes for the better off by adding to the national debt. Reducing immigration, if he succeeds, may make things worse by raising inflation – though it could help lower-paid workers. Still, the idea that a businessman is well-placed to manage the economy a strong one in America. And if Mr Trump’s record as a businessman is a flawed one, years of starring in The Apprentice have clearly impressed many Americans.

And as for the threat Mr Trump poses to American institutions, many Americans clearly don’t think he will be that bad in practice – and perhaps those institutions have been corrupted anyway. The only criminal convictions that Mr Trump has so far suffered were from a distinctly dubious case legally, giving some substance to Mr Trump’s accusations of “lawfare” against him. Other cases may be stronger but the American judiciary has played along with his efforts to kick them into the long grass. Mr Trump has never made himself out to be a saint, even if he sometimes claims to be an instrument of God.

So what are the consequences for us Europeans if Mr Trump succeeds? The most serious is the war in Ukraine. Most European leaders want wear the Russians down, and force them to conclude the war on terms that they cannot paint as victory – and so weakening their threat. They hope that Mr Trump can be manoeuvred into supporting this – but they know it is unlikely. More likely is that he will force Ukraine into a ceasefire. Russia is then likely to regroup and rearm – although it is possible that the enormous cost of the war will start to rebound on Vladimir Putin’s regime. The European powers will have to reorganise their defences, and reduce their dependence on US weaponry.

Economically the main threat is Mr Trump’s proposed tariff regime – but the main economic damage is likely to be wrought on the Americans themselves, and then their neighbours in the Americas and Asia. But it is unlikely to help Europe’s struggling economies – hastening the awkward political choices that permanent low growth will entail.

A difficult four years beckon. It may not come to that, of course. The last month or so have already shown how fast politics can move. Mr Trump seems to have taken his recent successes as as justifying his continued focus on his base – rather than softening his image to appeal to uncommitted votes. If his opponents can succeed in making the threat of a Trump regime look less abstract – by focusing on concrete issues like abortion, rather abstract ones like “democracy” and “the rule of law”, and if their candidate looks properly presidential, more sceptical voters can be persuaded to vote him down. Perhaps, even, he will go too far and look start looking more dangerously deranged, even to some of his erstwhile supporters. We have been hoping for that for eight years, though, and nothing he does seems to faze his base.

Americans will do what Americans will do. We in Europe will just have to live with whatever they choose to do. That’s democracy, I’m afraid.

Postscript: 23 July

The news that Joe Biden was withdrawing broke while I was finishing the article. Anxious to publish, I edited it without changing the overall thrust. But the whole dynamic of the contest seems to have changed. Kamala Harris has launched her campaign built up real momentum – it looks as if she will be chosen without contest. The Trump campaign seems to have been wrong-footed. They have no shortage of attack lines on Ms Harris, whom they despise as much as her boss. But the main ones look weaker than the focus on mr Biden’s capacity, while the Democrats have some attack opportunities of their own: capacity issues can be turned back on Trump, and maybe they will even get a chance to attack some of Mr Trump’s policies – like his disastrous looking economic ideas. Alas Ms Harris’s early attack lines seem to focus on Mr Trump’s criminality and lack of moral fibre. That’s old news and won’t sway many, surely. Matt Goodwin, who had been predicting a Trump landslide, meanwhile rushed out an article suggesting that Ms Harris is an even more hopeless candidate than Mr Biden.

It will be a couple of weeks before we see if Ms Harris is making a serious impact on Mr Tump’s lead. American voters have a way of bringing me down to earth, so my wiser self is saying that the main thrust of my article still stands – even if my optimistic self thinks that the spring in the step that Ms Harris is showing must have some sort of positive effect.

Understanding the genius of Donald Trump

Everybody is talking about him. How the New Yorker is covering THAT mugshot

It’s unwise to bet against Donald Trump. Last autumn he hit a low point when candidates he backed performed badly in the US mid-term elections. But to see how effortlessly he is leaving his Republican rivals for the presidency in his wake leaves me gasping in a sort of admiration. He does this by breaking every piece of advice and common sense that crowds my feed on LinkedIn. Any person who seeks to be effective in politics, or management, needs to understand why Mr Trump is so effective at self-promotion – even as he is so ineffective at pretty much anything else.

As I was pondering this, I read an article on “The truth behind emotional intelligence”, by FT columnist Janan Ganesh. A lot of what clogs my LinkedIn feed is promotion of emotional intelligence. Mr Ganesh complains that people are muddling emotional intelligence with niceness. In fact many nice people have little understanding of the emotional dynamics of the situations they are in and are consequently ineffective – while many nasty people are extremely good at manipulation, which is founded on strong emotional intelligence. He uses as his example Shakespeare’s villain Iago in Othello.

I agree. I first encountered the idea of emotional intelligence on a residential management course in about the year 2000. It was profoundly influential for me. Our trainers were about promoting management effectiveness, not niceness. On the one hand I found the course very reassuring. I proved extremely good at understanding emotional dynamics at work. I was a good listener. As Mr Ganesh points out, emotional intelligence requires listening, and quiet people are usually better at it than the noisy ones who trumpet their emotional understanding. And I was, and I still am, a quiet person – often painfully so. But, and my trainer was clear about this, that quietness got in the way of my effectiveness as a manager. It held me back from being as assertive as I sometimes needed to be. This summed up my professional career very well. While my quietness somewhat typecast me as being very clever in an introverted, geekish way – a large part of my effectiveness actually derived from listening skills and ability to navigate the emotional chess of office politics. But on the other hand I lacked something big and important, and that held my career back. I flourished best when I worked among a small (ish) team of people who worked well together. After we were taken over by a large multi-national bank I quickly started to fade, and took voluntary redundancy.

But what has that got to do with Donald Trump? Well the first point is that Mr Trump is pretty much everything that I am not. That assertiveness that I lacked is overwhelming in him. He is not good at empathy. And yet Mr Trump succeeds like no other politician in forging an emotional connection with his supporters. A recent poll suggested that 71% said that what Mr Trump told them was likely to be true, compared to 63% for friends and family, and just 43% for religious leaders. That, presumably, is because Mr Trump understands what they think the truth is, and feeds it back to them. Those ratings would collapse if he got up and said that, for example, warnings about carbon emissions were well-founded and that all coal mining in the US should cease. But what gives Mr Trump that understanding? Clearly listening of some sort is happening. In the past I have called this right-brained genius – building on the idea that the left side of our brain is our rationale side, and the right our intuitive side. Advocates of this idea suggest that in the West we overdo left-brain thinking, and we should be more in touch with our right brains. But the right brain has its dark side – Mr Trump is very in touch with his.

But that explanation only takes you so far. His Republican rivals listen to the same people and pick up the same messages. Mr Trump builds on his understanding in his public presentation. This is rambling and incoherent (to an extent you would not appreciate if all you heard was edited sound bites), but delivered with a sly sense of humour. This comes over as authentic – no speechwriter could deliver the the same effect – and he makes his audience feel that they are insiders. All the attacks on him, he says, are attacks on you. The more he is attacked, the more his supporters like him. He uses his recent legal troubles to boost a collective sense of victimhood – most recently in his recent use of his Georgia mugshot. He is able to channel all his audience’s frustrations with the world. It is, once again, very right-brained. Even the best paid political consultants cannot coach their clients into achieving something similar – anyway he got there first, which adds to the authenticity. And the more outrageous he is, the more newsworthy – and the more people are talking about him and only him. Meanwhile others who entered politics to achieve serious things, and spend time trying to understand the world, are most unlikely to have the right head-space for that type of behaviour.

There is an evil to Mr Trump’s evil. It is entirely about self-promotion. Naturally he thinks that the world would be a much better place with him in charge, because nobody understands the world like he does. But he is fundamentally un-serious about government and his ego undermines any attempt to implement serious policy. In power he might do some good things, but overall it would be a major step back for the world.

Will he win the presidency? His campaign is better organised and more savvy than in 2016 when he first won. He is running rings around his Republican rivals, even those who are much more capable and qualified than he is. But his challenge will be to reach out to beyond those who worship him – to those who have a better grasp of his weaknesses. That will be hard but it isn’t hopeless. Many have little faith in the Democrats, and their likely candidate, President Biden, has weaknesses of his own. If Mr Trump wins his party’s nomination he will have momentum. His odds of success are better than they should be.

What is the message for the rest of us? Understanding of the emotional side of life is critical to success, whether or not you call it emotional intelligence. But those who possess it are often less effective in other ways, because listening is demanding work and can come at the cost of assertiveness. For some people intuitive emotional connection can substitute for this. But that brings its own dangers.

Trump is not a proper fascist; his coup might have succeeded if he was

Throughout his presidency, I have waited for the moment when Donald Trump overstepped the mark, causing him to alienate a large part of his support base. There were moments when I thought he had reached such a point, but I was proved wrong each time. But the events last week in Washington are surely that moment. His presidency is nearly over anyway, of course, but he is surely unlikely to come back from this.

Of course an astonishing number of Americans thought that the storming of Congress was justified, but the Republican coalition is still breaking up, and it is likely to reform without Mr Trump in control. You could tell Mr Trump was in trouble when he read out his statement disowning the protesters and conceding that he would hand over to the new administration. He normally doubles down; he does not do light-footed manoeuvre.

What happened? It was very clear from even before the election that Mr Trump would try to cling to power if he lost. His plan to do so amounted to a coup, but one that maintained some vestiges of legality. He thought he could mobilise Republican Congressmen and state administrators, and sympathetic judges to annul the state election results he didn’t like, and substitute more congenial ones. For the most part they did not cooperate (the Congressmen being a shameful exception), because Mr Trump could not provide them with any serious evidence to work with, and they had too much respect for the rule of law, or at any rate understood that the risks for them personally were far too high. His last chance was on Wednesday, when Congress was due to ratify the election results. He organised a march of his supporters on the Capitol. What was Mr Trump trying to do? Here it gets murky. His hope may have been to intimidate the law-makers into overturning the election results. He may simply have wanted a spectacular demonstration of the strength of feeling on his side to sustain the betrayal narrative, from which he could build his comeback. If you want to build a conspiracy theory you can easily find enough to work on. After he lost the election Mr Trump cleared out the senior appointees of the Defence department and put in complete loyalists. The Washington National Guard was under the control of the Defence department, but it had not been mobilised for trouble, as it had been for the Black Lives Matter protests.

But it looks as if there was no clear plan. Once the protesters got into the building they did not know what to do. This was the worst possible outcome for Mr Trump. The protesters engaged in vandalism and showed general disrespect for one of the United States’s most hallowed institutions without achieving anything more than a delay to proceedings. This was fine by those of Mr Trump’s base driven by a hate for those institutions and of revolutionary intent: the white supremacists, the QAnon conspiracy theorists and the wild fringe in general. But a large part of the Republican coalition prefers to see these people as a tiresome sideshow. For many conservative Americans, having somebody dressed in a bison outfit leading the way is not a good look. Funnily enough, if the protestors had been met by a robust police and National Guard presence, it would probably have worked much better for Mr Trump – they could blame failure on the “deep state”. The plan had not been thought through and it lapsed into farce, albeit a farce in which several people were killed.

That is very revealing. Many people claim that Donald Trump is a fascist. It is perfectly true that there are many common threads between Trumpism and fascism. The cult of personality, the demand for personal loyalty amongst officials, the disrespect for the rule of law and political convention. The tactics were fascistic too: the use of elections to gain a foothold, the cooption and then subordination of establishment conservatives, and the indulgence of mob violence from supporters. But there are big differences. Fascists concentrate power in a militarised state, subordinating all other civil and private organisations. They adore administrative competence (Mussolini wanted to make the trains run on time; Hitler built autobahns). They are also driven by a clear, if fantastical, vision of where they want to take their country. Donald Trump worked to dismantle the state, not build it up. He let private corporations run riot, including ones he did not like. He has very little regard for administrative competence. He was not a warmonger either – he tried to end foreign wars, not start them. His supporters were not organised into paramilitary formations that could drive through a violent coup. Some of his supporters were heavily armed, it is true, but there was something anarchistic about them; they viewed their weapons as an extension to their personal autonomy, rather than part of being a soldier for a cause. Once you take the narcissism away from Trumpism, there really is very little left.

Which is why the coup failed and Mr Trump has been humiliated. There were no storm troopers ready to enter the Capitol and neutralise opposing Congressmen. There were no leaders on the ground with a clear idea about what they needed to do.

Very soon Donald Trump will leave office. So much of his power, and self-esteem, derived from that office that it will be difficult for him to come back, especially after this fiasco. But his popular base is still there, angry at the turn of events and convinced that it is they who are the victims of a coup. The new administration faces many difficult choices. Joe Biden wants to be a figure of healing and reconciliation. But can he simply let the forces of darkness reorganise with impunity? Republican leaders face hard choices too. Their no-prisoners resistance to the Democrats has unleashed a tiger that is consuming them. Is it time to change tactics in order to capitalise on the fears that much of the American public has of left-wing radicalism?

And all the while the pandemic runs riot. What a moment to become President. But it will not do to underestimate Joe Biden.

Joe Biden: cometh the hour, cometh the man?

I greeted the defeat of Donald Trump in the US Presidential election with relief rather than joy. It was the most important thing to be decided in these elections: but otherwise it was a poor night for the Democrats. That bodes ill for the success of the new administration. But perhaps the new President, Joe Biden, will rise to the occasion.

The first Democratic disappointment was the failure to suppress Mr Trump’s vote more than it did. In fact “suppress” is not the word: Mr Trump’s vote was huge. Victory depended on a series of narrow wins in key states: very similar in character to Mr Trump’s victory in 2016. Based on polling evidence, most people had expected something more decisive. The next disappointment was the Democrats’ failure to secure the Senate. This game isn’t over yet: it will be decided by the double run-off section in early January in Georgia, but the Republicans are favourites. But the Democrats fell short in a whole series of contests where they were expected to do well, and that was the pattern of the night. The Democrats hung on to the their majority in the House in Representatives, but went backwards. They did not make breakthroughs at state level either: important because these elections will affect redistricting for the House. Down-ticket Republicans polled more than Mr Trump.

If the Democrats couldn’t win big this year, when can they? Looked at strategically it the Republicans are winning the battle to be the natural party of government, albeit by a narrow margin. This should worry Democrats a lot. They have long been expecting a demographic dividend, as America becomes less white, and as older, conservative voters die off. Instead Republicans are managing to recruit amongst ethnic minorities. I don’t know what data on younger voters is, but I suspect it follows educational attainment. Less well-educated Americans gravitate towards the Republicans, regardless of race and age, it seems.

This bodes ill for the Democrats in 2024, and of Kamala Harris’s chances in that election if Joe Biden steps down, as expected. There will be a lot of soul-searching. Some want to go down a left-wing populist route, stoking up anger over wealthy elites rigging the system to their advantage. Such a strategy has worked in Latin America (though whether it has done poor voters there any good is another question) – but I don’t think it has traction in America, not least amongst those of Latin American heritage, for whom socialism is often a toxic brand, based on the record of Latin American socialists.

Beyond that, Mr Biden is going to find it very hard to govern. He needs the Senate to unlock major spending initiatives, or legal reforms, for example to health care, or reforms to make it easier to elect Democrats. Nothing in these election results is going to discourage the dominant no-prisoners wing of the Republican Party, represented by the senate leader Mitch McConnell, as well as Mr Trump himself. Republicans will suddenly rediscover their fiscal conservatism and stoke up worries about public debt, conveniently forgotten when Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush or Donald Trump have been in charge. The new administration will be undermined at every turn. And on top of likely control of the Senate, they have stacked the Supreme Court with conservatives. Mr Biden’s appeals for Americans to unite to tackle the country’s problems are entirely futile. Further, Republicans are trying to undermine his legitimacy by saying the election was “stolen”. The extreme partisan nature of US politics will continue.

So what does Joe Biden need to do? The critical things are to revive the economy, get on top of the virus, and put pressure on the Republicans. The economy is critical. Until 2020 this was looking good for Mr Trump. The acid test isn’t the level of the stock market, so beloved of the President, but whether the economy is running hot enough to push up wages and well as create a plentiful supply of less skilled jobs. Mr Trump’s success there doubtless accounts for much of the strength of his support. How much he was actually responsible for this, and how much he was building on his predecessor, we will never know. The virus, of course, is the test Mr Biden has set himself. On both counts luck looks to be on the new President’s. side. The first of the vaccines is coming good, and other promising ones are behind it. This is already having a positive effect on confidence. This means that he is not as reliant as he might of been on Congress to provide funding for the states. The second piece of luck is that the Federal Reserve takes an expansive view of its role in keeping the economy going, and should not jack up interest rates at the first sign of success.

What do I mean by putting pressure on the Republicans? His life will be a lot easier if a small handful of Republican Senators break ranks. It will also be easier if Supreme Court justices also feel a bit of political pressure to appear non-partisan. This dos not mean indulging in the culture wars (on abortion and such matters), which tend to polarise politics and rally the Republican faithful. It does mean keeping the heat up on healthcare and support for “seniors” and veterans. The Republicans aren’t having it all their own way. MrTrump is not going to disappear; surely the party’s stalwarts are going to tire of bowing and scraping to their monarch. Mr Trump is also likely to face a blizzard of lawsuits – though this is unlikely to change public opinion much.

The interesting thing is that of all senior Democrats, Joe Biden seems to understand what needs to be done best. He has it in him to empathise with the average working class Trump supporter. His campaign was very skilful. He is going to need all of that skill in the years ahead. But he knows that. Cometh the hour, cometh the man?