US politics – 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

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

The populists are looking forward to 2025, but they will be disappointed

Happy New Year to my readers! These few days are thick with journalists making predictions for the year ahead. This is probably a good discipline for them – and even better if they revisit them at the end of the year to see how they did. But it makes less attractive reading, and I don’t tend to do it myself. Mostly the fare is gloomy stuff. But one group abounds with optimism: the political populists, and supporters of Donald Trump in particular. I want to reflect on that.

As usual my starting point is Matt Goodwin. I rarely read more than a couple of paragraphs of his Substack – and since I’m not a paid subscriber that is often all I’m offered. The writing is high on rant and low on content. It’s only good reading if you want to be wound up, one way or the other. His New Year post offered a note of optimism: “things are moving our way” he said, with the hated “elites” getting their comeuppance. The main driver for this was that he anticipated that the Trump administration would prove that radical-right solutions would work, contrary to the heaps of scepticism from the liberal elite. And this success would strengthen the growing populist movements around the world.

Thanks for reading Thinking Liberal! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This rather captures the zeitgeist of populists. Extreme pessimism about how the world is going to hell in a handcart is combined with excessive optimism about what their favoured leaders and policies can achieve. Optimism from Trump supporters, and corresponding pessimism from their liberal critics, is currently rampant. It is behind the strong performance of US shares (I have just dumped the two funds most exposed to this effect in my pension pot – but the profits have been welcome). The idea behind this is that tax cuts and deregulation will drive up corporate profits, while tariffs are either a negotiating bluff or will favour big American companies.

There are two big problems with this outlook. The first is that the politics is much trickier than most people seem to realise. The second is that the policies won’t work either. Consider the politics. In spite of Mr Goodwin describing Mr Trump’s victory as a “landslide”, it was actually very close. He secured slightly under half the popular vote, with a margin of about 1.5% over Kamala Harris. This is a big victory by recent Republican standards, and gave him a comfortable majority in the electoral college, but hardly overwhelming. More to the point, the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress are very tight; it even shrank in the House of Representatives. This will not make getting controversial legislation through easy – and especially from an administration whose political negotiating skills are pretty weak (especially compared to Joe Biden, the outgoing president). Some aspects of Mr Trump’s policy don’t require congressional approval – but the tax cuts, such a central part of the business optimism for Trump, do require this. It will be more than hard going. The response of many liberal commentators is “pass the popcorn” as they seek to get some entertainment from the Republican infighting. Meanwhile the flurry of executive orders will doubtless be subject to a blizzard of legal challenges. That is the American way.

And the policies themselves are bound to disappoint. Mr Goodwin confidently expects mass deportations to take place rapidly, as promised by Mr Trump. This will be much harder and slower going than he expects, and will have adverse short-term economic consequences, as it will throw uncertainty into the labour market. Tariffs cannot possibly meet the expectations placed on them by the policy’s supporters. And so it goes on. There is no great pool of untapped economic potential waiting to be unleashed (as there was in the 1930s, say). Just how the economy will play out is very uncertain, however, largely because the politics is so difficult that it is hard to predict which policies will be enacted and when. A common view, which I have put forward myself, is that tax cuts and tariffs will drive inflation up. An alternative is that the economy stagnates as these policies fail to get started, and uncertainty undermines investment.

The Trump administration may achieve some good things. There is bound to be a lot of nonsense going on in the current regime. Funnily enough, I think the prospects for Mr Trump’s foreign policy are better than for domestic policy. His highly transactional approach is easy to grasp, and accords with how many foreign governments like to do business. I am really hoping he can force a peace in Ukraine that does not neutralise that country. Mr Biden seems to have run out of ideas (incidentally it is entirely possible that a President Harris would have accomplished a peace settlement too). My hopes for the Middle East are weaker – it looks as if Mr Trump will give Israel free rein. But that is pretty much what Mr Biden was doing. There is talk of a deal on Iran, but I’m not sure if the leaders of that country have enough to offer to make any deal look good. The Trump administration may simply play a long game for regime change. In the longer term my main fear is that the muddle and confusion of Trump’s Taiwan policy will encourage China to launch a military attack while the window of opportunity persists.

Overall, though, I see that the populist movement be disappointed, and the politics among Republicans will turn toxic. This will take some wind out of the sails for populists elsewhere. But the long term drivers of populism remain. Demographics and the changed working of the global economy are forcing difficult choices on governments, on tax, on spending and on immigration policy. The public as yet shows no sign of facing up to these difficulties – so the populist message that this is all the fault of an out-of-touch elite still has potential. The floundering of Britain’s new Labour government; the political impasse in France; and the prospect of something similar in Germany – these all show that the mainstream political parties have no answers either.

Something has to give. As yet I don’t have a feel for what this will be. But populists don’t have any workable answers and populist-led governments are likely to fail. Or if they don’t fail, it will be because they will adapt to reality and manage to sell it to the public and reduce their expectations to something more realistic. Some governments might succeed (Georgia Meloni; perhaps even Marine Le Pen); but not Donald Trump.

This post has been 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.

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.

The BBC’s questionable coverage of the US elections

Photo: USCapitol, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The British political class is obsessed with US politics. The right wish to emulate US culture wars and attack “wokeism”. The left (rather more successfully) pick up on the Black Lives Matter movement, never mind our very different racial history. So perhaps it was inevitable that the BBC would cover the US mid-term elections so heavily. But in doing so they have posed deeper issues about the institution.

I try to resist the temptation to comment on other countries’ politics. I last commented directly on US politics in 2021, when I praised the progress being made by President Joe Biden. That quickly became a very unfashionable view, especially after the Afghanistan debacle. I still think he is underestimated – but then I thought that of Jimmy Carter when he was president – another deeply unfashionable view. But want I want to look at this time is not US politics itself, but how the BBC in particular covered it.

News coverage of the US midterm elections was extensive, and especially on the BBC – my leading source of daily news. A Danish general election came and went without comment – in a country with a close cultural affinity with England, if the not the rest of Britain – while reporting on the 10 O’clock TV News from America was almost daily.

The first striking thing abut this coverage was the BBC’s claim that these elections were hugely consequential, a view widely repeated in Britain. They explained how if the Democrats lost control over Congress, then the presidential agenda would be halted. And yet this usually happens in the US midterms, and life goes on. Mr Biden has fought hard to get as much of his legislative agenda as possible achieved before these elections; he always expected his party would lose them. BBC correspondents eventually seemed to realise that this argument wasn’t strong enough to support the trope that these were the most important midterms ever (how sick I get when this claim is made of elections, as it always is). So they said that democracy itself was at stake. The basis of this claim was the number of Republican supporters of Donald Trump, who claimed that the presidential election of 2020 was stolen by Mr Biden. And some of them sought to take control over state electoral processes, so that they could ensure the right outcome next time. This is indeed an interesting aspect of current US politics. But were the BBC following the Democrats’ line a bit too uncritically? I don’t mind their reporters repeatedly saying that Mr Trump’s claims are false – his supporters have been unable to produce evidence that can be tested in court – perjury is a serious matter, after all. But the endangerment of the electoral process in some states is only one issue that American voters have to weigh up.

But this marks a more general Democrat bias to the BBC coverage – a prejudice which, to be fair, is pretty prevalent in Britain. They are careful to present Republican views in their interviews with politicians and in vox pops. But we are left thinking that most Republican supporters are nutters – repeating those election fraud allegations, for example. If this were all there was to it, then it raises the question of why the Republicans are doing so well. Surely Americans aren’t all that stupid? There is clearly something else going on. And that something else seems to be the perceived extremism of many Democrats, which clearly annoys many Americans, and not just less-educated white ones. We will struggle to get any idea of what lies behind this fear from watching BBC coverage – or I suspect that of most other British news outlets. In the end the story of American conspiracy theorists, and the ramblings of Mr Trump, are the more entertaining story, and that dominates our coverage.

Funnily enough, after all the hype of the run-up, coverage of the election results has been very muted. They were almost exactly in line with the more considered predictions (published by The Economist, for example), but probably a bit worse for the Republicans in the House of Representatives. But they still won there – and there will be significant consequences arising from that. Mr Trump seems to have had a measurable negative impact on his party’s performance, but I haven’t seen that story through on the mainstream reporting. We’re now onto the World Cup and COP27. And there is quite a bit of domestic news to be digested too.

All of this is making me think harder about the role of the BBC in news. It remains a trusted brand, and we are lucky to have it in place of the more partisan free for all that dominates the US. But, as a public service organisation committed to balanced coverage, it faces tricky decisions. Not so long ago it got into trouble by “balancing” scientists warning us about carbon emissions with unqualified s**t-stirrers like Nigel Lawson. They have moved on from that, and it is good to see that they are not giving credibility to Mr Trump’s lies about the 2020 election in the name of balance. But, in general, the BBC feels it must follow the news agenda set by others, in which Britain’s diminishing print media have an outsize role. Since this media is dominated by organisations with a right-wing agenda, this causes much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst people in the left. But there are bigger problems.

The first is the choice of which stories to cover, or not – what makes an important story in the news media is not necessarily all that important in the great scheme of things. We saw this in the coverage of the death of the Queen. This was a big news story, of course, but the BBC followed other media in excluding all other news reporting in the weeks after, until other media outlets started to let other stories in. The BBC wouldn’t devote so much as a minute to “other news” in extended news broadcasts, and instead went round in circles in with interviews with royal correspondents, there being little actual news to report. The BBC could and should have shown a bit of leadership here – five minutes of other news in a 60-minute programme was surely not have been too brave? The time given to US politics is another example, with European politics being neglected by comparison – in spite of the fact that the latter might have a more immediate impact on the country. That Danish general election was quite an interesting story. And then there is the bias towards covering elections before they happen, and neglecting the hard news of the actual results. Even The Economist does this, though. That is the difference between journalism and “the first draft of history”, I guess. Speculation is more fun than facts.

But what about the accusation of liberal bias that is so often levelled at the BBC – and which its coverage of the US election seems to illustrate? This is more complicated than it looks. Another example is racism and antisemitism. A few on the right might grumble about the apparently uncompromising stand that the BBC takes on these issues. But dig down a bit and you find problems. Racists and antisemites are portrayed as nutters that it is easy to dis-associate from. I have seen a couple of television dramas portraying far-right activism, along with its racist and antisemitic tropes. But these activists are cardboard cut-outs – poorly educated white people with a soft spot for Hitler and Naziism. There is much more to racism and antisemitism than this. Will there ever be a drama covering antisemitism in the far left? To say nothing of the muddle between antisemitism and criticism of Israel and Zionism? Of course not. It is too controversial. But this bias annoys both left and right. The right is annoyed by the persistent portrayal of racism as being confined tot he political right. The left complains that discussion of Israel is heavily constrained.

This is all rather depressing. There seem to be two types of news media: the partisan and the dumbed-down. The partisan media thrives on controversy and isn’t afraid to air conspiracy theories and nonsense tropes – and is consequently useless as a source of information. But the “balanced” media are too scared that controversy will damage their reputation for objectivity – and anyway tend to follow the pack in their coverage of stories. Perhaps there is an inevitability about this – but at least the BBC could try a bit harder to be more informative in its news coverage.

Joe Biden has made a strong start

“Cometh the hour, cometh the man,” is what I wrote when Joe Biden was elected US President last November. I had a good feeling about the man because Mr Biden looked to be somebody who confronts the world as it really is, rather than on some projection based on conviction, as more partisan politicians do. It is going better than I expected.

In that post I said that the new president needed to do three things: revive the economy, get on top of the virus, and put pressure on the Republicans. On all three counts he is doing well. He has been lucky, but he has helped to make that luck. We can now see that this is the job he has wanted to do all his political life. He was ready for it. It turns out that being a Vice President is good preparation for the Presidency, especially at the start. The last Vice President to make it to the top was George Bush Senior in 1988; he proved very effective at the job, even if he was less effective at the politics. Before that we might remember Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, also very effective operators. Mr Biden knows how the machinery of government works and was well prepared by the time inauguration came, notwithstanding the tardy cooperation of the outgoing administration.

Mr Biden has also proved an adept politician. He made a good start before he took office when the Democrats took both the Senate run-off elections in Georgia. The Republicans had been favourites. How much he can take personal credit for this is hard to say – but he clearly didn’t get in the way. That gave him control of the Senate by the narrowest possible margin. He has used it skilfully. His biggest achievement has been pushing through a massive economic stimulus bill. He now has two more ambitious efforts involving massive outlays: an infrastructure plan and welfare reforms. He has not sought to build bridges with the Republicans, in the way that Barack Obama wasted so much time doing, but the measures are likely to go down well with many Republican voters, especially the ones that switched to Trump in 2016 and 2020. I can’t see that the welfare changes stand much chance, as they look too strong for conservative Democrats in the Senate – but they should help keep up the pressure.

And the next point about Mr Biden is that he takes decisions, even tough ones, quickly. This is part of being ready for the job, but it is a strong contrast with Mr Trump and Mr Obama, and especially the former’s gaggle of squabbling advisers. A striking example of this has been the decision to withdraw the US military completely from Afghanistan by 11 September. We might well think this is wrong (The Economist argued that keeping on a small commitment would be value for money), but it happened quickly.

But is he taking America in the right direction? One criticism is that he is just rehashing failed policies from the 1970s. This is put quite eloquently by Gerard Baker in The Times. Mr Biden wants to throw a lot of public money at problems, promoting federal agencies and trade unions, in a striking reversal of the prevailing wisdom since Ronald Reagan came to power in 1980 – even if the practice never quite lived up to the rhetoric. There does seem to be something quite old and familiar about this approach. Mr Biden has been compared to Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson – falsely because he doesn’t have enough Senate votes to be anything like as ambitious as this pair. His infrastructure plans recall Dwight Eisenhower. These policies just led to stagflation in the 1970s, it is said. But context is all. Big government worked well enough in the 1950s, with the rise of light manufacturing and the bureaucracy of the consumer society – all those salesman, account clerks and insurance administrators. But in the 1960s and 1970s, the economy and society suffered a number of problems. First came the Vietnam war, which the US government refused to finance through taxation, causing the postwar world financial infrastructure to buckle. Then came the malign effects of union inflexibility, which meant that consumer price rises fed through quickly into wage inflation, creating a wage-price spiral. And then came the shock of escalating oil prices in the 1970s, the first important symptom of environmental constraints on the US model of growth. Combine these with big government and you got stagflation.

That was then. Now is a very different world. The wage-price spiral has been broken by the growth of globalisation and the impact of technology. A new world financial infrastructure has emerged. Environmental constraints are being embraced rather than denied. And anyway since 2008 the developed world seems to have been suffering from deficient demand. Interest rates have been cut to rock bottom; there does not seem to be enough positive pressure in the labour market. Nominal jobless rates may look low (slowing for the pandemic), but pay at the lower end is propped up by minimum wages, job insecurity is rife, and people are dropping out of the workforce. Throwing public money at problems could be quite beneficial at such a time, even if it was harmful in the 1970s. And excess public spending is much more likely to get the money to where it is needed that tax cuts.

Still, you don’t have to be on the political right to worry that president is taking things too far. Predictions of a rise in inflation are widespread, though an awful lot of people seem to think that this will work in a similar way to the late 20th Century. One way or another interest rates are likely to rise – a sign of a better balanced economy after all – and this could have some fairly scary consequences in a financial system that seems to take low interest rates and booming asset prices as one of the fundamental rights of man. But it could take some time for any problems to emerge.

A second criticism is that Mr Biden is taking his radicalism too far. He has spoken of bringing America together and healing the partisan divides. But in many ways he is doing the opposite. Much of the Republican base – the wealthy rather than the populous part of it – was horrified by Donald Trump, whose grip on that party shows no sign of weakening. But they will be even more horrified by fear of tax rises, and will doubtless find themselves returning to the party fold. That does not matter that much in terms of votes (these are the top 1% after all, even if you have to add in larger numbers who fancy their chances of entering that elite) – but it means lots of campaign funding to promote misinformation and damaging memes. The Republicans scared a lot of people into voting for them in Congressional races last year by portraying the Democrats as being taken over by the “radical left”. It won’t be too hard to paint Mr Biden’s policies in that light.

A big challenge will come in 2022, when the mid-term elections come. Most commentators already seem to have written the Democrats’ chances off, following what happened to Mr Obama and Mr Trump at the same points in their presidencies. But that can’t be in the plans of a consummate politician like Joe Biden. He clearly feels that his policies can peel away a lot of voters from the Republicans.

And that will make American politics very interesting over the next year and a half. Mr Biden has started well, and he means to keep up the momentum.

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.