The Trump (and Duterte) derangement syndrome

It was Charles Krauthammer who coined the phrase “Bush Derangement Syndrome” or “BDS.” It is defined as the “acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.”
The same could very likely be said of progressives as far as Donald Trump is concerned.
Seriously, it’s been only a few weeks since Trump’s historic summit with Kim Jong Un and yet not a day goes by without his critics from the Left, particularly the media, pontificating on how its conclusion was the worst thing ever.
Christiane Amanpour made sure that her disgust at the US-South Korea military exercises cancellation was apparent to viewers. Don Lemon, ignoring any possibility that nuclear war tensions being eased for the better, whined openly at how “expensive” he thinks the Trump-Kim lunch was.
But perhaps the fact that Trump is stoking these people up could only mean he’s on to something good.
Steve Hilton read the situation best: “When I think of all these people piling on President Trump for daring to question their worldview, the pithy phrase of author Nassim Taleb comes to mind: ‘IYI – Intellectual Yet Idiot.’”
Take globalization and international trade.
For decades, the Left has railed against the supposed inequalities that globalization breeds, alleging that trade victimizes the poor relentlessly.
Then comes Trump who seems to see it their way, that indeed there is unfairness in the global trading system, and sought to put the brakes and determine a better way moving forward.
Exactly the demand of the protectionist Left (including many here in the Philippines).
Then, suddenly, everyone is now a passionate free trader.
Again, Hilton: “In country after country, the old order made the rich richer and working people poorer as incomes went down and jobs went away. It ripped apart the social fabric, helping to destroy local communities and break apart families. It undermined faith in government and democracy, as citizens saw that it didn’t matter who they voted for in actual elections — the same, elite-serving policies would be pursued regardless.”
“So yes, when President Trump confronts the failures of the ‘rules-based international order’ directly, after decades of pusillanimous acquiescence by his predecessors, you could describe that as ‘unprecedented.’” And yet “the elites throw around that word ‘unprecedented’ as a criticism. Nothing could be more revealing of their true beliefs: they actually loved the old order because they and their rich friends benefited from it.”
Trump may actually be doing good (albeit inadvertently) for poorer countries like the Philippines.

Speaking of the rich countries protectionist agriculture policy, Ross Clark points out that the “developed world seems to have agreed a policy which is deeply hypocritical and which will ultimately prove unsustainable. We preach free trade, to the point of twisting the arms of developing countries to open their markets to our manufactured goods — yet at the same time we erect high barriers against imports of agricultural goods.”
The Singapore Summit with Kim is another example.
For years, people had been worrying about the biggest, most immediate threat to world peace. But it wasn’t China or Russia or even Islamic terrorists (Trump had decimated ISIS, at least in Syria) however. It was North Korea.
Trump’s machinations had made relations with Kim a bit more manageable. Yet, all of a sudden, that wasn’t enough.
Why didn’t Trump go for complete and utter denuclearization and subservience of North Korea on that very day? They might as well have thrown in a unified Korea as the standard for a successful summit.
As far as the military exercises with South Korea is concerned, nothing is stopping the US from holding such again anytime it chooses.
As The Diplomat’s Damen Cook puts it: “The United States could decisively defeat the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in a military conflict. This is not really in dispute amongst military analysts.” However, the “highest priority interest on the peninsula is preventing a nuclear war.”
All others, including Kim’s horrendous human rights record, could be addressed later. What’s the point of demanding human rights if all the humans have been obliterated anyway?
Like it or not, Trump is like some sort of badly needed jolt to the system.
Rodrigo Duterte is doing the same, albeit for the Philippines. He has made people realize that international law needs to be backed up by sovereign strength, and that the rule of law, democracy, human rights, values, and the separation of powers are not mere words.
Blake Hounshell declares that Trump is “making diplomacy great again.”
Perhaps.
Certainly both Trump and Duterte are making international relations and domestic politics something all people can join in.
Whereas before ordinary citizens were made to feel excluded, they now feel comfortable questioning journalists, academics, and policy makers who’ve always assumed they know better.
If only for that, then the derangement that Trump (and Duterte) is causing the elite is worth it.
 
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
jemygatdula@yahoo.com
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
facebook.com/jemy.gatdula
Twitter @jemygatdula