Several hours after this article’s release, Donald John Trump would have been sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts as the 45th President of the United States of America. Coming after one of the most openly acrimonious campaigns in election history, today’s inauguration signals the renewed start of predictable escalating liberal attacks on Trump.
Although the question naturally asked is how Trump’s ascension could affect the Philippines. Now it’s easy to underestimate the number of people too hooked on CNN or Huff Po but I do get surprised when people get surprised when I say that Trump, coming off Obama’s disastrous presidency, may actually be good for our country.
Of course, there are caveats: any political commentator who says he knows what will happen in the next few months is lying. And we know that because we saw it happen in the 2016 US elections. Absolutely no one got it right.
From a Philippine policy perspective, I rooted for genuine conservatives: from Jeb Bush to Marco Rubio to Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal to Ted Cruz. Then there was Condi Rice. Basically, all the young intelligent talented politicians are with the Republicans. Which bodes well for conservatism’s future. So one can imagine the collective gasp when the primaries finished and the one left standing was Donald Trump.
Nevertheless, Trump — after the vicious head slapping that happened among conservatives in the US and worldwide, and people’s attention went back to the general elections — was still a far more palatable candidate than Hillary Clinton.
Now, it was not that Hillary was a terrible candidate. She also ran a terrible campaign. If the campaign were the actual presidency, Hillary was fiscally irresponsible, Trump wasn’t. Hillary needed 705 staffers, Trump 82. Trump spent less than a third of Obama’s 2012 campaign, Hillary spent more than double Trump’s. Hillary was certainly profligate in TV ads, hotels, and transportation. And note that Trump had to fend off 16 other Republicans, whereas Hillary’s was virtually a coronation and she still almost lost to an insurgent Bernie Sanders.
Nevertheless, Trump did have an issue favoring him. An issue graphically definable by a number (3), place (the Supreme Court), duration (at least 20 years or a generation), and impact (religious freedom, abortion, marriage, euthanasia). So perhaps for the first time in history, the US elections hinged on who should be given the right to nominate three, possibly four, Supreme Court justices (i.e., the vacancy left by Scalia, then possible retirees Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer).
Which incidentally, leaves me wondering that a matter so important for the US in November 2016 was absolutely ignored by us in May 2016; considering that the victor in our presidential elections gets to appoint at least 11 new Supreme Court justices before his term is up.
Hillary’s vaunted 2 million plus popular vote lead actually reveals electoral mismanagement. Most of that were culled from California, a locked-in Democrat State. Why pour any effort into it while inexplicably failing to protect Ohio and Michigan, vulnerable battleground States particularly in the final days of the campaign? In the end, it was the Electoral College that mattered and Trump won it 306 to Hillary’s 232, a wide margin by any standard.
Which perhaps tells us that the next time we go shopping around for a leader, perhaps the smart money is to look for one who had a successful professional life outside politics.
In any event, the transition team Trump organized (criticized again by the mainstream media) looks surefooted. Definitely better than Bill Clinton’s and perhaps as efficient as George W. Bush’s (both with regard to his own transition and despite the Clintonites’; attempts to mess it up, and that for Barack Obama).
The appointments give a feel of the adults being back in the room: Haley at UN, Tillerson at State, Mattis at Defense. A Goldman Sachs man returns to Treasury with Mnuchin and a proponent of deep spending cuts (which I wish would happen here in this country, considering the ever bloating budget and constant deficit) is at the DBM in the person of Mulvaney.
Of interest is De Vos at Education and Lighthizer at USTR. At a time when our Education (and Health) officials are dithering on the question of faith and morals in the classroom, De Vos brings a welcome Christian zeal to Washington. And in Lighthizer, one sees the same policies that should be undertaken in the Philippines as well: caution on new trade deals, review existing ones and rewrite if necessary, and immediate pushback against discriminatory treatment.
Most liberals (predictably) point to the negatives: the alleged populist, protectionist rhetoric; the bizarre early morning tweets, and the seemingly compulsive bragging and bluster that would put any WWE wrestler to shame.
But perhaps like anyone else, this twice-divorced, thrice married, father of five, Wharton economics graduate, 70-year-old businessman should be given a chance.
It’s not as if we did any better.
Jemy Gatdula is the international law lecturer at the UA&P School of Law and Governance and Executive Director of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations.
Twitter @jemygatdula
Reuters
