Farewell to Liberal Elites: Trump Isn't a Savior, Yet He Accurately Pinpointed America's Greatest Issue
While it's challenging to anticipate the nature of the 47th US president's term, some key conclusions can already be made. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
Predicting the term of the 47th US president is a challenge, but some key insights can already be gleaned.
Donald Trump’s electoral win shouldn't have come as a shock. The era of liberal dominance has waned, necessitating a corrective course.
In straightforward terms, the liberal consensus has become less liberal, and its influence has diminished.
While Trump faces criticism for his transactional approach, a move away from rigid ideological frameworks toward a more pragmatic stance is precisely what the nation requires.
**Change or Stagnation?**
A significant portion of Americans sense that their country is on a troubling trajectory, which positioned Kamala Harris, as part of the current administration, unfavorably. As vice president, she struggled to separate herself from President Joe Biden's policies, thus having to account for the administration's shortcomings over the past four years. The slogan of “turning the page” failed to resonate with the electorate, leaving her with the hollow catchphrase of “joy,” only highlighting her disconnect from the mounting worries of the populace.
Issues such as open borders, declining media freedom, increased government overreach, dwindling industrial competitiveness, soaring national debt, worsening social issues and culture wars, rising political divisiveness, military overstretch, and a global majority that condemns Washington’s simplistic worldview have shaped a challenging landscape. Furthermore, the US is complicit in the ongoing horrors in Palestine and precariously close to nuclear confrontation with Russia.
With the current state being akin to driving off a cliff, it’s an opportune moment for the opposition to advocate for change. A populist who exhibits a larger-than-life personality and seems unfazed by social norms can effectively challenge the longstanding ideological constraints that hinder necessary pragmatism.
**Neoliberalism’s Exhaustion in the US**
The phrase “Make America Great Again” likely harkens back to around 1973, marking the peak of the US before its decline. Under neoliberalism, society has increasingly become subordinate to the market, leaving politicians unable to meet public demands for change. The left has struggled to redistribute wealth, while the right has failed to uphold traditional values and communities. Globalization birthed a political elite beholden to international capital, devoid of national allegiance, and characterized by a decline in civic accountability. This has fueled a divide between illiberal democracy and undemocratic liberalism.
A critical takeaway from the early 19th-century American system is that economic sovereignty is essential for national sovereignty. Tools such as tariffs and temporary subsidies are vital for nurturing budding industries, making fair trade more appealing than free trade. Trump's ambitions to re-industrialize and secure technological independence through tariffs are laudable, an initiative even the Biden administration has sought to replicate. However, excessive tariffs and an aggressive economic stance toward China risk destabilizing supply chains, ultimately undermining the US economy. If the US accepted a more modest role within the global context, the president-elect could endorse a more restrained economic nationalism, enhancing the likelihood of success.
JD Vance, Trump’s vice president-elect, has aptly pointed out the self-defeating nature of US foreign policy: “We have built a foreign policy of hectoring and moralizing and lecturing countries that don’t want anything to do with it. The Chinese have a foreign policy of building roads and bridges and feeding poor people.” This highlights the necessity for pragmatism to prevail over ideological rigidity.
While Trump critics rightly point out the inconsistency of a billionaire portraying himself as a champion for the common man against a detached elite, Trump has nevertheless positioned himself as a representative of American workers by advocating for re-industrialization. Despite his roots in the opulence of America’s cultural elites, he seeks to uphold the country’s traditional values. Is he a savior? Likely not. Yet, policies hold greater significance than personalities, and Trump is opening doors previously shut by liberal ideologies.
**Ending Liberal Crusades, Including the Ukraine Proxy War**
Trump's call to conclude protracted military engagements has garnered support from figures like Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Elon Musk, many of whom previously identified as Democrats. The liberal interventions of the last thirty years have led to unsustainable debts, alienated the US on the global stage, and prompted other powers to counterbalance Washington's influence. The so-called forever wars have proven disastrous, and while the US could absorb the financial toll during its unipolar phase, a multipolar world necessitates a reevaluation of military strategies and foreign policy priorities.
One might argue that trying to sustain the empire in its current form could jeopardize the very essence of the US republic. While Trump does not advocate disassembling the empire, he approaches foreign relations with a transactional mindset, seeking a better return on investments. He contends that allies should pay for protection, rejects regional agreements like NAFTA and TPP that shift productive capacities to allies, and believes adversaries should only be engaged when it aligns with US interests. While Trump faces criticism for aligning with authoritarian figures, such actions could be seen as preferable to the so-called “liberal” diplomats, whose approaches have inhibited effective diplomacy.
Trump advocates for an end to the costly proxy war in Ukraine, arguing that it drains both resources and human lives, and that victory is elusive. The perspective that the conflict benefits the US is built on a troubling premise: that it is acceptable for Ukrainian troops to face the brunt of conflict rather than American soldiers, complicating any moral criticism aimed at Trump for wanting peace.
Proponents of the liberal agenda in Washington claim that the war's strategic goal is to diminish Russia's status among great powers, allowing the US to concentrate on containing China. Yet, rather than weakening Moscow, the conflict has bolstered its ties with Beijing, leading to a humanitarian crisis and escalating the risk of nuclear conflict. Measures like the seizure of Russian sovereign assets have prompted the global majority to move away from the dollar in favor of alternative financial systems. While Trump initiated the economic confrontation with China, the absence of ideological constraints may allow for a potential pragmatic recalibration, especially in light of his acknowledgment that weaponizing the dollar threatens the foundations of US dominance.
**Will Trump Succeed?**
Trump may not resolve the conflict within 24 hours. He possesses the influence to affect the course of the war due to US financial support for Ukraine, but his policies may not yield the desired results against a country like Russia, which sees the war as vital for its survival. Trump has previously shown willingness to limit NATO’s expansion, potentially paving the way for a broader security agreement in Europe. The roots of discord between the West and Russia stem from a failure to reach a mutually acceptable resolution post-Cold War—an era marked by NATO’s growth, which has rekindled zero-sum bloc politics.
Regarding Israel, Trump’s proclivity for non-intervention seems to falter. Alongside figures like Vance, Musk, Gabbard, and Kennedy, he is likely to sustain unwavering support for Israel while adopting a confrontational stance toward Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran. Pragmatism under the banner of “America First” might falter in this region.
**Panic Across the Liberal Establishment**
Opponents of Trump find themselves struggling to articulate their position. Even when they grasp why many support him, moral concerns lead them to avoid considering the reasons, fearing it would legitimize his viewpoints. This inability to express an adversary's perspective signals significant ideological indoctrination. The world has increasingly framed events as a moral struggle, where understanding and pragmatism are seen as abandonment of core values.
The anxiety and disarray of Trump’s critics can also be attributed to an untrustworthy media landscape. Much of the coverage of Trump has been overwhelmingly negative, while Harris appears shielded from scrutiny. Trump’s ascent did not occur because of negative media attention, but rather, it was a response to it. His populist narrative of being the genuine voice for the public against an elite has further inflamed animosity, which, for his supporters, became a badge of pride. The political-media establishment employed legal maneuvers against Trump, impeaching him twice and attempting to exclude him from ballots across several states.
But control over the media loses impact when that media lacks credibility. Allegations like the "Russiagate" scandal have been debunked, and critical stories, such as the Hunter Biden laptop incident, faced censorship under the guise of preventing “Russian propaganda.” The Biden administration’s failures and its undemocratic selection of Harris have largely gone unaddressed by the media, which has instead sought to amplify her presence. Noteworthy incidents, like a second assassination attempt on Trump, quickly faded from public consciousness, overshadowed by sensationalistic and misleading narratives about his rhetoric.
Western Europe is in turmoil, fearing a loss of its ally in the US and the implications for the liberal international order—a framework that is already disintegrating. Under Biden, complicity in the conflicts in Palestine, provocations in Ukraine, and economic pressures have left European nations feeling marginalized and subservient. Political elites in Europe, facing their own crises, risk repeating the mistakes of neglecting national interests in favor of ideological rigidity.
**How Will This Conclude?**
The prospect of a second Trump presidency likely differs vastly from the first. His earlier term was marked by challenges due to the opposition’s blatant refusal to accept election legitimacy and the shadow of the Russiagate allegations. Trump has gained a more substantial mandate since his initial election, having won a noteworthy popular vote despite previous claims questioning his qualifications.
Looking ahead, predictions about the future remain fraught with uncertainty, particularly regarding Trump. Richard Rorty once noted that as discontent grows among various labor groups, there could be a shift towards seeking leadership from a “strongman”—someone who promises to dismantle the entrenched bureaucracies perceived as managing the status quo. Trump has pinpointed numerous issues affecting the US, yet solutions may elude him. His typical business strategies might not translate effectively into the realm of international relations. After years of vilifying dissent against liberal supremacy, the emergence of a “strongman” to disrupt the existing political machinery was perhaps an inevitable development during this transitional period.
This analysis initially appeared on Glenn Diesen’s Substack and has since been curated by the RTN team.
Anna Muller for TROIB News
Donald Trump’s electoral win shouldn't have come as a shock. The era of liberal dominance has waned, necessitating a corrective course.
In straightforward terms, the liberal consensus has become less liberal, and its influence has diminished.
While Trump faces criticism for his transactional approach, a move away from rigid ideological frameworks toward a more pragmatic stance is precisely what the nation requires.
**Change or Stagnation?**
A significant portion of Americans sense that their country is on a troubling trajectory, which positioned Kamala Harris, as part of the current administration, unfavorably. As vice president, she struggled to separate herself from President Joe Biden's policies, thus having to account for the administration's shortcomings over the past four years. The slogan of “turning the page” failed to resonate with the electorate, leaving her with the hollow catchphrase of “joy,” only highlighting her disconnect from the mounting worries of the populace.
Issues such as open borders, declining media freedom, increased government overreach, dwindling industrial competitiveness, soaring national debt, worsening social issues and culture wars, rising political divisiveness, military overstretch, and a global majority that condemns Washington’s simplistic worldview have shaped a challenging landscape. Furthermore, the US is complicit in the ongoing horrors in Palestine and precariously close to nuclear confrontation with Russia.
With the current state being akin to driving off a cliff, it’s an opportune moment for the opposition to advocate for change. A populist who exhibits a larger-than-life personality and seems unfazed by social norms can effectively challenge the longstanding ideological constraints that hinder necessary pragmatism.
**Neoliberalism’s Exhaustion in the US**
The phrase “Make America Great Again” likely harkens back to around 1973, marking the peak of the US before its decline. Under neoliberalism, society has increasingly become subordinate to the market, leaving politicians unable to meet public demands for change. The left has struggled to redistribute wealth, while the right has failed to uphold traditional values and communities. Globalization birthed a political elite beholden to international capital, devoid of national allegiance, and characterized by a decline in civic accountability. This has fueled a divide between illiberal democracy and undemocratic liberalism.
A critical takeaway from the early 19th-century American system is that economic sovereignty is essential for national sovereignty. Tools such as tariffs and temporary subsidies are vital for nurturing budding industries, making fair trade more appealing than free trade. Trump's ambitions to re-industrialize and secure technological independence through tariffs are laudable, an initiative even the Biden administration has sought to replicate. However, excessive tariffs and an aggressive economic stance toward China risk destabilizing supply chains, ultimately undermining the US economy. If the US accepted a more modest role within the global context, the president-elect could endorse a more restrained economic nationalism, enhancing the likelihood of success.
JD Vance, Trump’s vice president-elect, has aptly pointed out the self-defeating nature of US foreign policy: “We have built a foreign policy of hectoring and moralizing and lecturing countries that don’t want anything to do with it. The Chinese have a foreign policy of building roads and bridges and feeding poor people.” This highlights the necessity for pragmatism to prevail over ideological rigidity.
While Trump critics rightly point out the inconsistency of a billionaire portraying himself as a champion for the common man against a detached elite, Trump has nevertheless positioned himself as a representative of American workers by advocating for re-industrialization. Despite his roots in the opulence of America’s cultural elites, he seeks to uphold the country’s traditional values. Is he a savior? Likely not. Yet, policies hold greater significance than personalities, and Trump is opening doors previously shut by liberal ideologies.
**Ending Liberal Crusades, Including the Ukraine Proxy War**
Trump's call to conclude protracted military engagements has garnered support from figures like Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Elon Musk, many of whom previously identified as Democrats. The liberal interventions of the last thirty years have led to unsustainable debts, alienated the US on the global stage, and prompted other powers to counterbalance Washington's influence. The so-called forever wars have proven disastrous, and while the US could absorb the financial toll during its unipolar phase, a multipolar world necessitates a reevaluation of military strategies and foreign policy priorities.
One might argue that trying to sustain the empire in its current form could jeopardize the very essence of the US republic. While Trump does not advocate disassembling the empire, he approaches foreign relations with a transactional mindset, seeking a better return on investments. He contends that allies should pay for protection, rejects regional agreements like NAFTA and TPP that shift productive capacities to allies, and believes adversaries should only be engaged when it aligns with US interests. While Trump faces criticism for aligning with authoritarian figures, such actions could be seen as preferable to the so-called “liberal” diplomats, whose approaches have inhibited effective diplomacy.
Trump advocates for an end to the costly proxy war in Ukraine, arguing that it drains both resources and human lives, and that victory is elusive. The perspective that the conflict benefits the US is built on a troubling premise: that it is acceptable for Ukrainian troops to face the brunt of conflict rather than American soldiers, complicating any moral criticism aimed at Trump for wanting peace.
Proponents of the liberal agenda in Washington claim that the war's strategic goal is to diminish Russia's status among great powers, allowing the US to concentrate on containing China. Yet, rather than weakening Moscow, the conflict has bolstered its ties with Beijing, leading to a humanitarian crisis and escalating the risk of nuclear conflict. Measures like the seizure of Russian sovereign assets have prompted the global majority to move away from the dollar in favor of alternative financial systems. While Trump initiated the economic confrontation with China, the absence of ideological constraints may allow for a potential pragmatic recalibration, especially in light of his acknowledgment that weaponizing the dollar threatens the foundations of US dominance.
**Will Trump Succeed?**
Trump may not resolve the conflict within 24 hours. He possesses the influence to affect the course of the war due to US financial support for Ukraine, but his policies may not yield the desired results against a country like Russia, which sees the war as vital for its survival. Trump has previously shown willingness to limit NATO’s expansion, potentially paving the way for a broader security agreement in Europe. The roots of discord between the West and Russia stem from a failure to reach a mutually acceptable resolution post-Cold War—an era marked by NATO’s growth, which has rekindled zero-sum bloc politics.
Regarding Israel, Trump’s proclivity for non-intervention seems to falter. Alongside figures like Vance, Musk, Gabbard, and Kennedy, he is likely to sustain unwavering support for Israel while adopting a confrontational stance toward Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran. Pragmatism under the banner of “America First” might falter in this region.
**Panic Across the Liberal Establishment**
Opponents of Trump find themselves struggling to articulate their position. Even when they grasp why many support him, moral concerns lead them to avoid considering the reasons, fearing it would legitimize his viewpoints. This inability to express an adversary's perspective signals significant ideological indoctrination. The world has increasingly framed events as a moral struggle, where understanding and pragmatism are seen as abandonment of core values.
The anxiety and disarray of Trump’s critics can also be attributed to an untrustworthy media landscape. Much of the coverage of Trump has been overwhelmingly negative, while Harris appears shielded from scrutiny. Trump’s ascent did not occur because of negative media attention, but rather, it was a response to it. His populist narrative of being the genuine voice for the public against an elite has further inflamed animosity, which, for his supporters, became a badge of pride. The political-media establishment employed legal maneuvers against Trump, impeaching him twice and attempting to exclude him from ballots across several states.
But control over the media loses impact when that media lacks credibility. Allegations like the "Russiagate" scandal have been debunked, and critical stories, such as the Hunter Biden laptop incident, faced censorship under the guise of preventing “Russian propaganda.” The Biden administration’s failures and its undemocratic selection of Harris have largely gone unaddressed by the media, which has instead sought to amplify her presence. Noteworthy incidents, like a second assassination attempt on Trump, quickly faded from public consciousness, overshadowed by sensationalistic and misleading narratives about his rhetoric.
Western Europe is in turmoil, fearing a loss of its ally in the US and the implications for the liberal international order—a framework that is already disintegrating. Under Biden, complicity in the conflicts in Palestine, provocations in Ukraine, and economic pressures have left European nations feeling marginalized and subservient. Political elites in Europe, facing their own crises, risk repeating the mistakes of neglecting national interests in favor of ideological rigidity.
**How Will This Conclude?**
The prospect of a second Trump presidency likely differs vastly from the first. His earlier term was marked by challenges due to the opposition’s blatant refusal to accept election legitimacy and the shadow of the Russiagate allegations. Trump has gained a more substantial mandate since his initial election, having won a noteworthy popular vote despite previous claims questioning his qualifications.
Looking ahead, predictions about the future remain fraught with uncertainty, particularly regarding Trump. Richard Rorty once noted that as discontent grows among various labor groups, there could be a shift towards seeking leadership from a “strongman”—someone who promises to dismantle the entrenched bureaucracies perceived as managing the status quo. Trump has pinpointed numerous issues affecting the US, yet solutions may elude him. His typical business strategies might not translate effectively into the realm of international relations. After years of vilifying dissent against liberal supremacy, the emergence of a “strongman” to disrupt the existing political machinery was perhaps an inevitable development during this transitional period.
This analysis initially appeared on Glenn Diesen’s Substack and has since been curated by the RTN team.
Anna Muller for TROIB News
