The so-called establishment has become increasingly concerned as Donald Trump’s unorthodox march to the presidency gains momentum and credibility. Finally, these adversaries are coming out in the open to challenge his candidacy and attempt to elect Hillary Clinton.
The opposition to Trump is bipartisan because his agenda is fundamentally to change the U.S. policies, both foreign and domestic, which have ruled America since the Nixon administration in the 1970s. These policies have been developed and maintained in a broad consensus shared by the centrists in both parties for the past generation,
The domestic policy consensus (led by the Roosevelt/Johnson Democrats) favors Johnson’s Great Society, a massive effort to eliminate poverty in America with the government giving tax money to the poor through a complex network of welfare programs. The national debate which ended in the enactment of President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” legislation coincided with the great civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the two became intertwined. Thus any attempt to curtail or modify the Johnson welfare system is still stigmatized as “racist,” even though the Johnson experiment has manifestly failed to achieve its goal of eliminating poverty – which in fact has increased in the Obama years — while at the same time wreaking havoc on disadvantaged families and the inner cities, where they live.
Of course, such enormous expenditures on welfare have also required the highest taxes allowed at any given time by the political realities of the era. Over the years, especially during the Obama administration, the tax burdens combined with the shift of investment capital from the economy to the government, has frozen GDP at near or below zero, with substantial impact on middle class employment and compensation.
In foreign affairs, the USA has continued in the role we assumed after World War II as the leader of the free (non-Communist) world (led by the Republicans), providing a no-cost nuclear shield and a no-cost military defense against our adversaries, principally Russia and China and their allies. This role and all it entails has become the cornerstone of the US bipartisan orthodoxy which has guided American foreign policy since President Truman in the post-war era. It has led to the USA seeing itself and being seen by others as the policeman of the world, and has involved us in countless wars over the past 80 years.
In addition, the USA has implemented a so-called “free trade” policy, essentially on the theory that a shared prosperity is the best road to peace. However, it hasn’t worked out that way. To achieve that prosperity has proven impossible because even the mighty U.S. economy cannot “lift ALL boats”. Meanwhile the price we have paid for trying is horrendous, threatening to destroy the American middle class.
Into this world comes Donald Trump, whose fundamental concern is the national debt. As would any businessman, he looks at both income and expense in the US budget. In trying to achieve some balance, he looks hard at all expenditures. He sees enormous expenditures tied to both the domestic and the foreign policy consensus, and declares that, while the intentions are good and the results in some cases case have been extraordinary, America just can’t go on the same way we have been. Many features of the consensus must be changed to meet the new priority of living within our means. This is not popular with the people who have spent their careers implementing various aspects of the consensus, many of whom believe in it sincerely and wholeheartedly.
Of course each feature of the consensus has many advocates. One such feature is the two party system. When Trump moves outside party orthodoxy on various issues, the Republicans are shocked and the Democrats do not believe him. A case in point: the federal budget. First of all, unlike the typical politician, Donald Trump speaks about goals rather than detailed plans. His economic posture is that reductions in tax rates and the thousands of pages of new regulations imposed by the Obama bureaucracy will propel a leap in the GDP to 3.5 percent. Even with the reduced tax rates, such a thriving economy will generate substantially more tax revenue than we now have. This increased revenue, along with substantial cuts in subsidies to NATO countries and many other programs, will provide sufficient support for Social Security and Medicare.
This approach is sharply discounted by the traditional economists in both the parties, who refuse to accept budget assumptions built on economic growth. The Republicans want to see specific cuts in the so-called entitlements (principally Social Security – which, by the way, has been financing all these budget deficits for the past generation – and Medicare, plus some other welfare programs). The Democrats want to raise taxes, nominally on the rich – although there are not enough rich people to fund their increasing deficits, so the tax hikes will hit everybody, thus further slowing down the economy. What they do agree on is that Trump’s proposals are pipe dreams. So, the hundreds of economists who disagree with Trump generate public disputes in the media of his approach to the economy. The same thing happened to Ronald Reagan.
Foreign and national security policy advocates of the consensus are outraged when their scared cows, like NATO and American leadership in the Middle East, for example, are questioned. The corps of former Secretaries of State and Defense and former leaders of the CIA and National Security Agency publish newspaper petitions and TV spots calling for Trump’s defeat and the preservation of their pieces of the consensus.
What none of these people want to admit – and perhaps truly do not believe – is that Trump’s ever increasing popularity in due in large part precisely because he does represent change. Many voters are not pleased with the world that the consensus has developed over the past two generations. These voters want someone strong enough and motivated enough to shake up the whole government and to emerge with a different set of priorities, starting with making American peace and prosperity the first priority. These people do not trust a long list of degrees or previous government service. They see those credentials as tied to the very policies which have caused the current crisis.
Fundamentally, this election is between the status quo and fundamental change. The establishment representatives in both parties and in government service are fully aware that a Trump victory will threaten their prestige and careers. They have a lot to lose, and they know it. Trump supporters know that Donald Trump is their only real hope for changing the way America is run. If this includes changing the cast of characters which has jeopardized America’s future, so be it.
So, the moral of this story is: Evaluate the source of whatever is said about Trump. Sadly, there are few neutrals left in this election.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.