By Oliver Mills From Caribbean News Now

Whenever a political figure enters the political arena and attracts significant support, along with the attention of the popular press, immediately those with an interest in politics try to examine and analyse the basis of his or her ideas, why they seem to captivate such a large portion of the electorate, and speculate whether the ideas are for a season, or have some longevity to them. And further, whether these ideas will form the core of a new political philosophy. Such is the case with Donald Trump, who emerged from candidate to being president of the US.

Could the ideas advanced by Trump form the basis of a coherent political philosophy, or are they a disjointed batch of sayings, designed to stir the emotions of a certain sector of the American population? Let us now look at some of these political ideas.

To begin with, John Blakely in an article in the Atlantic says that political philosophy studies the basic concepts, arguments, and traditions that inform political life, and notes that Trump glorifies executive force over other branches of government, and shows little patience for compromising with Congressional leaders.

I agree with Blakely’s definition of political philosophy, but will add that what he says constitutes ideas. Political philosophy is not distinct from ideas, since it is the ideas that comprise it. In saying Trump glorifies executive force over the other branches of government, Blakely seems to object to this. But in the mix of politics, a strong executive to me generates respect. The ability to act forcefully when a decision cannot be arrived at, especially after consultations, and the executive after evaluating the issue is convinced it is the right decision to make, means efforts are moved forward without delay.

A political executive of a powerful country like the US has independent contacts, who may provide information on an issue Congress does not have. So timely, forceful action could be a wise move, while respecting the idea of all branches of government being equal. Compromise could weaken the effect of the action to be taken.

Blakely describes Trump as being infatuated with strongman power, with no attempt to achieve consistency, and is an opportunist willing to cobble together an assortment of ideas to make a bid for power. I think that strongman power is a positive factor disrupting fixed positions, allowing fresh ideas to enter. Bringing different ideas together shows logical thinking. If this is a strategy to make a bid for power, it shows an understanding of the dynamics of the environment, and the ability to capitalize on it.

In a recent discussion on television, one panel member listed some of Trump’s political ideas. Among others, he noted opposition to trade, restricting immigration, deregulation, and nationalism. These are positions Trump has held since his formal venture into politics. Trump feels that the US has been out-negotiated in its trade agreements with other countries, resulting in them being the better beneficiaries. And mentions particularly Mexico and China.

But is this the case? Mexico ranks high among the trading partners of the US, and many on both sides are employed as a result, although according to Market Watch, Mexico is ready to renegotiate trade rules with the US. But isn’t Trump right to raise questions about this and seek a better equilibrium? And does it not show political prudence? Here, a political idea is used to create an issue around it.

Also, in seeking to restrict immigration to the US, is this not a national security issue, rather than a deliberate targeting of particular countries? And is this not good politics based on the sensitive feelings of numbers of people who have understandable fears, no matter how baseless, about others from different cultures taking their jobs, and having values different from theirs?

Is not the issue of immigration an explosive political issue that can catch on easily igniting the hidden prejudices of the unemployed, and those with a certain level of education, just enough to be manipulated by a political idea that sells? So the issue of immigration could well be incorporated into a framework of other ideas constituting the political ideas of an ambitious politician?

And what about the ideas of protectionism and nationalism? When a political leader alleges that by slapping on a tax on imported goods, or even those exported from within the country he is saving jobs, and bringing fairness back to trade between countries is not the local economy and jobs being protected.

And does not nationalism, an aspect of protectionism come into play here as well, since the interests of the country emerge from a sense of patriotism and seeing it succeed above that of others? Further, nationalism as a political idea, implies a unifying force, pointing out the country and its interests as having the ultimate priority.

Could not ideas about trade, immigration and nationalism be woven together into a political platform of action, interspersed with deregulation as a strategy to free up the financial markets from restrictions on economic growth, be highly attractive to a significant percentage of persons who feel left out by the status quo? Is this not the soil from which the political ideas of Donald Trump grew and spread, and which landed him in the White House?

IMAGE: Oliver Mills is a former lecturer in education at the University of the West Indies Mona Campus. He holds an M.Ed degree. from Dalhousie University in Canada, an MA from the University of London and a post-graduate diploma in HRM and Training, University of Leicester. He is a past Permanent Secretary in Education with the government of the Turks and Caicos Islands

For more on this story go to:  http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-Commentary%3A-Trump’s-political-ideas%3A-A-cursory-view-33388.html