#16:The Washington Prizm

I recently visited Washington for the first time in a year. Washington seems to function as a prism through which we can see a very wide spectrum of the world in a condensed form. On this occasion, I was able to engage in multifaceted discussions on the current state of US politics and the global geopolitical situation.

Since taking office, President Trump has been implementing policies at a rapid pace and has surprised the world with the speed and depth of his actions. His ability to communicate is still going strong, as demonstrated by answering 1,009 questions from the media in his first month in office. In contrast, during their first months in office, President Obama and President Biden answered 161 and 141 questions, respectively. Those numbers show how much media attention the new president is attracting. While many of the policies he is implementing to realize his mantra of “America First” are in line with his election pledges, many people are surprised at—and criticize—the fact that many of those policies are targeted at friendly countries. He has extracted concessions from Canada and Mexico by threatening to impose high tariffs on them, declared that the Gulf of Mexico should be renamed the “Gulf of America,” pressured Denmark to cede Greenland, and threatened to take back the Panama Canal from Panama. At the UN General Assembly on February 24, the United States—siding with Russia and North Korea—voted against a resolution calling on Russia to immediately withdraw from Ukraine. And since USAID has effectively been shut down by the Trump administration, much of its overseas aid has stopped. On top of that, at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Vance criticized the state of European democracy. The Trump administration has decisively undermined the unity of Europe and the United States, which upholds liberalism, and is leading the United States towards international isolation. As a consequence of these actions, the US will probably end up weakened.

Many people, however, disagree with that view and counter with the following argument. The involvement of the United States in the international community as the leader of the Western liberal camp only started with the inauguration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) in 1933. Up until then, the United States had been isolationist ever since its founding, and in that era, the rules of the world were based on the balance of power between countries. President Trump is moving from governance that links nations with common values such as freedom and equality to governance by force, and in doing so, he is constructing a new international order. The only “great powers” in the world are the United States, China, and Russia; all other countries are small nations without the influence or leadership of the great powers. Under such circumstances, it would be natural for Mexico and Canada to directly support the United States or even become part of it. Countries that want to participate in the world’s biggest market, the United States, should either pay appropriate tariffs or invest directly in the United States. Through an accumulation of individual, suitable “deals,” the world order is maintained, and war is avoided. In fact, the Russia-Ukraine war is likely to come to a halt in the near future, and the conflicts in the Middle East are also calming down. According to this scenario, having created a new world order, President Trump will be regarded as the greatest president since FDR.

In the meantime, the Democratic Party is in an identity crisis. It suffered a crushing defeat in the presidential election last November, not only because President Biden was unpopular but also because the Democrats had become decisively disengaged from the people. Although it was originally a party that was close to working class, before anyone knew it, it had become a party for the highly educated, high-income elite. The Left’s priority agenda had shifted to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) and environmental issues, and they seemed to have no interest in the day-to-day lives of workers. The Biden administration expanded women’s right to abortion and promoted immigration, provoking backlashes from Hispanic and Black Americans—who tend to be more conservative. The Democratic Party is divided between its left and moderate factions, and with no leader to unite it, the party is likely to continue to decline for the foreseeable future.

Some people, however, disagree with that view and counter with the following argument. The difference between the votes for Kamala Harris and those for Donald Trump was only 1.6 points, which represents an extremely close margin. If President Biden had decided to withdraw from the election a bit earlier, the outcome would have been the opposite. Another significant factor affecting the result was that inflation had continued up until election time. In the end, the thesis that “It’s the economy, stupid” (Slogan on Clinton's side during the 1992 presidential election) remains unchanged. When President Obama was elected, it was said that the Democratic Party had overwhelming support from the public and that with the white population decreasing and the next generation of voters with stronger liberal tendencies increasing, the Republican Party would be unable to make a comeback. At present, the same could be said about the Democratic Party, and although people tend to be influenced by the bias that current trends will continue, in reality, voting-behavior patterns follow a cycle akin to the swing of a pendulum. As in any democratic country, voters tend to tire of the incumbent government and want a change of government because they feel dissatisfaction with the economy. The same circumstances will probably apply in four years.

President Trump is often described as “transactional.” His thinking is ad hoc and fleeting. He handles all matters in a business-like manner, like he is buying and selling. Undoubtedly, as a dealmaker, he is transactional and makes decisions based on reflexes and observing the other party’s reactions. However, many of the changes he is bringing about are transformational; that is, they are bringing about many structural, irreversible changes to the world. Even if a Trump-like figure is not elected president four years from now (or Trump himself gets a third term like FDR did?), the fact that the American people have elected President Trump twice means that European countries will never again respect the United States as the leader of the liberal camp as they once did. Even though the quest for order based on shared values will not disappear, the era of order based on force will continue to be a key factor in decisions of/relations between countries. As investment in military expansion increases globally, acquiring resources is becoming a top priority for nations. The priority of responses to climate change will recede, and the magnitude and frequency of natural disasters will increase. AI and other advanced technologies will become key tools used in competition between nations, import and export controls will become stricter, and the competition to acquire good human talent will become more intense. It looks like the “Washington prism” will need to stay busy generating the wide spectrum of the world.