Trump performs U-turns but has not changed

Robert McNamara brought systems thinking and managerial methods to the Pentagon’s Vietnam war in the 1960s and was proud of the improvement in its performance despite the horrifying number of casualties they caused. He appeared oblivious to political or moral criticisms, although he privately shared many of them. It was only when he was accused of inefficiency in conducting the war that he lost his public composure and buckled.

Donald Trump similarly shrugs off such critics but is much more sensitive about the contradictions, inconsistencies and incoherence of his policy positions since assuming the US presidency. Many of these positions are long-standing, such as his conviction that US leaders who presided over unbalanced alliances and trade deals were idiots, that Nato is obsolete, or that the US should put its interests first ahead of its global leadership role.

The spectacular series of U-turns and reversals of policy in recent days have highlighted these characteristics. In foreign policy they range from saying Syrian president Bashar al-Assad must be accepted realistically to saying he has to go; from accusing China of manipulating its currency to denying it does; from pronouncing Nato out of date to saying it is necessary to fight terrorism; or from favouring an entente with Russia to saying relations are now at one of their lowest ebbs.

Liberal praise

Trump has been discomfited by these changes but has not buckled. Rather has he linked the Assad, Russian and Nato shifts to the chemical attack in Syria, pinning responsibility firmly on the regime. He says he has changed his mind on China and is flexible on Nato. He relishes the sudden flow of praise coming from the liberal media and erstwhile critics.

Brexit offers Ireland opportunities as well as threats

---

Sinn Féin can no longer claim ownership of Irish unity

---

World View: Brexit may force re-evaluation of Irish unity

---

Worldview: Threat of Trump must not be underestimated

---

US commentary sceptical of that mainstream corporate media and foreign policy establishment on the radical left and right sees a more calculated strategy to sidestep or bypass congressional investigation into his Russian links, reverse his bad polling figures or opportunistically abandon his winning coalition with the alternative right. They question the assumption that Assad regime fired the chemical missile and raise the possibility it was instead an opposition plant or even fired from Israel. They defend a new relationship with Russia and deplore a return to neoconservative or liberal interventionism.

Trump's business background makes him pragmatic. His short attention span, impulsive instincts and desire for favourable attention encourage opportunism

The symbol of that coalition is Steve Bannon, Trump’s political adviser. His nativist, white nationalist, protectionist and Islamophobic ideology has been on the defensive in the White House, in his departure from the National Security Council and in the ban on immigrants from certain mainly Muslim countries. His drive to drain Washington’s administrative swamp with Leninist zeal is much less in evidence.

Liberal critics of the administration welcome Bannon’s sidelining by the professional military figures Trump appointed at security advisers and defence secretary. They uniformly applaud Trump’s conversion to an interventionism he previously disdained and to alliances he despised. Similar evolutions in his attitudes to trade talks and the European Union are awaited impatiently.

In domestic policy Trump’s setback on healthcare, trouble assembling tax reform and delay in marshalling the huge infrastructure programmes he promised to tackle unemployment all play much more into an agenda dictated by the Wall Street figures and billionaires in his cabinet than the blue-collar voters he rallied in the campaign. Such contradictions of policy and interests are inherent in his programme and political coalition. He is reluctant to make common cause with congressional Democrats to overcome the pressure from Republican insiders and military-security professionals towards more orthodox programmes.

Pragmatic

Trump’s business background makes him pragmatic. His short attention span, impulsive instincts and desire for favourable attention encourage opportunism. And his inexperience in government makes adjusting to its slow pace of change, institutional inertia, checks and balances and suboptimal outcomes difficult and uncomfortable.

But to conclude he is abandoning the radical foreign policy or domestic positions that brought him victory is wishful thinking. More thoughtful reflection sees that Trump will abandon his coalition with the radical right at his political peril. He needs Bannon to maintain his credibility and is unlikely to abandon the associated hostility to immigration, radical Islam or imbalanced trade deals which define his populist appeal.

A more thoughtful wishing would see Trump’s coalition buckling under pressure from an engaged public opinion and critical media becoming more aware of these contradictions and inconsistencies in policy and interests. That would help break through the fake news and alternative facts Trump brings to bear. His victory registered a howl of pain and neglect that remains very much in evidence. Its betrayal will be dangerous for US democracy.

pegillespie@gmail.com