 |
| President-elect Trump & incumbent Obama |
 |
| The White House |
The
triumph of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States, which comes
at the heels of Britain’s exit from the European Union, has been hailed
as the apocalypse. But apocalypse, it may not be. Though several issues
and scandals fanned the embers of the bitterly fought 2016 election, what
really propelled voters in the US, as in Britain (during the Brexit vote), was an unprecedented yearning for change. It probably doesn’t matter now that no one actually asked
the question: What kind of change?
 |
| President-elect Trump |
Clearly, the clash between Trump and Mrs. Clinton challenged Americans to confront divisions over race, gender, religion,
ideology, and the country’s very national identity.
 |
| Farage & Trump |
Interestingly, the "candidate Trump" and the "president-elect Trump" appear to be two different people. In his victory speech and in his comment during a visit to the White House for a meeting with President Obama, Trump sounded conciliatory. Now, what if the campaign persona was actually stage-managed? What if the facade of bigotry was just set up to appeal to a larger number of those angry and desperate for change no matter what? What if no wall will be built? What if Muslims can enter the US as before?
In a world where interest groups have usurped the rights of many ordinary people, causing the middle class to disappear and sparking anger, some believe that boosting populist movements everywhere is the best possible chance they have to upend the corrupt system. So, the emergence of Trump in the 2016 presidential election and his disregard for political correctness which many people despise, gave hope to those who felt short-changed.
 |
| Donald Trump |
Interestingly, following his victory, many irritants in Europe, who mistake racism
and homophobia for populism, are bracing themselves for the wind of change that they think a Trump presidency will bring.
Now, as
controversial as this might sound, I think that it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to allow the
radical movements in Europe to win for a change—from Marie Le Pen of France to Heinz-Christian Strache of
Austria to Geert Wilder of the Netherlands to Pablo Iglesias of Spain to Beppe
Grillo of Italy—not because they can deliver, but because it will prove a very simple point, and that is: It is easier to find fault than to find a solution.
 |
| President Obama |
As many
examples have revealed, campaign rhetoric and the reality of governance are two
different things. And truth be told, in the history of mankind, revolutions triggered by emotions had been largely successful because they were powered by ideas, which today’s populism gravely lacks.
There is no question at all that in the absence of a fundamental idea of statehood, blind anger over a broken system alone cannot a revolution make.
In a world where interest groups have usurped the rights of many ordinary people, causing the middle class to disappear and sparking anger, some believe that boosting populist movements everywhere is the best possible chance they have to upend the corrupt system. So, the emergence of Trump in the 2016 presidential election and his disregard for political correctness which many people despise, gave hope to those who felt short-changed.
Now, as
controversial as this might sound, I think that it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to allow the
radical movements in Europe to win for a change—from Marie Le Pen of France to Heinz-Christian Strache of
Austria to Geert Wilder of the Netherlands to Pablo Iglesias of Spain to Beppe
Grillo of Italy—not because they can deliver, but because it will prove a very simple point, and that is: It is easier to find fault than to find a solution. 
No comments:
Post a Comment