Trump’s nationalism: threat or strategy? / ANALYSIS

The President will now find it much more difficult to get his policies.

WITH his “America first” campaign, Donald Trump was the first of the so-called nationalists to achieve great success and, precisely because he was the first to win a victory in the polls, he was also the first to have to face the opposition’s recovery that brought them partial success in the Midterm elections.

The fact that Democrats have gained control of the House of Representatives significantly changes the dynamic: the President of the United States will find it much more difficult to get his policies through during the last two years of his term in office.

“I believe that two scenarios could emerge in the interaction between the Democratic leadership of the House and the Trump administration,” said Kenneth J. Taubes, Amundi’s investment manager in the U.S. “The first scenario sees the progressive establishment of divided government, which will lead to the enactment of practically no significant laws. In the second scenario, the constructive option, there are points of contact between Trump and the Democratic leadership in the House. For example, according to the French expert on the House, a modest infrastructure spending programme of between $100 and $300 billion could be launched; there could also be a new opportunity to change the Affordable Care Act (ACA) health reform, as surveys indicate that the issue of health care was decisive to the Democrats’ victory.

Trump will also discuss budgetary issues with the Democrat-controlled House and will no longer be able to lead the fiscal policy under House control, while maintaining full autonomy in the area of duties: “There will therefore continue to be a high probability of further escalation in trade tensions between the United States and China with the imposition of duties on the remaining $267 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S.,” Taubes predicts.

According to analysts from CA Indosuez Wealth Management, the European situation is much more complicated because “the European Council is a body at the mercy of its representatives, the heads of state and governments of its 28 member countries, who take action in pursuit of their sovereign interests without taking into account the common interest that they should in theory be pursuing”.

The situation is therefore not a matter of normal alternation between the political parties: “Over the last decade, the Council has established itself as a common government within the European Community structure, effectively replacing the executive role which the Treaties assigned to the Commission, and failure to make decisions has exacerbated the divisions between the various governments, and in some cases even within them.”

On the subject of immigration, we have witnessed the test of strength between different sovereignties, which cannot find collective solutions because each of the protagonists is concerned to preserve its own specific political interest, leaving the other participants to resolve the crisis.

Pressed for time?

Get the best news of the week in your inbox

Subscribe ››