A blow to the establishment?
Or a possible reorganisation?
Notes on Donald Trump's victory
as President of the United States
The rise of Trump has been a blow for Liberalism if not a renewed "return to normalcy" as what the late president Harding envisioned. That normalcy may have meant a break from interventionism both in international and in domestic life, or even a return to what they think as "American values" such as days without the thought of war or even "progressive reforms" (including welfare) that according to them as tainting the minds of the American people.
Quite "nostalgic" in its appeal, knowing that to those who have voted for Trump, be it white or even coloured, it meant restoration of "order". Some would even think that the president-elect would follow Reagan or even Harding in some domestic and international policies, of less interventionism and emphasising on domestic issues that probably resolved through "tax cuts" or "privatisation"; but come to think that with all the mudslinging and popular appeals resulting to his victory, it showed how that Trump had turned politics on its head through the radical idea that the issues that concern Republican voters should take priority over what the political consultants, pundits and insiders think of, and issues like "unemployment" and "government spending", or even "immigration" has to be prioritised thinking that the "average American" has to dealt over with than those of its interventionism like Iraq, Syria, or even the Philippines.
Admittingly speaking, Trump's victory does not immediately translate into major changes. Everything will be as it is except for some changes in words or reversal of policies. A possible reorganisation of forces is yet to happen knowing that Trump is still representing an order everyone is against of regardless of his populist appeal. Not all within the Republican Party would agree to his stances or policies the way Neoconservatives and Paleoconservatives have to debate over which is "moral" and "just" for a national policy.
Anyway, as according to Augustus Invictus:
Quite "nostalgic" in its appeal, knowing that to those who have voted for Trump, be it white or even coloured, it meant restoration of "order". Some would even think that the president-elect would follow Reagan or even Harding in some domestic and international policies, of less interventionism and emphasising on domestic issues that probably resolved through "tax cuts" or "privatisation"; but come to think that with all the mudslinging and popular appeals resulting to his victory, it showed how that Trump had turned politics on its head through the radical idea that the issues that concern Republican voters should take priority over what the political consultants, pundits and insiders think of, and issues like "unemployment" and "government spending", or even "immigration" has to be prioritised thinking that the "average American" has to dealt over with than those of its interventionism like Iraq, Syria, or even the Philippines.
Admittingly speaking, Trump's victory does not immediately translate into major changes. Everything will be as it is except for some changes in words or reversal of policies. A possible reorganisation of forces is yet to happen knowing that Trump is still representing an order everyone is against of regardless of his populist appeal. Not all within the Republican Party would agree to his stances or policies the way Neoconservatives and Paleoconservatives have to debate over which is "moral" and "just" for a national policy.
Anyway, as according to Augustus Invictus:
"Trump's election is a blow to the establishment, that much is certain. But soon - very soon - Trump will either compromise with the System [which is my prediction], or he will be set upon. I would advise all of you to prepare. The conflict between the nationalists and the globalists is far from over."
True indeed what that libertarian said in his Facebook post, knowing that amidst the victory does not mean an immediate realisation of its initial calls, and to think that he represents a dilapidated social order that has to be adjusted, then the conflict everyone knows or feels is far from over.
Perhaps, regardless of their assertions or statements, a Trump presidency will surely heighten domestic and international contradictions. In it, people will be made more aware such as the need for genuine social change, and in it requires continuous organising especially that Trump is setting conditions and policies as president-elect. And like all dilapidated social orders around the world, the system the United States has has been terribly rotten and cannot be changed by mere casting of ballots, but instead lies in continuous, collective struggle.
Perhaps, regardless of their assertions or statements, a Trump presidency will surely heighten domestic and international contradictions. In it, people will be made more aware such as the need for genuine social change, and in it requires continuous organising especially that Trump is setting conditions and policies as president-elect. And like all dilapidated social orders around the world, the system the United States has has been terribly rotten and cannot be changed by mere casting of ballots, but instead lies in continuous, collective struggle.
Sounds idealistic to think of that change lies in a continuous, collective struggle; but history has showed that through collective action comes changes that can't be realised by empty rhetoric or mere charity. And although the United States government has trying to appease all sectors with reforms or sound domestic programs, it does not guarantee the welfare of the people especially with conservative opposition ongoing. Trump's presidency may ideally trying to be like Reagan's or Harding's, but everyone knows that the present order is undergoing a process in pursuit of retaining the status quo and at the same time adapting what Trump, his retinue, and its brand of populism hath trying to convey. Tax cuts may happen, privatisation may proceed, so are the protests.
And like other past administrations whose interfere domestic policies such as those in the Philippines, expect protests against US troops and unequal economic and military agreements, that justifies decades old necolonial relations between Uncle Sam and its little brown brother. Everybody knows that the Philippines's President Duterte is trying to invoke a foreign policy that is independent, but on the other there are still "Atlanticists" like ex-President Ramos who is trying to keep relevance in Philippine society and politics.
But if this person may ask on these brown skinned "Atlanticists", that since there are those who still oppose their stand such as in case of the recent protest at US embassy, will they still adhere or agree on the policies brought about by an administration criticised as isolationist, racist, or even chauvinist?
This person disagrees on Trump and his moves, but the question lies more than just Trump and his stances, but also in the need to give up a third world country's usual Americanism in favor of standing up as a Filipino.
But if this person may ask on these brown skinned "Atlanticists", that since there are those who still oppose their stand such as in case of the recent protest at US embassy, will they still adhere or agree on the policies brought about by an administration criticised as isolationist, racist, or even chauvinist?
This person disagrees on Trump and his moves, but the question lies more than just Trump and his stances, but also in the need to give up a third world country's usual Americanism in favor of standing up as a Filipino.