Ichiro Fujisaki. Asia-Pacific Review. Volume 24, Issue 2. November 2017.
Introduction
This article discusses four commonly-held myths about the Trump Administration and explores whether the assertions made by political commentators and critics are based on fact.
There are four commonly held myths about the Trump Administration. The first myth is that the birth of a President Donald Trump implies a public rebellion against elites, and expresses anti-globalism and the rise of nationalism in western countries along with the Brexit development. The second is the notion that the Trump Administration is trying to entirely overturn US traditional security policies. The third is the view that the clear separation of powers in the US prevents president from pressing his own way. The fourth is the impression that Japan has never seen this level of unpredictability in a US administration, so we are entering uncharted territory.
Some pundits and commentators assert these opinions, but are these views based on actual facts?
First Myth
Let us look at the first myth. While it is true that a backlash against economic disparity, caused by gaps in income and/or education in Western countries can be observed, we should not exaggerate its effect just because of the election result last November. It is now history but let me go back to the presidential election 2016. The proportion of the popular vote that candidate Trump captured was 46%. In the past five presidential elections since 2000, no other candidate with such a low figure has won the election. Even among losing candidates, 2008 candidate Senator John McCain was the only candidate who received a lower share of 45.7% when he lost to Senator Barack Obama. The reason for the victory by Mr. Trump who received 2.6 million fewer popular votes than Mrs. Clinton was of course due to the American presidential election system. As everyone knows, the US president is elected not by share of the popular vote but by the number of votes placed by members of the electoral college in each state. A candidate who gets 270 out of 538 electoral votes becomes the winner. Mr. Trump received 306 electoral votes, substantially more than Mrs. Clinton’s mere 232. During the election campaign, then-candidate Trump reportedly tapped into votes from angry white citizens and forgotten factory workers in the Midwest. Candidate Trump won three key states in the Midwest, namely Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, to gain a total of 46 electoral votes. If candidate Clinton had succeeded in these three states, she would have won the election. However, because her team believed the polls which purported that she was stronger in these states with solid Democratic districts supported by labor unions, during the campaign she never even once visited Wisconsin. Her team obviously made a serious tactical mistake. In the three states, candidate Trump won a total of 6.65 million popular votes, while candidate Clinton won 6.57 million. The margin between the two was smaller than 78,000 votes.
Also, during the presidential campaign, former FBI Director James Comey drew public attention. In July 2016, he notified Congress that investigation into the Hillary email controversy had concluded. At the end of October 2016, or 10 days before the election, he again notified Congress that a personal computer belonging to the then-estranged husband of Hillary Clinton’s personal assistant had been discovered and thus investigation had to be reopened. The Clinton camp was furious saying this was a campaign obstruction, while the Trump camp was excited by the reactivation of the controversy. On the day before the election, then-Director Comey announced that no new facts had been found after all. But this may have been a little too late. It is said that early voters in an American presidential election are estimated to exceed 40 million or some 35% of the popular vote. If the commissioner kept his silence during the election campaign altogether, as many of his predecessors have done, the outcome of the election could have been different.
The European governments were facing a tough domestic issue regarding accepting over one million Syrian refugees in a short period of time, so the circumstances in Europe were different from those in the US. The right wing did not succeed in reversing administrations in Austria, Holland, or France after all. In the UK, the hard Brexit line that Prime Minister Theresa May advanced could not gain the support expected.
When we look at these numbers and ratios in an entire context, we can see that it would be too hasty to jump to the conclusion that the United States and Europe have suddenly become conservative or inward-looking.
Second Myth
The second myth is that the Trump Administration’s security policies are completely different from previous policy. His statements during the campaign were clearly unconventional. For example, he was reported as saying that Japan was a free rider and Japan may acquire nuclear weapons. He also said that China is making a trade surplus by manipulating currency and therefore the one China policy may be reviewed. NATO was labeled as being obsolete. Naturally the rest of the world was concerned. True, his economic, environment and immigration policies are now very different from previous administrations. However, on the security front, policies have not changed in essence. In his visit to Japan on February 4, 2017, U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said that Japan has been a model of cost-sharing and burden-sharing for US Forces in Japan. At the press conference with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on February 10, 2017, President Trump thanked the Prime Minster and the Japanese people for hosting US armed forces. These words were probably more positive than statements made by any other high-level leaders of the United States before. Moreover, in the joint statement with Prime Minister Abe, President Trump stated that Japan-U.S. Security arrangements should be firmly maintained, and that US defense obligations extend to the Senkaku Islands. Japan currently enjoys a positive relationship with the Trump Administration, beginning with the meeting between Prime Minister Abe and President Trump in November 2016. The said visit of Secretary of Defense Mattis was followed by the visits of Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson in March and Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. Such frequent exchanges between high level leaders in the first few months of Administration are unprecedented.
When he talked with President Xi Jing Ping one day on the telephone before the meeting with Prime Minister Abe, the President said that there would be no change in the one China policy. On January the 27, he reassured the importance of the NATO alliance to Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom. He also is maintaining the nuclear deal with Iran. In short, candidate Trump’s statements about many of the important diplomacy and security policy issues during the campaign have turned 180 degrees back to conventional policy.
Some people comment that President Trump is exercising his style of negotiating deals—I guess this is an impression coming from his famous book “The Art of the Deal.” I am not of this view. Neither he nor the US gained from such statements. Then why were his comments as a candidate and those after inauguration so different? I guess it is because of political expedience. The stance of a candidate differs from that of a president. The former attempts to attract attention in his speech while the latter intends to enhance the national interest. Even if President Trump personally has an affinity with Russian President Vladimir Putin, it is hardly possible for the United States to establish a completely trusting relationship with Russia. Each country has more than 7,000 nuclear warheads (including the ones in storage) that could destroy the other in a moment. Additionally, Russia always has cyberattack and hacking issues. Further, the US cannot easily spurn China, America’s largest creditor country. China’s cooperation is required for the response to North Korea. In these circumstances, having alliances must be more advantageous for the US than facing Russia and China alone. This must be the reason that the Trump Administration values allied countries and has returned to the conventional track. In fact, US fundamental national interests would not change much, no matter who becomes president. Also, contributions must have been made by the U.S. Secretary of State, Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor, or other relevant personnel, who give advice to the President.
Third Myth
The third myth is that there is a clear separation of powers in the US, so the legislative and judicial branches are totally independent from the administrative branch. This means, therefore, that the president does not easily get his way. This is correct to a certain extent. The US is not based on a parliamentary system. Unlike Japan or the UK, cabinet members are not members of parliament. The right to submit proposals for laws and budget belongs to the legislature—not to the executive branch of the government. The US president is not the head of the ruling party. Thus the administration has much less control over the legislative body than in Japan or in the UK. However, party still matters. The Republican Party currently controls Congress. The numbers of Republicans and Democrats are 52 and 48, respectively, in the Senate and 241and 194 in the House of Representatives. On reflection, the Republican Party has had control of all of three branches of government—the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives—only twice in the past six decades. Specifically, these were the two years during the Eisenhower Administration and four years during the George W. Bush (son) Administration. This situation did not occur during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or George H.W. Bush (father) Administrations. For this reason, the Republican Party is given a very unique opportunity to implement their long-standing objectives including tax cuts. Of course, policy priorities of the President and the Congressional Republican Parties may differ. The latter may not always support President Trump’s agenda. This was seen conspicuously in the case of repealing of Obama Care.
But to corner the President or try to dismiss him is a different story. This would happen only in extreme cases. The first case is when Republican lawmakers think that to support and cooperate with him will endanger their reelection or the nation’s fate. Racial or gender issues can be one example. The second case is when unequivocal evidence of a breach of law is identified. In April, in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI Director James Comey stated that he understood the President’s words as instructions when the President said to him in a private conversation that the President expected Mr. Comey to let go of the investigation of former national security advisor Michael Flynn who resigned the previous day. Some Republican members reportedly tried to label this as a joke or was merely an expression of a wish and could not have been regarded as instructions. Regarding a possibility of impeachment, it has to be kept in mind that no US President had ever been impeached and convicted. When former President Nixon (Republican) resigned prior to the impeachment trial, both Upper and Lower Houses were controlled by the Democratic Party. When former President Clinton (Democrat) was indicted by the Lower House, Republicans were the majority in the House. Of course, the situation would change drastically if any incontestable new evidence about the relationship with Russia during the campaign were to come out from the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller or by the Intelligence Committees of the Senate and the House.
Many people see that the judiciary is totally independent. True, we see cases in which the judicial system is not working the way that the administration had planned. The U.S. District Court in Washington State and the Appeals Court in California have judged that the immigration ban against seven countries, issued by President Trump soon after his inauguration, violates the Constitution. The Trump Administration could not appeal the case to the Supreme Court. What we have to keep in mind is the composition of the nine Supreme Court justices. They are justices for life and bigger stars than cabinet members in America’s political world. Their political tendencies often reflect the philosophy of the party of the President who appointed them. Until last year, four were deemed conservative, one moderate to conservative, and four liberal. Therefore, in the case that a conflict between conservatives and liberals is clear, for example, the right to an abortion, the decision of the moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy often became the decisive factor. In February 2016, conservative champion Justice Antonin Scalia suddenly passed away and conservatives lost their majority. Then-President Obama nominated a substitute justice in March 2016, but the Congress, consisting of a Republican-majority, did not agree to open a committee for his hearing. They allegedly wanted to wait for the possibility to have the next president from the Republican Party. The reason that the Trump Administration did not immediately appeal to the Supreme Court for the above-mentioned judicial decisions made by the District Court and Appeals Court was said to be that he was waiting for the change in the composition of the Supreme Court. In fact, Neil Gorsuch, appointed by President Trump, assumed the post of the new justice on April 8, 2017. On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed to implement the immigration ban with some conditions until the final judgement is expected to be made in autumn 2017.
To summarize, of course the legislative body and judicial body are independent from the Administration, but to think party influence is negligible is a little too naïve.
Let us look at public opinion next. The polls clearly indicate the dichotomization of the US population. The presidential approval rating poll done by Gallup two weeks after the inauguration was as low as 40%. It was the first time at least in the past five decades that the rating did not reach 50%. However, the figure has not changed much even after the removal of FBI Director Comey on May 9, 2017. This is because many Republicans who supported then-candidate Trump during the campaign have not changed their attitude. The largest reason could be that those people have contempt against the Democratic Party, which opposes President Trump at every opportunity.
Fourth Myth
The fourth myth is that US diplomatic policy has become less predictable, so a difficult era is emerging. I do not deny this. However, it is also true that the world has experienced many changes in US policies. Let me cite some cases. The first is the issue on China’s representation at the United Nations. The UK and France gave approval to the Beijing government, while Japan and the US maintained their support of Taiwan. Former Japanese Ambassador to the U.S. Koichiro Asakai stated in public as early as in the early 1960s that his nightmare was being called by the Secretary of State one day and told that US policy had changed and then being shown the door. His concern was proven right. A decade later, then national security advisor Henry Kissinger visited China, followed by then-President Nixon, while Japan was kept completely uninformed till the last moment. This incident is called in Japan the “Nixon Shock” and inscribed in our institutional memory. There is also a more recent case that serves as an example. During former-President Bill Clinton’s time in office in the late 1990s, in order to halt North Korea’s independent nuclear project, a light-water nuclear reactor was offered to the country. To this end, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization or “KEDO project” was launched by a US initiative and supported and financed by the Republic of Korea and Japan. As soon as the George W. Bush Administration started, the project was terminated. President George W. Bush began the Iraq War in reaction to the 9.11 terrorist attacks. France and Germany were opposed to the war, but the UK and Japan backed it. The association between Iraq and the 9.11 terrorist attacks was not proven, and weapons of mass-destruction were not discovered. In 2008, then-candidate Obama denounced George W. Bush, the Iraq War, Wall Street and Washington, DC to win the election. This is the reason that I named them the “Four W denials.” As the Iraq War was denounced by the US president, former UK Prime Minister Blair was even examined by a special committee installed by the parliament for his judgment having followed the US. By the way, the Trump Administration, along with denial of Wall Street and Washington, also tries to overturn his predecessor’s legacies including Obamacare, TPP, Paris Agreement, and improvement of relations with Cuba.
Conclusion
I am not simply saying that history repeats itself. I am saying that let us not pretend that we have not seen drastic changes before and this is the first time we are seeing a bolt from the blue. Of course, the facts that US is not joining the TPP or the Paris Agreement are disappointing. But let us not forget that, to date, we have not been living in a world where these agreements were already implemented. It’s not a case in which security arrangements existing for half a century are being denied. We can go ahead with our multilateral approach and warmly welcome the US back when it decides to return.
In my mind ring the words of British Ambassador James Bryce to the US in 1912 when California restricted immigration from Japan. The words were said by a seasoned envoy to a young Japanese diplomat in Washington, DC who later became Prime Minister. The Ambassador said that American people at times made inappropriate judgments but American history proved that Americans have later corrected themselves. Viscount Bryce said that we just should sit back and wait. I do not know how pertinent these words are in the present day’s case, but they may still carry some wisdom.