The future history of Donald Trump

13 July 2017

Jamie Morgan - Department of Economics, Analytics and International Business, Leeds Beckett University

The concerns and conflict that are already central to the Trump presidency will be key to understanding Trump as future history

The Trump presidency is still in its first year. It has barely begun, but already the possibility that we are entering one of history’s defining moments looks increasingly likely. Trump is future history, and yet we still know relatively little.

To a future historian, armed with retrospection, President Trump will not be an evocative blank. He may be a source of incomprehension perhaps, in the sense of ‘what were people thinking’, but not a blank. In the spirit of future history, what do we know now, six months into his presidency? Trump was elected on a platform of making America ‘great again’. Taken at his word, he wants America to stand up, but it is still not clear what he stands for. His election may well have underlying causes and a recognizable context, but there remains a suspicion that he did not really want the job (rather than the status and aggrandisement entailed in running for the job) and few knew what they were actually voting for (rather than against) when they voted for him. The accidental president may well turn out to stand for nothing in particular, and yet as president he may well be positioned to privilege his immediate family, business connections and any grouping who can capture his attention. This may  be part of his enduring legacy.

To understand Trump as future history we need to consider what we know about how malformed the governance of the most powerful nation on earth currently is. Six broad areas of concern and conflict can be identified:

Any two of this list would signal problems in a ‘normal’ presidency. However, there is nothing normal about the Trump presidency even if its ultimate consequences may (though may not) be an angrier version of business-as-usual from the point of view of the 99%. Confusion, delay, contradiction and underachievement are dismissed by the White House as ‘fake news’ and a relentless message of great activity and greatness is broadcast. The dissonance this evokes speaks to the world of hard-headed authoritarian dictators of one-party states. Fortunately, checks and balances apply to Trump.

However, recall that in campaigning Trump perpetually resisted being pinned down on detail whilst simultaneously he and others on his behalf claimed that he had the answers to all questions. Healthcare would be simpler, cheaper and better; a secret plan to eradicate hostile Islamic fundamentalism was in-hand; a raft of well-crafted policies were just waiting for the president’s signature and would immediately liberate American capital to leap into life; jobs would come flooding back to the US; Trump, the electorate was assured, had the measure of opponents in all fields and all places -China, Mexico, Russia, Europe on the finance of NATO etc. However, as it turns out, the devil is in the detail, and non-statement, seemingly, was not strategic, it was ignorance, over-confidence or simple artifice for electioneering. Trump may have known how to succeed in business (even through failure and bankruptcy), but he has not yet demonstrated he knows how to govern. This is deeply concerning, since the presidency is not a job one wants the incumbent to learn on the hoof.

As Orson Scott Card once said, the essence of training is to allow error without consequence. Trump’s on-the-job training is proving deeply concerning. In a reversal of the TV show that helped make his name he is now in the position of apprentice, but seemingly with no master other than his own ego. This too is disturbing, since it raises questions of whether he is in fact learning, or indeed has a concept of what a fact is. An egotist creates his own autochthonous singularity, which reverses ordinary causation in the name of a spurious control that operates as a self-defence mechanism. One hears but rarely listens, one lashes out rather than learns (what do others think of me? I’ll let you know when I’ve decided what they should).

Trump is likely to be fertile ground for future historians. In the meantime, analyses have begun to appear that will form part of the archive that history will draw on. For example, Real World Economics Review (which Edward Fullbrook and I edit) recently published Trumponomics: Causes and Consequences, a set of essays that ranges across the political, environmental and social significance of the early Trump presidency. With future history in mind, this collection is a good place to start in looking for intelligent answers. Future history relies on analysis of the present and now is the time to start analysing the Trump presidency.

Related posts

Beyond the madness: Donald Trump and the resetting of America’s social contract

David Coates - 19 January 2018

Away from the White House chaos an ultra-conservative Republican Party is building an America for the rich and privileged

Read more

The Anglo-American Centre-Left and the immediate question of agency

 David Coates - 18 September 2017

The Democrats and the Labour Party have been on the defensive for too long. Winning again requires a progressive re-radicalization of politics

Read more