The American mid-term election is just a few weeks away. Anybody who continues to think that the two political parties are the same hasn't been paying attention.
The Trump presidency makes clear the differences between Republicans and Democrats. It's not complicated. With some notable exceptions, Republican office-holders, Republican candidates and Republican voters are overwhelmingly supportive of Trump. Democratic office-holders, Democratic candidates and Democratic voters are overwhelmingly opposed to Trump.
So, yes, the upcoming election is about Trump.
He has given us plenty to tussle over -- taxes and the federal deficit and debt; healthcare; the economy; immigration; regulations; the environment; the list goes on, and it's a long one.
Foreign policy is a part of that list, too. Congress can be involved, but under Republican leadership since the 2016 election it has been mostly missing-in-action. There's not much likelihood of any change to that state of affairs, so long as Congressional leadership remains in Republican hands.
So Trump has been free to run the foreign policy show, in all of its fits and starts. Congress still is on the hook to provide funding and approve appointments and treaties. But the stage where the performance is conducted belongs to the president.
The rest of the world is at the receiving end of Trump's conduct of
foreign affairs, whether it be the substance or the style of the
performance. Opinions formed today determine tomorrow's international
support for America's future policy goals.
Now that we are almost two full years into the Trump presidency, what does the rest of the world think of him? What does it think of the United States?
According to a recent Pew Research Center report ("Trump's international ratings remain low, especially among key allies" October 1, 2018), the answers to those questions are not good.
The report describes the results of a survey conducted in 25 countries around the globe. It covers traditional allies -- such as Europe, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel and South Korea -- one clear rival (Russia) and several that might be described as "non-aligned," such as Brazil, India, Indonesia and Tunisia.
The results are startlingly clear: Trump is not a positive or inspirational leading representative of America to the rest of the world. 70% of respondents have "no confidence" in Donald Trump as president of the U.S. 70% also say that the U.S. does not do much to "take into account the interests of other countries." American influence has diminished while China's influence has grown.
Trump comes in fifth, at the bottom of the list, when it comes to inspiring confidence "to do the right thing regarding world affairs" -- 27% reported having confidence that he would do so. Russia's Vladimir Putin scored 30%. Germany's Angela Merkel earned the high score of 52% with France's Emmanuel Macron coming in second at 46% and China's Xi Jinping a distant third at 34%.
The fact that Trump has not caused the U.S. to forcibly absorb part of another nation as Putin did when he ordered Russian armed forces to invade Crimea must count in Trump's favor, but apparently not for much. As blatantly illegal, hostile, harmful and self-centered as the Crimean invasion was, more people think that Putin, going forward from the time of the survey, will "do the right thing" in world affairs!
Who, besides perhaps Russians, would have guessed that Putin would come out ahead? (And this, despite the fact that the annual Putin calendars with his included beefcakey photos must have cost him a few points, too.)
Trump, of course, has by now established for himself a reputation as Quitter-in-Chief. Resigning from the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership all show American disengagement from international affairs. The other participants have remained, expecting to continue without the U.S.
These agreements address issues that are of critical importance to the rest of the world, including America's allies and also the non-aligned nations. The other parties are both developed and developing countries; it's no surprise that Trump's actions are interpreted as showing a diminished American commitment to leadership in global affairs.
Any multi-nation agreement that includes the United States, and which predates the Trump presidency, must now be assumed to be at the mercy of Trump's whimsy or hostility. That does not inspire confidence that America will "take into account the interests of other countries."
Domestic policies and initiatives can have international consequences, too. Trump's love affair with fossil fuels can be seen as indifferent -- at best -- to the needs of other nations, or hostile -- at worst -- since the unrestrained use of fossil fuels further degrades the world's environment and worsens the effects of global warming. The atmosphere does not recognize national borders.
The poor always suffer more than the rich. By comparison to the U.S., most of the world's nations are poor. And they know these things. Given a choice of other leadership, they will be inclined to shun Trump's America.
China's Xi Jinping is not bashful in announcing that China is ready and
able to fill many of the leadership vacuums caused by American
disengagement. He has said so, clearly, on the big-ticket concerns of international trade and global warming.
Developing countries are always looking for money. Chinese loans and other cash assistance (even with strings attached) can look more attractive as Trump reduces American foreign aid. In addition, lingering effects and memories of last decade's financial crisis provide opportunities to tout the Chinese forms of marketplace economics and capitalism as superior to the lightly-regulated American alternatives. The U.S. economy caused the global near-catastrophe, not China's.
It looks like "America First" has become "America the Lonely."
There is a remedy. Two of them -- the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The Republican majority in each House of Congress means that both committees are chaired by Republicans. Since the beginning of Trump's presidency, neither chair has been inclined to challenge Trump on his approach to foreign affairs.
A Democratic majority in either House of Congress resulting from November's election would mean at least one committee would have a Democratic chair. Trump would be faced with some real Congressional oversight that would show the world that the United States is not as set on abandoning its traditional leadership positions as it now appears to be.
It's still the president's stage, but it's a big stage with room for other actors.
The key question for November's election is this: Does Trump deserve another two years of being enabled by an oddly docile and captive Republican Congressional leadership?
Those who answer "Yes" will probably assert that Trump is able to bend the rest of the world to his will -- notwithstanding the fact that every time in history that such a feat has been attempted it has failed -- or they will expect that Trump can use the next two years to develop statesman-like qualities.
Yes, things can change, but not enough to make pigs fly, and let's not forget that one of Trump's selling-points of himself, in his own words, has been "I'll never change."
Those who answer the question "No" will vote for Democrats. If there are enough of those votes, then one or both of those Congressional committees can get back to work.
