With their shared worldview, both the New York Times and London’s The Economist are overwrought at the thought of Donald Trump becoming President and how this may affect their world—or empire. The Nov. 6 opinion piece by the Times editorial board, written after the election, is entitled “America Makes a Perilous Choice,” lamenting that the election of Trump will set the nation “on a precarious course that no one can fully foresee…. Over the next four years, Americans must be clear-eyed about the threat to the nation and its laws that will come from its 47th President and be prepared to exercise their rights in defense of the country and the people, laws, institutions and values that have kept it strong.”
Clueless as to why war-weary Americans might have voted for Trump, the editorial board warns that now everyone must “be wary of an incoming Trump administration that is likely to put a top priority on amassing unchecked power.” The Democratic Party will have to take a “hard look” to figure out “why it lost the elections,” says the Times, lamenting that it “took too long” for the party to recognize that “large swaths of their progressive agenda were alienating voters, including some of the most loyal supporters of their party.” What to do? Democrats have yet to find a “persuasive message that resonates with Americans from both parties who have lost faith in the system–which pushed skeptical voters toward the more obviously disruptive figure.” Democrats will have to offer a vision of what they would do “to improve the lives of all Americans and respond to anxieties that people have about the direction of the country and how they would change it.”
The Economist published a lengthy piece on Oct. 31, prior to the election, but is considerably more hysterical than the Times, carrying the headline: “How Bad Could a Second Trump Presidency Get?” with the kicker, “The damage to America’s economy, institutions and the world would be huge,” it asserts, trembling that the Empire itself may be at stake.
“Mr. Trump not only seems intent on following through on some of his wilder pronouncements if elected but would also be in a better position to do so than last time. That suggests another way of looking at America’s choice: how badly wrong could things go?” This City of London mouthpiece thinks that while Trump may have problems getting through some of his “most extreme ideas,” there is a chance he may be able to do some of the things he’s talked about, whose consequences would be “disastrous…. Fears that he may permanently damage American democracy and the rule of law are not far-fetched,” but left unsaid is how disastrous Trump may be for the British Empire itself.
What Trump might do on foreign policy could pose “alarming risks,” The Economist bleats. He claims he can halt the Ukraine war in record time, but major candidates for jobs in his administration “have a wide range of views on Ukraine,” The Economist warns, and “who Mr. Trump ultimately listens to is maddeningly unpredictable…. But, no matter who is elected President, it seems increasingly likely that Ukraine will have to abandon or at least shelve its ambition to reclaim much of the territory.… But an abrupt and haphazard American abandonment of Ukraine would embolden Vladimir Putin, Russia’s dictator, and increase the risk he poses to his neighbors…. The real question is whether America’s institutions would be able to constrain him. America’s courts and Constitution would be the best check on Mr. Trump’s autocratic whims.”
