The U.S., willing to create a unipolar world after the fall of the Soviet Union, entered an unexpected period of collapse with the 2008 crisis. Being at the centre of the crisis, the U.S. spread it to the rest of the world but still could not go back to the pre-crisis period.
The presidential election resulted in the victory of Donald Trump in a way that shows the old president Barack Obama could not achieve the expected “change”. Trump’s victory showed once again that the status quo represented by Hilary Clinton is not sustainable. So, what is the situation in the U.S. now? What are the consequences of post-2008 interventions? What does the Trump administration offer to America?
OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY: HEAVEN OR HELL
There have been widespread protests in many US cities with the election of Trump. Well known with his racist, misogynist and anti-science comments, Trump earned the hostility of large groups as soon as he came to power. However, the comments before mentioned didn’t reflect a deviation from US administration. On the contrary, they were the expressions of the policies under Obama administration.
Although Obama is portrayed as a “moderate” by the media, we should remember that the police killed 2238 people only in 2015 and 2016 in the U.S. Looking at the demographic profile of the victims, a large majority of the people killed by the police are black and Native Americans. Many young people, without carrying a gun on them, were killed by the police under Obama administration. The police officers committing the crimes were released without punishment.
The movements such as Black Lives Matter started being organised in this period. Obama’s eight years of administration did not reduce racism in the U.S. Obama who came to power saying, “There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there's the United States of America” avoided taking serious steps to eliminate racism.
While real wages fell significantly after the 2008 crisis, Obama’s period has seen the first serious workers’ protests after a long time. There were protests in many sectors for the minimum wage increase and other rights, the fast-food sector being the most visible one on the media. With the decline in real wages, manufacturing in the U.S. became profitable again during this period. In other words, Obama administration laid down the foundation of Trump’s most important promise to the voters, the return of manufacturing to the U.S. It was said that production in the U.S. would be cheaper than China. The limits of this promise will be discussed in the rest of this article.
WAS OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY PEACEFUL
George W. Bush, the US President before Obama, was well-known with the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama made promises of peace after Bush. He was suggesting withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. But in reality, the US army increased its presence almost everywhere in the world during Obama’s presidency.
While the US army and air forces were conducting operations in four countries under Bush administration (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somali), this number increased to seven under Obama (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somali, Yemen, Libya and Syria). Unites States Africa Command (AFRICOM) which was established in 2007 under Bush, became active during Obama’s period. The U.S. owned many permanent and temporary military bases in Africa.
The U.S. realised a gun sale worth of 190 billion to rest of the world only in the first six months of Obama administration. By this way, the beginning of an armament race was triggered again after the Cold War. Based on a comparison of real numbers, Obama administration became the one that realised the largest gun sale after World War II. Of course, the world didn’t become a safer place after these gun sales. On the contrary, the debates of a third world war flared up again.
WHOSE CHILD IS TRUMP?
In this situation, the liberals’ “stepchild” treatment of Trump is quite weird. Trump’s aggressive policies, his approach to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and his close relationship with Egyptian government look quite like Obama’s policies except from some minor deviations (such as Trump’s stronger tendency to adopt Israel’s policies).
Similarly, it is surprising to target Trump as the representative of “post-truth” politics. Didn't the attack against the sense of reality and human mind establish the essence of liberal post-modern philosophy? Hasn’t this approach based on blurring the reality constituted the legitimacy of US politics for a long time? For example, weren’t the interventions to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya made with similar methods, with “fake news”? Didn’t the US carry out the Cold War with similar methods? Wasn't Trump’s attack to Sayrat air base administered with a similar foundation?
Trump’s anti-science rhetoric got a lot of reaction from US public opinion and media. For example, Trump’s claim that global climate change is a Chinese hoax and it is fabricated to limit the competitiveness of US manufacturing, his creation of “alternative facts” against scientific facts resulted in actions such as March for Science. But is Trump’s approach new? Didn't the U.S. administration lead to irreversible levels of global warming ignoring the scientific facts? Did Trump start the global warming?
To tell the truth, US administration has never had good relations with reality. After this reminder we ask the question, how long can one escape from reality?
THE US STRATEGY: SOLVING THE CRISIS BY DISTRIBUTING
After 2008 crisis, the US looked for the ways to spread its crisis to the rest of the world and to solve the crisis by distributing it in a way. Within this scope, power gaps were created by destabilising the governments in Latin America, Middle East, Asia and Africa. The U.S. tried to increase its power by filling these gaps. As “successful” examples, we can talk about the fall of the Brazilian government in Latin America with serious efforts and replacement of it with Temer administration or placing US military in Syria after a period of six years. However, the fall in support for Temer administration under 9% in a very short time and the emergence of a strong Iran-Syria-Russia-Hezbollah line with the maintenance of Syrian resistance show that reaction became stronger than action.
In the unsuccessful examples, the power gaps didn’t result in anything but long-lasting conflicts such as the ones created in Libya and Yemen (with Saudi intervention). In other cases, such as Afghanistan, the US military presence made the region more unstable beside not being able to secure its own presence. By leaving Afghanistan, Taliban gained more power. A Taliban-Russia relationship came into question. The US ended up creating a block against itself in the region.
Continuing its provocations in the South China Sea, the U.S. strengthened China’s hand with its unthoughtful steps. Creating a threat of war in the region, it strengthened the dialogue between China and other countries in the region. The Philippines, the backyard of the U.S., drove a wedge between Rodrigo Duterte and the U.S.
US’ strategy of solving the crisis by distributing it left a mess behind instead of a solution despite Obama’s “smart war” methods. Not being able to organise the mess, the U.S. created its own alternatives and searches for the alternatives instead of standing out unrivalled.
MINEFIELD: FED’S MONETARY POLICY
Another response given to 2008 crisis was FED’s (The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the U.S.) expansionary monetary policy. This policy continued much longer than anticipated. FED’s priority became increasing the short-term employment and this was accomplished. However, the reduction in unemployment didn’t make the labour market healthier. Most of the new jobs were unstable with low productivity, sourced from the fall in real wages and it was thought that those jobs wouldn’t be permanent if FED takes a step back. Ultimately what monetary expansion accomplished was not solving the crisis but postponing it.
FED announced the end of the monetary expansion by December 2015 but did not start a contraction. This situation increased the uncertainty related to the dollar. Rising uncertainties in the European Union kept dollar relatively strong during the same period (this time overlap shouldn’t be thought as coincidental). Tightening the monetary policy means a stronger dollar. However, this is not in line with Trump’s goals. Trump who wants to make the United States a manufacturing country again prefers a weaker dollar to be able to export. An increase in budget deficit with a probable tax reform also makes FED’s job harder.
Therefore, the administrative crisis combined the smoke cloud that covered the future of FED’s monetary policy for a while with a minefield. It should not be surprising in this situation to see that the representatives of manufacturing industry and Wall Street were the first to visit the White House in the first days of Trump’s presidency. However, it is questionable whether the White House could answer the questions of the US capitalist class.
THE END OF THE FREE TRADE?
Trump who argued that free trade could not continue in its current form during his election campaign had to give important concessions about this issue. The reason behind the concessions is obvious; what determines whether the current trade agreements are in favour of or to detriment of the US is not a magical stick but the relative power of the US. Trump had to give up cancelling NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement) although he was arguing to bring better trade deals. He only said that there could be new negotiations.
Trump who had an aggressive attitude toward China before he came to power realised the mutual obligations and started to have good relationships with China taking quick backwards steps. Having a better meeting than expected with China’s President Si Cinping also shows that Trump’s promise of “ending the free trade” is not going to be kept.
CAN THE UNITED STATES REPLACE CHINA?
Although the U.S. is in a disadvantaged position, not being able to produce, with the existing trade agreements, Trump’s promise of bringing manufacturing back to the US cannot be realised in the short-run. Some factories can be opened in the U.S. instead of Asia because of Trump’s opposition but as CEO of Adidas Kasper Rorsted frankly pointed out these decisions are “political” not “economic”. Emphasising that 97% of their production is based in Asia, Rorsted argues that not only their plants but the entire manufacturing industry will stay in Asia; the alternative doesn’t make sense.
With China’s membership in the World Trade Organization in 2001, China’s ties with big corporations and mutual “trust” were strengthened. It is impossible for the US to compete with China which provides hundreds of millions of workers and big infrastructure investments meeting the manufacturing needs of the world in terms of labour power and logistics. If we remind that there are about 250 million wage workers in China, the situation would become clear. Moreover, If the US government doesn’t respond to the demands of minimum wage increase, it will face serious problems. The increase in workers’ protests is unavoidable with the decline in real wages.
Additionally, we should keep in mind Canada’s strong reactions. Responding to Trumps’ threats, Justin Trudeau, prime minister of Canada, stated that the US would suffer greatly in the short-run and medium term even if it benefits from the cancellation of NAFTA in the long-run, explaining how this situation would benefit Canada. Many multinational corporations would move to Canada if Trump ends the role of US in free trade. In short, the U.S. cannot replace China but Canada seems to be willing to and can replace China if the U.S. keeps taking wrong steps.
THE UNITED STATES’ TWO PROBLEMS: TAX AND HEALTH REFORMS
Trump has been making promises about a comprehensive tax reform for a long time. It is said that he will cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. However, tax reform is deeply connected to health reform. With the health reform, Donald Trump tried to almost completely take away the US social healthcare system (repealing Obamacare) which is flawed in its current form anyway.
If Trump could pass health reform, many people would be excluded from health insurance coverage and by this way, a significant amount of resources necessary for the tax reform was going to be created. However, the reform wasn’t approved due to opponents in the Republican Party. Therefore, tax reform became almost impossible. It is difficult to call the tax arrangement Trump will offer as a “reform”.
This means Trump won’t be able to please capitalists, and the position of the US in the world will become more unstable. Indeed, Trump’s job was not going to be easy even if he could repeal Obamacare. Mass protests were expected if the health reform was approved. The health reform that was expected to create $337 billion in resources was going to leave 24 million people without health insurance and it was far from a solution for the US administration.
Presidential elections were shadowed by the allegations of “Russian interference” that comes directly from US Intelligence Agencies, and Trump’s legitimacy was questioned since the beginning. Many people close to Trump had to quit because of this. The US “deep state” prevented Trump to have a connection with Russia. Trump’s impeachment is still debated even among the Republicans despite his assuring steps (such as the Sayrat attack). The health and tax reforms postpone this debate. The US media gives the signs that Trump’s ability to perform presidential duties will be open to debate again after solving these two issues. This situation gives the hints that Clinton supporters won’t have an ultimate reconciliation with Trump.
ACKNOWLEDGING THE CRISIS AN OPPORTUNITIES
After all of this, Trump had to acknowledge the crisis in a sense. Taking a backwards step from his comments about NATO, he became an enforced administrator of the status quo.
The cracks in politics created by the US administration and the powers that they support provide big opportunities for the anti-imperialist movements. The current system, unable to restore itself, only creates new crisis centres and points of resistance. Turning the end of the unipolar world led by the US to the end of Capitalism is only possible with the rise of Communist movements that will solve the crisis of imperialism placing it on the correct axes. The door to the age of revolutions will open further as imperialism widens and spreads its crisis without any solution.
TOMORROW: THE UNSAVEABLE EUROPE
