On March 3, 2017 the Kentucky Political Science Association held its annual conference at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. A roundtable of political scientists shared their thoughts, perspectives, and predictions for the new Trump Administration. Here are some highlights from their comments:
Dr. Jillienne Haglund, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Kentucky
Research in international relations speaks volumes to the Trump administration’s foreign policies and we need not look far to understand how Trump’s policies influence peace and security both domestically and globally.
First, scientific research shows us that policies like the Travel Ban will not keep Americans safer; in fact, the likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack by a foreigner is 1 in 3.6 million per year, while the likelihood of being killed by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year. Research also shows us that policies like a travel ban may make Americans less safe. It can play into the provocation strategy of terrorists, provoking the government to respond disproportionately in order to generate sympathy for terrorists among their home population. Further, systematic repression can increase, rather than decrease, the number of attacks a country experiences.
Second, the Trump administration is proposing cutting U.N. funding by 40% in order to end “wasteful and counterproductive spending.” Is this funding wasteful and counterproductive? Research shows that UN peacekeepers reduce by 85% the probability that a ceasefire will break down in a given year, and peacekeeping plays a large role in the maintenance of peace around the world. The United States contributes around 28% of the U.N. peacekeeping budget, but only a very small portion of the federal budget, around 1%, goes to bilateral and multilateral aid. Given that the Trump administration is unaware, or perhaps uninterested, in the findings of this research, the public must make efforts to engage, become informed, and mobilize in opposition of such policies, many of which are likely to be harmful to U.S. peace and security.
Dr. Lori Hartmann, Frank B. and Virginia B. Hower Professor of International Studies, Centre College
On Africa, the Trump administration has been largely silent, although one could infer from his general comments about international affairs that he would address trade and security as top priorities. Given the gains that were made under the Bush and Obama administrations with programs such as PEPFAR, AGOA, YALI, Power Africa and the MCC, in addition to the more direct attempts at counter-terrorism like Africom, my hope is that in a broad brush effort to disengage from trade agreements and increase security, President Trump does not dismantle the low cost (to the US) trade preferences and the initiatives on development and leadership that are crucial for building a more secure and stable continent.
I watched with interest as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Homeland Security Jim Kelly visited Mexico in February. They were diplomatic and conciliatory on topics ranging from fighting the drug trade to the US proposals to deport undocumented workers and control immigration. This contrasts sharply with President Trump’s bluster on those issues. My question is: is that contrast intentional (bad cop, good cop approach) allowing Trump to satisfy his domestic base and let his diplomatic team calm fears abroad? Or does it signal disagreement within the administration?
In President Trump’s recent address to Congress, he confirmed a commitment to NATO (which he had done earlier when Great Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May visited Washington) yet repeated his demand that members pay their fair share. He then said that “the money is pouring in.” A quick look at various fact checking services reveals that the statement is baseless. It is true that only 4 (out of 28) members of NATO spend the required 2% of GDP on the military, but even if others stepped up, the money would not be coming to the United States. It would be dedicated to NATO initiatives. So it might be warranted to ask for members to reach that threshold. However, the lack of respect for allies and partners being expressed concerns me – President Trump’s “America First” mantra implicitly ignores the fact that the United States benefits greatly from cooperation with international partners to counter terrorism, help nations rebuild after war, track down drug lords, engage in peacekeeping, and countless other projects. Isolationism is the wrong approach.
Dr. Benjamin Knoll, John Marshall Harlan Associate Professor of Politics, Centre College
I tend to put most of the things the Trump administration has done into two different categories. The first category is “things that a normal Republican president would do under normal circumstances.” This category includes nominating a judge like Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and working with Congress to try to deliver on campaign promises surrounding health care policy.
The second category is “things that normal Republican OR Democratic presidents do NOT do,” specifically, things that do not respect traditional liberal democratic norms and institutions. These include things like using rhetoric that explicitly aims to delegitimize the media and the judiciary, declining to commit to accept the results of the election during the campaign, routinely asserting (without evidence) that there were millions of illegal votes cast during the election, asserting (without evidence) that the previous president ordered a wiretap to listen in on campaign conversations, etc. etc. These are things that are not a regular part of the American political system but are a regular part of political systems that political scientists call “illiberal” or “hybrid” democracies.
It matters that President Trump is using rhetoric that does not respect these traditional democratic norms and boundaries. Just this month, the Pew Research Center produced a report showing that less than half of Republicans (and only three-quarters of Democrats) believe that it is “very important” that “news organizations [should be] free to criticize political leaders. The right of a free and independent media to criticize political leaders is a hallmark feature of a strong liberal democracy. The more President Trump calls these norms and institutions into question with his rhetoric, the more it becomes normalized, and the weaker our democratic system of government becomes.
Dr. Jonathan W. Pidluzny, Assistant Professor of Government, Morehead State University
Donald Trump, a deeply flawed candidate opposed by most of his party, won the 2016 presidential election because he made it about something that matters to many voters at a gut level: country. Secretary Clinton might have eked out a victory anyway if Democrats’ core constituencies had turned out but too many African Americans stayed home; and women, educated, and Hispanic voters supported her by smaller margins than almost anyone expected.
The real lesson of the 2016 election is that the era of identity politics is over. For continuing to prioritize social issues anyway—instead of those that matter to the entire political community (the economy, crime, national defense)—the Democratic party is in ruins today, having in eight years lost the presidency, 9 U.S. Senate seats, 62 seats in the House, 12 governorships, and over 1000 seats in state legislatures.
This trouncing should remind us of 1984, the year Ronald Reagan’s optimistic patriotism helped him win 49 states in the Electoral College. In response, leading Democrats founded the Democratic Leadership Council. They asked Bill Clinton to run it, hoping the Southern governor would expand the party’s base beyond New Left interest groups. Can Democrats do the same thing today? It’s hard to imagine. Thanks to Democrats’ obliteration in the South and at the state level, the centrist Democrat is all but dead.
Are we looking at an enduring Republican majority? Not a chance. Republicans are seriously divided on just about everything. And, if one can see past his outrageous bombast, Donald Trump is actually the centrist. His muddled vision for a reformed Rockefellerian conservatism is pitting a new, energized grassroots against establishment Republicans on just about everything: the ACA, free trade, immigration, foreign policy, and LGBT rights.
With both parties in disarray, I believe the aftermath of the 2016 election will be remembered as an exceptional period in the country’s history, as Democrats and Republicans struggle to rebrand their parties.
Dr. Michael Hail, Professor of Government, Morehead State University
We are at the end of the “Era of Globalization” and simultaneously, the end of the “Era of Big Government.” When evaluating the Trump Administration, one must first recognize that much of the unorthodox and unprecedented political behavior manifest throughout the West is reflective of these two related phenomena. Given our collective existence in a transition period of historical significance, we are probably too proximate to fully grasp it. In times such as these, political wisdom and the established literature in political science are poor guides to understand or predict political behavior (axioms like “money wins elections”).
The real story, though, may come down to two things when predicting the success of the Trump Administration. First, and most importantly, is the economy. If Trump can succeed in cutting taxes and cutting government bureaucracy, while creating significant economic growth, all else that may be unorthodox will likely be forgiven by the voters. But second, to succeed in these budget cuts and his political agenda, he needs to lead the federal legislative branch and the state governments. Congress must support his agenda and deliver for Trump. And to do this will require collaborative intergovernmental leadership. I have always argued that under American federalism, intergovernmental relations is a team sport, not an individual sport. The sooner the Trump team can build a broad, sustainable coalition to govern, the more likely the success of President Trump.
More information about the presenters can be found here:
Dr. Jillienne Haglund, Dr. Lori Hartmann, Dr. Benjamin Knoll, Dr. Jonathan Pidluzny, Dr. Michael Hail