From T.P.P. to Tariffs

The overarching truth of the past year, in this foray into a controversial and chaotic brand of politics, has been the complete unpredictability of what is to come. Every morning, as I begin to scroll through the day’s headlines, I steel myself for the worst. Has a bomb been dropped? Has the special prosecutor been defenestrated? The question is perpetually floating around my subconscious, challenging me: how will the President destabilize things today? And the answer is never far away: nobody knows.

Trump’s tenure thus far has been characterized chiefly by inconsistency in policy prerogatives. The examples are endless, but the developments in Trump’s trade policy over the course of the past few weeks serve as perhaps the perfect example. The conflicting narratives put forth by the various members of the administration have epitomized the White House’s lack of ideological consistency, its tendency to flit between Bannon-esque populist bluster and Ryan-McConnell conventional conservatism.

First, reports came out on February 27th, with an astonishing development: the Trans-Pacific Partnership was not completely out of the picture. Steven Mnuchin, the Secretary of the Treasury, stated that renegotiation of American participation in the treaty was “on the table,” an astonishing reversal approximately a year after Trump had withdrawn from the trade pact. The withdrawal occurred, of course, in the early months of the administration, when Steven Bannon was still a chief strategist to the President.

What on earth could have inspired this dramatic reversal on a decision that enraged editorial boards from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal (beacons of the despicable coastal elite that he disparaged throughout the campaign)? A move that was in contradiction with the opinions of the vast majority of economists?

Since when was Donald Trump in agreement with the media and experts?

Sure enough, two days later came the inevitable conflicting narrative: an announcement of the forthcoming imposition of draconian tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum.

It would be utterly misguided to believe that Trump is reverting to his protectionist instincts after a brief flirtation with the mainstream. Trump is completely devoid of any fundamental sense of ideology. His take on a given issue are not the result of his own convictions, but those of the last person with whom he spoke. Remember how, after campaigning for a year and a half on a platform of repealing Obamacare, Trump promptly declared that he would keep aspects of the plan intact – a day after meeting with the outgoing president?

The image that seems to have developed over the course of this presidency in the minds of the nation’s liberals and NeverTrump conservatives (and, for that matter, the pugnacious contrarians and alt-right activists who support him) has been of a tyrannical, fanatical man cunningly plotting his plans for the systematic erosion of America’s institutions. In truth, this depiction altogether flattering, a vast exaggeration of the mental and intellectual capacity of the current occupant of the White House. A more apt image would instead be that of a piece of clay, perpetually being molded into various shapes, his current form based solely on the last person who handled him.

So as we discuss our fears for the remainder of Trump’s tenure, it is counterproductive to focus on the President himself. Our focus should instead be on his advisors, those who are parroting their various ideas into his ears throughout the day. The past year’s slate of policy failures was a manifestation of the confusion inside the White House, with an astonishing array of factions competing for the ear of the President. Our best hope if the damage to the republic is to be minimized is for these competing narratives to continue to drown each other out.

The moment a single faction prevails­ – the moment a semblance of unity begins to triumph within the White House – is the moment that we must collectively be worried about. As of right now, each of the factions are supporting policy positions that would in one way or another subvert America’s institutions. When Trump begins to only hear one voice, he may begin to take decisive, systematic action. That is when the nation as we know it will truly be in peril.

Gary Cohn’s departure is most concerning for this reason. No longer will Trump have a close advisor who advocates for common sense economic policy, who has the ability to counterbalance the protectionist inclinations of other Trump acolytes. The next time the President has the urge to slap tariffs on imports or tear up NAFTA, no one will point out the ruinous economic effects of such actions. Trump’s capriciousness will become policy, meaning that chaos will reign, and havoc will ensue.