In an article for this newspaper on February 26 2016 (’Donald not so much joker as a Trump card’), I argued that it was looking increasingly likely that Trump would defy all the odds to win the presidency because he was, “still standing, still winning and still defying expectations”.
Crucially — and it was a trend we were also seeing here during the run-up to the Brexit referendum — he was tapping into the ‘we’re-mad-as-hell-and-we’re-not-taking-it-anymore’ market; millions of voters who hadn’t voted for years because they didn’t think there was any hope of breaking the establishment’s grip on government.
But in the same way that the Leave campaign delivered an unexpected victory in June 2016, Trump delivered something similar that November. Two results that shook western democracy by opening the door to voters and parties who used to believe that the odds were permanently stacked against them.
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK kicked open another door — this time to the House of Commons — in July, while Trump is in touching distance of retaking the Oval Office next month.
A Trump win would be of huge significance: even more than it was last time. And that’s because it would be a signal to right-wingers everywhere — and especially across EU nations — that this really was a new era for politics. Trump, like Farage, is a consummate disruptor, distractor and destroyer: anti-status quo elitists who just want to create their own alternate status quo and elites. Politicians who believe that the political centre is a position of weakness.
The greatest strengths of both men are their narcissism and bizarre appeal to a disgruntled demographic which has absolutely nothing in common with them. Which explains, of course, why their appeal is to a sense of nationalism aimed at convincing the disgruntled that they will be heard.
A Trump win would be of huge significance: even more than it was last time. And that’s because it would be a signal to right-wingers everywhere — and especially across EU nations — that this really was a new era for politics
But the fact of the matter is that the disgruntled who voted Leave in June 2016 and who voted Trump in November 2016 are no better off than they were: a fact which Trump and Farage try to blame on the very establishment they claim to have defeated almost a decade ago.
Farage needs Trump to win. He needs access to the Oval Office. He needs to be seen as a key player on the world stage. Let’s face it, he’s going nowhere in the House of Commons between now and 2029; and I’m pretty sure the Conservative Party is not going to find a way of accommodating/facilitating him. He is the enemy of everything they stand for.
Read more: Whoever becomes the next president, America will be the loser - Alex Kane
He is not a Conservative and it would be a catastrophic blunder for the next leader to try and reach some sort of ‘understanding’ with him. Somewhere in the back of my mind is a quote about the inability of sheep and wolves to work together.
First time round I thought Trump’s chances were pretty good; not least because his comment about standing in New York and shooting people didn’t actually do him any damage in the opinion polls. And the fact that Hillary Clinton was almost as divisive as he was also played in his favour. The Biden contest was harder to call because elections tend to run towards the incumbent, which is why Trump convinced himself that he had been robbed of victory.
I want to dismiss his chances this time. Not because I am pro-Kamala Harris (who I think is actually quite weak on key issues), but because I think his first four years in the Oval Office were awful. Monumentally awful. There is also increasing evidence that he is no longer in full control of his mental faculties; and it was because I had the same view of Biden that I argued in favour of his standing aside.
The world is in a very difficult place right now. Some argue that Trump’s unpredictability would actually act as some sort of brake on the intentions of China, Russia and Iran, but I don’t buy that. Indeed, his talk about ending all threats because of his ‘good relationships’ with a bunch of dictators suggests a form of US isolationism in which he won’t bother them if they don’t bother him. Shouldn’t we be worried that he has refused to help the White House with the Middle East and Ukraine on the basis that it wouldn’t do him any electoral favours?
Trump is not a natural democrat. You’re either with him or against him and because he thrives on polarisation he has no interest in seeking out, let alone occupying, the centre ground. Back in 2016 I underestimated the damage that people like Trump and Farage could and would do to politics at national and international level. Which is why I hope Trump doesn’t just lose in 19 days, but is comprehensively hammered.
