How America could have avoided the greatest shock of its political history.

Neoliberalism is dead.

9th November 2016. The day when Donald J. Trump has preceded to become the 45th President of the United States of America. Political analysts, think-tanks and research establishments were turning on in their graves; they predicted that Hillary Clinton, however engulfed under the FBI’s investigation, would win the election. All of them were wrong, of how such an egoistic, xenophobic and isolated character had an unexpected landslide win against the Democratic candidate.

It sent a swell of disgust throughout the world; images of distraught democratic supporters captured on Western media, people on social media was au corant in expressing their aghast behaviour. The social predisposition of the news was further protracted to the global financial markets. As early as the news of a Donald Trump’s presidency spread across communication channels, investors were strung into a panic status. The American dollar and global stocks plummeted to a downturn that there was a fear of a recession in economic liberalism.

Have we not foreseen this possible presidential outcome of a narcissist, an anti-liberalist and whose life principles almost repudiate of those of the American citizen? The answer is amount to the past administration’s draconic approach on its own policies. The middle class was standing on shoulders of a president who is willing to change the well-being of a berated U.S. economy with his economic policies. Global security is a major concern in particularly the situation in the Middle East, of which Donald Trump is keen to resolve the conflict by indicting ISIS as his first priority, and it appealed to the liberal left.

Foreign policy

These problems were the root of a never ending cause of liberalism, which America based its institution in the form of globalisation, and its substantive elements were vindicated on its foreign policies. In the recent news release of U.S. Bureau Labour of Statistics, the unemployment rate of 4.9% and the number of unemployed persons, 7.8 million remained unchanged compared to August 2015. The stagnation of the economy showed that the implicit view although the economy had created more jobs; it was balanced by the amount of jobs lost due to corporate companies shifting their business to other countries.

NAFTA Agreement

The NAFTA agreement was a classic example of economic liberalism, in a form of foreign economic policy, where the U.S., Canada and Mexico engage in trilateral trade agreements in enforcing mutual economic decisions to boost free trade and create jobs. The big slice of the cake had been given to the United States. However, as corporate companies venture for cheaper labour in Mexico, jobs in the U.S. were lost as a result. The rhetoric of Trump building a wall against Mexico was further exemplified of its context.

Had the previous administrations enforce a tax cut on these corporate companies, the situation would have been dissimilar. There would less angry White Americans rooting for their lives on a Trump’s presidency.

Light footprint strategy

ISIS proved to be the cornerstone of U.S. global security issues. The predicament dates back to the implication of liberalism; from the birth of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the two Iraq Wars and the ‘liberation’ of Libya. U.S. Middle East policy was interventional and confrontational as opposed to the conventional approach of diplomacy. The U.S. intervention in the Middle East created a vacuum for the Taliban and ISIS, which was deemed as a conceivable failure for the notion of reconstruction in the Middle East, was in the form of a ‘light footprint’ approach.

The joint forces of NATO and the U.S. preceded in a series of military intervention in Libya, after the predicament of the ‘Arab Spring’, enthused that all means of diplomatic relations had broken down, and the only option was military intervention, to take down the authoritarian, Muammar Gaddafi. The liberalists would think that it was just for the U.S. intervention in Libya, but the outcomes of a ‘light footprint’ approach allowed the culmination of ISIS.

If the previous administrations took on a more realistic approach, the issue in the Middle East would be resolved anything but. The rhetoric of Trump’s obscure strategy in taking out ISIS as an utmost priority in global security ringed a bell to the American people.

The U.S. is seen as the father nation of liberalism. The challenges of a peaceful society, helped by the democratic peace theory, suggest that it is unprecedented and the course of notion seemed un-benign. Now, it is for the world to cooperate with Donald Trump. As I write this in a freely conservative decorum, a shocking view that we share; how a billionaire business man, an ex TV host and a controversial character become the President of the United States.

Sometimes, it is wrong to be politically correct.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s