Donald Trump is no doubt going to be an unconventional President. He seems set to be taking his habit of twitting into his presidency. It proved extremely effective in getting him elected president. So, 'he will keep doing it, perhaps in a little bit restrictive manner,' the House majority leader Paul Ryan mused.
Trump stayed connected and attached to hearts and minds of people, individually, almost on one-to-one basis and directly. Such contacts without going through regular media or official or institutional channels add a collective dimension to and impact on communication between a leader and the led. On his campaign trail, Trump by twitting had given a voice to the voiceless, a proven tactic he cannot abandon post-election.
He is, however, embarking on his presidency with a baggage of Hobby Horses and the controversies that go with them. In that context, the question that's making rounds in the Capitol Hill is: Can a presidency be run by twitting? More precisely, is twitting likely to affect foreign policy, or domestic policy of the United States? The answers can be only speculative at this stage for a couple of reasons. Just as in the financial field so also in the political and foreign relational spheres, attention is switching from what Trump said or says to what he does or is likely to do after he takes office on Friday (January 20). Congressional leader Paul Ryan was replying to a question as to whether Trump's twitting will affect foreign or domestic policies. He came out with a philosophical answer as best as he could: "We are in an uncharted region," said he.
Paul did not elaborate on what he meant by 'uncharted region' but this could be synonymous with a gray area. To our mind, the phrase conjures up a hardening of the new US leadership's position on South China Sea by way of demanding a statement on the islands being built up in the region by China. This was preceded by virtually questioning the "one China policy" centred on Taiwan. In-between, we have seen the tangle over Russia and Putin in relation to Crimea, Ukraine and cyber hacking issues.
There have been lighthearted reactions to the fantasy, wishful thinking, lack of authenticity, arrogant self-righteousness, and the fun associated with a good deal of what passes through the social media. Serious people would be least bothered by it; they may even draw a bit of amusement from it. At the other pole, has been a surge of fake or planted news!
The big news, however, is that differences are emerging on key issues thick and fast within the Republican fold. A battle heats up on Affordable Obamacare. Why do you repeal it without replacement? Healthcare is so central to American life that any time-lag between the two could mean public health sliding from bad to worse. In other words, repeal and replacement will have to be simultaneous.
Cyber meddling by Russia into allegedly compromising US election results has led some Republican leaders to dub the country and its helmsman Putin 'a global menace' calling for sanctions.
'No mass deportation of the so-called illegal immigrants, rather focus on border control', counselled sensible Republicans.
It is interesting to note that several important nominees for major portfolios at their confirmation hearings in the Congress contradicted their future boss Trump's positions on key issues. For instance, an adversarial position on Putin has been preferred to a soft stance on him. Raising physical barriers on the border, presumably with Mexico, has drawn criticism. Having regard for the contributions Muslims have made to the US, they should not be profiled and subjected to any exclusionary treatment, pointed out , one confirmation-seeker. Interrogations, especially of the water board type, came under fire.
Explanations of the contradictory positions by persons chosen by the president-elect for major slots in his cabinet have been two-fold: First, the aspirants taking up positions contradictory to their boss' may have helped them with confirmation based on an image of moderation, objectivity etc. Secondly, there are those who believe, being perhaps privy to Trump, that the president-elect "wants them to be themselves".
But most Oval office historians agree that at the end of the day, it is the president who makes decisions. Yet, one of the commentators sounded optimistic saying he is persuadable. One hopes he is.
[email protected]
- Saturday, 23 November 2024 |
- Today's FE |
- e-Paper |
- Beta Website
