November 6 marks the beginning of a momentous chapter in American history, not only as the date when Donald Trump was elected as the 47th President of the United States but also as a symbol of a new era characterized by a resurgence of American glory and pre-eminence. Although such an overwhelming victory could not be forecast before, the widespread euphoria that the election outcome exudes signifies a discernible shift in the political landscape, where Trump’s persona seems to have reemerged as a beacon of hope for many, particularly those disillusioned by both internal discomfiture and ongoing global crises intensified by Biden’s shaky conduct.

Although it would be too early to say this, the implications of Trump’s new inning undoubtedly extend beyond domestic borders, resonating with hope for a battered humanity across the globe, whether war-ravaged Eastern Europe or regions like the Middle East, where conflict has spilt over into broader supply-chain and security disasters. For marginalized communities, including Black and Asian populations within the U.S., Trump’s election represents an opportunity to get their voice heard, positioning him as a potential pivot for bold change both at home and abroad. But how will a new administration under Trump respond to the pressure of huge expectations the demand already built up by his pledges. While the mandate favouring Trump is compelling and irrefutable, it is essential to analyze his leadership style critically. Unlike the model of statesmanship exemplified by thinkers like John Stuart Mill, who advocated for rational discourse and representative governance, Trump embodies a more impulsive approach. As noted by Sashi Tharoor, he is akin to “an open book” – a leader who articulates his thoughts candidly but often without the restraint associated with the conventional decorum of formalities.

Advertisement

His communication style can be described as spontaneous and at times hysterical, which raises questions about his astuteness, not to speak of dexterity, in navigating complex international relations. Despite these traits, Trump adheres to a philosophy of benevolent authoritarianism and champions ‘American exceptionalism’ – a belief that America holds a unique place in the world that justifies its leadership role. These characteristics present both opportunities and challenges for his transition team as it seeks to address pressing issues domestically and internationally. Trump, a septuagenarian often characterized as a showman, possesses keen political acumen that enables him to attract a diverse coalition of supporters, including moderates and those disenchanted with Democratic politics.

His election campaigns have demonstrated an ability to connect with various segments of society by focusing on pragmatic issues rather than adhering to broader progressive ideals like climate. Unlike the Democratic Party, which emphasizes women’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and climate change initiatives, Trump has strategically positioned himself as a champion of economic growth and national security. Although it is difficult to mend the system overnight, particularly when society is stuck in the blind alley of bipartisanship and when democracy’s inherent spirit gets stymied by elites and multiple divisions, it is notable indeed that Trump’s pre-election meetings were designed to give a badly needed healing touch that appealed to ordinary voters alienated by the more progressive stances of his opponents.

By avoiding the pitfalls of the left-ofthe-centre stances associated with progressive agendas, he crafted a narrative that prioritized tangible outcomes over ideological commitments. Moreover, Trump’s understanding of the political landscape is evident in his campaign strategies. He adeptly identifies key issues that resonate with his base while simultaneously reaching out to moderates who may prioritize economic stability over social justice initiatives. His rhetoric often emphasized themes such as job creation, and American exceptionalism elements that are designed to evoke a sense of nostalgia and pride among voters. This calculated approach not only solidifies his support among loyalists but also creates an inviting space for undecided voters. In this way, Trump’s political tactics reflect a nuanced understanding of voter sentiment that transcends mere showmanship. Trump’s election campaign team included many stars from the very unassuming Susie Wiles to tycoons like Elon Musk.

It is already being said that Musk is the architect of Trump’s victory, hence credit goes to him for adeptly making new narratives of plausible change personified by Trump rather than restoration of Biden or Obama policies. Trump himself admitted the contribution of Musk in his victory speech. However, Musk’s entry into direct politics is not novel because many CEOs before him have ventured into politics, which shows how the political economy remains closely aligned with big business. It was obvious that most business tycoons including Amazon’s Jeff Bezos would quickly praise Trump. However, behind the story of Trump’s win, a new star was born. That was Musk, who strategically used social media platforms to persuade a majority of voters with his rhetoric of change that means industry, business and profitability for companies.

Recently, Garrett Nelson, an analyst with CFRA Research, opined in a note, “In our view, Tesla and CEO Elon Musk are perhaps the biggest winners from the election result, and we believe Trump’s victory will help expedite regulatory approval of the company’s autonomous driving technology”. It clearly reflects that Trump’s second innings is a façade behind which calculated steps were responsible for boosting the competition in the thriving auto industry thereby raising Tesla’s stock price. It was not big data or voter turnout models, but rather voters’ confidence in the authenticity of Musk’s propaganda that succeeded in fostering a palpable sense among the youth and veterans alike that a golden chapter was about to commence.

However, there are many challenges before Trump, first and foremost because reforming systems of governance and external relations within a four-year timeframe is simply absurd even though he could implement some transformative policies during the second innings of his presidency. However, the so-called “epiphany effect” stemming from these policy shifts, unless neutralised with sobering adjustment, might engender confusion both domestically and internationally, as citizens grapple with the contradictions between expectations for concrete benefits and the reality of fluctuating stances on critical issues. This dissonance is likely to demoralise voters who may have anticipated a clear trajectory towards improvement. Furthermore, the implications of such erratic policy changes might undermine the cohesion and resolve of security alliances like Nato, which remains predominantly defensive vis-a-vis increased Russian aggression.

The inability of the US leadership to adopt a more assertive posture against regional hegemons such as Iran might further complicate the quest for resolution of the humanitarian crisis in Palestine and Lebanon. This was evident when instead of engaging with Tehran, Trump withdrew impatiently from the nuclear pact in 2019 leaving the situation in unaddressed precarity. Even the potential for Trump to pivot towards less consequential matters raises concerns about wasted opportunities for substantive engagement on pressing challenges, especially political ecology or immigration. At the end of the day, can America be oblivious to the fact it is a nation of immigrants?

So why unduly securitise it while taking up superficial initiatives or ceremonial events like foreign visits or festive gatherings at the White House – that do little to address the underlying domestic discontent? This inclination towards focusing on petty issues not only risks alienating constituents seeking meaningful change but also diminishes US credibility on the world stage. As international relations become increasingly complex, American leadership must ponder over what Franklin Roosevelt said, “The Presidency is not merely an administrative office…It is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership.”

(The writers are, respectively, Professor, Department of Political Science, Sidho-KanhoBirsha University, and Associate Professor (Retd.), Chandernagore Govt. College.)