Regulation is one area where US President Donald Trump is likely going to follow the recommendations of his Right-wing cohorts. If Mr. Trump decides to embrace anything like the extreme policy agendas of the far Right, he will assuredly put himself in direct conflict with liberals, progressive, and moderates. In doing so, he will reduce regulatory costs, but the costs of failing to properly regulate, as well as the political backlash, will pave the way for far more intrusive regulations once government shifts Left again. Exasperating the tendency to over then under regulate will, in turn, generate economic instability and result in costly regulatory uncertainty.
As such, the Trump Administration must not embrace an anti-regulation stance. It must pursue proper regulation. Because the forces of competition continually pressure businesses to cut costs, proper regulation and enforcement are needed to prevent businesses from undercutting public safety. Where pessimists see regulation as nothing more than an unnecessary cost to industry, businesses and industries actually need proper regulation to reduce unforeseen and deferrable costs that will not be realized for years to come, if they are ever realized. Without proper regulation, short-term decisions undercut the long-term competitiveness of businesses that do not embrace necessary standards.
Comments
Globalization and “free trade” open poorer countries to capital and opportunities from richer countries. In turn, richer countries gain greater access to existing markets and emerging markets, thus enabling them to sell more products to more consumers. This should mean the embrace of free trade agreements to accelerate globalization helps the economies of the world flourish. The election of Donald Trump with his anti-free trade agenda and the so-called Brexit should, therefore, represent a threat to the prosperity of rich and poor countries alike. These developments are, however, an opportunity for the citizens of rich and poor countries alike.
Elections and public policies that reflect anti-free trade sentiments are fulfilling the promise of democracy by allowing the growing backlash against free trade and the manner in which trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP, are negotiated to serve special interests to be represented in government. There is a widespread lack of faith in “free trade” and belief that free trade offers a net negative to average people. Instead of characterizing the election of leaders like Donald Trump and the Brexit as “protectionist” threats, trade advocates must recognize the follies of free trade, including the harm done to the working class of rich and poor countries, and work to foster healthy trade. President Donald Trump and his stewardship of the US power is fueling a great deal of uncertainty for Americans as well as foreigners who are affected by the policies of the Superpower. Where US allies fear Trump‘s questionable commitment to them, international rivals, such as Russia, see the election of Donald Trump as an opportunity to neutralize American opposition. Absent a strong foreign policy background, Trump’s promise to shake up US foreign policy, including the finances of NATO, will be a source of uncertainty until the Trump Administration starts implementing policy. That said, Trump’s “America First” foreign policy vision is not as bleak as allies fear or as promising as rivals hope.
If Mr. Trump steams ahead with his pledge to renegotiate NAFTA and abandon TPP, which will serve as a key benchmark of whether the Washington outsider will reform America’s political system or simply shift public policy from the priorities of Left-wing special interest groups to the priorities of Right-wing special interests, his foreign policy will be far more economic in nature than his predecessor. In turn, the uncertainty inspired by Mr. Trump’s rhetoric will help afford the US greater leverage in any negotiations. Instead of assuring allies of US support, which US Presidents traditionally do when relations are strained by shifts in leadership and policies, Trump appears more inclined to seek assurances from allies that they support US interests and objectives. Donald Trump’s Mandate: Government for the People, not Left or Right-wing Special Interests11/11/2016 The American electorate has been flip-flopping between Democratic and Republican control of government. Although elected officials like to claim American voters are trying to endorse Republican or Democratic priorities, the truth is that voters do not wholly support the agendas of either party. Clearly, Right-leaning voters tend to embrace Republican policy priorities and Left-leaning voters tend to embrace Democratic policy priorities, but the consensus mandate voters are giving all elected official is to clean up government. Reflecting on the loss of Hillary Clinton in 2016, the loss of Mitt Romney in 2012, the loss of Congressional Democrats in 2010, along with the Occupy Protests and the Tea Party Movement, the common theme is political reform.
In 2008, Barack Obama, for example, campaigned on a platform that included healthcare reform, which he achieved in the face of unrelenting Republican opposition by catering to special interests. Obama was, however, elected to make the economy and government work for the American People, which is he and his party have faced so much criticism. Republican opposition to any kind of change eventually forced Obama to circumvent Congress through unsettling tactics, such as the overuse of executive actions, and the embrace of Left-wing priorities in order to regain the support of Left-wing special interest groups. Donald Trump now faces similar opposition from the Left and a lack of strong, broad-base support from the Right, as well as the Middle, which threatens the prospects of government reform. Donald Trump has been elected to replace President Barack Obama as the top representative of all American citizens. Where the election of political elite Hillary Clinton would have solidified the gains of affluent women, who are far from the disenfranchised of this country, in the field of politics, Donald Trump’s started his bid for Presidency with the promise to empower all the men and women of the United States, even though he is a wealthy elite himself. While Trump’s victory defies his underdog status, as well as widespread displeasure with his behavior throughout the campaign, history will judge his Presidency on how well he represents all of the American People and how well he leads the effort to address the numerous issues the American People face as a country.
Although voter turnout was relatively strong and voters chose not to elect Hillary Clinton, President Donald Trump must now go to work for all the American People, including those who did not vote for him and those who opposed his bid for Presidency. That is the nature of the job. Trump has achieved victory in the interview process; however, the fact that he has been hired as the President means he now has the responsibility to serve all of the American People. To do this, he must listen to the voices of all Americans across the political and socioeconomic spectrum then work with Congress to execute the will of the American People. In other words, he must govern based on consensus instead of creating and attacking enemies. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|