Donald Trump’s Obsessions
Published in El Financiero
(Mexico) on 08 Apr 2019
by Fernando Hernandez (link to original)
What qualities should the president of a country have? If citizens were polled on this issue, “determination” would very likely be one of the 10 most common responses. Determination, in its positive sense, is related to the pursuit of a goal, perseverance, hard work and unrelenting effort: qualities that every leader should have.
But what are the limits to determination? How do we know when it turns into stubbornness, obstinacy or obsession? The boundaries become blurred; it is not surprising that after the enchantment of the first months or years of an administration, a ruler's decisions gradually lose their meaning for certain sectors of the population. Public discontent becomes manifest in the face of what started out looking like determination but very rapidly became foolishness.
It is in this vein that the decisions made by President Donald Trump in the past few months regarding the flow of migrants toward the United States have been advanced. Up to now, a consensus has not been reached among members of Congress or the people in support of his proposals aimed at slowing the illegal immigration he claims has overwhelmed the country.
We know Trump’s rhetoric: division, xenophobia, fear, alternate realities and a pathological desire to get off easy for any comments or decisions made.
Nothing is ever the president’s fault. If something doesn’t progress through his cabinet, it is the fault of one of the civil servants, who will later unexpectedly be asked to resign. If Congress is incapable of securing the necessary funding to build the infamous wall, it is the fault of a Republican Party that is not capable of negotiating with the opposition and a Democratic Party that does not understand the emergencies the president declares. If Latin American migrants reach the southern border of the United States, it is the fault of Mexico, which doesn’t do enough to slow the movement of the caravans.
This we know, from 2016: Trump wants to be reelected. Three years ago, his strategy worked perfectly, inspiring fear in the voters, playing off the U.S. xenophobia latent since 9/11 and offering security to a population that is afraid of strangers despite the personal arsenals they have inside their own homes.
What we have to take into account is how U.S. stakeholders, in particular members of Congress, will react to Trump’s rhetoric. He is already on the campaign trail, laying out new changes in immigration policy and continually threatening to close the border or ramp up militarization there. His most recent threats include imposing more tariffs on automobiles from our country, relocating 750 agents to the border region and imposing a deadline of one year for Mexico to succeed in slowing down the massive migration. (In that year, needless to say, the issue of immigration will be a constant theme in his speeches, along with the threats and sensationalist measures that can generate more votes for him.)
In a focused discussion it is possible to identify issues that should be given high priority on the presidential agenda. But those issues would only be of secondary importance to Trump because of his determination to win the upcoming election (with the same formula that brought him victory in 2016). As often occurs in these cases, it keeps getting more and more difficult for many U.S. and international observers to keep the border in sight among the president’s obsessions and determination.
But what are the limits to determination? How do we know when it turns into stubbornness, obstinacy or obsession? The boundaries become blurred; it is not surprising that after the enchantment of the first months or years of an administration, a ruler's decisions gradually lose their meaning for certain sectors of the population. Public discontent becomes manifest in the face of what started out looking like determination but very rapidly became foolishness.
It is in this vein that the decisions made by President Donald Trump in the past few months regarding the flow of migrants toward the United States have been advanced. Up to now, a consensus has not been reached among members of Congress or the people in support of his proposals aimed at slowing the illegal immigration he claims has overwhelmed the country.
We know Trump’s rhetoric: division, xenophobia, fear, alternate realities and a pathological desire to get off easy for any comments or decisions made.
Nothing is ever the president’s fault. If something doesn’t progress through his cabinet, it is the fault of one of the civil servants, who will later unexpectedly be asked to resign. If Congress is incapable of securing the necessary funding to build the infamous wall, it is the fault of a Republican Party that is not capable of negotiating with the opposition and a Democratic Party that does not understand the emergencies the president declares. If Latin American migrants reach the southern border of the United States, it is the fault of Mexico, which doesn’t do enough to slow the movement of the caravans.
This we know, from 2016: Trump wants to be reelected. Three years ago, his strategy worked perfectly, inspiring fear in the voters, playing off the U.S. xenophobia latent since 9/11 and offering security to a population that is afraid of strangers despite the personal arsenals they have inside their own homes.
What we have to take into account is how U.S. stakeholders, in particular members of Congress, will react to Trump’s rhetoric. He is already on the campaign trail, laying out new changes in immigration policy and continually threatening to close the border or ramp up militarization there. His most recent threats include imposing more tariffs on automobiles from our country, relocating 750 agents to the border region and imposing a deadline of one year for Mexico to succeed in slowing down the massive migration. (In that year, needless to say, the issue of immigration will be a constant theme in his speeches, along with the threats and sensationalist measures that can generate more votes for him.)
In a focused discussion it is possible to identify issues that should be given high priority on the presidential agenda. But those issues would only be of secondary importance to Trump because of his determination to win the upcoming election (with the same formula that brought him victory in 2016). As often occurs in these cases, it keeps getting more and more difficult for many U.S. and international observers to keep the border in sight among the president’s obsessions and determination.
Previous article![]( "Climate: The US’s Election Issue")
Next article![]( "Not a Complete Dud")
