Every day, tens of millions of people and trillions of dollars of goods and services flow across routes known as global commons &mdash; aboard ships, underwater, by air and in space.

No country exercises sovereignty over most of these global commons routes, and yet everyone abides by the rules.

That means there&rsquo;s little need for self-protection or armed escorts against pirates or privateers and no one has to pay protection money to warlords en route.

It was not always this way. As recently as the mid-19th century, high-value cargo on the High Seas was transported by heavily armed merchant ships like East Indiaman. On land, many routes required travellers to be armed and protected from bandits or highwaymen. Taxes were routinely paid to warlords or local chiefs for safe passage.

The communist regime of China, however, has staked a sovereign claim to most of the South China Sea, where there was $3.4 trillion in trade transit in 2016. If allowed to stand, this will enable China to ban or embargo shipping, or to levy fees for passage like 19th-century potentates.

Yet power brokers meeting in Davos this week are barely acknowledging this grave threat to free trade.

Ottoman Empire amassed wealth

Prior to Pax Britannica, a period of relative peace in Europe from 1815 to 1914, the cost of tariffs and other protectionist measures paled in comparison to the cost of privately protecting and insuring commerce or paying tariffs levied by kingdoms en route.

For example, the Ottoman Empire became wealthy by monopolizing and controlling the overland trade route between Europe and India and levying taxes on the spice trade.

The Portuguese monopolized the sea route to Cathay before their hold was broken by the Dutch and English.

Indeed, centuries of European innovation centred around either gaining control of, or bypassing, existing trade routes to avoid these levies.

Those acting on behalf of potentates routinely preyed upon insufficiently-armed merchants and seized their cargo and crew for ransom unless they were under the protection of another empire.

Piracy eventually curbed

The U.S. Navy, in fact, was expressly created in 1794 because North African Barbary pirates seized and ransomed American ships and crews after the British Royal Navy stopped protecting the U.S. following the War of Independence.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203075/original/file-20180123-182959-1ivjuuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" />
<figcaption>
In this oil painting from the 1600s by Dutch marine painter Aert Anthoniszoon, a French ship is seen being bombarded by Barbary Pirates. (Creative Commons)

Aggressive enforcement of &ldquo;freedom of navigation&rdquo; eventually curbed piracy, first on British routes and then on all western shipping routes via reciprocal agreements with other imperial powers.

After Lord Nelson&rsquo;s victory at Trafalgar and during the Napoleonic Wars, the Royal Navy provided protection of commerce and merchant shipping, making free trade possible with security provided as a public good.

As transportation costs fell, trade, especially within the British Empire, flourished.

By the 20th century, a global system emerged where imperial powers guarded trade routes and offered assistance to each other on a reciprocal basis. Tariffs, or &ldquo;protection fees&rdquo; levied en route by potentates, were largely abolished &mdash; by force when necessary &mdash; except for the use of purpose-built infrastructure like the Suez and Panama canals.
</figcaption>
</figure>

Freedom of navigation expands

The golden age of free trade ushered in after the First World War owes its success to Pax Americana, a period of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere around the middle of the 20th century. It took over from the British model and expanded freedom of navigation worldwide. Allied naval power underwrote free trade by providing protection.

Freedom of navigation is about limiting and regulating states&rsquo; ability to assert sovereignty at sea and use it to tax, regulate, embargo or blockade commerce in peacetime. In exchange for ceding those rights, states gained access to global commons from other states on a reciprocal basis.

States also assumed the responsibility to protect and respect shipping and provide security for trade routes without charge, though this remained, to this day, the responsibility of wealthier and more capable states.

These rules and practices were modernized and codified in the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention in 1982 that defined rules on what are territorial waters, exclusive economic zones and rights of vessels in peacetime for innocent passage and transit.

States that signed and ratified UNCLOS agreed to a set of rules that facilitated navigation and trade. Historical or prior claims that states may have had to territorial waters beyond UNCLOS were extinguished after it came into force in 1994.

Most countries, including China, signed and ratified UNCLOS. The United States signed but did not ratify, though it voluntarily abides by most of its provisions.

Free trade thrives

More than anything else, freedom of navigation has allowed globalization and free trade to flourish.

And yet it&rsquo;s now being threatened by China which, in violation of UNCLOS treaty obligations, has staked claims to an area of the South China Sea (the so-called nine-dash line) that&rsquo;s larger than Western Europe from Poland&rsquo;s eastern border to the English Channel.

What are the implications?

Potentially, Chinese claims on the South China Sea can expand to the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. A modest fee or tax on trade that is currently free could yield a fortune in revenues for China.

Ships from countries that include the U.S., Canada, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan could be forced to pay up or reroute around Chinese claims.

If the precedent set by China spreads, it could lead to other regimes seeking control of choke points like the Persian Gulf&rsquo;s Strait of Hormuz, the Bab al-Mandab Strait between Yemen and the Horn of Africa, and other waterways through which the vast majority of global commerce flows.

Globalization and free trade, in effect, will revert back to the pre-19th century, when pirates and shakedown artists ruled the High Seas.

Davos focused on wrong issues

This year&rsquo;s theme at the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland is &ldquo;Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World.&rdquo;

Yet scant attention is being paid to the importance and value of freedom of navigation to free trade and global commerce. Little concern has been shown by global elites about the erosion of the UNCLOS regime caused by China&rsquo;s sea grab.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203074/original/file-20180123-182973-82xcyy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" />
<figcaption>
Armed Swiss police officers stand guard on the roof of a hotel near the congress center where the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum takes place in Davos, Switzerland on Jan. 23, 2018. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)

Instead, rising U.S. protectionism under President Donald Trump, and China&rsquo;s mercantilism, are in the spotlight for now, even as core institutions for free trade &mdash;like freedom of navigation and security in the global commons &mdash; are in serious peril.

If the world returns to a pre-19th century system of enforced territorial claims on global commons routes, then tariffs and subsidies will be nothing compared to these profound hindrances to trade.

Imagine a world in which commerce is heavily taxed by authorities en route, or in which shippers must directly bear the cost of protecting their cargo. That&rsquo;s the world China is leading us to.

Davos participants have yet to demonstrate the courage to defend core free-trade institutions.

Next year, perhaps?
</figcaption>
</figure>

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/davos-oblivious-to-one-of-free-trades-gravest-threats-90506" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

China has staked a sovereign claim to most of the South China Sea. If allowed to stand, this will enable China to ban or embargo shipping, or to levy fees for passage like 19th-century potentates.

Every day, tens of millions of people and trillions of dollars of goods and services flow across routes known as global commons — aboard ships, underwater, by air and in space. No country exercises sovereignty over most of these global commons routes, and yet everyone abides by the rules. That means there’s little need for self-protection or armed escorts against pirates or privateers and no one has to pay protection money to warlords en route. It was not always this way. As recently as the mid-19th century, high-value cargo on the High Seas was transported by heavily armed merchant ships like East Indiaman. On land, many routes required travellers to be armed and protected from bandits or highwaymen. Taxes were routinely paid to warlords or local chiefs for safe passage. The communist regime of China, however, has staked a sovereign claim to most of the South China Sea, where there was $3.4 trillion in trade transit in 2016. If allowed to stand, this will enable China to ban or embargo shipping, or to levy fees for passage like 19th-century potentates. Yet power brokers meeting in Davos this week are barely acknowledging this grave threat to free trade. Ottoman Empire amassed wealth Prior to Pax Britannica, a period of relative peace in Europe from 1815 to 1914, the cost of tariffs and other protectionist measures paled in comparison to the cost of privately protecting and insuring commerce or paying tariffs levied by kingdoms en route. For example, the Ottoman Empire became wealthy by monopolizing and controlling the overland trade route between Europe and India and levying taxes on the spice trade. The Portuguese monopolized the sea route to Cathay before their hold was broken by the Dutch and English. Indeed, centuries of European innovation centred around either gaining control of, or bypassing, existing trade routes to avoid these levies. Those acting on behalf of potentates routinely preyed upon insufficiently-armed merchants and seized their cargo and crew for ransom unless they were under the protection of another empire. Piracy eventually curbed The U.S. Navy, in fact, was expressly created in 1794 because North African Barbary pirates seized and ransomed American ships and crews after the British Royal Navy stopped protecting the U.S. following the War of Independence. In this oil painting from the 1600s by Dutch marine painter Aert Anthoniszoon, a French ship is seen being bombarded by Barbary Pirates. (Creative Commons) Aggressive enforcement of “freedom of navigation” eventually curbed piracy, first on British routes and then on all western shipping routes via reciprocal agreements with other imperial powers. After Lord Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar and during the Napoleonic Wars, the Royal Navy provided protection of commerce and merchant shipping, making free trade possible with security provided as a public good. As transportation costs fell, trade, especially within the British Empire, flourished. By the 20th century, a global system emerged where imperial powers guarded trade routes and offered assistance to each other on a reciprocal basis. Tariffs, or “protection fees” levied en route by potentates, were largely abolished — by force when necessary — except for the use of purpose-built infrastructure like the Suez and Panama canals. Freedom of navigation expands The golden age of free trade ushered in after the First World War owes its success to Pax Americana, a period of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere around the middle of the 20th century. It took over from the British model and expanded freedom of navigation worldwide. Allied naval power underwrote free trade by providing protection. Freedom of navigation is about limiting and regulating states’ ability to assert sovereignty at sea and use it to tax, regulate, embargo or blockade commerce in peacetime. In exchange for ceding those rights, states gained access to global commons from other states on a reciprocal basis. States also assumed the responsibility to protect and respect shipping and provide security for trade routes without charge, though this remained, to this day, the responsibility of wealthier and more capable states. These rules and practices were modernized and codified in the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) convention in 1982 that defined rules on what are territorial waters, exclusive economic zones and rights of vessels in peacetime for innocent passage and transit. States that signed and ratified UNCLOS agreed to a set of rules that facilitated navigation and trade. Historical or prior claims that states may have had to territorial waters beyond UNCLOS were extinguished after it came into force in 1994. Most countries, including China, signed and ratified UNCLOS. The United States signed but did not ratify, though it voluntarily abides by most of its provisions. Free trade thrives More than anything else, freedom of navigation has allowed globalization and free trade to flourish. And yet it’s now being threatened by China which, in violation of UNCLOS treaty obligations, has staked claims to an area of the South China Sea (the so-called nine-dash line) that’s larger than Western Europe from Poland’s eastern border to the English Channel. What are the implications? Potentially, Chinese claims on the South China Sea can expand to the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. A modest fee or tax on trade that is currently free could yield a fortune in revenues for China. Ships from countries that include the U.S., Canada, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan could be forced to pay up or reroute around Chinese claims. If the precedent set by China spreads, it could lead to other regimes seeking control of choke points like the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz, the Bab al-Mandab Strait between Yemen and the Horn of Africa, and other waterways through which the vast majority of global commerce flows. Globalization and free trade, in effect, will revert back to the pre-19th century, when pirates and shakedown artists ruled the High Seas. Davos focused on wrong issues This year’s theme at the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland is “Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World.” Yet scant attention is being paid to the importance and value of freedom of navigation to free trade and global commerce. Little concern has been shown by global elites about the erosion of the UNCLOS regime caused by China’s sea grab. Armed Swiss police officers stand guard on the roof of a hotel near the congress center where the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum takes place in Davos, Switzerland on Jan. 23, 2018. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber) Instead, rising U.S. protectionism under President Donald Trump, and China’s mercantilism, are in the spotlight for now, even as core institutions for free trade —like freedom of navigation and security in the global commons — are in serious peril. If the world returns to a pre-19th century system of enforced territorial claims on global commons routes, then tariffs and subsidies will be nothing compared to these profound hindrances to trade. Imagine a world in which commerce is heavily taxed by authorities en route, or in which shippers must directly bear the cost of protecting their cargo. That’s the world China is leading us to. Davos participants have yet to demonstrate the courage to defend core free-trade institutions. Next year, perhaps? This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Opinion: At Davos, China's effort to grab sea routes was ignored by world leaders

Donald J. Trump was the first candidate to become president of the United States without prior experience as a military leader, a politician or ever having held a senior government post.

As he delivered his State of the Union address with the promise of a &ldquo;new American moment,&rdquo; the president had the lowest approval rating of any modern-day commander-in-chief.

Yet he carries enough appeal to illustrate that what people say to pollsters isn&rsquo;t always how they cast their ballots. After all, polls overwhelmingly predicted Trump&rsquo;s electoral defeat in 2016, yet he won. Polls are now indicating a failed presidency. Is it?

Election rhetoric, more often than not, withers in the face of reality once a candidate becomes the sitting president. Not the case with Trump.

Henry Kissinger noted that Trump is different from most because he owes very few favours and debts to others. In that regard, Trump has had a freer hand than most politicians.

The Trump administration has seen more than its share of problems, not surprising given that an outsider group &mdash; separate and distinct from the political class of both dominant parties &mdash; has taken power.

Candidate Trump went through three sets of top campaign officials, and two top transitional team leaders, before he assumed office. He&rsquo;s now on his second set of White House staff and cabinet members. And today&rsquo;s Team Trump is beginning to deliver eyebrow-raising change in many areas, from defence to the economy.

Trump&rsquo;s message unfiltered

What has stayed constant, however, is Trump&rsquo;s approach to governing by bringing his message directly to his constituents by means that include Twitter and political rallies.

His speech and mannerisms not only reflect the aforementioned free hand, but also a fundamental break from the carefully crafted, controlled politician-speak that became dominant in the late 20th century in most industrialized democracies.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203703/original/file-20180129-100893-k3ptsb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" />
<figcaption>U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters upon arrival at the White House from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)</figcaption>
</figure>

&nbsp;

Trump-speak has barely changed since his campaign began. It&rsquo;s not classical politician-speak, which prioritizes an avoidance of publicly offending anyone. Making offensive comments, after all, can cost votes that could tip an election or derail a legislative agenda. Internationally, if a president routinely offends the country&rsquo;s foes and allies alike, delicate relationships are put at risk.

Measured and controlled speech that carefully avoids upsetting anyone and not playing fast and loose with readily disproved facts is what politician-speak is all about.

Politicians usually deal with any significant, legitimate domestic concerns by appeasement: Using &ldquo;motherhood and apple pie&rdquo; references in public statements, and delivering speeches that more often than not don&rsquo;t result in any substantive action unless it&rsquo;s a bona fide priority of their administration.

As long as not openly spoken of approvingly by those in authority, many alleged universal evils, like systemic racial discrimination, can quietly continue.

No spit-and-polish

Other ongoing concerns, like the investigation into Trump&rsquo;s alleged ties to Russia, allow opposing politicians to appear righteous and therefore exempt from the civility of politician-speak. Their targets can be openly denigrated, insulted and vilified.

Candidate Trump, and now President Trump, made a clean break from this 20th-century tradition by speaking to Americans and the world in a plain-spoken, homey and at times explicit manner free of the spit-and-polish that all democracies have come to expect of their politicians.

Frank Bruni, the New York Times columnist and no friend of the president, termed him a radically honest politician in some ways. Bruni observes there is more transparency into the president&rsquo;s beliefs and ideas, and his thought processes &mdash;however wrong or misled he might be &mdash; than there has been for any previous president in recent memory.

We know that some politicians aren&rsquo;t much different from Trump privately because there is a long trail of what they really thought and said during unguarded moments.

On tape, Richard Nixon was profane and angry about his perceived enemies, including Canada&rsquo;s Pierre Trudeau. Lyndon Johnson was much warier in private comments about the Vietnam war than he was in public.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203806/original/file-20180129-41450-6ro53o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" />
<figcaption>President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau talk in Trudeau&rsquo;s office on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in this April 1972 photo. Tapes released decades later revealed Nixon speaking scornfully about Trudeau privately. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chuck Mitchell</figcaption>
</figure>

&nbsp;

The difference is that past presidents and establishment politicians hid their true beliefs better, and a less critical media helped.

Trump, on the other hand, has faced hostile media worldwide that amplify every &ldquo;misstep.&rdquo;

Trump&rsquo;s &ldquo;open source&rdquo; thoughts are unprecedented in any modern politician. This radical transparency allows us to understand the president in a way that no other modern politician can be understood.

Trump supporters hear and see a man whose thoughts and beliefs are similar to theirs, whom they know expresses ideas that they cannot speak out loud unless in safe, like-minded and trusted company &mdash; or they risk being branded racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic, or, as Hillary Clinton termed them, &ldquo;deplorables.&rdquo;

Such accusations are not just rhetorical. In the #MeToo era, they&rsquo;re now more than sufficient grounds to cause careers and lives to go up in smoke, to cause politicians to be forced from their posts, to be denied equal protection under the law and to be vilified in public in a way that can never be erased in the age of the internet.

The internet-amplified accusations, often dating back decades, are enough to derail many prominent people&rsquo;s careers, whether they&rsquo;re guilty or not.

Trump&rsquo;s tweets, comments are a goldmine

Trump-speak, therefore, is a goldmine for those making accusations. The president&rsquo;s unfiltered, often anger-fuelled tweets and public remarks have lead to charges that, to name just a few examples, he&rsquo;s an enemy of prosperity due to his protectionism, that he&rsquo;s racist, sexist, Islamaphobic or just plain boorish.

But to date, none of these accusations have bothered his base &mdash; or the American economy. Business confidence in America is at an all-time high since 2008, while unemployment is down.

Trump, by breaking from the &ldquo;offend no one&rdquo; style of political discourse, still appeals to those Americans who share beliefs with him that are largely overlooked by the incumbent political class that the president is dismantling.

But it is not &ldquo;populism,&rdquo; per se. Most populists, like the Nicol&aacute;s Maduro regime of Venezuela, do not have an agenda for radical change. Trump, on the other hand, insists he&rsquo;s all about remaking America, and reiterated that intention in his first State of the Union address.

The question is, remake America in what way?

Trump&rsquo;s beliefs do not fit neatly into existing and established factions of the Republican or Democratic party. His ideas are a mix from both parties that is more than pragmatism &mdash; defined as expedient ad hoc solutions that most politicians end up practising with a slight tilt to the traditional &ldquo;left&rdquo; or &ldquo;right.&rdquo;

Trump is about more than muddling through, or incremental change. He is a president of radical change.

His takeover of the Republican Party was a hostile one that paid lip service to most of the party&rsquo;s ideological dogma.

That&rsquo;s why it&rsquo;s been so difficult for any political class to coalesce around Trump. He is not really a Republican or a Democrat, but a cross-dresser with new, radical ideas.

Remaking politics

What Trump is about is remaking the American body politic. And it is happening, subtly, behind the scenes; it&rsquo;s beginning to emerge how radical the changes are that he&rsquo;s bringing about in defence, taxation and regulation, to name a few. No wonder the political class, tied to the perquisites from the established order, is revolting.

Trump is attempting to remake government in a manner that has not been done since President Franklin D. Roosevelt. And Trump-speak is a key component of that overhaul, because it allows for the open discussion of the many problems America and the world is facing but are usually only spoken about in whispers behind closed doors.

Trump&rsquo;s greatest achievement is breaking the old political order &mdash; its stranglehold on power and its control of political discourse.

This will be the legacy of Trumpism as it reinvents how politics is conducted in the 21st century.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-donald-trump-is-retooling-politics-for-the-21st-century-90836" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

Trump-speak is a key component of that overhaul, because it allows for the open discussion of the many problems America and the world is facing but are usually only spoken about in whispers behind closed doors.

Donald J. Trump was the first candidate to become president of the United States without prior experience as a military leader, a politician or ever having held a senior government post. As he delivered his State of the Union address with the promise of a “new American moment,” the president had the lowest approval rating of any modern-day commander-in-chief. Yet he carries enough appeal to illustrate that what people say to pollsters isn’t always how they cast their ballots. After all, polls overwhelmingly predicted Trump’s electoral defeat in 2016, yet he won. Polls are now indicating a failed presidency. Is it? Election rhetoric, more often than not, withers in the face of reality once a candidate becomes the sitting president. Not the case with Trump. Henry Kissinger noted that Trump is different from most because he owes very few favours and debts to others. In that regard, Trump has had a freer hand than most politicians. The Trump administration has seen more than its share of problems, not surprising given that an outsider group — separate and distinct from the political class of both dominant parties — has taken power. Candidate Trump went through three sets of top campaign officials, and two top transitional team leaders, before he assumed office. He’s now on his second set of White House staff and cabinet members. And today’s Team Trump is beginning to deliver eyebrow-raising change in many areas, from defence to the economy. Trump’s message unfiltered What has stayed constant, however, is Trump’s approach to governing by bringing his message directly to his constituents by means that include Twitter and political rallies. His speech and mannerisms not only reflect the aforementioned free hand, but also a fundamental break from the carefully crafted, controlled politician-speak that became dominant in the late 20th century in most industrialized democracies. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters upon arrival at the White House from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) Trump-speak has barely changed since his campaign began. It’s not classical politician-speak, which prioritizes an avoidance of publicly offending anyone. Making offensive comments, after all, can cost votes that could tip an election or derail a legislative agenda. Internationally, if a president routinely offends the country’s foes and allies alike, delicate relationships are put at risk. Measured and controlled speech that carefully avoids upsetting anyone and not playing fast and loose with readily disproved facts is what politician-speak is all about. Politicians usually deal with any significant, legitimate domestic concerns by appeasement: Using “motherhood and apple pie” references in public statements, and delivering speeches that more often than not don’t result in any substantive action unless it’s a bona fide priority of their administration. As long as not openly spoken of approvingly by those in authority, many alleged universal evils, like systemic racial discrimination, can quietly continue. No spit-and-polish Other ongoing concerns, like the investigation into Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, allow opposing politicians to appear righteous and therefore exempt from the civility of politician-speak. Their targets can be openly denigrated, insulted and vilified. Candidate Trump, and now President Trump, made a clean break from this 20th-century tradition by speaking to Americans and the world in a plain-spoken, homey and at times explicit manner free of the spit-and-polish that all democracies have come to expect of their politicians. Frank Bruni, the New York Times columnist and no friend of the president, termed him a radically honest politician in some ways. Bruni observes there is more transparency into the president’s beliefs and ideas, and his thought processes —however wrong or misled he might be — than there has been for any previous president in recent memory. We know that some politicians aren’t much different from Trump privately because there is a long trail of what they really thought and said during unguarded moments. On tape, Richard Nixon was profane and angry about his perceived enemies, including Canada’s Pierre Trudeau. Lyndon Johnson was much warier in private comments about the Vietnam war than he was in public. President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau talk in Trudeau’s office on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in this April 1972 photo. Tapes released decades later revealed Nixon speaking scornfully about Trudeau privately. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chuck Mitchell The difference is that past presidents and establishment politicians hid their true beliefs better, and a less critical media helped. Trump, on the other hand, has faced hostile media worldwide that amplify every “misstep.” Trump’s “open source” thoughts are unprecedented in any modern politician. This radical transparency allows us to understand the president in a way that no other modern politician can be understood. Trump supporters hear and see a man whose thoughts and beliefs are similar to theirs, whom they know expresses ideas that they cannot speak out loud unless in safe, like-minded and trusted company — or they risk being branded racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic, or, as Hillary Clinton termed them, “deplorables.” Such accusations are not just rhetorical. In the #MeToo era, they’re now more than sufficient grounds to cause careers and lives to go up in smoke, to cause politicians to be forced from their posts, to be denied equal protection under the law and to be vilified in public in a way that can never be erased in the age of the internet. The internet-amplified accusations, often dating back decades, are enough to derail many prominent people’s careers, whether they’re guilty or not. Trump’s tweets, comments are a goldmine Trump-speak, therefore, is a goldmine for those making accusations. The president’s unfiltered, often anger-fuelled tweets and public remarks have lead to charges that, to name just a few examples, he’s an enemy of prosperity due to his protectionism, that he’s racist, sexist, Islamaphobic or just plain boorish. But to date, none of these accusations have bothered his base — or the American economy. Business confidence in America is at an all-time high since 2008, while unemployment is down. Trump, by breaking from the “offend no one” style of political discourse, still appeals to those Americans who share beliefs with him that are largely overlooked by the incumbent political class that the president is dismantling. But it is not “populism,” per se. Most populists, like the Nicolás Maduro regime of Venezuela, do not have an agenda for radical change. Trump, on the other hand, insists he’s all about remaking America, and reiterated that intention in his first State of the Union address. The question is, remake America in what way? Trump’s beliefs do not fit neatly into existing and established factions of the Republican or Democratic party. His ideas are a mix from both parties that is more than pragmatism — defined as expedient ad hoc solutions that most politicians end up practising with a slight tilt to the traditional “left” or “right.” Trump is about more than muddling through, or incremental change. He is a president of radical change. His takeover of the Republican Party was a hostile one that paid lip service to most of the party’s ideological dogma. That’s why it’s been so difficult for any political class to coalesce around Trump. He is not really a Republican or a Democrat, but a cross-dresser with new, radical ideas. Remaking politics What Trump is about is remaking the American body politic. And it is happening, subtly, behind the scenes; it’s beginning to emerge how radical the changes are that he’s bringing about in defence, taxation and regulation, to name a few. No wonder the political class, tied to the perquisites from the established order, is revolting. Trump is attempting to remake government in a manner that has not been done since President Franklin D. Roosevelt. And Trump-speak is a key component of that overhaul, because it allows for the open discussion of the many problems America and the world is facing but are usually only spoken about in whispers behind closed doors. Trump’s greatest achievement is breaking the old political order — its stranglehold on power and its control of political discourse. This will be the legacy of Trumpism as it reinvents how politics is conducted in the 21st century. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Trump wants to remake America. But in what way?

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Danny Lam

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.