Trump, Xi Jinping, & the People

An enduring law of economics states that prices, whether of goods or stocks, are influenced as much by expectations as by current supply and demand. An unmissable reality of the current US scene is President Donald Trump’s interest in immediate gains that people can make on the stock market, an interest that frequently seems greater than his concern about the health of the American economy. 

Here is what USA Today reported on April 10: 

“As the stock market continued to tank [on April 9] in response to tariffs imposed earlier that day, President Donald Trump issued social media posts urging people to "BE COOL!" because "Everything is going to work out well," and then telling his followers, "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT." 

In words such as these the president conveys to us his enthusiasm for money-making, even while swinging between “tariffing” and postponing tariffs from day to day, and at times within a day. It is only fair to recognize that the zest for making money is widely shared. For the many who’re interested, Trump underlines the importance of what to expect in the stock market and when to expect it. 

DO WE EXPECT COURAGE? 

I wish, however, to raise an entirely different question about expectations. Given that the quality of courage is what seems most needed today in country after country, shouldn’t we ask if courage is more likely to present itself when we expect it from people? Including from judges, legislators, journalists, donors, law firms, university officers and faculty, and others? 

After all, don’t we elicit a little courage from ourselves almost every day? While crossing a busy street, for instance, or while shaving, or while about to receive a needle into our body? 

Harvard, it must be marked, has responded with inspiring wholeheartedness to the expectations of its faculty, students, and alumni, a great majority of whom were evidently stunned by the sternness of the White House’s demands for fundamental changes in the way Harvard conducts its universally famed endeavors in higher education. In the BBC’s words, 

“The sweeping changes demanded by the White House would have transformed its operations and ceded a large amount of control to the government.” Added the BBC: 

“[The Trump administration’s] letter to Harvard on [April 11], obtained by the New York Times, said the university had failed to live up to the ‘intellectual and civil rights conditions’ that justify federal investment. The letter included 10 categories for proposed changes, including (1) reporting students to the federal government who are "hostile" to American values, (2) ensuring each academic department is "viewpoint diverse" [and] (3) hiring an external, government-approved party to audit programs and departments "that most fuel antisemitic harassment." 

Harvard’s unwillingness to submit has resulted in the freezing of 2.2 billion dollars in grants from the federal government! 

Anyone even remotely familiar with Harvard would be shocked by the White House’s suggestion that many of that university’s “programs and departments” were fueling “antisemitic harassment”. It may be believable, even if not proved, that a few young students there, offended by killings in Gaza and the West Bank, had said things that hurt the sentiments of Jewish students. However, the notion that whole programs or departments at Harvard are devoted to “fueling” antisemitic views defies credibility. 

A PLANNED DRIVE? 

Which brings up another significant question. The fact that menacing insinuations of this kind are being formally leveled by senior figures in the Trump administration suggests that what the world is witnessing in today’s US could be much more than the verbal acrobatics of a showman who loves the spotlight. Are we seeing the start of a planned ideological drive to change the very character of American democracy? 

Not only have people across the world dreamt “the American dream” of happiness and prosperity, they have also nursed the picture of “the shining city on the hill” where people believed what they wished to believe and said what they wished to say. The US was the land of the free. No king or party secretary, or president, ordered them around or silenced them. It was the land of the First Amendment, the land also of the separation of powers, and of three equal branches of government, the White House, Congress, and the Courts. 

In and from the US, the world expected and continues to expect the dignified courage of the kind that Harvard has shown, if not from all three branches of government, at least from one or two of them, and -- may this be underscored -- from the American people. 

Continuing with the expectations theme, we should remember President Trump’s repeated declarations that the tariff process unleashed by him will bring about a striking growth of manufacturing inside America, including of cars, computers, and smartphones, and, presumably, of shoes, clothing, and medical pills. We should know before long whether such a trend has set in. 

THE SECOND POLE 

Trump is not the only figure inviting the world’s assessment at this juncture. If, as some scholars claim, our current world has two poles, the American and the Chinese, then attempts to understand President Xi Jinping and the Chinese people are essential too. 

Xi, soon to be 72, is also party secretary and the head of China’s military, and someone whose “thoughts” are acknowledged in the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party. The “thoughts” of previous leaders of China also find a place there, but only Mao Zedong and Xi have been thus honored in their lifetime. Moreover, term limits to Xi’s office have been removed. Which means that Xi’s control over China is almost complete. The kindly smile that Xi always seems to sport must be taken with a pinch of salt. 

In one noticeable characteristic, Xi seems to be the exact opposite of Trump. He does not appear to go before the camera several times a day. When he does, he is careful with his words. Currently on a major tour of Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia), Xi is clearly trying to win as many friends as he can in his effort to minimize the damage to China from Trump’s tariff attack. 

Trump justifies this attack as an inescapable response to years of “horrible treatment” by China, by Europe, by Canada, and by several other countries. No one accuses Trump of launching a charm offensive. 

The world has every reason to be wary and cautious with respect to China. However, three things are worth remembering. One, while China has experienced real challenges in recent years (especially in the construction sector, with countless buildings lying unoccupied), the Chinese economy does make, among other things, household goods, footwear, phones, semiconductors, cars, planes, ships, and other things for the entire world. It also sends indispensable raw materials for products (including pharmaceuticals) that other nations make and export. 

Secondly, China has an immense pool of gifted, skilled, and hard-working women and men. The third point is perhaps the most important one. The Chinese people and the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, including Xi Jinping, are two very different things. Our fully merited caution toward the leadership should not separate or divide us from the people of China.