Observations of an Ex-Pat: Trump’s Aim

What is Trump’s  Aim?

Alright he has answered the question. So has his press secretary Sean Spicer. It is the slogan on the baseball cap: To “make America great again.”

But for the life of me I can’t understand how he is going to achieve that aim, especially as America already is the world’s only superpower, produces the lion’s share of the world’s wealth and has one the world’s highest standards of living. How great can a country be?

Setting all that aside, how does  the slogan translate into policy? What is required in the Trump playbook to re-achieve American greatness?

After a roller-coaster three weeks we are getting an idea. Trump’s great America is a non-renewable energy-powered industrial monolith churning out yesteryear’s manufactured products behind a metaphorical and physical wall of bricks, steel and tariffs.

Trump’s great America is paranoid and xenophobic. It bans highly skilled, entrepreneurial and hard-working Muslim immigrants for fear that the Judaeo-Christian culture cannot compete against Islamic fifth columnists who worm their way into the “dishonest” media and government. Or worse still sneak into the country and attempt to violently overthrow the system.

Trump’s great America’s rules for the majority (of the electoral college that is) at the expense of the minority. It disheartens, demoralises and undermines the judiciary whose vital role is to ensure that constitutional protection is provided to everyone rather than to just those who voted for the winning candidate.

Trump’s great America does NOT  lift its lamp beside the golden door to receive “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. “

Trump’s America is one where its leader does not have to bother with accepted norms of civilised behaviour, the annoyance of paying taxes and can use his office to urge citizens to buy his children’s products.

In short, President Donald J. Trump is an historic break with America’s past and its proud claim to the  moral high ground.

But such an obvious descent has consequences, some of them the reverse of the intended effect. Conservatives support his travel ban because they want to sleep safely in their beds. The fact is that there are very few Americans killed by Islamic terrorists—less than one third of one percent of all the homicides in the United States.

There are several reasons for this. One is that most Muslim immigrants are hard-working entrepreneurial types who have been thoroughly vetted for several years by highly qualified government investigators. For some time it has been extremely difficult for Arab Muslims to enter the US.  The ones who make it do not want to queer the pitch.

Next, as an astonishing 1,000-plus American diplomats, have made clear in their dissent letter , the travel ban will only increase the likelihood of violence because it will act as a recruiting sergeant among American Muslims who find themselves marginalised and attacked by the leader of the country in which they have chosen to live. It will also damage political and security cooperation with moderate Muslim countries.

Furthermore, one of the main reasons that there have been relatively few Jihadist attacks on US soil is the intelligence agencies success in spotting and stopping terrorists on Arab soil.  This requires an extensive network of local agents who are promised a safe American  haven for themselves and their families. Well, that’s gone out the window and America’s spies are going nuts.

But Trump is the President. Flesh is appearing on the bones of the slogan. He wants to make America  great again and paranoid, tariff-protected, wall-protected, protected from the “dishonest” media”, protected from “so-called” judges, smoke-belching, and a white Judeaeo-Christian subsidiary of Trump Inc. I think we will need a bigger baseball cap.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopedia of the War” and the recently published “America Made in Britain". He has a weekly podcast, Transatlantic Riff.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Michael Cole 10th Feb '17 - 11:04am

    Good and perceptive article but,

    “The fact is that there are very few Americans killed by Islamic terrorists—less than one third of one percent of all the homicides in the United States.”

    Does this take account of the thousands killed in the 9/11 disaster ?

  • Maybe it’s the demographics. When people say America most will think of white America but that is undergoing change with the growing Hispanic community. The old smokestack industries are gone and a lot of Americans feel the place is falling apart.

  • Michael – a quick google suggests 16,238 murders per year in the US.

    3,000 or so people died as a result of the 11/9 attack. If we arbitrarily started counting in 2001, in the last 16 years the current annual murder rate would add up to something like 259,808. That would make the 3,000 be a smidge over 1%.

    Given the homicide rates have been falling, once you look at 11/9 in the context of say the last 40 years Tom’s figure is pretty plausible.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Fiona
    As someone who has a lot of professional interactions with developers, I think it's correct that they'll use targets as an excuse to further reduce the quality ...
  • Chris Moore
    It's a target; it's an expression of intent. And that as a country we must do better on housing. The fact it'd be very difficult to meet is precisely the po...
  • Barry Lofty
    Nonconformistradical: Hear Hear!!...
  • Nonconformistradical
    "I notice that the argument against targets was that these hadn’t been met in the past." I voted against Amendment 1 because I really could not see how, wi...
  • Peter Martin
    'Britain’s “new towns” programme of the 1940s and 1950s had been successful because development corporations could buy vast tracts of land at agricul...