More winning...... Panama, following a single visit by Marco Rubio, Trump's Secretary of State, has caved and will begin the process of removing Chinese influence over the canal, extract itself from the tender embrace of Xi's Belt and Roads and begin the process of handing control back to the US.

Trump and Musk have come out hard against USAID which is encouraging.
http://youtu.be/vnZT5ZUiELU
His moves against China and tariffs for everyone not so.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« It’s all too easy to label Trump as a populist, authoritarian etc. … Sure, a case can be made that he's authoritarian/populist but only if the generally accepted meaning of those terms is twisted to suit the purpose … when suddenly someone asks for the basis of the assertions, there is a rush for the exists »
.

Well, I didn’t see Foxy rushing for the exits, mhaze. She stood her ground and provided a link to an article published by the University of California, Berkely Press, dated 21.01.2025, entitled : “ There’s a term for Trump’s political style: authoritarian populism”.

The sub-title of the article indicates:

« Researchers at UC Berkeley’s Othering & Belonging Institute identify defining traits of the type of politics leaders like Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni employ.

In the 2024 Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities, UC Berkely is ranked the 5th best university in the world after Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and Cambridge. Oxford is ranked the 6th best, after Berkley.

On reading the article you conclude : “Thanks Foxy, the article basically makes my point … That's what I was talking about - when you have to distort the meaning of the terms to suit a disdain for Trump, the new meaning applies to most all democratic leaders …”

That’s a despicable attempt to denigrate the ethics of the research, mhaze. The researchers clearly explain :

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

« Today, authoritarian populists use both populist and authoritarian tactics, mostly combined and pursued in strategically advantageous ways. Populist appeals are invoked as a justification mechanism for illiberal and often undemocratic practices, but populism alone cannot help us understand the substance of the nativist and exclusionary political project. As mentioned, authoritarianism is often used to refer to a type of regime (or in social psychology, to a series of personality traits). Conceiving of authoritarianism not only as a political system but as a set of practices via this updated terminology can help us understand how authoritarian practices are used in systems that do not fit the description of an authoritarian state or in countries that may be evolving into previously unseen regime types. »

It’s preposterous to suggest that the academic researchers of such a reputable institution would purposely and maliciously “distort the meaning of the terms to suit a disdain for Trump”. They are constantly under the scrutiny of their peers all around the world and could only cause irreparable, long-lasting damage to their prestigious institution.

The fact that you feel the need to go to such desperate and despicable means to defend Trump and his Maga zealots speaks volumes about your confidence in his and their credibility and respectability.

Here is the Primer of the research :

http://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2024-11/FearGrievanceandtheOther_Nov2024.pdf

.

The United Nations has lost its way. Anti-democratic leaders have managed to white-ant the UN. Described as a “useful idiot’s vehicle for lawfare, advocating for anything and everything except liberal democracies”.

The UN is no longer relevant.

The UN is almost entirely funded by America. It certainly couldn't function without America. Hopefully, when he has finished fixing America, Donald Trump will fix the UN, one way or another. He has dumped WHO. That's a start.

It's a pity that Australia doesn't have someone with oomph of Donald Trump.

Banjo ,

I wasn't suggesting that the artcile distorted the meaning of these terms to suit an anti-Trump agenda, but that people like you and Foxy do.

Again, neither of you have disdained to actually offer a definition of populist or authoritarian or imperialist that might apply to Trump but not apply to other leaders who you obviously favour. Hence my rush for the exits comment.

Most of Foxy's linked article is about how to redefine populism and authoritarian so that it doesn't have its ordinarily understood meaning. I've got no problem with that so long as the new meaning is explicitly defined and understood. The article even points out that this new meaning applies to left leaning governments and left lean political movements.

But that's not what you did. You applied the traditional meaning and then tried to pretend it applied to Trump and other right-of-centre leaders you dislike.

For example, the artcile says "Populism, meanwhile, occurs when leaders rhetorically divide the population into two groups: the majority versus the elites." Well why doesn't that apply to Hilary with her deplorable designations. The country was divided in us (the elect) and them (the deplorables). But you don't want that to be true so you demur defining the term and pretend it just applies to Trump.

I've seen this so often before. Its why I was on to it so quickly.

Trump is not an authoritarian. Not a populist. Not imperialistic. At least not using the ordinary meaning of those terms. But people who can't address his actual aims, policies and aspirations logically, seek to simply label him with terms they think of as derogatory and see that as enough. And that's why they fail to understand what's actually happen right under their noses.