Real estate mogul Donald Trump has moved another step closer towards the US presidency. Although the all-but-certain Republican nominee must of course win an anticipated general election match-up against Hillary Clinton in November, a closer examination is urgently required to analyze his proposed policies and the reasons for the high support rate he enjoys.

　　　　　Viewing Trump initially as a frivolous candidate, almost the entire US media was critical of the flamboyant businessman and gave him little chance to win. As of this writing (May 3), however, those predictions have proven to be far wide of the mark. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 65% of registered voters had a negative view of Trump, while only 24% had a positive opinion, and yet he still is solidly positioned to win the Republican nomination.

　　　　　While the mainstream US media and most politicians had thought the nominee would not be determined until the Republican national convention in July, Trump’s two remaining rivals—Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich—pulled out two months earlier than anticipated, leaving him alone in the race.

　　　　　House Speaker Paul Ryan, who presumably had not expected this fast turn of events, admitted to CNN after the Indiana primary that he wasn’t ready to support Trump for president, emphasizing: “I am just not ready to do that at this point.” Ryan stressed that conservatives in the GOP wished to know whether or not Trump shares “our values and supports our principles.”

　　　　　Trump snapped back: “I am not ready to support Speaker Ryan’s agenda.”

　　　　　Trump has gained support by fiercely attacking the “Washington establishment,” including the establishment of the Republican Party. So we can not expect him to heed Ryan’s demands and come into line with the values of the mainstream Republicans in Washington. Even at this juncture, where there is only one candidate left and the Republican leadership has begun to place an emphasis on the importance of unity, we can not expect the presumptive nominee to yield to the party leadership.

“America First”

　　　　　Trump continues to harp on the same theme as far as America’s allies are concerned: Why must Japan and South Korea be defended with American tax money, and why must America keep paying (70% of) the costs required to maintain the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)?

　　　　　Arguing that the US must have Japan and South Korea foot all the bills required for the stationing of US troops, Trump insists that the US must pull out its troops unless Tokyo and Seoul comply, claiming the two American allies should consider arming themselves with nuclear weapons now that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

　　　　　Trump’s contentions are simply outrageous in light of continuing increased international support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). What he calls for is especially unrealistic as regards Japan. Under our “peace” constitution, written by the American occupation forces nearly seven decades ago, there is no justifiable basis for turning our Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) into an army in the true sense of the word. Our constitution doesn’t even allow the JSDF to function as ordinary armed forces for an ordinary democracy in case of a conflict. A similar restriction applies to our ownership of nuclear weapons.

　　　　　As far as Trump is concerned, however, that is Japan’s business. Japan must defend itself on its own, Trump has repeated time and again, stressing that America no longer is interested in paying for Japan’s national security and that the name of the game now is “America First.”

　　　　　In point of fact, “America First” is not a new slogan. It was popularized in the 1930s by Charles Lindberg and other “America Firsters” who believed that the US should not get involved in a foreign—in this case European—war. Lindberg, a national hero, had stunned the world in 1927 by becoming the first man to fly a single-engine aircraft non-stop across the Atlantic.

　　　　　This slogan has since remained the underlying tone of American posture towards the world, still very much intact in the minds of many Americans today.

　　　　　Against such a backdrop, there is a view that respectable experts will gather around Trump if he is inaugurated, automatically correcting his governing course within a new framework of realistic ideas. But can that really happen? The impact that an administration change has in the US is significantly different than Japan.

　　　　　In Japan, bureaucrats at Kasumigaseki exercise decisively dominating power over the formulation of actual government policies. They remain in their respective posts at various agencies and ministries despite administration changes, allowing for a continuation of Japanese-style politics, for better or worse. Of course, there are problems with this Japanese system. As can be seen in the foreign policy of the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe concerning the “comfort women” issue, for instance, Japanese bureaucrats often ignore or deny the policies or visions of our political leaders. While administrations change rather frequently in Japan, our politics takes time to change.

　　　　　Meanwhile in the US, bureaucrats change en mass with a new administration. It is said that nearly 6,000 bureaucrats leave through the revolving door of the White House, as the same number walk in.

　　　　　If Trump, who apparently is out to make a break with traditional Republican politics, attracts able staff eager to work as his experts with a similar sense of commitment, one must expect American policies to change along the line he dictates.

Utility Rather Than Values

　　　　　Trump says he will levy a 45% tariff on all imports from China. What will happen if such a measure is implemented? There have been precedents that make some conjecture possible. In 2009, the US imposed a maximum 35% duty on Chinese-made tires. China retaliated by slapping a tariff on American chicken. Ultimately, however, American tire production showed no increase, with the market inundated by a sudden influx of tires from Indonesia, Mexico, and Thailand, as The Wall Street Journal noted in its May 4 edition.

　　　　　In 2015, the US registered a massive trade deficit with China, exporting US$116 billion worth of goods while importing more than four times—US$ 482 billion.

　　　　　If Trump as a business-minded president can somehow manage to establish certain trading rules or win concessions that drastically cut the deficits, then there may be a chance for his administration to significantly change its posture towards Beijing. There could then be a fair possibility for China and the US to join hands on the principle of favoring utility, putting aside their respective values.

　　　　　In Stuttgart, Germany, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter noted on May 3 that Moscow “is going backward in time” with war-like actions, describing as most disturbing Russia’s “loose talk about using nuclear weapons.” This, he said, is a serious challenge to the existing order in the international community.

　　　　　The fact that Trump has expressed a readiness to work more closely with a Putin-led Russia opens the possibility of a fundamental change in international relations, perhaps even signaling a movement away from resolution of problems by honoring international law and the spirit of peaceful negotiations.

　　　　　We must pay particular attention at this stage to the fact that a significant segment of American public opinion supports Trump for the signs he has shown to implement such initiatives. Even after Trump insinuated in an interview on May 3 that Ted Cruz’s father might have a link with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 42% of Republican supporters reportedly still felt Cruz had engaged in “the dirtiest” campaign, as opposed to 38% who felt Trump’s campaign had. We have to face up to this fact squarely.

　　　　　Who the next US president will be is not easy to predict at this stage. However, as far as Japan is concerned, we must make certain at this point to build up our defense capabilities while continuing to send our own strong message to the international community of our unflinching support for democratic principles and diplomacy based on international law.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 704 in the May 19, 2016 issue of The Weekly Shincho)