By Soham Joshi and Fin Laing
The return of Donald Trump into the Oval Office has, by every metric, garnered a split response. For the 77 million Americans who voted him in, a rare victory in the popular vote for the Republican Party, it was a cause for celebration. For the 75 million Americans who voted for Harris, it probably wasn’t…
In any case, there are arguments to be had on either side as to the potential benefits and pitfalls of a second Trump administration. Soham and I find ourselves on opposite sides of these arguments, so we’ve worked together on this piece to lay out our perspective on what we feel are the key issues. From there it’s up to you, dear reader, to decide who you find more persuasive. I encourage you to go and do your own independent research as… well you can’t believe anything you read these days. Enjoy!
- Encouraging American businesses
In recent years, American businesses have struggled to keep up with the low prices and large scale economies offered by China and other economic rivals. This trade deficit in goods has grown continually under the Biden administration. Many trading partners have secured favourable deals at the expense of American manufacturers. For example, the EU exports to the US at a much higher rate than it imports due to a number of trade regulations. The President intends to place a levy of 25% on Canadian and Mexican imports, as well as an additional 10% tax on Chinese goods. The implementation of these tariffs, while controversial, should encourage a switch to self-reliance and enable domestic producers to dominate a larger share in the domestic and international markets where they were previously uncompetitive. The income generated by these tariffs will allow the US to spend more improving industry and enriching the lives of its citizens.
2. Solving the Woke Crisis
As also seen in Britain, many have become concerned by the excessive focus on alleged ‘Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies’, which have done anything but unite society. Trump wishes to bring a ‘post-race’ meritocratic system, wherein citizens secure jobs based purely on skill without any special consideration of sexuality or race which is arguably the present state of affairs. The US has spent extortionately on DEI initiatives which some argue have only isolated those from minority backgrounds as ‘different’, and allowed certain groups to receive preferential treatment. Gender, once considered the same as sex, is being redefined to mean ‘gender identity’, and the use of this instead of sex has led to the complication of official documents. Many parents believe children are being indoctrinated from a young age on gender ideology, leaving them confused and vulnerable. Conservatives would argue that sexuality has been unnecessarily woven into public institutions and all aspects of public life. It is feared that this allows biological men to enter women only spaces, sports, jobs, and vice versa which Trump, through a series of executive orders, has stopped. Sex is ‘not a synonym for, and does not include, the concept of gender identity’ and a return to the simple two sex system will bring back an element of biological reality.
3. Foreign Policy
A keen isolationist, Trump is adamant to reduce US funding in foreign conflicts and end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Considering his first term, it’s no secret that Trump has forged a close friendship with Putin which has the potential to massively improve inter-state communication. There have already been phone calls with Kyiv and Moscow, and a peace deal is highly anticipated. While it is unlikely Ukraine will be incorporated into NATO, the White House has guaranteed a ‘lasting, reliable peace’ by placing Ukraine in a position of strength. Trump and Putin have also agreed to visit each other on state visits to rebuild the crumbling trading and diplomatic situation.
Regarding the war in Gaza, much progress has already been made. In a joint press release with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Trump proposed a revolutionary scenario in which the US would acquire the destruction site that is Gaza and turn it into ‘the Riviera of the Middle East’. This, however, has elicited considerable criticism as some argue it equates to ethnic cleansing and would violate international law by forcefully evicting the civilian population. On the flipside, it could be argued that moving the Palestinians to a safe alternative settlement is the lesser of two evils. Without redevelopment Gaza will simply remain a giant prison and submit to the rise of a new generation of extremists who will further threaten Israel’s existence and the lives of the innocent civilians under whom they seek shelter. This generous investment plan could be the only lasting solution to ensure security in Israel and save Gaza from future conflict. Several Arab countries have welcomed the proposal in the hopes it will bring stability to an ever hostile region.
Jordan’s King, Abdullah II, recently attended negotiations with Trump, agreeing to let in some refugees and expressing support for the US interest in rebuilding Gaza. With its might and the ramifications of the ‘Trump effect’, the US is likely to fulfil this plan regardless of opposition and hopefully solve the decades long issue once and for all. A potential roadblock could be that Jordan, or other states in the region, will refuse the notion of evicting the Palestinians, and ensure the US guarantees a right of return for the Gazan people.
Response:
As a pretty keen ‘lefty-loser’ myself, I find it difficult to relate to Soham’s position on Trump’s re-entry into office. That said, I’m glad to be taking this collaborative approach for The Gaudie, as representing more than one avenue of opinion is of the utmost importance in opinion journalism. The aim here, for me, is to take each of Soham’s arguments one by one, and deconstruct them as best I can. I’m pretty confident in my ability to do so, but, as is the nature of opinions, my stance changes according to the facts in front of me. Onward! Oh, an important note, when I refer to ‘conservatives’, I do so very broadly. I’m making generalisations, but they’re reasonable generalisations based on what constitutes traditional ‘small c’ conservatism.
- Encouraging American Businesses
As of January 2025, unemployment in America sits at 4%. This is, more or less, the golden number. Much higher you have an unemployment problem, any lower and you risk creating unnecessary inflation. The problem here, as relates to the tariff policy, is that there isn’t a need for domestic manufacturing of the type found in China, whose main exports are made up by machine hardware, textiles and, accounting for a pretty sizable 3.1% of exported goods, toys. The point is that by making it harder for Chinese companies to export goods to the States, it forces American manufacturing to focus on the bricks and mortar, rather than designing the house. The reason American businesses can’t keep up with the low prices offered by international economic rivals isn’t the result of poor business but rather that, certainly in the case of China, their workers are paid five times less than American counterparts. Surely Trump’s answer to the so-called trade deficit can’t revolve around the destruction of American living standards? Who could say, but if corporate America is concerned by a 21% Corporate Tax Rate, they sure as anything won’t be footing the bill for tariff induced cost increases. Finally, I’d argue that, especially regarding Europe, the trade deficit doesn’t stem from unfair trade deals. To you, the reader, I ask a simple question. Would you rather buy a Chevrolet or a Mercedes? Free marketeer my arse…
2. Solving the Woke Crisis
The idea that Trump is some lover of a meritocracy has baffled me for as long as he’s been involved in politics. Are we really to believe that Donald Trump, six-time bankrupted businessman, would be in the position he is now had his father, treble centi-millionaire, not given him everything he could possibly require to succeed? Pardon my language, but that’s poppycock. Are we to believe also that a man held civilly liable for rape and who was sued by the US Justice Department for refusing to rent apartments to black applicants, is dedicating his time in office creating a truly fair meritocratic system based on skill? Even with the allegedly preferential DEI initiatives, there remains a pervasive wage gap across America, with white men at the top, and everyone else fighting it out for ‘most successful loser’. The Civil Rights Act has been in effect for a quarter of the time slavery was legal on the North American continent, and the notion that racial (or gender, or sexuality based) disparities have evaporated since is fanciful. The game is still rigged massively in favour of those complaining about DEI. If it concerns you that much, it might be an idea to reevaluate your qualifications.
As far as gender goes, very, very, very few people advocate the position that gender and sex are synonyms. Such an assertion actually stands to mitigate the meaning of being transgender. Sex is a binary, gender identity is how you fit into that binary, if at all. Trans people, gay people, whoever else falls under the umbrella that is being LGBT aren’t unicorns, they’re people. And teaching children about the existence of those people won’t confuse them into being gay any more than teaching gay children about same-sex relationships will confuse them into being straight. I’m proud to say that Scotland is the first country to incorporate LGBT dynamics into its sex education curriculum, and that was in 2021. I’m convinced Alan Cumming is older than that.
In terms of unnecessary presence of sexuality in public life, I’d point out that gay marriage is legal in less than 20% of countries worldwide. If America looks to retain the world superpower status it claims for itself, then it has a corresponding duty to promote the ideals that the West prides itself on – liberal inclusion. Representation is vital for marginalised communities, and bigotry relies on people feeling isolated. Finally, I reject wholesale the faux-concern for women’s rights on this matter. Where was the conservative outrage at the overturn of Roe v Wade, given the infinitely greater risk to women posed by inaccess to healthcare? The argument surrounding biological men in women’s spaces and sports is, ironically, identical to the arguments surrounding third trimester abortions. Conservatives don’t care about third trimester abortions, they care about all abortions. Similarly, they don’t care about the minute risk posed by biological men entering women-only spaces (by numbers, you’re three times more likely to be struck by lightning than to face off against a trans woman in US college sports), they care that trans people are being granted access anywhere. The conservative position, and lack of understanding, on this topic is, indeed, summed up by Trump’s executive orders. On the 20th of January, Trump signed an executive order stating that sex is determined at the moment of conception. Given, as any biologist will tell you, everyone is female at conception, this means that Trump has, by executive order, just declared himself America’s first female president. And I, for one, am very proud of her.
3. Foreign Policy
In my view, I think there is a problematic lack of understanding about the relationship between the US and Ukraine. Until 1994, Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal after the US and Russia. They agreed to give up their arsenal in exchange for American protection against Russian invasion. Now I’m all for nuclear disarmament, but if the deal you make in pursuit of that goal guarantees future protection, you can’t renege on the basis of inconvenience. So far, Ukrainian representatives haven’t been invited to peace talks, begging the question of how acceptable a potential ceasefire can actually be. I understand finding kinship in oligarchy, but the US must think very deeply about its relationship with Putin’s Russia and the extent to which they desire association with the regime.
In my view, Trump’s plan to take over Gaza is, if enacted, probably the worst US foreign policy decision since the invasion of Iraq. There isn’t an argument to be had as to whether the action would amount to ethnic cleansing – it’s the dictionary definition. The UN Charter is founded upon the desire of peoples to achieve self-determination for themselves, and it is a desire the Palestinians have expressed at every given opportunity – it isn’t for Donald Trump to decide what’s best for Palestine. I find it remarkable how poor the US is at analysing cause and effect in the Middle East. They install a ruthless dictator in Iran, there’s an extremist revolution. They fund ISIS, they take over a massive chunk of the Middle East. They fund Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden uses that money to fund the largest terrorist attack ever. At what point will the US government finally concede that their actions have consequences, and that the forcible removal of the Palestinian people will be as conducive to lasting peace as trying to put out a Californian wildfire (which definitely has nothing to do with climate change) with petrol.
