The US midterm elections and the Trump-populism problem

In the USA, midterm elections covering Congress and governorships are being held as of tomorrow. Trump, who is only in the second year of his presidency, has not even had time to warm his seat properly, and now faces the danger that his party will very probably fall into the minority in the Congress distribution, which will be reshaped by the midterms.

In fact, even after these midterms, since it will be the second half of his term, he will have to wait for the elections two years from now to be able to take more effective decisions. Two years is a really short time in the USA for a president to pull himself together, or the country's series of pending problems.

Everything in the world is happening very fast, and despite all the powers of the president of the USA, still the world's strongest country, there is an election period that limits his freedom of movement. This can in fact be regarded as one of the reasons for the USA's gradually losing its influence in world politics.

These pressures in the election period, elections always push presidents toward more populist policies, but not every president covets every kind of populism to the same degree at all times.

The policies Trump resorts to in order to win votes can be called unprecedented compared with his rivals.

The discourses and policies that nobody likes and that are the subject of intense criticism in intellectual circles, among human rights defenders and in world public opinion are in fact very finely calculated moves in terms of their likely returns. Unfortunately, racism, xenophobia and closing borders to refugees have serious resonance in American society.

People whose level of prosperity is above a certain threshold see the foreigner, especially the Latin American immigrant, as an element that disrupts their comfort, their economic conditions, and the peace, pleasure and order of the city they live in. That is why Trump's discourse and practices addressed to this segment are very attractive to them. Trump thinks that the harder he can speak against them, the more of a premium he collects.

That is why it is fair to say that all of Trump's conspicuous discourse and practices recently address this sociological base. These are in fact the discourses he used abundantly in the presidential campaign and won votes with. His announcing that he would answer with bullets the stones he attributed out of the blue to the hands of Mexican immigrants, timing the implementation of the decision to suspend investments in Iran right on the eve of the election, closely following the case of Pastor Brunson, and announcing that he would end the regulation on citizenship acquired by birth arouse great excitement among the WASP element he addresses. To this may be added the trade wars he launched, which actually hit himself more than his rivals, and the decision to move the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. Likewise, the evident dilemma he has fallen into because of the Jamal Khashoggi murder.

On this matter, while it is clearly observable that the pressure of the commercial advantage he risks losing by taking a stance against Saudi Arabia is forcing him very hard in decision-making, I do not at all think he can sufficiently calculate what such a pro-Israel policy brings him and what it takes away from him. It cannot be said that the USA, which is declining with each passing day, is well aware of what it is losing.

Nevertheless, a danger awaiting the USA under the Trump administration is that the voting potential of the Latin American immigrants he is opposing these days is, if not this time then probably at the next elections, becoming effective in a way that will render all his precautions in vain.

That is why Trump, or any other American politician who will take over his role, in fact faces the danger of losing the future with these discourses. If this segment, which is moving ever further from the values that make America America, continues with this mindset, it may become unable to win any election in the future.

One of the practices that make America America is in fact that citizenship is acquired by birth. This practice is based on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, regulated 150 years ago, which says that everyone born on US soil is a US citizen.

It is unknown how much anyone cared had Trump not brought it up, but a study by the research firm PEW recorded that mothers who had entered the USA illegally gave birth to 275,000 children as American citizens. Many mothers, only so that their child will be a US citizen, either take the plunge by entering the country illegally before giving birth, or obtain citizenship for their children born in US hospitals, to which they go with visas, by means called birth tourism. This practice has continued for 150 years and in fact provides countless advantages to the USA rather than being a burden.

But as elections approached, Trump tried to look at the negative side of the matter and announced that he would end this practice. In an interview, he expressed the situation with these words: "The baby that is born lives as a US citizen for an average of 85 years and gains the right to benefit from all the facilities. This must be stopped now!" The populist persuasive power of these statements is very clear. People can fall for the dangerous allure of populism without even thinking at that moment about what citizenship obtained this way brings.

Indeed, in recent years from Türkiye, every year an average of 450 women come to have a baby with US citizenship through this birth tourism and spend an average of 13 million dollars for this.

Meanwhile, although the way to amend a 150-year-old constitutional article is clear, Trump claims he can do it merely by a presidential decree, on which jurists in the USA have fallen out with one another.

Let us see what way will be found for this, or whether, after tomorrow's election, these populist discourses of Trump will give way to more realistic politics.