Anticipating the Trump Revolution

Peter Fenwick Quadrant Online 8 January 2025

Donald Trump’s resume is quite remarkable. As a real estate developer, he reshaped Manhattan’s skyline and built a global network of hotels and golf courses. For 14 seasons, he hosted The Apprentice, a very successful reality television show. Then, in 2017, he became the 45th president of the United States. His credentials are impressive. Yet, for over a decade, the media has fixated on his perceived deficiencies—his vulgarity, his moral failings, his combative rhetoric.

But Donald Trump is no longer the Apprentice. He is now the Master Craftsman. He takes the helm as President for the second time with the benefit of the previous four-years’ experience. His team is better prepared, better aligned to his vision, and more qualified than many critics would care to acknowledge. The time has come to set aside entrenched prejudices and give credit where it is due. Trump’s bold plans for America deserve our attention. His team is about to embark on a political revolution—a reshaping of America’s political landscape.

This revolution is not without risk. Bureaucrats will be replaced by entrepreneurs, and change will come swiftly, if chaotically. Some initiatives will undoubtedly falter, but there is also the potential for a re-invigoration of American society. And what unfolds in the US may set a precedent for the rest of the world.

Resistance will come from those who have thrived under the status quo. We can expect their objections to be loud and insistent, their opposition full of falsehoods and personal attacks. Recall the smear campaign against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court nomination. It is essential to approach this revolution with discernment and a willingness to look beyond the cacophony.

Barry Jones, writing in The Saturday Paper (November 23, 2024), asked “Will Trumpism survive Trump? I expect it will damage the moral and intellectual authority of the US for a generation, perhaps longer. His resurrection demonstrates the insufficiency of reason, which often lacks the psychological carrying power needed to effect far reaching reforms and take people with them”.

In similar vein, Kim Williams, Chairman of the ABC, speaking at the National Press Club, (November 27, 2024) slammed successful podcaster Joe Rogan as “deeply repulsive” and accused him of preying on people’s vulnerabilities, fear, and anxiety. Rogan is known for his in-depth, three-hour interviews with prominent figures. His late-stage campaign season interview with Donald Trump attracted an audience of 28 million. Kamala Harris’ team were prepared to have Rogan interview her too, but only for 20 minutes, an offer Rogan declined. He reasoned that was not long enough to get beyond pre-prepared cliches.

Williams admitted he doesn’t watch or listen to Rogan’s show—a telling remark, given the ABC’s shrinking audience across both radio and TV. The ABC could certainly learn from studying Rogan’s success. His three-hour conversation with Trump offered more insight into the man than Australians have gleaned from a decade of ABC programming.

What we learn from these two examples is how easy it is for even clever people like Barry Jones and Kim Williams to get sidetracked by their prejudices and miss the substance. Our political world is beset with widely held erroneous doctrines. Errors are reality and must be dealt with as such. To succeed, we better not to cling to fallacious prejudices.

The criticisms of Trump the man distract us from the deeper issues. Yes, his speeches are often disjointed and chaotic, but they are crafted to resonate with voters, to galvanize support. And, like many Presidents who have gone before him, his character may be less than perfect. But, as I shall explain, there are profound ideas underlying the changes that the Trump Republicans intend.

The problems they are addressing are not unique to America. They are shared by nations across the globe, including Australia. The time has come for us to confront the challenges, and to learn from the solutions Trump and his team are proposing to implement. For many, this will require shedding long-held beliefs, many of which have been reinforced by years of media spin and politically motivated attacks. But if we fail to understand what is at stake, we risk perpetuating our misery for years to come. It’s time to put prejudice aside and open ourselves to the possibility of change. There’s much to be learned from master performers—even those we may find deeply repulsive!

The last two generations have seen significant societal changes, many of which, though well-intentioned, have proven counterproductive. Three issues stand out:

1/ Individual Responsibility: We have lost the sense that we should be responsible for our own actions; that we should respect the rights of others; and that we should accept that we are not entitled to anything we have not earned.

2/ The Family: The role of the family has been diminished. Children can no longer rely on having a mother and a father around to love them, support them and nurture them; parents can no longer depend on their children to care for them in their old age; the state has usurped the roles that families used to play.

3/ Economic Decision-Making: Economic decisions have been transferred from the private and business spheres to the political sphere. Politicians and bureaucrats now make the decisions on energy, on education, on health, on transport, and on private and work relationships. Moreover, they interfere in judicial processes. Fundamental concepts such as the rule-of-law and innocent-until-proven-guilty are violated.

At the heart of Trump’s revolution lies a fundamental question: are economic and political decisions best made by experts, or by the individuals who are most affected?

At first glance, it seems obvious that one would defer to experts. That is what prevails at the moment. Decisions are made by bureaucrats in public agencies in Washington which impact citizens throughout the US. But is this truly the best approach? This question was addressed by one of the 20th century’s greatest thinkers, F.A. Hayek, in his seminal essay The Use of Knowledge in Society. Hayek argued that no central authority, no matter how well-intentioned, can ever possess all the knowledge needed to make sound decisions for a diverse society. Knowledge is not simply about abstract theories; it is local, transient, and dispersed among millions of individuals. Only those closest to the situation—those “on the spot”—can make decisions that account for the unique circumstances at hand.

This is the ideological divide between Trump’s vision and the bureaucratic state he seeks to dismantle. The goal is clear:

To restore the family as the centrepiece of American life and protect its children;

To dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the people.

The consequence of passing responsibility to bureaucratic experts is a myriad of problems. The more the State provides for us, the more it will want to control us. If the state provides health care, then it will want to legislate to restrict behaviours that endanger health – not only hard drugs but also alcohol, tobacco, sugar and salt. During Covid it also mandated vaccination, restricting access to employment and social gatherings, famously stopping world tennis champion Novak Djokovic from competing in the Australian Open. In the US, the government coerced the social media companies into censoring the Great Barrington Declaration, one of whose authors, Jay Bhattacharya, has now been nominated by Trump to serve as director of the National Institutes of Health

If the state provides education, then it will want to ensure that its own ideology dominates, that its curriculum is taught.

If it supports the media, then it will want to ensure that information only its views are presented. Satire will be verboten.

If it supports the arts, then it will want to control the exhibition of pictures and plays, determining which are pornographic, blasphemous or ‘inappropriate’, that universal catch-all.

If it supports sport, then it will want to influence which games are played, where they are played, the quality of the facilities and the rules about their use. It may mandate political propaganda prior to the commencement of play.

This is the reality of modern democracy. Societies are ruled from afar by an elite clerisy. New laws and regulations are created by bureaucrats in such profusion that citizens cannot possibly be fully informed what their obligations are. Citizens with influence use the state to impose their views and preferences on their fellow man. Some influential people gain financial favours in return for political support.

Throughout the world, democracies are failing. So many issues have binary solutions; there is no room for compromise. Governments are finding it impossible to satisfy the irreconcilable differences between their citizens — Brexit in the UK, Abortion in US, The Voice in Australia. Everyone wants their opinion heard and legislated. Those in the minority are obliged to accept laws and regulations which they regard as anathema. Wide-spread discontent ensues. People on opposite sides of key issues regard their opponents with contempt. This is not a sound basis for a good society.

The antidote to these errors is the principle of subsidiarity, a concept embraced by thinkers as diverse as G.K. Chesterton, Alexis de Tocqueville, Pope John-Paul II, and Ludwig von Mises. By freeing ourselves from the government controls that constrain us and giving our citizens the autonomy to make decisions themselves we can release the energy that will deliver an era of prosperity and liberty and create a moral society. Subsidiarity is the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level, that what individuals can do, society should not take over, and what smaller societies can do, larger societies should not take over.

We do whatever we can ourselves, with our family, friends, and neighbours. We form voluntary organizations – businesses, clubs, and societies – so like-minded citizens can achieve their common objectives. We keep government activity as local as possible, jointly funding only those activities that the group agrees to be valuable, keeping citizens closely involved in what is relevant to them.

Subsidiarity facilitates a wider range of solutions, quicker and more informed decision-making, and the personal involvement of more citizens. Because there is a diversity of solutions there is less chance of one bad decision causing a systemic failure. Because there is more responsibility for one’s actions there is less opportunity for moral hazard. Pope John-Paul II captured the essence of subsidiarity in Centesimus Annus (1991):

…the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, The Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, as they prepare to reduce the influence and scope of the Washington bureaucracy, would be nodding in agreement with these prescient remarks.

Under Trump, power will revert to the elected President and Congress, while the federal bureaucracy will be scaled back. Some departments may be abolished, and others will be reduced to their original roles. Many responsibilities currently handled by the federal government will be transferred to the states. Where feasible, decision-making will be devolved to lower levels—states, communities, families, and individuals. Abortion laws will remain determined at the state level. Parents will gain more influence over their children’s education, particularly concerning curriculum content and values. Overall, decisions will be made rationally and locally, not ideologically and remotely.

There will be reduced government intervention and regulation. Crony capitalism will be curbed, with fewer benefits going to elite friends of government. There will be a reversion of the agency capture that is currently rife. Regulatory agencies will no longer be funded by and under the thrall of the industries they are supposed to regulate. Businesses will thrive as red tape is minimized, allowing them to provide products and services more quickly and efficiently for their customers. Similarly, there will be less green tape; projects will be allowed to proceed expeditiously, not delayed by contrived complaints.

But that will but the start of Trump’s agenda. There will be more, much more

International bodies will have less influence. The U.S. will resist rules and regulations that infringe on its sovereignty. It will withdraw from the Paris Agreement and may reduce its support for the United Nations and its agencies. The influence of other supranational bodies may also decline.

The First Amendment will be upheld, ensuring that everyone’s right to free speech and religious freedom is respected. The truth of ideas will be determined through public debate, not dictated by experts or a majority consensus. The government will not interfere with individuals’ free speech or their ability to express contentious opinions. (As we now know, this was the case with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and the Great Barrington Declaration.) The censorship cartel of the social media giants will be dismantled.

Immigration will be restricted to individuals who embrace American values and contribute positively to society. Citizenship will be highly valued. Illegal immigrants will be deported.

Taxes will be lowered, putting more resources in the hands of individuals, families, and successful businesses.

Military power will be strengthened, not for aggression but as a deterrent. The U.S. will eschew involvement in wars, particularly other people’s wars. Provision of military aid to friendly nations will be by way of trade, not benevolence. Allies will be expected to pay their own way. With less funding for war, the incidence of it should decline.

Energy production, particularly oil and gas, will increase. Subsidies for renewable energy will be phased out. Consequently, energy will become cheaper for American businesses and that will facilitate more domestic manufacturing. Europe and Japan will be able to source energy from the U.S., reducing their reliance on suppliers like Iran and Russia.

Agricultural practices will be reformed. Regenerative farming will reduce carbon emissions. Less use of chemicals, herbicides, insecticides and concentrated monocrops will improve the health of agricultural soil and water. Robert Kennedy Jr. hopes to make children’s food healthier by stripping additives such as fats, starches, sugars, and food dyes out of processed foods.

International trade will not be to the detriment of American citizens. U.S. firms will be persuaded by taxes and tariffs to make goods locally. Of course this is a change that will take time. You cannot build factories, train a workforce and establish a supply chain overnight. But eventually local manufacture will provide jobs and have other positive social effects in the communities in which they operate.

Family formation will be promoted through family-friendly tax policies, welfare support, and opportunities for stable, long-term employment. Strengthening family life will address social issues such as fatherless households – currently a cause of violence and dysfunction in many American communities. (See Faust & Manning, Them Before Us.)

The justice and policing systems will be reformed, with a focus on reducing crime, particularly violent crime and drug-related offenses. The political misuse of the judicial system will be discouraged.

Women’s rights will be protected. Access to woman’s sport will be restricted to natal women. Men will not be allowed in women’s toilets, changing rooms, or other private spaces.

The above list is not exhaustive, but it indicates the flavour of the changes ahead.

While ambitious, these reforms aim to restore power to the people, making the government smaller, more accountable, and more responsive to citizens.

The changes underway in the US are not just political—they are cultural too. The decline of affirmative action, corporate virtue signalling, and cancel culture signal the end of Woke and a time of renewal. The promise of a more just, free, and prosperous society is within reach. And that, in itself, is a cause for joy.

Peter Fenwick is the author of three books, The Fragility of Freedom: Why Subsidiarity Matters (2014), Liberty at Risk: Tackling Todays’ Political Problems (2016), and The Fortunate: Ten great writers highlight how we created free and affluent societies (2022), all published by Connor Court https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au

.