Wang Jianxun, "American Spirit"

Wang Jianxun, “What Trump Plans Is A Return to the ‘American Spirit’”[1]
 
Introduction and Translation by David Ownby
 
Wang Jianxun (b. 1972) is a Professor at the China University of Politics and Law in Beijing.  His self-introduction from his Linked-In page tells us most of what we need to know about Wang: 

“I was trained in law and political science, and studied with the late Elinor and Vincent Ostrom at Indiana University-Bloomington [between 2000 and 2006]. My research interests include American constitutionalism, political theory, public choice, Austrian school of economics, and Chinese politics and law. I mainly do my work in the traditions of classical liberalism and conservatism, and almost all of my research has tried to deal with the issue of how to establish and to maintain a free society.”

The same Linked-In page includes statements in favor of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court, one of which appears to be a letter to the Washington Post.

The text translated here is Wang’s reaction to Donald Trump’s inaugural address on January 20, 2017, first delivered orally the following day at the “I Know I Know Nothing Cultural Space” in Xian, a venue described by Ian Johnson in the New York Review of Books as part of his series on contemporary Chinese intellectuals.  Wang’s text was published online five days later on Aisixiang, a major platform for the work of China’s establishment intellectuals. 
 
If it is possible to read Sun Liping’s praise of Donald Trump’s attack on political correctness as veiled criticism of the texture of intellectual life in China under Xi Jinping, I cannot read Wang Jianxun’s essay as anything other than a full-throated endorsement of Trump by a dyed-in-the-wool Hayekian conservative who happens to live and work in the People’s Republic.  “There are many animals in the zoo,” my grandmother used to say, meaning that the world is a rich and varied place.  That said, I could not find—in a brief Internet search—a similar embrace of Xi Jinping or Xin Jinping Thought by a Westerner.
 
It is well-known that there are many varieties of liberals in China, from left-of-center champions of the little people to right-wing libertarians and ferocious defenders of free markets.  It is nonetheless jarring to read Rush Limbaugh or any of his fellow-travelers transposed into Chinese, particularly since Wang makes almost no references to China in his text and no attempt to explain the relevance of Trump’s agenda to any of the challenges China currently faces.  Elsewhere, Wang has written about China’s necessary transition from dictatorship to constitutional rule, and if one wishes to read the logic of that argument into Wang’s endorsement of Trump and his agenda I suppose it is possible, but the argument barely appears even between the lines. 
 
Instead, Wang uses Trump’s inaugural address to endorse what appears to be the entire agenda of the American right:  anti-political correctness, anti-affirmative action, anti-welfare, low taxes, free markets, anti-immigration (or at least illegal immigration), embrace of God and the flag.  Memorably, Wang summarizes the “American spirit” which Trump has vowed to restore as “Ayn Rand and the Bible.”  Wang of course has every right to his opinion and to share those opinions with his readers, but his “arguments” will only convince those who already think as he does.   
 
Translation
　　
What Message Did Trump’s Inaugural Address Send?
　　
I did not watch Trump’s inauguration last night in the middle of the night, but today (January 21) I rewatched his inaugural address.  I did not agree with Trump’s critics who called the speech nihilistic, populist, or isolationist, and instead found certain positive points, and to me, the speech was not bad at all.  Even if it was not as good as Reagan’s historic inaugural address, it still contained many points worth noting and appreciating.
 
For example, left-wing intellectuals and critics reproached Trump’s address for its “populism.”  Why “populism?”  Because in his speech Trump repeatedly addressed “the people,” saying that he wanted to take power away from Washington and return it to the people.  He said this because the people’s power has been in the hands of Washington bureaucrats for too long.  So in fact, in talking about this, he was not appealing to populism, but was instead stressing that institutional politicians pursue their own interests through rent-seeking and improper dealings, and abuse the power given to them by the people. They ignore the voice of the people or a large part of the people.  Trump simply wants to correct this situation.
 
The term “populism» was widely used during his campaign and during the transition period, both by intellectuals and everyday people.  In fact, the meaning of this term is not altogether clear, although at base it refers to any political action taken by the common people against the elite.  To a certain extent, as long as we are referring to popular opposition to the elite, we can call this populism.  Thus in a certain sense, we can say that democracy is classic populism.  One-man one-vote, the people as masters.  Could anything be more democratic than this?  These days, populism has become a label without any real significance.
 
Those people who criticize Trump for being populist are using the term in a pejorative sense, saying that the common people who voted for Trump did it to oppose the elite.  We saw that during the election, many of Trump’s supporters were middle- and lower-class voters, especially middle- and lower-class white voters; a sizeable percentage of those who had some university education or who did not attend university at all voted for Trump.  Those who criticize Trump use this as proof that Trump’s election was populist.
 
The problem is:  who were Hilary’s supporters?  Many were America’s poor, indeed, the really poor, those who are unable to get by without welfare.  It is strange that if Hilary had won with the support of these voters, it would not have been seen as populism.  Hilary’s supporters were poorer and had lower status that those who voted for Trump, so does it make sense to not call this populist, and instead to say that Trump’s better-off voters, whose annual income was between $50,000 and $250,000, were populists?  It makes no sense at all.  
 
If we say that Trump’s inaugural address was populist because it appealed to the people, then are not the first words of the United States Constitution, “we the people of the United States” populist?  This is clearly absurd.  We can’t say that everyone who appeals to the people is a populist.  If you don’t appeal to the people, do you appeal to the bureaucrats?  Is not appealing to the people the basic point of a republic?  When Trump used the term “the people” in his address, he was talking to every living, breathing American, which is not to be confused with some Rousseau-like abstraction existing independently outside of the individual or lording it over the individual.
 
In his inaugural address, Trump talked about protecting American interests, and repeatedly referred to “America first.”  This leads leftist intellectuals to claim that Trump is anti-globalization, that he is closing America, taking the path of “isolationism.”  This argument is equally problematic.  Trump did not talk about closing America, never said that America would not be an open country, that it would have nothing to do with other countries.  He never said anything like that. 

Instead, he emphasized that, in recent years, in terms of international trade and the international order, Americans have not done a good job of protecting their own interests.  Obviously, from the perspective of Trump and his supporters, this is unfair:  why should America have to sacrifice its interests to earn international support?  This is not the right way to do things, and is ignoring the interests of the voters and the interests of Americans. 
 
Trump emphasized America first.  Does this mean that leaders of other countries are wrong when they talk about putting the interests of their countries first?  Should the leader of England but the interests of Afghanistan first?  This is clearly absurd and hypocritical.  Whether in terms of common sense, law, logic, or basic democracy, there is nothing wrong with what Trump said. 

When Trump talked about protecting American interests, this absolutely did not mean that the interests of other countries would have to suffer, nor did it mean that American interests and the interest of other countries are always in conflict.  Those who made such arguments were imagining a zero-sum game, which is wrong.  In international commerce, it is completely possible to arrive at a win-win situation, just like in domestic market exchange.
 
Trump argues that only by putting American interests first can they take care of the interests of international society and the interests of other countries.  How can you put the interests of other countries first?  So Trump’s critics got it wrong.  He wasn’t talking about isolationism, and in his speech he emphasized that America wants to come together with other civilized countries to preserve the world order and oppose terrorism.  He even quoted from the Bible:  “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”
 
Here I should point out something, which is that an important reason for Trump’s election is that he accorded a prominent place to Christian beliefs.  This is extremely important.  That he mentioned the Bible and God in his inaugural address was not by accident.  His candidacy earned the support of many American evangelical leaders, and from a religious perspective, the campaign was a rebellion against, a protest of, a challenge to secularism. 

The Christian spirit is at the core of the American tradition, and the founding of America is impossible to understand if we do not understand this, just as it is impossible to understand the Biblical foundations of the American political system, just as it is impossible to understand the “creator” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, who conferred natural rights to the American people.  It is impossible to understand why everyone is born with equality and freedom, and it is impossible to understand why the American president places his hand on the Bible when he takes the oath of office.
 
In his inaugural address, Trump also mentioned that we can no longer allow people to rely on welfare.  Everyone must be independent and take responsibility for his own actions, to improve his own life and to improve America.  This is extremely important, and is also part of the American tradition.  In the American tradition, people always stressed that every person had to be responsible for himself and rely on his own efforts to succeed, to transform himself through his own hard work, and with his fellow countrymen change all of society, instead of relying on other people.  Such a proposal turns the page on how things were done under Obama.  We can see that Trump has inherited Reagan’s legacy.  Reagan’s motto was, “Government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem.”
 
If we understand Trump’s inaugural address against the larger backdrop of American tradition, then it is hard to see the nihilism, populism, and isolationism for which the left criticizes him.  Of course, in his words and deeds Trump often is no gentleman, and in his campaign he spoke without reserve, and said what he thought, and in so doing offended many people and groups.  It is true, he is crude in the way he speaks and acts, not like Hilary, the practiced politician, who has only become more dishonest, more prone to lead the country astray.  Moreover, if a straight-talking person can be elected, the reasons behind that success are worth thinking about.  Below I will talk about the deep social roots that explain Trump’s election.
　　
Trump’s Election is the Reflection of a Series of Problems in the Age of Mass Democracy
　　
Since Trump’s election, I have read a great deal of commentary, but most of it is rather shallow, and even an observer like Francis Fukuyama has frequently made irresponsible and alarming statements, for example that Trump’s election represents the victory of democracy over freedom, and that America has entered into a period of decline.
 
In my view, Trump’s election has deep social and political roots, and is the reflection of a series of problems that have emerged more than a century after America entered the era of mass democracy.
 
Let me first explain “mass democracy.”  Mass democracy is the idea of one-man one-vote, of universal equality, the idea that everyone can vote, everyone can participate in political life, regardless of how much money he has, what his social position is, regardless of skin color and gender.  At the same time, mass democracy emphasizes direct mass participation, direct elections, etc.  Some argue that this era is a beautiful era, because everyone can vote, everyone can decide their country’s fate.  But this era has also created numerous problems, such as surging popular will, uncontrollable emotions, the weakening of constraints on power, and the redistribution of other people’s wealth.
 
In the last century and more, after America entered the age of mass democracy, a certain number of elite constitutional measures designed to constrain the popular mood have been altered or done away with.  For example, when the Founding Fathers composed the constitution in 1787, senators were selected via indirect elections, or in other words the two senators from each state were chosen by the State assemblies, but in 1913, the 17th amendment to the Constitution changed this practice, and Senate elections became direct elections, no different from those for congressmen.  This was a very important change.
 
Why did the American Founding Fathers want to have different kinds of elections for the two houses of Congress?  Because they wanted to use the Senate to tamp down the expression of popular opinion, which justified the indirect elections, which to a certain extent kept popular sentiment at bay.  In addition, the design of the bicameral system was chiefly to strengthen the balance of power, so that Congress would not overuse its power.  It was to encourage Congress’s development in this direction that they did their best to use different selection practices, which is how they arrived at direct and indirect elections in the two houses.
 
This was the product of the wise arrangements of the Founding Fathers.  The government they intended to build was not a direct democracy like that of ancient Greece, but instead a representative republic.  They were very concerned that a democracy like that of ancient Greece would produce tyrant after tyrant, lead the people to lose their rationality, and leave them open to manipulation by demagogues.  The country they constructed through the constitution was a federal republic, a compound republic 复合共和国, which through a double balance of power—a vertical balance (the tripartite division of power) and a horizontal balance (the balance of federalism)—sought to constrain power and prevent the tyranny of the minority and of the majority.
 
The first change brought about by the arrival of mass democracy was the continual increase in the power of the federal government.  If we compare what the federal government can do now with its capacities when the country was set up, we see a world of difference. 
 
The power of the federal government today covers vast areas.  For example, it can collect taxes from individuals, which was unthinkable when the country was founded, as the Founding Fathers had not considered the issue.  Federal income tax on individuals began in the 20th century, and did not exist before.  Today, the federal government can regulate education, healthcare, housing--even the volume of water in a flush toilet is regulated by the federal government.  As you can imagine, there is no place where the current federal US government is not found.

This is a serious betrayal of the institutional design and the political ideals of the Founding Fathers.  At the time, what they designed was a very small, limited government, because they were very worried that if the government was too powerful, it would act willfully and penetrate all areas of society.  Of course, after the Civil War, the powers of the federal government began to expand.  The Civil War destroyed the balance of power between the federal government and the states; in general terms, prior to the Civil War, power was in the states, while this power gradually moved to the federal government after the war. 

At the turn of the 20th century, and especially with the popularity of ideas of progressivism, socialism, and the welfare state, followed by two world wars, the powers of the federal government experienced an unprecedented expansion.  Each war increased the powers of the federal government, because the wars brought temporary demands to concentrate human, financial, and material resources, and once these powers grew, they were difficult to surrender.  As a result, we might say that federal powers today extend to everything.  Obama used the power of the federal government to promote health insurance, something that would have been unthinkable to the Founding Fathers.    
 
Here let me ask why it was in this election that very orthodox Republican candidates, like the young and vigorous Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz all lost, and indeed fumbled from the outset.  Why?  One important reason is that, over the past few decades, orthodox Republican have made repeated compromises, and have continually sided with the Democrats.  In other words, the policies of the two parties have grown more and more similar.  So for Republican voters, it doesn’t matter who you vote for.  If your policies look like Obama’s policies, then there is no point in my voting for you.
 
But when Trump came forward, he offered a series of policies that were different from those of traditional Republicans, which allowed him to earn the support of Republican voters and of some who generally do not vote.
 
Last time, when Obama was running for re-election, I thought the Republicans didn’t stand a chance, because the policies offered by the Republican candidates were too similar to those of the Democrats, so they had no way to win.  If the Republicans want to win, they have to draw a clear line between themselves and the Democrats; in policy terms they cannot compromise with the Democrats and must have their own political program to uphold. 

When the Democrats praise big government, the Republicans cannot follow along, but instead should continue to demand small government.  At present, orthodox Republicans do not dare propose the abolition of the welfare system, the end of health insurance, no more subsidies to education or agriculture.  They don’t dare, because they are afraid that as soon as they say it, they will lose a lot of votes. 

The result is that the more scared they get, the less they are able to defeat their opponents.  Because their opponents proudly say “We’re going to do this and we’re going to do that.”  One important reason for Trump’s victory was that his vision was very clear:  the government interferes too much, its power is too extensive, bureaucratism is too serious, and all of this is a betrayal of the American tradition of local government.
 
The second big change is that the tax burden on the American middle class has continually increased over the past century.  Ever since Roosevelt’s New Deal, America has increasingly approached the status of a welfare state, even if there remains considerable distance between the United States and the welfare states of Europe.  If you want a welfare state, somebody has to pay the bill.  There is no free lunch in this world.  If someone has free health insurance or education, someone’s taxes are paying for it.  As the Chinese expression has it, goat hair grows on a goat, but sometimes it grows on someone else’s goat.
 
So, who bears the brunt of the tax burden?  In the Democratic platform they argue that through progressive taxes, the money comes from the rich, because the rich pay more taxes.  For example, someone like Bill Gates will pay 40% of his income in taxes.  But in fact, it is still the middle class that pays most of the tax burden, because ultimately there is a limit on the amount of taxes you can collect from the rich.  Middle-class income exceeds the threshold for tax-exemption, but not by much, so they pay most of the taxes, and have the most opinions about it.  They are unable to enjoy free welfare benefits, but have to pay for these same services.  Of course the rich don’t care at all about those benefits.
 
All of this means that the toughest thing for the middle class is that they pay the most taxes and don’t get the benefits, or the benefits they receive are very limited.  Most of the welfare goes to the poor, who don’t pay taxes.  Can the middle class be satisfied with this?  Absolutely not.  So in this election, many white middle- and low-class voters, such as white-collar workers in manufacturing and energy voted for Trump.  This is a protest against the tax burden they have been struggling under for a long time.
 
At the same time, when the government provides too much welfare, it creates huge public debt and fiscal deficits.  America currently has a debt of almost 20 trillion dollars.  It was 12 trillion before, but some 8 trillion were added while Obama was in office.  In 2016, the fiscal deficit was nearly 600 billion US dollars, while the annual fiscal deficit in the 2009-2012 period was more than 100 billion US dollars.  Much of this is due to Obamacare.  Campaign promises are easy, but where does the money come from to cash all those blank checks?  Is it fair to future generations of sons and grandsons to spend the next 50 years of their money?  How do you justify piling all of that debt onto their backs?
 
Many people envy welfare states, but they don’t realize that welfare states nourish a spirit of laziness.  In recent years, many welfare states have been pushing pension reform, pushing back the retirement age, etc., because they realize that if they continue this way there will be important problems.  The problem is that once people receive welfare it has a tendency to spiral upward, otherwise people stop working and resist.  We all saw that when certain European countries extended the retirement age from 60 to 62, the result was nation-wide strikes.  People in welfare states understand the benefits of the system, but they don’t want to pay the price.  The problem is that this kind of paradise doesn’t exist.
 
The third change is that, over the course of the last century, the large number of immigrants has posed important challenges to the American system, tradition and beliefs.  At present, the United States has approximately 11 million illegal immigrants, and if you add legal immigrants, the number is even larger.  When the United States was founded, the population was only 3 million, while today it has surpassed 300 million, meaning that it has increased one hundred fold, and one factor accounting for this growth is immigration.  The is natural, America having always been a country of immigrants. 
 
During this campaign, one major criticism many people had of Trump is that he is against immigrants.  This is not the case.  Trump solely opposes illegal immigration and welcomes legal immigrants.  The United States is one of the most open countries in the world to immigration, and as long as foreigners satisfy certain conditions, they can go to the United States and obtain a green card or perhaps even American citizenship.  I suggest you try this with most European countries.  Welfare benefits are good in those countries, but it is basically impossible to become a citizen.  It is easier to get into heaven than to become a Swiss citizen.  It is equally difficult to become a Japanese citizen.  Most countries are not really open, and do not invite foreigners to become citizens, but America is an open society, and its door is always open to legal immigrants.
 
Trump angrily said that he wanted to build a great wall on the US-Mexican border.  On the one hand, this reflects his resolve to find a solution to the problem of illegal immigration, but on the other this is merely a metaphor, and Trump won’t build a real wall.  What he means is that we have to find a way to prevent even more illegal immigrants from pouring into America, we must slowly integrate those immigrants and cannot allow immigration to be a great flood.
 
America welcomes immigrants, but their entry must be orderly, otherwise American order, culture, tradition, and religious beliefs might be threatened, and the foundation of the country might waver.  This is the background against which we must understand Trump’s strong attitude on immigration and his views on building the wall.  He is not against all outsiders, and has never used exclusionist language.
 
Illegal immigrants have brought public safety issues, issues of criminality, and especially terrorist problems to the United States.  This is a problem that must be taken seriously, and no American president can ignore it.  Some Middle-Eastern Muslims, who make up a large portion of all immigrants, are engaged in terrorist activities.  Trump says that we welcome proper immigrants, but not terrorist immigrants.  This is an absolutely proper reason, an absolutely proper demand.  I think that none of us welcomes terrorists.  What we welcome of course are people who prize peace, freedom and order, and not people who engage in terrorism.
 
There is also an attack on religious beliefs.  Most immigrants are not Christians.  There are atheists from Asia and Muslims going to American, which has produced a feeling of a crisis of religious belief in the United States.  What Trump has said about immigrants is a very normal response.  It seems to me that if today we let a few billion atheists and Muslims immigrate all at once to the United States, then America will no longer be America, by which I mean that the social order may be in crisis, but also that America’s foundation will suffer a serious blow.  If you do not understand this point, then you cannot understand the attitude of Trump and his supporters toward the question of immigration.
 
The fourth change occurring in the era of mass democracy is that the American intellectual world and the elite of the high tech world have embraced atheism.  In virtually all American universities, most professors are left-wing intellectuals, who support the Democratic Party and Hilary.  Many are card-carrying atheists who say that they don’t believe in religion or in God.  If most university intellectuals are left-wing, then the students they turn out will naturally be left-wing as well.  Why is it those who are well-educated, especially those with advanced degrees, all support Hillary and the Democrats?  Well, there’s no surprise here, it’s because they all received a left-wing, atheist education.
 
Why are things this way?  Because intellectuals naturally believe that they sympathize with the weak, and always nourish ideals of cherishing the world, of saving the country and the people.  They believe that society is unfair and that their ideals can solve all of the world’s problems, get rid of all of the world’s evils, that they can save the entire world.  So they put forward all sorts of utopian ideals.  They worship equality and even believe that equality is more important than freedom, so that if they cannot obtain equal freedom, they would prefer equal slavery. 

Many elites in the high tech world believe that through scientific advances, mankind can completely conquer nature, can conquer everything, and can realize any kind of impractical dream.  In their view, nothing is impossible, and they obviously do not believe in the constraints God imposed on man, nor that there are limits or frontiers to rational thought.  This kind of tendency is expressed extremely clearly in the American intellectual world, the high tech world, the universities, and the Ivory Tower.
 
During this campaign, Trump expressed his zeal for Christian beliefs, and earned the universal support of Christian leaders and their followers.  This is a very important sign.  This sign is telling us that the American people want to return to Christian beliefs, they want to say no to the challenge of atheism.
 
How important is religion to America?  If you watched the direct broadcast of Trump’s inauguration ceremony yesterday, religion was extremely important, not just moderately important.  Before delivering his inaugural address, he first took an oath.  What oath was this?  With his left hand on the Bible, Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts read the text of the oath to him.  Why this book?  If his hand were on a different book, would Trump respect the oath?  Of course not, because that book would not be sacred.  Why does he swear an oath to God and not to a cat or something else?  Because God is sacred, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent.  He is invisible, untouchable, and lives in the hearts of the people. 
 
The fifth change occurring in the age of mass democracy is the unfettered spread of “political correctness.”  For the past century, “political correctness” has been everywhere, not only in political life, but also in social life, and people do not dare utter politically incorrect things in public.  All people must rigorously observe the principles of political correctness, and absolutely cannot in any circumstance express any prejudice toward minorities, women, or any vulnerable group.  For example, if in the course of his research someone discovers that blacks on whatever scale do not measure up to whites, he cannot publicly say this, even if it is true, otherwise he will be in trouble, and this is particularly true for politicians.
 
People not only cannot discriminate against minorities but in institutional settings have to practice anti-discrimination, for example the affirmative action that everyone knows about.  In university admissions, if a white student and a black student have the same grades, then under certain circumstances they have to select the black student.  This is even true sometimes when the black candidate is slightly weaker.  They explain that this is because blacks suffered unfair treatment in the past, and the education available to them is inadequate, and now we will rectify the situation through these measures. 

The question is:  is anti-discrimination itself discrimination?  If it is, is it fair?  It is clearly not fair.  No one can argue that it is not discrimination.  No matter what you call it, no matter how you justify it, this kind of policy arrangement is discriminatory.
 
Why can we not accept discrimination against black people, but we can accept discrimination against white people?  Why can’t I go to university if my grades are better than his?  Some people say that the grandfather of the grandfather of a black person suffered discrimination at the hands of the grandfather of the grandfather of a white man, so we have to redress this historical instance of discrimination.  But the white person says, what does any of this have to do with me?  I have never discriminated against him, so you should blame the grandfather of my grandfather for the discrimination, and not ask me to assume responsibility for it. 

If your parents commit a crime, and I arrest you and hold you responsible, do you think is this okay?  Of course not, because this is absurd.  All the more because you have no idea if it was really the grandfather of my grandfather who discriminated against the grandfather of your grandfather, right?
 
There is no doubt that historical discrimination was terrible, but if you want to redress the terrible wrongs of that discrimination, you can’t use anti-discrimination, because this produces new discrimination and harm, a result that is exactly that of historical discrimination.  Two wrongs cannot be mutually erased, and two wrongs do not make a right.  Does this seem complicated?  Not at all, but affirmative action measures are currently being employed in America and in many European countries, and are universally accepted. 

Many Chinese would accept this as well.  But in my view, no matter what name it goes under, no matter what bad outcome it is attempting to redress, discrimination is discrimination.  You cannot defeat discrimination with another form of discrimination.  All this does is to create another wrong. 
 
The situation now is that discrimination against minorities is not only not permitted in public, it is also prohibited in private enterprises.  If I open a private company, and choose to hire only white people and not blacks or other minorities, current laws view this as discrimination.  If when I’m hiring I decide to select only people who are taller than 5’7”, or people who don’t smoke cigarettes or who don’t drink alcohol, is this discrimination?  Am I breaking the law?  This is a private company.  If you don’t like it, then don’t apply for the job.  In fact, most companies will not do their hiring this way, because they don’t need to, they have to pass the test of the market.  If they recruit people this way, they will not recruit outstanding talent, they will be squeezed by the competition, and they will pay a price.
 
“Political correctness” also means that you absolutely cannot discriminate against homosexuals, otherwise you are in big trouble.  The year before last, the Supreme Court issued a decision accepting the legality of gay marriage.  I feel that this is a huge change in American history and even in all of Western history, one that deeply betrays the Christian tradition.  In Christianity, marriage is between one man and one woman, but now it can be two men or two women and we have to accept it. 

So maybe we could go further and a person could marry an animal?  Could three people marry?  Five people?  One man with many wives?  One wife with many husbands?  Where is the limit in the definition of marriage?  Is there one?  If there is not, they we can make up our own definition.  This is frightening, and will constitute a serious challenge to social tradition, morality and ethics, to family as the basic unit of society, to the education of children.  But all of this is supported by the left, by the Democratic Party.
 
After Trump was elected, many people expected that he would change this situation and bring America back to the traditional view of marriage relationships as recognized by Christianity.  One might say that Trump’s election represents a direct challenge to political correctness, because he feels that political correctness has gone too far and is putting in danger the entire social order and traditional American values, and it is time for a change.
 
In sum, the election of Trump, this “sage,” is absolutely not an accident, nor is it the result of populism, but is instead the result of these five changes occurring in the past century.  In other words, these five changes constitute the deep social roots of Trump’s victory.
 
What Changes Might America Expect after Trump’s Victory
 
So, what changes might America expect following Trump’s election?  In other words, what impact might Trump have on America?  Although he has just taken office and his concrete policy choices remain unclear, we can still make a few predictions on the basis of his campaign program and the positions he took on certain issues.
 
The first possible change is a major tax cut.  He has already said that he wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%.  This signals Trump’s decision to return America to prosperity, because he knows that American prosperity relies on private enterprise and on capitalism, and only after cutting taxes will companies be more dynamic, creating more wealth for the people.
 
The second possible change is that manufacturing will return to America.  In his inaugural address, Trump emphasized that he wanted Americans to “buy and sell American, and hire American workers.”  In supermarkets in today’s America, you can hardly find American-manufactured products, most of which are Mexican and Chinese (which are fewer now), Vietnamese, Bangladeshi.  With all of these products pouring into the United States, how can Americans not lose their jobs?
 
Trump says that we must bring manufacturing back to America.  So, how to attract them?  One reason these companies left America was, relatively speaking, American taxes were too high, and revenue collection very strict, along with other practices that were not favorable to business.  By contrast, the destination countries to which American firms relocated offered special conditions such as three-year tax exemptions for foreign firms, tax-free land allocations.  Trump’s policy of reducing taxes aims to reduce the pressure on enterprises so that they will return to America and make money.
 
At the same time, Trump once again highlighted the importance of the free market, and promises to reduce government intervention.  Government intervention has been a cancer on the market economy over the past century, and prior to the 19th century, the American government basically did not enter into economy activity. 

Now, however, you can see the government’s presence in all aspects of economic activity.  For example, if you want to open a hair salon, people who work there will need a permit, like a driver’s license, in the absence of which they can’t cut clients’ hair.  Although we know that America remains a model of capitalism, this kind of regulation of the economy is omnipresent when compared to the situation a century ago.  During Trump’s mandate he will work hard to reduce government intervention in economic life.
 
Nonetheless, this is difficult, and what he can accomplish in four or eight years is fairly limited, because there are already too many vested interests in the present system.  Why, in his inaugural address, did Trump say that power should go from Washington back into the  hands of the people?  Why is there so much interference in economic activity?  Because there are countless lobbying groups and bureaucratic interests that seek rents and other benefits from regulation. 

Rent-seeking behavior permeates economic life, and Trump, as a businessman, is completely aware of this.  He has been in business for a long time, and knows the areas in which government has gone too far, where there are too many hands in the till, where interference in economic life is excessive, where innovation has been dampened.  He will change these things. 
 
The third possible change is an important change in immigration policy.  Trump will continue to welcome legal migrants, but wants to limit illegal immigration.  There is no doubt about this.  America will remain one of the world’s most open countries, but will have policies that more strictly limit illegal immigration, including deportation for some illegal immigrants, not allowing them to remain in America consuming American welfare benefits.
 
The fourth possible change is to change or get rid of Obamacare.  On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order weakening Obamacare, which was seen as a first step toward an eventual elimination.  This is an extremely wise decision, since Obamacare requires a huge financial investment, and will tank the American economy.  Trump prefers to stress the individual’s responsibility for his health, as well as the use of commercial insurance to provide medical insurance to reduce the fiscal deficit.
 
The fifth possible change is that the Supreme Court will become conservative again, thus weakening the impact of “political correctness.”  On affirmative action, there are some things that Trump can do, but to a large degree, he must rely on the Supreme Court and the decisions of the Supreme Court justices.  We can predict that, moving forward, changes in the Supreme Court will include a return to conservatism. 

At present, Trump can name one Supreme Court justice, and if he serves eight years, he could perhaps name three or four.  This will rewrite the history of the American Supreme Court.  At present, the balance between conservatives and liberals on the Supreme Court is roughly four to four, so if Trump can name from one to four justices, we can imagine that future court decisions on gay marriage, affirmative action, and abortion will bring America back once again to its conservative tradition.
 
Many actions and decisions of the Obama era were unbearable.  Aside from the ruling on gay marriage, Obama also signed a “toilet order,” which allowed students in public schools to choose the toilet they would go to on the basis of their own gender identity.  In other words, even if you are a boy, if you think you are a girl, you can go to the girls’ toilet.  This is so frightening and absurd! 

If you can act on the basis of what you consider your gender identity to be, that means that you can change the gender that nature or God gave you.  If today you think you’re male, tomorrow you can think you’re female, and the day after that you’re male again, then all of society will sink into confusion, disorder, and fear.  Conservatives are very worried that this might happen, but Trump, with the help of the Supreme Court, may be able to make some headway.  
 
The sixth possible change is a renewed emphasis on the importance of Christian beliefs in America’s society and politics.  We have seen that many of Trump’s picks for his Cabinet, including the Secretary of Education, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, are all devout Christians.  There is no doubt that Trump will reverse the trend toward atheism.   The Secretary of Education is also a leading proponent of school choice, and I predict she will have an impact on public education.
 
Trump Wants to Return to the Traditional “American Spirit”
　　
One sentence can sum up these six possible changes:  Trump wants to see the return of the “American spirit,” and will emphasize once again the importance of the American tradition.
 
What is the American spirit?  To put it simply, it is capitalism and Christianity, or to put it another way, Ayn Rand and the Bible.  Who is Ayn Rand?  She was a Russian immigrant novelist and philosopher, and wrote novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  She created a school of philosophy called objectivist philosophy, and has been seen as the greatest defender and champion of American capitalism and free markets.  Her work has influenced countless American entrepreneurs.
 
The American spirit is the desire to arrive at a perfect blend of capitalism and Christianity.  To an important extent, Trump is a follower of Ayn Rand and a believer in and champion of capitalism, as well as someone with great respect for Christian beliefs.  On the one hand, the American spirit stresses that you must achieve success through your own efforts, and at the same time you must recognize the limits of your rationality, and recognize the importance of religious beliefs in purifying your own soul.  Bringing these together is the American spirit and the American tradition, and what Trump plans to do is to return to the American spirit.
 
Notes

 [1] 王建勋：特朗普要做的是回归“美国精神,” published online on Aisixiang, Jan. 25, 2017.