USA: FUNCTIONALISM VS INTENTIONALISM 2.0
IF TRUMP WINS THE ELECTIONS, WILL HE TRULY BE FREE? WILL FOREIGN POLICY CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY OR WILL EVERYTHING REMAIN THE SAME?
"I desired the supreme power. I desired it so that I might put my own plans into effect, try my remedies, restore peace. I wanted it above all in order to become my full self before I died" said Hadrian in Yourcenar's famous novel. A humanly understandable desire to decide beyond the vainglorious and changing plans of others, a desire secretly cherished by many heads of state, but is it an achievable aspiration or rather an unattainable chimera? Can power truly be "absolute" (Lat. absolutus), "free" from any constraint and interference from outside?
Even though today functionalism and intentionalism are almost exclusively associated with the historiographical debate on the Holocaust, there is, in epistemology as well as in the methodology of historical research (often Marxist in nature), an important strand of studies that questions how much a phenomenon can be attributed solely to the will of a leader (Intentionalism) and how much to the Überbau, the ideological-cultural superstructure, or to the economic-financial structure (Functionalism). Assuming that Trump wins the elections, will he truly be able to impose his neo-isolationist vision? And how will he restrain a military-industrial complex that, to contain the Sino-Russian sphere of influence, contemplates only the war option?
THE WEIGHT OF MEGADONORS AND THE SHADOW OF STRAW DONORS
Politics is also business, and to sustain itself, it needs funds. Obviously, those who finance a party, especially if they do so massively, will have a say in any decision, including foreign policy. Regarding this aspect, Trump has assured that he is not blackmailable and can finance the electoral campaign independently. But his legal problems are evident to all. The (exorbitant) bail and legal expenses have affected - at least in part - the electoral budget. As a logical consequence, the donors of the Grand Old Party could become even more relevant than they were in the past.
Jeffrey Jass, of Susquehanna International Group, a private company specializing in trading, private equity, energy, and research, is the largest financier of Republicans. Between 2023 and 2024, he donated almost 60 million dollars (1). In addition to controlling half of Pennsylvania and being caught in the eye of the storm during the assault on Capitol Hill for having financed Senator Josh Hawley, who sided with the rioters (2), Jass is an important investor in ByteDance (the Chinese company behind TikTok). If Trump were to be elected, the stormy relations between the Biden administration and the Chinese ByteDance would almost certainly become a thing of the past. It would be limited to financial and symbolic rivalry, as was the case with Huawei and Xiaomi, but in a more nuanced way, a rivalry that does not go beyond dialectical confrontation. After all, the US embargo on Huawei was circumvented by Intel and Micron without great difficulty (3). It is now clear that the financial and industrial world can be controlled centrally only to a certain extent, and this also applies to the USA. Taft's "dollar diplomacy" is anachronistic, all the more so when dealing with China.
In second place, with 52 million dollars, there is Kenneth C. Griffin of Citadel LLC, a multinational hedge fund and financial services company. Griffin is a rather controversial figure, but about whom little is known for certain, except that many hate him and accuse him of fraud and latency arbitrage. He has done business with the Russians, through Yandex, and there is no shortage of people who believe he has hidden money for sanctioned Russian oligarchs. Apparently, his flights to Finland, in areas near the Russian border, have raised a flurry of hypotheses (4-5). However, what this man really thinks, and - above all - what he does or has done, is not allowed to be known. After all, rumors about his ties to Russian oligarchs may have been artfully circulated by the Democratic Party to weaken Trump. It remains a fact that in September 2023, Griffin met with Zelensky at the United Nations to discuss private funds and reconstruction (6). At the beginning of the war, he also argued that it was necessary to weaken Russia in the energy sector, favoring US liquefied gas (7). At other times, he criticized sanctions on Russians because they would have damaged the US technology sector; according to his analysis, Russians and Chinese would have rebounded in Africa, and the African continent would have fallen into the Chinese orbit (8).
A wavering weathervane? Hard to believe, more likely he is a rational individual with his own geopolitical vision, neither pro-Russian nor Russophobic, and who adjusts his position based on events, economic circumstances, and expectations. Moreover, even regarding China, he has expressed moderate views, emphasizing that it's in the USA's interest to "maintain a semblance of constructive tone" both with Taiwan and with the major Asian rival (9). Griffin has also acknowledged the considerable expertise of the Chinese in STEM subjects and their advantage in economies of scale. While his analysis includes terms or expressions hinting at rivalry and fear, overall, there's nothing offensive or warlike about it. His support for Israel, instead, is total and unshakable. He has even stopped funding Harvard since groups of students protested against the war in Gaza. His surname is not Jewish, but his grandmother's name was Huebsch Gratz (10), and Gratz is a surname that can be Ashkenazi. For many conspiracy theorists, this is enough to make him Jewish. However, whether he is Jewish, partially Jewish, or not at all, his support for Israel may stem from a strategic or emotional closeness to Jews, since many hedge fund magnates are Jewish, just think of Israel Englander of Millennium. Not to mention that his beliefs could also be independent and genuine, stemming from a greater cultural convergence with Jewish culture than with the Arab counterpart. In any case, this closeness could not change Trump's actions, as he has always been a friend of Israel.
Other Republican megadonors are the Uihlein spouses, founders of a shipping and packaging company. They stop at 43 million dollars. In this case, there may be a greater interest in identity issues rather than foreign policy. Now, during wars, those who manage packaging have excellent chances of enriching themselves through logistics and the supply chain (supplies, hygiene kits, etc.), but the civilian sector of "supply chains" is already managed by Amazon, Walmart, and Fastenal. The margins of maneuver could always change in favor of other donors, but previously made agreements cannot be changed, and if another company were to enter, the slice of the pie would decrease. Furthermore, although it is still early to assess the exact implications of the interruption of exports of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian timber, the paper industry is closely linked to conifer by-products. Also, the increase in energy costs has repercussions on the final cost of packaging. It seems that the Uihleins are more inclined to influence domestic and cultural policy. The wife has a more pragmatic view, but the husband has financed many extreme right-wing anti-establishment candidates (11). The 43 million dollars will most likely end up in speeches or proposed laws against LGBT, anti-woke, anti-immigration, and, in the event of a new pandemic, against mandatory vaccination.
In fourth place, with 30 million dollars, there is Timothy Mellon, a banker and owner of a transport holding company. The ultra-conservative billionaire, just like the Uihlein spouses, seems more interested in domestic affairs and topics dear to WASPs. In 2021, he funded a wall between Texas and Mexico and has repeatedly criticized the welfare state, blaming it for "making African Americans lazy" with benefits and vouchers, discouraging them from finding work and getting them used to a "new slavery," which would also have the demerit of penalizing "honest workers," who are numerically inferior and forced to pay taxes to finance this vicious circle (12).
Immediately after, with 25 million dollars, there is Robert Bigelow, apparently a quirky hotel magnate passionate about UFOs and parapsychology. In reality, his obsession with pseudoscience may have been exploited to advertise Bigelow Aerospace, a now-defunct company that was a pioneer in expandable modules for space stations. The marriage with NASA was a bit too crowded, with rivals Space X, Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Sierra Nevada Corporation much more iconic and powerful… In 2021, Bigelow also filed a lawsuit against NASA for an unpaid $1.05 million contract. But to this day, everything is silent. The Nevada District Court said it did not have jurisdiction over the matter and that "the case did not meet the requirements necessary to transfer it" (13). If Trump were to win the elections, Bigelow could have his revenge on NASA, his aerospace company could "resurrect," and other contracts would be possible. Bigelow initially supported Ron DeSantis, but when he realized he had no chance of winning, he dumped him, criticizing him for being too conservative. In recent months, the space-loving billionaire has openly praised Trump and even helped him with legal expenses (14).
How could this affect the tycoon's actions? Bigelow, as seen, is more interested in technology than politics. To an inexperienced eye, this man, who has also collaborated with Bob Lazar, may seem like a fanatic of Area 51 and Men in Black, a crank to be exploited but not to be taken too seriously, however, if you look more closely, you will notice that his Twitter profile contains very few tweets, limited to aerospace engineering, and in the rare interviews where he has touched on different topics, he has shown a clear aversion to uncompromising positions, both in domestic and foreign policy. Accustomed to collaborating with Russian aerospace companies, he has never criticized Putin. He has also argued that if Trump had been in power, there would have been no war in Gaza. Therefore, it is highly likely that he would advocate a decisive disengagement in Ukraine and a Middle East engagement more focused on diplomacy than offensive actions.
The last of the major donors, with 17 million dollars, is Paul Singer of Elliott Management Corporation, one of the largest American hedge funds, with a net worth of $6.1 billion. Singer is a pioneer in the sovereign debt-buying business on the brink of collapse and has been described as a vulture feasting on the corpses of finance (especially Argentine and Italian). He played a significant role in the dispute with Rome over the telecommunications company Telecom Italia. In addition, Singer has also been involved in the acquisition of AC Milan, UnipolSai, and in disputes with Ansaldo and the energy company Edison. As can be inferred from his surname, he has Jewish origins and is a staunch defender of Israel and Jewish culture worldwide. This would not change Trump's actions.
Other donors, with donations close to or less than 10 million dollars, should not be able to boast significant influence, in terms of bargaining power. An interesting detail concerns the $400,000 donated by Reid Garrett Hoffman of LinkedIn, a staunch Democrat. His company in recent years has become the digital megaphone of NATO, and the billionaire has donated $17 million to Biden's campaign. In the event of a Democratic debacle, his "paltry" donation to Trump could be a strategic offering to have useful and usable news or a pass to continue to convey with specific algorithms, at least for some time, interventionist news. This "cover" strategy, that is, donating money to both candidates in order not to overly antagonize the winner if you support the loser more, is certainly not new in the US political landscape and is perfectly legal.
What is illegal and ethically deplorable, however, is the influence of "straw donors". In federal elections in the United States, straw donation programs are illegal under 52 USC § 30122, which states: "No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person" (15). Obviously, the fact that Russian and Chinese interests may lurk behind some donations is possible, although statistically irrelevant and difficult to prove, also considering cryptocurrencies and cyber laundering. Statistically irrelevant because, in recent years, there has been an atmosphere of Red Scare among Democrats and Republicans, with old clichés and old paroxysms, with an anti-Chinese and anti-Russian hysteria that encourages rather aggressive investigations, also financial. Using the straw donation strategy is becoming increasingly difficult.
Between 2020 and 2022, an investigation showed that two associates of Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both of Soviet origin, conspired to channel $1 million from Andrei Muraviev, a Russian oligarch; this money would have been donated to US political campaigns and groups to curry favor with the former mayor of New York and other Republican politicians (16). The Chinese, who certainly do not lack acumen, have understood that it is much safer to invest in both parties. For example, Quin Hui, a billionaire who manages an investment holding company, has donated thousands of dollars to Republican and Democratic candidates in New York and Rhode Island (17). As can be seen, however, the amounts are never exorbitant; it seems that Russians and Chinese are testing US defenses, or, being aware that a large sum attracts attention, they are content to marginally change the political landscape. Even in the unfortunate event that they manage not to be discovered, they could not significantly change the decisions of a President of the United States of America; they could rely on a few men.
THE TRUMP ENIGMA: HYPOTHESES AND IMPLICATIONS ON A POSSIBLE COURSE OF ACTION
During his presidency, the Republican leader, as emphasized by his supporters, did not start any wars, and this remains - only a bloodthirsty madman would deny it - a commendable achievement. However, perhaps also to appease the military establishment, he repeatedly lashed out against Xi Jinping's China. We never reached the furious and repeated offenses of the Biden presidency, but the rivalry with the dragon was evident, especially during the Covid emergency.
The accusation of having produced the virus in a laboratory was an easy pretext to attack the Asian giant, challenging it regarding the race for vaccines and the consequent redistribution, particularly in the "middle lands", macro-areas and nations halfway between the NATO bloc and the Sino-Russian one, courted by both or not entirely subjugated, such as the Balkans, Israel, India, and Africa. Even before the pandemic, his attitude towards China always oscillated between the stick and the carrot, accusing it of violating human rights against the Uighurs but avoiding taking too hard positions to avoid jeopardizing trade agreements. This strategic line was confirmed by John Bolton, National Security Adviser, who, when he was fired, wanted to vent some frustration (18). Obviously, Trump denied it, but he eventually had to give in, imposing mild sanctions on senior Chinese officials. His honor as President in the eyes of the Asian rival was at stake. Moreover, it was necessary to silence the warmongering wing of the military-industrial complex. Even with North Korea, his position always oscillated between diplomatic-commercial openings (very promising) and firm stances. "My nuclear button is bigger than yours," referring to Kim Jong-un, was the peak of his uncompromising period, but - all in all - the tensions with the Chinese and the North Koreans were not comparable to the daily skirmishes and concrete winds of war of the Biden era. Even from a semantic point of view, Trump's threats were occasional, rational, and sparse, certainly not the linguistic baton we have been accustomed to by Stoltenberg and Biden. And this was particularly evident in the period before 2020.
Since time immemorial, but especially since photography became a tool of power, handshakes between the powerful have been exploited and ostentatiously displayed hypocritically to deceive the people and the enemy; they have become - neither more nor less - a veneer of civilization that conceals the real interests of death and dominance, and it would be foolish to believe in the fake promises of friendship and brotherhood that they convey. However, Trump's handshakes, whether he met Putin or Xi Jinping, were perceived, even by cynical intellectuals, as the emblem of a tortuous but possible peace. With his sharp, unyielding manners, he was uncompromising with those who deserved it, but also brutally honest, with that aura of security typical of someone who knows he can rely on a $4 billion fortune and is decidedly less manipulable than others; Trump didn't need to lie blatantly. For this reason, his gestural and paraverbal language was scrutinized and interpreted with great interest. If he shook hands, it meant that, deep down, peace was possible. If he threatened someone, even using hesitation pauses or not too-aggressive terms, it meant that someone had to be careful not to cross the red line. His was an unusual authority, perhaps unorthodox considering the homogeneity of today's politicians, but it worked, at least in foreign policy. And his were not trivial solutions, banal compromises; even when maintaining the status quo, they added pieces (commercial, military, or diplomatic), useful for a definitive resolution of the dispute. In short... many facts, a concise ritual, few words, and even fewer threats.
Of course, those accustomed to imperialist hubris hated him and his way of doing things. For his detractors, his Monroe-like isolationism would ultimately cause the end of American dominance in the world. There were even those who compared him to Calvin Coolidge. The President of the 1920s had fossilized on internal and identity politics at the expense of foreign policy, underestimating the emergence of totalitarianism and the European crises of those years, creating the conditions, in a sense, for Hitler's rise (19-20). Similarly, according to some, Trump's actions would have created a void in Europe that would have been filled by the Sino-Russians.
But no one can know with absolute certainty what his second term would have been like. And if, after Putin's attack, even Trump had bowed to the bellicose diktat of the Atlantic colossus? After all, precisely because his wavering policy oscillated between the stick and the carrot, there were latent elements that did not bode well for the Sino-Russians. Even during his presidency, NATO-led study courses were still being offered in Europe, discussing the "Responsibility to Protect" and studying cases of "hypothetical" states with alien ethnic minorities to "be helped even with troops", to prevent them from falling under foreign domination. Those who had the misfortune to attend those courses know very well how the fake analysts filled their mouths with the motto: "Si vis pacem, para bellum." Even people who didn't even know the first Latin declension suddenly flaunted this phrase on their social media, and you immediately understood where they were going with it. After all, the Overton window teaches us that the Zeitgeist does not arise out of nowhere, and that any idea can become socially acceptable with a suitable dose of propaganda. Whatever those who idolize him and depict him as a new Mahatma Gandhi may think, this dose of propaganda was already widely noticeable during his presidency.
What could his possible second term be like? Obviously, not even he knows. Beyond the programmatic lines, beyond what he desires from the depths of his heart, at least some of his actions could depend on the influence of financiers and how they decide to shape the institutional hierarchy. Today, only if we add up the mega-donors, we have $226 million. Last month this figure was lower by about $50 million. From now until the end of the year, it is logical to assume that we will rise to at least $300 million, and some things could change proportionally. Until a month ago, the Uihleins were in second place; now there's Griffin. Depending on who will rank first, second, and so on, the objectives of national and foreign policy could also change. Monitoring the trend of donations until the election date is crucial to realistically hypothesize possible implications.
One thing is certain, despite the Democrats exploiting Trump's phrase: "Hitler also did some good things," alluding to his sympathy for Nazism, the tycoon loves Jews and respects Israel. His daughter Ivanka has three Jewish children. The children often appeared with their grandfather, smiling and hand in hand. Furthermore, how can we forget the images of Trump at the Wailing Wall with a kippah? How can we forget his willingness to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the US embassy there? And finally, how can we forget Kushner's work and the Abraham Accords? If - as some whisper - Trump's German father, Fred, harbored a pronounced benevolence towards National Socialism, the son must deal with the awareness of having to protect his descendants from anti-Semitism. This awareness is worth more than a thousand speeches. His vision, all in all, seems to be moderate and rational. Although the ultimate goal remains the peaceful coexistence between the two peoples, he is aware that, to achieve this, it is necessary to normalize diplomatic relations between the Jewish state, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, to create a support base. Israel 2000 years ago was invaded by the Romans because it could not count on any allies in the Middle Eastern and African areas. Political and diplomatic isolation is a tragic leitmotif of the Jewish destiny. Undermining this marginalization, even through advantageous financial agreements, could limit the military, contractual, and symbolic power of Hamas and other extremist groups, bringing peace with the Palestinians closer. Jared Kushner was criticized for saying that Gaza could have great real estate value if only the Palestinians chose to invest money in education and tourism rather than in tunnels and weapons (21). However, this reflection, formulated by a man accustomed to real estate investments, has its undeniable truth. What remains mysterious is a plan for the two states. Kushner, especially in recent times, has shown himself to be against it, but Trump has always been open to it. Not talking about it could mean different things, not necessarily that one is against it. It could mean that it is considered a utopian project, difficult to implement in the immediate future, and that the creation of Palestine is only hypothetically considered in a later phase, not in the next 4 years. Or not talking about it could be to avoid being instrumentalized and losing potential voters. We'll see, fully aware that, although advocating de-escalation, the Republican leader - in extreme cases - would not fail to support Israel and the Jewish diaspora.
Regarding Ukraine, his hostility is well known. Part of this enmity dates back to the Hunter Biden-CrowdStrike affair and his attempt to use Zelensky to discredit the Democratic Party. Trump also often criticized aid to Ukraine, arguing that it should be loans; other times he lashed out against NATO members, saying that they should take on more of the aid burden, since Ukraine is in Europe. Even if recently, given the elections, he softened his pacifist positions, NATO and the military still do not trust him. This is demonstrated by the $1.5 billion loan from the World Bank and the $60 billion package from Biden, one of the last substantial gifts handed out by a state where social frictions and economic crises are increasingly worrying. But the elections are around the corner, ammunition will not last forever, and a solution to the Korean issue, with two states, is creeping more insistently. In case of victory, the tycoon will have to decide if he is really willing to risk ending up like Kennedy to defend his political vision. Reconciling the two opposing visions will be crucial again, for his life and for the fate of the world.
REFERENCES:
1- https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors, updated as of April 26, 2024
2- https://penncapital-star.com/commentary/who-is-jeffrey-yass-and-why-is-he-such-a-big-problem-for-pennsylvania-opinion/
3- https://www.ilpost.it/2019/06/26/aziende-statunitensi-affari-huawei-divieto-trump/
4- https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/tlvciv/is_citadel_securities_and_ken_c_griffin_hiding/
Imagine: Trump, Chris Buck, 2006
Comments
Post a Comment