The world is in shock, the headlines say, in reporting that Donald Trump has decisively won the US presidential election and defied the odds once more, this time in convincing fashion. 

As soon as the trend was clear, congratulatory messages from world leaders started coming in, in apparent relief that the result was unassailable and not with the “razor-thin” margin predicted, a result that would have been fraught with potential controversy and conflict. Whatever reservations they may have earlier expressed about a Trump victory evaporated, perhaps afraid of getting on the wrong side of a volatile and unpredictable “leader of the free world.”

Many have drawn parallels between Philippine elections and the latest US electoral exercise. In retrospect, it seemed like the Trump campaign had lifted from the Filipino politician’s playbook: trabaho (jobs, “stolen” by workers overseas or by those reviled immigrants), presyo (inflation), pabahay (housing, with many Americans struggling with high rent and high mortgages)—basically the motherhood economic concerns Filipinos hear every time we have an election. Thus, in 2022, Filipinos voted for the candidate who promised to bring down the price of rice to P20 per kilo, and now Americans voted for the candidate who promised to bring back the American dream of prosperity. Whether in a developed or developing country, the perceived state of the economy plays a big role in elections and determines political results. 

Another issue, this time preying on people’s fears and insecurity, is the promise of law and order. Thus, in 2016 Filipinos elected a president who early in his term vowed to kill three million drug addicts and to “clean up” the country in three to six months, just as now the Americans elected a person who said he would call out their military to help impose mass deportation, prevent civil unrest, and guard their border with Mexico.

The latest US presidential election also shows that allegiances are not permanent, and shift according to current events and perceptions. Thus, demographics and voting history be damned, which contributes to the confounding of polls and projections. Again, this is something Filipinos are good at, the game of political “turncoatism” and compromise. We are indeed like the bamboo, leaning to whatever direction the wind blows, believing that in politics, as in all else, there’s a time for everything: “Pana-panahon lang yan.”

It is strange that while we have personality-oriented politics, we do not care so much for the character of the personality we vote for. Whether a convicted felon, an avowed killer, a morally bankrupt person, a corrupt person, a drunken womanizer—or all of the above—we don’t really care as long as we think the person will respond to our needs and aspirations. Maybe because we are essentially that person we vote for and we can see ourselves doing exactly what the person does if we were in his shoes. It is only when we feel we are brought to near-ruin that we rebound and actually make a moral choice, as we did with Cory Aquino, a woman. The United States, despite its longer political history, still has to elect a woman president.

Another parallel is the role of messaging by the new media. It does not matter if the message is true or not; what matters is people believe it. When there is sufficient repetition of an agenda of prejudice and conspiracies, the liberal mindset is considered to be taking the country in the wrong direction, and despite an adherence to truth and the rule of law, these are set aside and voters would rather support those who pander to their prejudices and fears. With the new media so immediate, so available and accessible (in your cell phone), the traditional media (with their principles of fairness, fact-checking and proper attribution) are out-influenced and out-paced. 

Protectionism and isolationism are Trump’s feared policies, going against globalization and borderless travel and trade. Instead of American prosperity also benefiting immediate neighbors, Mexico’s and Canada’s economies are expected to take big hits if contemplated trade tariffs are enacted by the United States. Those countries, particularly China, that enjoy huge trade imbalances over the United States are the primary targets. Here the Philippines might actually benefit, as we are poised to take advantage should US business and trade make a full pivot to Southeast Asia.

As the United States “isolates,” in the rest of the world, regional blocs will carve out or fortify their economic spheres. All in all, these may further weaken American economic influence but only up to a point, for as long as the US dollar remains the world’s currency of choice. 

Much as the United States says it does not want to get involved in any more wars, will it stand quietly and watch its empire slip away?

Perhaps Trump has no sense of empire, no view of the world except as a place of business. Thus, friend and foe have much ground for apprehension. Maybe that explains the sense of relief coupled with the dark cloud of uncertainty the world now feels. What exactly will he do, and how successful will he be?

In a bad world riven by war, territorial ambition and discord, can a truly bad guy restore order?