The political landscape, it is often said, is a battlefield of ideas, a contest of policies debated in the hallowed halls of democracy. Yet, in the age of Donald Trump, this battlefield has taken on a more primal, more punitive dimension. The rules of engagement have been rewritten. The art of political disagreement has been replaced by the science of personal retribution.

To thwart Mr. Trump is not merely to lose a debate; it is to court punishment, as India has recently discovered with 50 per cent tariff for buying Russian oil. Recently, The Economist wrote: “To thwart Donald Trump is to court punishment. A rival politician can expect an investigation, an aggravating network may face a lawsuit, a left-leaning university can bid farewell to its public grants, a scrupulous civil servant can count on a pink slip and an independent-minded foreign government, however determined an adversary or stalwart an ally, invites tariffs.

Advertisement

Perceived antagonists should also brace for a hail of insults, a lesson in public humiliation to potential transgressors” This is a stark message, and it is a pattern that has defined Trump’s political career, both as a candidate and as president. It is a modus operandi built on the simple, unyielding principle that perceived disloyalty must be met with a swift and decisive response. This is not the political rough-and-tumble we are accustomed to; it is a system of public humiliation and professional endangerment, a lesson in what happens when one crosses the man at the centre of the political universe. Let us begin with the rival politician. The script is well-known.

Advertisement

A critical comment, a challenging primary campaign, a vote against a key policy ~ any of these can trigger a chain reaction. The politician can expect an investigation, perhaps by a federal agency, perhaps by a........

© The Statesman