"Trump's Re-election and America's Political Transformation"

"Trump's Re-election and America's Political Transformation"

The Significance of Trump's Re-election

Today, I want to discuss how we should understand the "Trump phenomenon" now that Trump has been re-elected as president. The media in Japan and the US are largely critical, saying it's outrageous that a man like Trump has emerged again, and that Trump will wreak havoc on international politics. However, I believe there's a considerable historical inevitability to Trump's re-election.

Doubts Regarding the 2020 Presidential Election

To be more frank, we don't really know who won the presidential election four years ago in 2020. I'm not saying this because I'm a conspiracy theorist, but after Trump lost, 35% of Americans said in opinion polls that the election might have been rigged, and that Trump might have actually won. However, during Biden's four years in office, the number of people who believe the 2020 election was fraudulent has steadily increased, and in 2024, 40% of people now think that the election four years ago was strange and that there was fraud, believing that Trump might have actually won in 2020.

Doubts Regarding Mail-In Ballots

The biggest reason for this is how the mail-in ballots were counted. The Department of Justice and the FBI didn't investigate how many fake mail-in ballots were mixed in with the 80 million mail-in votes. So, without a proper investigation into how many of those 80 million votes were false or fabricated, Biden was declared the winner. At least 40% of Americans were dissatisfied and suspicious of this.

The Inevitability of Trump's Victory

Therefore, considering this, I think you can understand that Trump's victories (or near victories) in 2016, 2020, and now in 2024 are not merely accidental occurrences. Today, I will explain from three perspectives why Trump won, and why the Trump phenomenon is, in a sense, inevitable. These three perspectives are: First, Trump's policies of isolationism in foreign policy, tariffs, and reducing immigration are actually traditional and, in a way, legitimate policies when you look at America's 250-year political history.

The Historical Context of Trump's Policies

If you study American diplomatic and economic history over the past 250 years, you'll realize that what Trump is saying isn't really that outlandish or abnormal. Secondly, and this has become a major issue recently, is the limit of liberalism and democracy. Especially the limits of liberalism. There's a growing idea that liberal policies, where everyone is free to do what they like and that life will work out if you do what you want, and that society can be managed that way, aren't enough and that liberalism has inherent limits. No matter how liberal the policies are, whether in education, social welfare, or the economy, society cannot be properly managed by them.

The Rise of Post-Liberalism

This is called post-liberalism, the idea that comes after liberalism. Post-liberal forces are growing stronger within the Republican Party. I think there are many valid points in this post-liberalism discussion. From the perspective of the last 2400 years of human thought and scholarship, I wouldn't say that this post-liberal stance is entirely correct, but there are many valuable points. Therefore, I will explain the limits of liberalism and what post-liberalism is, as this also relates to the management of Japanese society, economy, and politics. This is also a major factor in Trump's re-election.

The Problems with Meritocracy and Academic Achievement

Thirdly, Trump's victory in this election has raised questions about America's meritocracy. Japan, the US, and Europe have all been managed by so-called meritocratic systems, but are people who get high scores on school paper tests really that talented? And can society, the economy, and politics be managed well by those who get high scores on school exams? Conversely, there's a growing argument that people with high academic qualifications often lack effectiveness and judgment. I strongly agree with this skepticism towards meritocracy, and I often agree with the criticism that people with high academic qualifications don't necessarily have sound judgment.

The Democratic Party and Meritocracy

The Democratic Party is blatantly meritocratic. Moreover, the vast majority (over 90%) of American university professors and graduate students support the Democratic Party. Therefore, the Democratic Party believes that it's only natural for people with high academic qualifications to lead the government and society. Conversely, Republican supporters tend to view people with high academic qualifications as suspicious and hypocritical. They believe that these people speak beautifully and pay lip service while acting selfishly and self-centeredly. They say that if we try to run society based solely on meritocracy, the divisions and conflicts among the people will only intensify. After Trump's victory, even some people on the Democratic side started saying this. Therefore, even from the perspective of the drawbacks of meritocracy, there was a historical reason why a ruffian like Trump was re-elected.

Trump's Isolationism and Its Background

These are the three points I plan to discuss today. First, Trump's isolationism, which means he doesn't want to have many alliances, doesn't want to be involved in the conflicts of allied countries, and doesn't want to engage in the use of force or military intervention overseas, or intervention in foreign politics. Ultimately, I think this is neutralism, but in the US, many people criticize this as isolationism rather than neutralism. The term "neutralism" doesn't have such a critical connotation. However, the American Democratic Party and so-called intellectuals in America tend to use the term "isolationist" in a negative way when referring to neutralism, which is not intervening in other countries' conflicts.

Misunderstandings and Criticisms of Isolationism

Trump is, of course, called an isolationist. However, is American isolationism really that bad? And are Trump's tariff policies and immigration policies really that bad? I question the criticism of these policies. My conclusion is that Trump's isolationism, his economic policy of imposing tariffs, and his policy of reducing immigration are quite normal policies when you look at America's past 250 years of history. And it's also natural that more than half of Americans support these policies. Therefore, I will explain that Trump is not such an abnormal or outrageous person, but rather he is simply implementing policies that more than half of Americans think are normal.

The Historical Background of Isolationism

American isolationism or neutralism began in 1793. The reason why neutralism/isolationism began in 1793 was that the French Revolution occurred in 1789, causing a great commotion in Europe. At that time, the US had an alliance with France. However, the US government entered into an alliance with France during the Bourbon Dynasty, and they didn't necessarily agree with the people who carried out the French Revolution when forming the alliance.

George Washington and Neutralism

George Washington was essentially a very cautious, sensible, and prudent man. Of course, he was a very brave soldier, but he didn't like doing flashy things. He didn't want to get involved in a commotion like the French Revolution, so in 1793, he issued the Neutrality Proclamation, declaring that the US would not be involved in the European revolutionary turmoil or the wars against France by Germany, Austria, Russia, and Britain.

The Long-Term Development of Isolationism

Surprisingly, from 1793 to 1941, for about 150 years, the US did not have any alliances. Of course, with the exception of a military intervention for about two years in World War I, siding with Britain and France, the US was a country that did not want to have any alliances for 150 years. This is often called neutralism in a positive way, or isolationism in a negative way. In any case, from the time of the first president, George Washington, the US pursued a foreign policy of neutralism/isolationism for about 150 years.

Support for Trump's Isolationism

Therefore, according to Trump and his supporters, military intervention for the sake of foreign allies, as was the case in the US after World War II, and engaging in wars in various places, is not the original and ideal form of America. Rather, the idea that the US should always adopt a neutral policy and avoid being involved in military conflicts with other countries, as it did from George Washington to the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, is the normal way of doing things. Or, rather, the idea that it is a very reasonable way of doing things was stronger.

The Origin and Development of Isolationism

Washington retired from the presidency in 1796, and when he retired, he gave George Washington's Farewell Address. In that final speech, he also said that we should not enter into alliances with other countries. No matter what reasons other countries have for starting various wars, we Americans should remain aloof and avoid getting involved. He said that judging which countries are good and which countries are bad, and intervening in other countries by lecturing them on what is right and wrong, is not the right or wise way to do things.

Continuation and Exceptions to Isolationism

This policy was followed by, for example, President Grant, who lived in the late 19th century. Around 1870, during the Franco-Prussian War (the war between France and Prussia, which is Germany), which led to the creation of the German Empire, he issued a Neutrality Proclamation stating that we did not want to get involved. And regarding the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt at the time declared that we would not take sides with either country, and that we were neutral.

The Impact and Significance of Isolationism

As you know, Roosevelt arranged the peace negotiations between Japan and Russia. Therefore, for 150 years from the first President George Washington, the principle was that the US was a country that did not want to engage in military intervention in other countries. The US intervened for about two years in World War I, but there was the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I, where the League of Nations was created. President Wilson created it and tried to create a collective defense system, but the American Congress refused to participate in the League of Nations, saying that we did not want to get involved and that getting involved in other countries' foreign policies and military conflicts was not a normal or legitimate way for America to act.

Re-evaluating Isolationism in the Modern Era

Therefore, from the perspective of neutralism/isolationism, which is not wanting to be involved in other countries' conflicts, and which has been a long-standing traditional foreign policy in the US, it is not that strange that Trump says he does not want to be involved in European conflicts or wars in the Middle East. It goes without saying that the Japanese government and Japanese commentators are reacting negatively to Trump's neutralism/isolationism because many Japanese people are convinced that Japan would be in trouble if the US did not protect it. In other words, even 80 years after the end of the war, the current Japanese people, both conservatives and leftists, have become a nation that cannot say that it is natural for a country to defend itself, or they don't even want to think about it.

The Need for Independent Defense

As you all know, I am an advocate of independent defense, and I believe that Japan should build an independent nuclear deterrent and defend itself using 0.4% of its GDP. To put it bluntly, I think this is a very natural and legitimate idea, but many Japanese leftists and conservative establishment figures believe that it is only natural for the US to protect Japan, that Japan would be in trouble if the US did not protect it, and that it is outrageous for Japan to defend itself independently. So, when I say that Japan should defend itself independently, many people get angry and say that it is outrageous. However, for someone like me who thinks that it is only natural to defend ourselves independently by building an independent nuclear deterrent, it is not at all surprising that Trump has brought up the traditional American ideas of neutralism and isolationism again. And if the US doesn't want to be involved in military conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, or East Asia, that is America's freedom.

American and Japanese Views on Defense

I think it is very natural that the majority of Americans do not want to be involved in foreign wars. I also think it is very natural for Japanese people to defend themselves independently. For Japanese leftists and conservative establishment figures who don't want to do such obvious things, Trump's neutralism/isolationism is inconvenient. But I myself think that what Trump is saying is quite common sense.

The Historical Background of Tariff Policies

When we move on to the issue of tariffs, the US had a very talented person in its early days named Hamilton, who became Secretary of the Treasury and said that we must impose tariffs to protect our own industries from the British economy. Since then, from the 19th century to 1945, imposing tariffs on imports from foreign countries was a very natural policy for Americans.

The Significance of Tariff Policies

For example, in the 19th century, the US government did not impose income tax on its citizens. I believe income tax began in the 20th century under President Wilson. In any case, in the 19th century, Americans believed that the government's tax revenue should be covered by tariffs, and that there was no need to impose income tax. Moreover, in the 19th century, Americans believed that it was only natural to protect their own industries through tariffs. Therefore, Trump's statement that he would impose tariffs to protect his own country is a traditional idea that dates back to Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton.

Tariff Policies and the Great Depression

Those who have studied world history know that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was created in 1930, and that the Great Depression worsened as a result, as it is written in history textbooks. Therefore, people say that imposing tariffs is outrageous, and that the world plunged into the Great Depression because of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. I myself do not think that this tariff act was beneficial to the American economy. However, I want to emphasize an important point: the reason why the Great Depression became so severe was not because the American tariff policy was wrong, but because the monetary policy was wrong. In other words, the stock market on Wall Street crashed in 1929, and because of the crash, the bubble burst, and various banks went bankrupt in a chain reaction. The American central bank left hundreds of banks across America to go bankrupt one after another.

The Failure of Monetary Policy and Lessons Learned

At that time, the central bank had the ability to print as much currency as it wanted, so if various banks were going bankrupt one after another, it should have injected new capital into those banks to stop the chain reaction of bankruptcies. This is a much more important point, and the Great Depression worsened because hundreds of banks went bankrupt. This has been researched by, for example, Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board at Princeton University.

The Relationship Between Tariff Policy and Monetary Policy

Therefore, I believe that the Great Depression of the 1930s was not caused by the US raising tariffs through its tariff policy, but by the American central bank making mistakes in its monetary and capital supply policies. And, by the way, the Japanese government also made a big mistake in its monetary policy in the 1930s, which greatly worsened the economy. Surprisingly, when the bubble burst in Japan in 1992 or 1993, the Bank of Japan and the Ministry of Finance repeated the same mistake. At that time, various banks accumulated bad debts. The bubble burst and loans went sour, and the Bank of Japan and the Ministry of Finance incredibly penalized the banks that created the bubble, driving them in a direction that worsened their financial situation.

The Importance of Monetary Policy

As a result, banks naturally cannot lend money to other companies, so the economy continues to move in a deflationary direction. So, not only in the pre-war 1930s, but also in the 1990s, Japan repeated the same mistake. Of course, this is not entirely the fault of the tariff policy, it has nothing to do with it. In other words, when a central bank or private bank is about to collapse, it is necessary to inject capital to save it. The Bank of Japan and the Ministry of Finance had not learned that lesson even in the 1990s.

Re-evaluating Tariff Policies

So, the reason why things turned out that way was not because of a mistake in tariff policy. Trump is not saying that he wants to implement tariff policies because he has compared and considered which is more important, monetary policy or tariff policy. Rather, the Clinton administration began policies of neoliberalism and globalism in 1993. These neoliberal and globalist policies overwhelmingly concentrate profits on shareholders.

Economic Policies and Income Inequality

Specifically, in the 1980s, 20% to 25% of the increase in national income was captured by the top 1% of the population. However, after the Clinton administration, the top 1% began to capture 45% of the increase in national income. Under the following Bush administration, that number increased to 65%, and under the Obama administration, an incredible 95% of the annual increase in national income was captured by the top 1%.

Trump's Intention Behind Tariff Policies

The result of doing that is that the real standard of living of 60% to 70% of the population becomes increasingly difficult. This has been the case from the Clinton administration to the Biden administration. No matter how much GDP grows, and no matter how much the overall profitability of companies increases, 90% or 95% of that increase in profits is captured by the top 1% every year. Nominally, it seems that average income is increasing, at least according to the numbers from the US over the past 30 years. Even though average nominal income appears to be increasing, the increase rate of housing costs, medical expenses, and education expenses in the US, which are very large expenses, is much higher than the annual inflation rate. Therefore, the real standard of living of at least 60% of the population, according to economists, 70% of the population, has been declining for the past 32 years.

The Effects of Tariff Policies

The quickest way to solve this problem is actually through tariffs. Trump noticed this and started saying that we should impose tariffs on imports from other countries. Yesterday, I believe, Trump said that he would impose a 25% tariff on goods exported from Mexico and Canada to the US. What he intends to do by this is that American companies, as well as Japanese and European companies, will be subject to a 25% tariff if they build production facilities in Mexico or Canada and export from there, so it would be better to invest in production facilities in the US. This will increase investment within the US. This will, of course, increase jobs.

Short-Term Benefits of Tariff Policies

This is the quickest way for Trump to increase the jobs and income of American workers. Of course, the logic that doing this all over the world will ultimately benefit no one in the world is correct, but Trump doesn't care about that. He is saying that, as long as he is president, he wants to increase investment in America and increase American jobs, so he is saying such things based on that motivation. This is also a practical way to achieve results, at least if we are only concerned about the next four years.

Tariff Policies Towards China

As you know, Trump is saying that he will impose a 60% tariff on exports from China to the US. The person he has newly appointed as Secretary of the Treasury has said that he will not impose the 60% tariff all at once, but will gradually increase it from around 10% to 60%. This is also unpopular with the media, but I don't think it is such a wrong policy. The reason for this is that China is currently the country with the highest rate of increase in military spending in the world. China already surpasses the US in terms of the number of missiles, aircraft, and warships produced each year. Therefore, if things continue as they are, it is predicted that China will become the country with the world's largest navy and the world's largest air force in 10 or 15 years.

Decoupling the US and Chinese Economies

It is only natural to put a stop to such a country, and the quickest way to hinder or stop China's further economic growth is to decouple the US and Chinese economies. If the US imposes a 60% tariff on China, it will also become more difficult for Japan to do business with China. Therefore, Japan and European countries will inevitably have to gradually move in the direction of decoupling from China, and considering how much China's military power will increase and be strengthened over the next 10 to 15 years, imposing a 60% tariff on exports from China at this point is not such a bad or wrong policy from an international political perspective.

Evaluating Trump's Tariff Policies

Therefore, although the Japanese and American media criticize Trump's tariff policies as outrageous, they are not so foolish. Even with regard to immigration restrictions, it is not only the white working class in America, but also many Hispanic and Latino people, Hispanic workers, and black workers who believe that immigration should be restricted. Therefore, although labor union members traditionally vote for the Democratic Party, many labor union members voted for Trump in this election. They believe that their wages will fall if millions of immigrants enter the country every year, and that this is enough. The American working class has seen its real standard of living decline over the past 30 years, so they want to stop doing things that will make their lives even more difficult.

Supporters of Immigration Policies

Therefore, even labor union members who are supposed to support the Democratic Party actually support Trump's immigration restriction policies. Trump's isolationism in foreign policy, his tariff policies, and his desire to restrict immigration are not such big mistakes. There is a certain logic to them, and I don't think they will be a disadvantage to the interests of the United States.

The Limits of Liberalism

Next, I will discuss the limits of liberalism. In Japan, the US, and Europe, liberalism is generally considered to be a good idea, and Trump is considered to be outrageous because he opposes liberalism. However, there have actually been various discussions about how correct liberalism itself is for 2500 years, and in Greek philosophy, Buddhism, and Christianity, there has been some doubt about liberalism for 2000 to 2500 years. Therefore, it cannot necessarily be said that liberalism is all-powerful and that those who oppose liberalism are morally wrong.

The History and Development of Liberalism

Originally, from a political and ideological perspective regarding the history of liberalism, liberalism was of course not the mainstream of thought in ancient and medieval times. It took about 300 years for liberalism to become the mainstream and for the idea that liberalism is a wonderful thing and that all human beings should enjoy the maximum amount of freedom to take hold in stages.

Liberalism Starting with Machiavelli

The first person to help people's thinking move in the direction of liberalism was Machiavelli. Machiavelli criticized Christianity and Greek philosophical thought, and advocated that it is a good way to act to increase one's own interests in a Machiavellian way. Then, Francis Bacon appeared in England. He also disliked Christianity and the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and advocated that it is a good way to increase one's own visible benefits from empirical experience. Bacon's secretary and subordinate was the famous Hobbes, who said that the atomic state of human beings is a struggle of all against all. Therefore, unless the king somehow suppresses the struggle of all against all, human beings are people who will do outrageous things.

The Development of Liberalism

In other words, Hobbes said that it is better for human beings to suppress the state of the struggle of all against all through a contract with the king. Hobbes himself was also critical of Christianity and Greek philosophy. Then came four Englishmen: John Locke, Adam Smith, the famous utilitarian Bentham, and J.S. Mill. These four people are the ones who truly established British liberalism. When it comes to liberalism in Japan and the US, these four names always come up: Locke, Smith, Bentham, and Mill. These four people determined Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-American liberalism.

Social Contract Theory and Liberalism

Of course, they are all about the social contract theory. Locke blatantly says that the state exists to increase everyone's self-interest, their property. Therefore, the reason why the state has laws, courts, and police is because it is convenient to increase the property of each individual, so they create such a liberal state. In Locke's case, as well as Bentham's and Mill's, they supported liberalism because it was convenient for making money. Rousseau is a little different. Rousseau said that the natural state was the opposite of Hobbes's state, where humans could all live peacefully, but that governments, politics, and traditional culture have destroyed the original wonderful natural state of humans. So, he said to liberate humans, and this became a major driving force of the French Revolution, and it also became a root of liberalism.

Criticism of Liberalism

The reason why Trump is critical of liberalism is not necessarily because he opposes the liberalism of Machiavelli, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Bentham, Mill, and Rousseau that I just mentioned. Rather, he opposes liberalism because the very arrogant people in the Democratic Party in the US who speak liberal theories, the people who look down on others and think of themselves as intellectuals, are always lecturing people like Trump. However, there are people who have come to oppose liberalism from a more serious, or rather, a very serious standpoint. The representative of those people is J.D. Vance, who will become Vice President next year.

The Representative of Post-Liberalism

J.D. Vance says of himself that he is a post-liberal, and that his position is to criticize liberalism from a position that goes beyond liberalism. I would like to introduce two books that have had a major influence on him. One is Why Liberalism Failed, by Patrick Deneen. This means Why Liberalism Failed. Another book by Patrick Deneen is Regime Change, Toward a Post-Liberal Future. It discusses post-liberalism and moving toward a post-liberal world and a post-liberal society.

The Discussion of Post-Liberalism

I have read both of these books, but I think the first book, Why Liberalism Failed, is better. Vance's arguments are based on Deneen's arguments. Deneen is a political science professor at the Catholic University of Notre Dame, and he is a very serious person who is making a discussion that has deep meaning. From a Catholic standpoint, he argues that it is philosophically and theologically wrong to let everything be free and to have everyone, to use the American terms, self-realization, high self-esteem, and strong self-assertiveness, and to think that society and civilization exist to push through one's own interests and preferences.

Another Post-Liberalist

Another person is Adrian Vermeule at Harvard Law School, who has published a book called Common Good Constitutionalism, which is about constitutionalism for the purpose of pursuing the common good. Both Deneen and Vermeule say that it is terrible to just let things be free and let people do what they like, that if more and more people act to maximize their self-fulfillment, self-realization, self-esteem, and self-assertiveness, the world will be a better place, and that the more people there are who maximize their own interests and preferences, the more liberal and wonderful society will be. They criticize this idea from the standpoint that it is terrible, that it will destroy the country, society, and even the family system.

Vice President Vance's Position

Vice President Vance almost entirely agrees with these conservative positions that criticize liberalism as a political ideology and philosophy. Regarding J.D. Vance, I have been observing American politics in Washington for several years, and it is very rare to find someone who has studied the flaws of liberalism to the level of political philosophy and can explain it clearly in their own words. There are many so-called talented people. The Clintons, for example, graduated from Yale Law School, so they must be talented. Mitt Romney, who became the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, graduated from Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School, so he is certainly talented. But, just because someone is talented does not mean that they have deep thinking abilities.

Criticism of Meritocracy

I will talk about this in the next section on the criticism of meritocracy, but there are about 10 or 15 US Senators who are said to be talented, but just because they are said to be talented does not mean that they have an intellectual desire for inquiry. The best example of this is the current President of France, Macron. He is said to be the most talented person, but he has no real thinking power at all. So, no matter how good someone's grades are in school, and no matter how well they can engage in elite discussions in front of people, all of their so-called elite discussions are just repetitions of memorized model answers, and they have not reached those conclusions by thinking for themselves. That is why Macron's opinions change completely depending on his own convenience.

What is True Thinking Ability?

So, having great grades in school is completely different from having deep thinking ability. Getting back to Vance, Vance is the type of person who thinks for himself, explains things in his own words, and advances the discussion, not the type of person who says that this is the most easily accepted model answer in the current world, so I am working hard to imitate and speak the model answer. Vance agrees with Deneen and Vermeule that I mentioned earlier, and he criticizes liberalism...

Vance's Criticism of Liberalism (Continued)

Vance agrees with Deneen and Vermeule, whom I mentioned earlier, and he criticizes liberalism. I think this is a very important point, because the Republican Party has been taken over by post-liberal forces. Therefore, these three perspectives—Trump's isolationism in foreign policy and trade policy of imposing tariffs, which are actually traditional policies, and that they are very popular among more than half of Americans, plus the limits of liberalism, and then a critique of meritocracy—are the reasons why Trump won.

Problems with the "Elites"

Therefore, I think that there is a historical inevitability that someone like Trump will emerge. So, rather than criticizing Trump as an abnormal and outrageous person, it is more important to analyze why someone like Trump has been elected, and that's why I talked about these things today. Another thing that I strongly feel is that both America and Japan are in big trouble because of the so-called elites.

The Corruption of the Elites

In America, the elites are people who went to Harvard and Yale, while in Japan, the elites are graduates of the University of Tokyo. These elites are very selfish and only think about their own interests. No matter what country you look at in the world, in the 21st century, the so-called elites have become deeply corrupt, and they are no longer of any use.

The Difference Between Pre-War and Post-War Elites

In the pre-war era, there were some people who were true elites. They thought a lot about the country and had a strong sense of responsibility. But these days, the so-called elites are just terrible. To put it bluntly, they are just useless. Therefore, the fact that Trump, who is not an elite, defeated the elite Hillary Clinton in 2016 was a very epoch-making event. This is not just the case in America, but also in Japan.

Meritocracy and the University of Tokyo

In particular, in Japan, people who come from the University of Tokyo are very arrogant, and they think that they are great just because they graduated from the University of Tokyo. But that is not the case at all. I think that there are only a few people at the University of Tokyo who can think properly. I have met many people who graduated from the University of Tokyo, but many of them are just repeating what other people say. They don't have any original ideas.

The Problem of Standardized Thinking

These people who graduated from the University of Tokyo are just very good at memorizing and repeating what they have memorized. They don't think for themselves. They are just repeating what they have been taught. Therefore, they can't deal with anything that is not in their textbook. The University of Tokyo is just a place where people are trained to be good at memorizing and repeating things.

The Decline of Japan

In Japan, the people who graduated from the University of Tokyo are in charge of politics and the economy. That's why Japan is in decline. Because they can't think for themselves, they can't make good decisions. They are just repeating what they have been taught by the Americans. The Japanese elites are just puppets of the Americans.

The Need for a New Type of Leader

Therefore, Japan needs a new type of leader who can think for themselves and make good decisions. Japan needs a leader who is not afraid to challenge the status quo. Japan needs a leader who is not afraid to stand up to the Americans. Japan needs a leader like Trump.

The Appeal of Trump

Trump is not an elite, but he is a very smart person. He can see through the lies of the elites. He can see that the elites are just trying to protect their own interests. That's why Trump is so popular with the American people. The American people are tired of the elites, and they want a leader who will fight for them.

Overcoming Meritocracy

I believe that this criticism of meritocracy is very important, because a society that is based on meritocracy is not a fair society. In a meritocratic society, only the people who are good at taking tests can succeed. But there are many other types of talent. There are people who are good at art, music, and sports. There are people who are good at business. There are people who are good at helping others. All of these people are valuable to society, but they are not valued in a meritocratic society.

The Value of Diverse Skills

Therefore, Japan needs to create a society that values all types of talent. Japan needs to create a society where everyone has the opportunity to succeed, regardless of their academic background. Japan needs to create a society where people are valued for their skills and abilities, not for their test scores.

The Need for Reform

In order to create this type of society, Japan needs to reform its education system. Japan needs to create an education system that values creativity and critical thinking. Japan needs to create an education system that teaches people how to think for themselves. Japan needs to create an education system that is not just about memorizing and repeating information.

The Role of Education

I believe that education is very important, but it is not the only thing that is important. There are many other things that are important, such as character, integrity, and compassion. These qualities are not taught in schools, but they are essential for success in life.

A Call for Change

Therefore, Japan needs to create a society that values these qualities. Japan needs to create a society where people are judged by their character, not by their test scores. Japan needs to create a society where everyone has the opportunity to live a fulfilling life. That's all I have to say for today.