Hardly a month before the US presidential election -- which traditionally takes place on the first Tuesday of November -- a weekly magazine from the UK published a list of political developments to expect under a Trump administration. At that point, it didn’t take a seasoned political analyst to predict Trump’s victory; the question was more about the margin than the outcome.
The magazine predicted several major policy shifts: a realignment of the US position on Ukraine with a tilt toward Putin’s Russia, a tariff war, a hardline stance on deportation of undocumented -- and even some documented -- immigrants, and an embrace of outsourcing in criminal justice, among other measures. Many of these predictions materialized quickly after Trump took office.
However, what the magazine failed to anticipate was the Trump administration’s aggressive and sustained attack on education -- particularly higher education.
During the campaign, Trump’s criticisms of education focused mainly on eliminating what he perceived as “wokeness” and “left-wing indoctrination” in schools. According to a PBS report, Trump repeatedly stated that he would cut funding to “any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.” He also pledged to withhold funding from schools with vaccine or mask mandates.
Yet, the escalation against higher education -- especially elite universities -- was largely unforeseen. The Trump administration threatened to cut $400 million in research funding to pressure Columbia University into compliance. Columbia, with its $14 billion endowment, initially resisted but capitulated, as reported by the New York Times. Harvard University, with an even larger endowment of $50bn and a history dating back to 1636 (predating the founding of the United States in 1776), has also remained defiant despite similar threats. After freezing $2.2bn in funding to Harvard University, President Trump turned up the pressure and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. These attacks have been justified by the administration in the name of combating antisemitism on campuses, a rationale contested even by Jewish organizations.
While the broader implications for liberal education are significant, the focus here is on the nature -- and limitations -- of political prediction. No one saw the onslaught against some of the best universities in the world coming.
The difficulty of predicting political outcomes
It may be helpful, especially for younger readers, to look back at similar episodes in history.
During the administration of President Lyndon B Johnson, several officials foresaw the tragic consequences of escalating the war in Vietnam. One prominent voice was George Ball, the Under Secretary of State. In a memo to President Johnson dated July 1, 1965, Ball argued that the war was unwinnable. He warned that the US would become bogged down in a quagmire, facing an adversary with superior political resolve and mastery of guerrilla tactics. Victory, he argued, would come only at an unacceptable cost.
Despite Ball’s warnings, the administration favoured more hawkish advisors, such as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, who believed the war could be managed through technocratic strategies. Ball’s predictions, as history shows, were tragically accurate.
Fast forward to August 15, 2002: Another notable warning came from Brent Scowcroft, a retired general and former National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George HW Bush. In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal titled “Don’t Attack Saddam,” Scowcroft argued that invading Iraq would dangerously destabilize the Middle East. He foresaw a power vacuum and internal chaos in the absence of a post-war governance plan.
Scowcroft warned that such an invasion would divert vital attention and resources from the broader war on terror, especially operations in Afghanistan and the fight against al-Qaeda -- the immediate priorities after the 9/11 attacks. He also feared that a unilateral US action would alienate key allies and undermine the international coalition essential for long-term security.
Once again, these predictions proved chillingly prescient.
Political predictions are tricky -- they require insight into not only current trends but also human behaviour, institutional inertia, and, often, the blind spots of the very people making decisions. One of the important sociological contributions is the idea of unintended consequences, which was articulated by Max Weber, one of the founders of sociology, and later amplified by Robert Merton of Columbia University.
One would be advised to take unintended consequences seriously. One should also beware of linear thinking. Many of the politicians and policy-makers think in straight lines -- “more troops equals more success,” as in the case of the US policy-makers. Politics is non-linear; a small event can tip a large system (e,g Tet Offensive’s psychological effect). Do not be too reliant on experts; sometimes listen to outliers. Those who challenge consensus may be wrong -- or they may see what others miss.
Do not use historical analogies as the ultimate truth. Use them with caution. They are seductive but dangerous. Comparing Vietnam to appeasement in WWII led to flawed logic. Finally, ambiguity is not always a flaw.
The best predictions often include ranges, contingencies, or tipping points.
Habibul Haque Khondker is a sociologist and columnist.
