Voters in the United States have given former President Donald Trump a sweeping mandate for a second term. Many now seek to understand the widespread social anger about the economy and immigration driving the turn to the right. Voters gave Republicans control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. The apparent end of liberalism at the hands of rhetorical populism is no longer a hypothetical or a fringe idea. With a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, there are no checks and balances to reign in a revolutionary wave of legislative and deregulatory change. Such a dramatic turn strikes fear into many. The chances are that Trump may only have a free hand for about two years. This depends on the confirmation of his appointments and the expected losses at the 2026 mid-terms. That election will probably shrink or reverse his majorities in Congress. Trump has a limited window of time to swing the wrecking ball.

In the past, the United States has had conservative presidents like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Trump, while less disciplined and more reckless in style, has the potential to do a mix of great and not-so-great things, as every American president has always done. Trump’s intention of “Making America Great Again” is a great slogan. Reversing the decades-long and globally connected liberal economic order will cause great disruption from trade to employment. The shift away from supporting liberal social values concerns many identity camps. Critics focus on the negative possibilities. I do not support the right, but I hope for positive surprises. Here, I will suggest what the unexpected may bring us by looking back at the track records of previous administrations.

In political science, the phrase “Only Nixon could Go to China” (also known as the Nixon Paradox), is a theory that seeks to explain the unexpected and successful actions political leaders sometimes take once in office, at face value, appear to be the opposite of their party ideology. By taking the unexpected position, leaders neutralize internal resistance in their party to implement a policy they would never allow an opposition party to execute. These leaders neutralize resistance by conveying a sense of “this is best for the country” over hardline ideology. A classic example of this is when Nixon went to China in 1972.

Unlike some parts of Europe and other parts of the world, the United States does not have a strong left-wing political movement. Center-right and progressive Democrats function as a so-called left while implementing dominant neoliberal market-based solutions to social ills touched with some rebalancing efforts to soften the edges of capitalism to create “opportunity,” not equality. Conservatives and Republicans have spent decades name-calling the center-right Democrats communists and socialists as a type of rhetorical insult frame. Democrats are regularly and incorrectly painted as anti-American and soft on military and international confrontation by the right.

At the end of the Vietnam War, the Democrat President Linden Johnson could not go to communist China to build a new relationship. The conservative Republican right would never have let him get away with it without a firestorm of ridicule. However, in 1972, Republican President Richard Nixon went to China and neutralized his internal party resistance to a detente with the communist nation. The domestically perceived image of strength and non-capitulation silences the naysayers, who then can claim this is a great move for peace in the national interest. It wasn’t the former Iran scandal-plagued Democrat President Jimmy Carter who broke the ice with the Soviet Union, it was conservative Republican Ronald Reagan who brazenly told Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” in Berlin. Later, the two became partners in Cold War tension reduction.

Conservatism, US Republicans, and the UK Tories are well-known fans of deregulation and free markets. The freedom for businesses to do as they please without barriers and low taxation is a cornerstone of their pro-capitalist ideology. Republicans in the US want to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) to remove so-called government obstruction and meddling in business affairs. The right is a well-known bed of climate science denial as they promote continued fossil fuel extraction and deride international institutions like the United Nations. But hold on, there is a surprise….

In the 1960s-1970s, science discovered that human-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing a hole in the ozone layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. This allows dangerous ultraviolet light to penetrate to the ground level and raises the risk of skin cancer. The nation of the world organized. The effort to regulate CFCs through an international body moved forward with a partnership between conservatives Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was signed. To this day, it remains a prominent example of successful international cooperation and environmental regulation. If only Nixon could go to China, only Reagan and Thatcher could regulate CFCs.

So, what does this mean for a second term of Donald Trump as President of the United States? We should expect the unexpected. During his first term, the United States debated how to provide payment for care of health services during the early COVID pandemic. Democrats in Congress, like Nancy Pelosi, wanted to use the for-profit, market-based Affordable Care Act (ACA) framework. Trump said “no” and pushed through a direct billing reimbursement for service providers to a government system. This ironically looked more like a left-wing Medicare for All-like proposal (but only for COVID) from Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders. Since the ACA, Liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi refuse to entertain and implement anything resembling a universal public option health plan. Trump’s government direct billing experiment for health services was short-lived, but it illustrates that ideology is not always a barrier to doing something more efficiently when there is a crisis.

Trump plans to shock everyone with massive deportations of undocumented migrants. His past displays of cruel policy have acted as a deterrent and provided comparative cover to Democrats before and after Trump for their implementations of lesser-evil but authoritarian border policies under Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The magnitude of people Trump seeks to deport raises questions about the use of undocumented migrant labor in the US agriculture sector. Without migrant workers, agriculture business will face a labor shortage and then must raise wages to attract domestic labor. Economists say this will increase food prices and reduce food production in the United States. Trump has said the migrants must come in legally. Let’s remember Trump scuttled the bi-partisan immigration bill in 2024. Instead, Trump may have plans for an immigration bill of his own. Internal party resistance to migrant workers could flip. If only Nixon could go to China, can only Trump create a legal pathway for migrants as agricultural guest workers?

Trump loves fossil fuels and climate change denial. He gloats about it. But there is one thing he loves more: the US Military. One thing that could sway Trump on fossil fuel use and allow him to neutralize resistance to change from within his party and supporters is the US Military’s assessment of climate change. This assessment clearly states the security risks and national interest threats for the United States. Trump is a nationalist. There is no better way for him to “save America” than by telling everyone to listen to what the Military says about the human-induced climate catastrophe. Increasing global instability is a military concern. If only Nixon could go to China, then maybe only Trump could follow the CFC example of Reagan and Thatcher and lead Republicans to regulate carbon emissions. I know it sounds like a pipe dream, but hey, the US Military said climate change is real. Trump should listen to the troops he loves.

The point here is not to champion a history of right-wing conservatism or the present-day social system ball-wrecking by populists. Here, I use the “Only Nixon could go to China” political theory to explain some past unexpected policy shifts and to look for unexpected possibilities in a second Trump term as President of the United States. The theory can also apply to Democrats. After deriding President George W. Bush for misguided war adventures in the Middle East, liberals unexpectedly became normalized to the bombing of six nations, the drone killing of civilians, mass domestic surveillance, the immunity of US officials for torture prosecution, and more under President Barack Obama. Today, the former anti-war party does not hold the Joe Biden administration accountable for enabling atrocities in Gaza, antagonizing Russia, or raising tensions with China. Internal party resistance to policy is neutralized when their head guy does it. The next Trump administration won’t all be good, but it won’t all be bad, either. Instead of fearing the next Trump term, let’s look for the unexpected instead of the predictable and hope for the best. Eventually, it will all change again when each administration does its version of “Only Nixon could go to China.”