| Many pundits and observers suggest that Trump’s election is not as bad as it seems. They find it soothing to believe that Trump is not an ideologue, has been a Democrat for most of his life, seems to be easily influenced by the last person who has spoken to him, and may not be committed to many of the positions he promoted during the campaign. They take solace in believing that Trump has apparently backed away from some of the extreme positions he promoted during the campaign like banning Muslim immigrants from the U.S. They attribute these apparent changes to his recognition that these positions either do not make sense or are not feasible. These pundits and observers do not recognize that Trump’s proposal to ban immigrants from 24 predominantly Muslim countries is functionally the same pitch. As we approach the inauguration on January 20, 2016, many of these pundits and observers seem to feel a need to express their willingness to “give Trump a chance.” They advocate supporting his policies when they are consistent with their positions, but reject his policies when they are inconsistent with their values, such as those for helping the disadvantaged or improving the infrastructure. They pundits seem to have forgotten or choose to ignore the policies he advocated over the course of his campaign, such as “locking up Hillary Clinton,” implementing stop and frisk, implementing torture and other war crimes, increasing deficits and thus tanking the economy, and inciting actions with Iran that could risk war. |
| Donald Trump has shown himself to be a crude and immensely ignorant man who is a racist, misogynist, and sexual predator. Nonetheless, he will be the most powerful man in the world. He will have more power than any U.S. president has ever had because of the expanded surveillance, imprisonment, and assassination powers granted to fight terrorism and because Republicans now control the House, the Senate, many Governorships and state legislatures, and soon the Supreme Court. What should those who do not believe a racist, misogynist, white supremacist, or sexual predator should be President do? In the past, one institution on which those seeking justice and a better country could depend was the Mainstream Media (MSM). Despite claims by Republicans that the MSM leans Democratic, it is largely corporatist now and appears intent on normalizing the Trump Presidency as it reports on the pageantry of the new administration. The MSM may suggest that they are following the example set by Barack Obama as he modeled his efforts at fostering a peaceful transition, but this is a dodge. Obama is doing is job in preserving the presidency, but the MSM has a different responsibility. Its job is to explore and analyze the actions, actors, and consequences during this meaningful and tumultuous time. Another institution on which we have relied for justice and progress has been the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats have said that they will work with Trump as long as his policies are compatible with Democratic and progressive goals (such as rebuilding infrastructure and protecting Medicare from the efforts of those who are determined to privatize or limit its benefits like Paul Ryan), but will fight him vigorously when he oppresses any group or undermines American values. This strategy to “give him a chance” by smiling upon his good actions and frowning on his bad actions is predicated on the notion that his good actions, like rebuilding the infrastructure, will be opposed by the GOP and thus, provide the Dems with the opportunity drive a wedge between Trump and the GOP. This strategy, however, is dangerous because it assumes that Senate Republicans will oppose Trump and allow a wedge be driven between them. If Republicans choose to go along with Trump, it will allow a white nationalist administration to be successful. Moreover, the anticipated benefits of Trump’s policies such as rebuilding the infrastructure, destroying ISIS, and maintaining the current structure of Medicare may have unanticipated consequences. For example, there is reason to fear that Trump’s plans for such things as rebuilding infrastructure may enrich the corporatists while tearing down the prevailing idea of a public commons for infrastructure ownership. In light of the GOP’s determined efforts during the 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations to widen the economic and social gap and to weaken governments’ role, those who voice their worry that an unrestrained Trump may ruin the country for generations to come should not be hushed. MSM and other Dems should be watchful about how Trump goes about implementing these plans. We can cherish the idea of a peaceful transfer of power without suspending the values and ideas that have shaped this country like the infrastructure commons. |