The Trump Era

I enter upon the Trump Era with nothing but fear and loathing. Literally, I do not know of an American public figure I would less like to have as my President. He is a bully, a narcissist, a brazen liar, rude, selfish, uninterested in facts. Anyone who gives his first speech to the CIA and tells them, “Look, I’m smart,” clearly isn’t. He won the Presidency by demeaning his opponents, all of whom were unfortunately, even fatally, flawed. He ran not on policies, but applause lines. Any hope that he would change once he won the election, or now that he has taken office, was promptly dashed.

It is easy to be against everything, to say everything should be better, when you are out of office. Now that Trump, and the Republican Party, are in control of the levers of government, they will have to be for something and do something. One hopes that the part of the electorate that voted for Trump will now take out their inevitable dissatisfaction on him. My big question is, what will cause people to change their minds – something so few people like to do. The second question is, who will stand up to Trump, for that is the only way to stop a bully.

The first test is the media. That is the first battle Trump has initiated, using his CIA address to extemporize that the media are “the most dishonest” people. The New York Times, at least, is taking up the challenge, headlining their front-page article on Trump’s speech with the word “falsehoods.” They seem to be proclaiming that every time Trump says something that is not true, they will identify it as such – with supporting evidence – rather than merely reporting the President’s words. I hope they keep it up. But will Fox News and Wall Street Journal, among others, stand by their fellow journalists or will they line up in Trump’s corner? Much of the country’s division derives from the availability of not just alternate, but opposite, news sources. (We learned this firsthand on vacation last week, when we dined with a seemingly intelligent couple from upstate New York who insisted that unemployment was up, not down; Hillary Clinton should be in jail; and climate change was not happening.)

My best hope for the Trump Presidency was that he would bask in all the glory he could attract and leave the governing to others. His Cabinet selections, however, provided little solace that the “others” would do much better. An interesting parlor game, or dinner party discussion, would be, which Cabinet choice is the worst, and why? Or even, rate them from “acceptable” to “disastrous.” Without careful study, I am most alarmed by Bruce Pruitt at the EPA, not because he is the dumbest (Rick Perry) or most malicious (Betsy DeVos), but because he can do the most lasting damage. Other than leading us into nuclear war, the worst result of the Trump years could be the slowing, or halting, of progress in fighting climate change. While I still believe that the planet, as we know it, is doomed and we lost our best chance to save it when Al Gore lost to George Bush in 2000, I am impressed with the positive steps that are being taken to mitigate the damage. Without federal help to incentivize new technology and discourage polluters, however, the odds just got greater. Damage the Trump years does to health care, education, housing, etc., can be bad – especially if you’re the one affected – but can all be reversed starting four years from now (if the Democrats regroup, a separate subject). But not the environment.

I don’t worry that Trump, coarse as he is, will alter the character of America. In fact, the need for resistance should strengthen enough people’s resolve that fairness, nondiscrimination, equal opportunity, consideration toward others may come out stronger. Maybe there will be improvements in the economy or business environment, just because with a President and Congress on the same side, nominally, things will get done. Investment in infrastructure, elimination of the carried-interest rule, tax code revision to prevent corporate inversions are among the sensible steps Trump has, at least, talked about.

Foreign affairs is a subject unto itself. As in so many areas, Trump’s comments are all over the lot, allowing critics to fear the worst, allies to hope for the best. My friend Whitbeck’s correspondents maintain, and I can’t argue, that Obama’s foreign policy was the weak spot in his record. From Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya it’s hard to see how American intervention has made the world safer or better. If Trump wants to keep the US out of overseas entanglements, we and “they” could very well be better off. At the same time, Trump has shown no sign of putting America “First” when it comes to matters involving Israel; nor has he indicated any willingness to reduce our excessive spending on the military, which you’d think and hope would be a consequence of reducing our role as the world’s policeman.

It is tempting to act like the fabled ostrich and ignore Trump for the next four years. He won’t change and reading about him will put me in bad humor. Protests, like yesterday’s Women’s March, are welcome, but what, really, can they accomplish? The Democrats can be as obdurate as the Republicans were and block a lot, ensuring us of four more years of daily political warfare. My best hope, and it is a slim one, is that the Republican Congress will weary of Trump and leverage some of his unprecedented conflicts to impeach him, in favor of Mike Pence, who may not be better on policy but at least is not a psycho.