The Trump Barometer
Why it’s a Threat to Forward Progress and Why You Should Ditch Misplaced Political Nostalgia
In my estimation, only a relatively hardened, slightly bitter individual could have witnessed the inauguration of President Biden without some patriotic stirrings. With 400,000 dead from the plague and droves of people in crisis, not to mention the millions of Black Americans enduring still their second class treatment every day, one must forswear the illusion that with Biden, all is finally right with the world. But the knowledge that a decent man committed to positive action on most salient issues has stepped in to replace a narcissistic, white nationalist con-man is enough to comfort and, with the right touch of fanfare at what was perhaps a weak moment, excite this writer.
But the same cannot be said for much of what went on in the presidential interregnum, and I suspect that such tactics and rhetoric as were on display (and which I will forthwith enumerate) may be portentous of the immediate post-Trump era. These concern the increasingly apparent need to comfort Trump-weary Americans towards the end, a duty quite eagerly shouldered by certain segments of network TV, as well as the emergence of a kind of ‘Trump barometer’.
Two particularly prominent examples of the former appeared since the results of the election were confirmed in November, in what was certainly the most disgraceful stretch of Trump’s presidency. I began to notice, as it became impossible not to while watching MSNBC, the preponderance of sappy commercials glorifying the peaceful transition of power. These short features replayed old footage of presidential candidates offering concession speeches and touting the centrality of a tranquil changeover to the health of American democracy. Despite the inclusion of such charming figures as John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and George H.W. Bush in these displays, I did not become as moist as was so obviously intended.
I do not mean to intimate ant sort of underestimation concerning the importance of the peaceful transition of power, a uniquely American precedent which is integral to the country’s political functionality. And I additionally reserve no defense of the pseudo-President who flagrantly obstructed this keystone element of American politics and unleashed his baby-coup on the Capitol just two and a half weeks ago. I merely resent the manner in which some chose to pander to the electorate and evoke useless nostalgia in the wake of these occurrences. For decades, the enshrinement of the peaceful transition of power has enjoyed frontpage status all over Washington and the nation each time a new president takes office. Giving the impression of bafflement by the latest iteration of the country’s existence — which, while ‘fragile’ has also been quite predictably resilient — these masturbatory odes typically border on smug self-congratulation. For a few days every four to eight years, politicians find the nerve to remind everyone that in spite of it all, democracy once again prevailed, and that if this piece of it works, how bad could things really be? Veritable flaws and shortcomings are set aside for one more round of consensus-building and patriotic adulation.
Hence, while I largely respect the reporting of journalists like Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, their network chose this past month to take advantage of Trump-fatigue in order to pander to viewers. Though neither egregious nor shocking, one should take care to see through this kind of cheap appeal to simplistic patriotism for the benefit of ratings. If one is not careful, one can fall for the surreptitious conscription tactics peddled by big-money news networks and find oneself in the midst of a sanctimonious, hollow consensus that neither incisively nor honestly confronts the dangers of Trumpism. We should not need such dramatized reminders of the value of democratic institutions from our punditry nor from their large corporate employers, nor should we observe their overly-emotional appeals to patriotic outrage without at least a hint of skepticism. Honest individuals with integrity, collectivized en masse, can and do judge for themselves when things have gone awry and can act for the betterment and protection of the nation upon making such judgments.
A perhaps more formidable instance of this slightly seedy tendency is the Jimmy Carter documentary from CNN, “Rock’n’Roll President”. In its fawning glorification of the native Georgian, CNN teases a revival of the “nostalgia for Camelot”, this time for the man who chose to move the Democratic party further rightward than where Kennedy himself had stationed it. Though the emphasis is mainly on Carter’s geniality, along with his superb rapport with musicians in genres ranging from country to jazz, the doc does not entirely avoid the policy sphere. Therein one is reminded of Carter’s real ‘statesman-like’ attributes, presumably an extension of his ability to ‘get along with’ musicians and ‘bring people together’, most notably through a discussion of the Camp David agreements of 1978. It was on this front that Carter apparently displayed his hard-headed negotiation skills, as people like Madeleine Albright remind us; yet, no real evaluation of the deal’s fallout is offered. Is one to forget that, in the process of his master negotiations to get Israel to agree to a deal offered by the Egyptians in 1971, Carter guaranteed the country the aid it would subsequently use to invade Lebanon and Syria — as it had openly intended to do — and to fortify its illegal settlements? Is the viewer to set to one side, in similar fashion, Carter’s tacit approval of and support for Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 1980, or his decision to funnel American skyhawk missiles to Indonesia through Israel after Congress passed a human rights bill prohibiting the sale of American weapons to murderous regimes? (These weapons aided the authoritarian military dictatorship in Indonesia, installed with CIA support in 1965, in what eventually amounted to a genocide that killed nearly a quarter of the Indonesian people). Neither political scandal is featured in this bid to resuscitate Jimmy Carter’s limp presidential legacy.
What is the purpose of airing a documentary to glamorize one of the weakest presidents, by most judgments, in American history? Could it be as innocuous as it seems, a mere feel-good about a president whom rock stars loved? This type of thing is, of course, a reminder to Americans that decency once inhabited the White House, that leadership was once good-natured and sweet instead of petulant. And right beneath this tone of misplaced historical sentimentality is a slightly sinister element of consensus building. It is directly in CNN’s favor for the American public to believe that all the country needs is a gentle, smiling moderate, and that all the country must do is restore the pre-Trump standard of governance, because this is precisely the tepid style of politics it thrives on peddling. I admire Carter for his treatment of Black Americans and for his humanitarian work, but attempts to consolidate viewership by luring those who believe that restoring decency is enough to enact meaningful change reflect an imminent threat to the resumed evolution of the US. Those whose politics center around hatred of Trump — a quite appropriate sentiment, of course — must learn to see a bit further and demand a bit more from the leaders to come.
The danger of judging American politics by the (lack of) standards of the Trump administration is one which, having already emerged in some corners over the past four years, must be monitored and opposed if the nation is to recover from the orange blemish on its record. I began to detect the willingness of some to indulge this lazy tendency about midway through Trump’s presidency, as people lauded senators like Mitt Romney and John McCain and lamented the failure of a respectable Republican to secure the nomination in 2016. I personally am irritated by such comparisons, for though I respect McCain and would have either him or Romney as president over Trump without a second thought, I reserve plenty of distaste for their agendas. The utter malevolence and gross dereliction of duty within the Trump administration has had the perverse effect of debasing the ‘standards’ to which politicians are held, such that an affirmation of the most obvious and basic ethics conveyed platitudinously by someone like Mitt Romney gets widespread commendation. Unfortunately, such is the present state of affairs; ideally, one would have to try a little harder to win praise in politics.
In view of the changes affected in the Republican party by Trump, moreover, it is now timely to evaluate his impact on the notions of ‘unity’ and ‘bipartisanship’ which flow so tediously from the mouths of those who have just put Romney on a pedestal. Prior to 2016, these words carried different implications than they do today. (Really, given Republican obstructionism’s fierce emergence during the Obama years, one might shift the dividing line back to 2009 or so). Up to this point, one could somewhat plausibly assert that the two-party system reflected in reality a one party, two factions paradigm — “the business party” — in which bipartisanship’s supreme status in the eyes of the public worked to its benefit. Calls for unity, much like those for bipartisanship, were awarded automatic and ceremonious praises, much to the dilution of authentic debate and organic, dialectical progress. In today’s political climate, as has increasingly been the case over the course of the preceding decade, such appraisals have become less applicable due to the proclivity of the Republican party towards social and cultural flashpoint issues and Trump’s exploitation of this groundwork. There is now a much clearer and more distinct difference between the Democrats and Republicans, with an obscene, roguish element having come to define the latter in a manner more dangerous to the fabric of American society than anything in recent memory. Notwithstanding these realities, the previous critiques still hold some currency and should be paid attention. This is once again an issue of the Trump barometer, particularly for those who wish for the implementation of progressive policies. Calls for unity should be evaluated for their potential implications by the keen political observer: how much of this refers to compassion and respect for one another, and how much is really aimed at cementing a narrow policy consensus that leaves out the ‘divisive’ or ‘radical’? The same holds for appeals to bipartisanship: how much is of pragmatic necessity, and how much is a bid for moderation that will deliberately dilute the more left-wing elements of this or that proposal?
Allow me to clarify a few points so that my meaning is not mistaken. Donald Trump tapped into and unleashed some extremely cancerous elements into American society, most of which will endure for the next four years or longer. His deliberate attempts to sew division exploited the basest forms of racism, xenophobia, and credulity in an effort to pad his ego and line his pockets. For these reasons I affirm the need for this nation’s individuals to ‘come together’ however possible to restore the layer of civility and respect that may or may not have existed beforehand. But a simultaneous need for vigilance with respect to how this ‘healing process’ plays out is of equal urgency. The nation rests in a precarious political quandary, with its future up for grabs among a fanatical right-wing conspiracy theorizing element, a sea of moderates (of varying degrees of favorability), and a substantial group of progressives attempting to gain traction. Those who sympathize with the last of these must remain in lock-step with the Democrats in the effort to render Trumpism irrelevant, but must also seek moments to prod them leftward. It will be in these moments, wherein sentimental, love-minded messages of unity have faded and yielded to their centrist political manifestations, that the above-mentioned advice may prove relevant. Reprisals of ‘uncooperative’ or ‘divisive’ elements among the Democrats should be countered by reaffirmed progressive activism. Urgings in the media for moderate coalescence should be eyed with caution. Most of all, the trail of slime left by Trump must be cast aside rather than kept on as a low bar by which future administrations should be judged. Historical sentimentality and useless nostalgia hold scant value; sharp historical and political interpretation, espoused by those who understand when and how to invoke Trump and other past presidents, will be key to political evolution.
