|
 |
I’m not certain it’s possible to understand what happened in the 2024 election this close to it, beyond the undeniable outcome: Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. For two weeks now, people have been trying to assemble the pieces of how we got here, but it’s like the old proverb about blind men feeling different parts of an elephant. Depending on where you’re situated, you might feel a trunk, or a leg, or a patch of hide, but you don’t really get a sense of the whole thing.
Still, it’s hard not to want to try and understand. For one thing, that’s critical for the midterm election, which is painful to think about right now, but could become a very real way of setting limits on the damage Trump can do to democracy by installing a functioning legislative branch to check him—as the Founding Fathers intended. One good reason for trying to diagnose what went wrong is to see if it’s possible to reassemble and strengthen what so many people were convinced was a pro-democracy coalition assembled to defeat Trump. Putting it back together, more successfully, in time to save the country at the midterms, resulting in a Democratic-led House and Senate, would be a significant check and balance on a bloated executive branch.
 |
There are lots of attempts to explain the 2024 election. Many voters said something along the lines of, they were unhappy with the government and wanted to try something new. These voters were concerned about the economy (although even The Wall Street Journal conceded it was the strongest in the world), the price of gasoline, and other similar issues that amounted to little more than a permission structure for voting for Trump. It was all summed up for me a few days after the election, in a conversation with an acquaintance who said they’d voted for Harris, but at least “my portfolio is doing great this week.”
Voters who ignored the facts about the economy and used them as an excuse to vote for Trump weren’t people who wanted a change. They were people who, actually, didn’t want any change at all. They didn't like new policies advanced by the Biden-Harris administration, a more inclusive vision of America where traditionally marginalized people had equal opportunity. They didn’t want a new generation of leadership. They wanted the “old stability,” the patriarchy that has run the country for generations. In many ways, that's what’s at the heart of the conservative coalition. It's not a rejection of the established order; it's an embrace of it.
If that’s what Trump voters thought they were getting, they may be sorely disappointed. As I wrote, in a piece about Trump’s coming plans for mass deportation to be published later this week on Cafe.com, the Trump presidency isn’t a pick-your-adventure experience, where you can get some parts of Trump’s plan, but not all of it.
Steve Bannon, hosting his War Room podcast on November 15 said: “Donald Trump and his revolution is in charge now. And that revolution is going to make its way from Mar-a-Lago and from every part of the country, like Andrew Jackson, it's going to converge on the imperial capitol in late January. And yes, we're going to burn some of these institutions down to the ground. Because you know why? They need to be burned down to the ground. Metaphorically. As the process of creative destruction. The process of the structure of revolutions, the paradigm shift has impact.”
Trump delegate and New Jersey Republican Mike Crispi tweeted:
“Will RFK get confirmed? Will Gaetz get confirmed? The answer is YES… as long as Johnson and Thune hold true to their word to support the President’s agenda. Recess appointments solves all. It’s time to WIN!”
Recess appointments, to the extent they “solve[s] all,” do so at the expense of the Constitution, as we’ve been discussing this week. Appointing people to run cabinet level agencies who are opposed to the work or the people who do the work won’t help. Trump doesn’t want to do the hard work of governing, and he has expressed little interest in helping the American people—certainly not all of them, and especially not the ones who didn’t vote for him. He has no interest in remaking government, because he doesn’t understand it. Trump wants to protect himself, not the people.
Thinking a vote for Trump was a rejection of “elites” is part of the weak tea biography Trump sold to far too many Americans—the idea that he, the guy who started out on third base, hit and would continue hitting homes runs for them. Trump appeals to people who want to slide into home without having to run all the bases; that’s his ultimate appeal, the cheat who somehow manages to succeed, surrounded by his billionaire friends.
In her concession speech, Kamala Harris reminded us that “Sometimes the fight takes awhile. That doesn't mean we won't win. Don't ever give up, don't ever stop trying to make the world a better place.”
It was a battle cry disguised as a concession speech. Although it’s taken a while, I’m ready to get started.
Kamala Harris: The fight for our country is always worth it.
Joe Biden: Giving up is unforgivable
Is there a chance Trump has now consolidated all the power he needs to become an autocrat, a dictator? Absolutely. When people tell you who they are, believe them. But, might we still find ways to limit the damage, to make a midterm election and a democratic future possible? I’m counting on it.
I don’t know what that looks like yet. But what I want to say to you tonight is, don’t give up. Trump is not inevitable. Good people have found a way to defend democracy in other countries, and we will do it here too. Many of the people who thought they were voting for return-to-stability-Trump or I-will-fix-it-Trump are going to be in for a shock. People who voted their pocketbook without concern for their children, or at least their ability to find someone to clean their house, are going to be in for a rude awakening. We’ll get back on our game and be ready by the time Trump is sworn into office.
We’re in this together,
Joyce
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.