{{ subpage.title }}
Donald Trump's relevance to US politics doesn't disappear on Jan 20, 2021
Let's get into it. First, Harris writes, "There are abundant precedents suggesting that Trump does not have another important act in national politics." He points to Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace, and Ross Perot. And he argues that while cults of personality in American politics are quite common, they never live long, and Trump has offered no reason to suppose he will be an exception. Well, hold on a second.
The biggest difference between Trump and McCarthy, Wallace, and Perot is that Trump actually got elected president. He's got a very broad base of support, unending media presence, and the ability to fundraise at a massive scale. Ross Perot got 8 million votes when he ran as a third-party candidate against Bill Clinton and Republican challenger Bob Dole back in '96. Trump lost the 2020 election as the incumbent Republican president and he got more than 74 million votes as he keeps reminding us. Big, big difference there.
Next Harris argues, "No one can seriously believe that Trump cares more about the public's problems than his own and that is not a recipe for sustaining political power in contrast to his 2015 agenda, which addressed trade, immigration, globalization and perceptions of national decline."
That's not exactly breaking news to anyone who is a critic of Trump on both sides of the aisle, but clearly, it's not how Trump's supporters feel. Remember, if it wasn't for coronavirus, Trump wins this election. He still did better with Black and Hispanic voters than in 2016 and among people who thought the economy was the most important issue in the election. And Republican voters who stood by Trump are angry. Most of them believe the election was stolen and that's not a sentiment that can be waved away on inauguration day.
Harris also writes that, "Trump is essentially a one trick pony. He goes to extreme and he doubles down no matter what. That combination of flawed judgment and impoverished imagination hardly supports optimism about his ability to retain power after January 20th," he writes.
We say again, "Is that news?" Trump has been going to extremes and demonstrating flawed judgment for four years and yet he still has tens of millions of supporters and he will now have tons of free time and the largest megaphone in the Republican party to promote his message. It's a recipe to stay prominent.
Finally, Harris argues that, "Republicans who want to regain control of the party and become president themselves can simply transcend Trump. They can make Trump look irrelevant, an artifact of an era that has passed." Yeah, they've done such a great job of transcending him so far. Look, let's face it, the GOP right now has very little bench. There is no real era parent to claim that mantle and begin the road to 2024.
Rather than comparing Trump to McCarthy or Ross Perot, we should look a little deeper into American history at Andrew Jackson, the seventh US president. In a very divided 19th century America, Jackson embodied all the same anti elite and populous arguments as Trump and had a very similar band of aggressive and highly motivated supporters. Trump has expressed his admiration for Jackson several times in his presidency, he even put a portrait of Jackson right in the oval office. (I think that's probably coming down on the 21st of Jan.) Jackson, by the way, served two terms. They were consecutive, and that is certainly not happening this time. But it's way too soon to say that President Trump has no voice beyond January 20th.
That's your Red Pen this week and for this year. We'll see you again real soon in 2021.
America is still a democracy post-Trump, but is it a healthy one?
First, Posner writes, "While many Republican voters tell pollsters that the election was stolen, hardly any of them have taken to the streets or pursued tactics that one would expect from people who truly believe that democracy has been subverted. There has been no Hong Kong style uprising. Trump's attacks on American institutions are largely a form of political performance art."
Okay. For starters, it is obvious that the US democracy has withstood Trump's challenge of the election results, and refusal to concede. Heck, that's my whole, "Don't panic," shtick, but that's a low bar. Trump has also in the process, reshaped the Republican party and accelerated the deep partisanship that has nearly destroyed the possibility of compromise in Washington. You do actually need legislation to get done in a country. Further, Trump isn't going anywhere. I mean, we'll see how Twitter treats him in his days, post Pennsylvania Avenue, when we all know he's still going to be tweeting, and he's still going to be talking to his base.
Next, on the matter of civic discourse and participation throughout the election, Posner writes, "Despite the hardships and constraints of the worst health crisis in a century, people donated money to candidates, argued with each other online, organized on a massive scale, notwithstanding the conspiracy theorizing, polarization, and persistent sense of turmoil. These are signs of a healthy democracy."
May I remind you, Eric, that a majority of Trump voters don't think that Biden legitimately won, and the voting system was seriously stretched; hours long waits, mail-in ballot hiccups and the like. Look, America is surely a democracy, but saying that the American democracy is healthy? Most Americans don't think so, most foreigners too. That's a problem. I'd also point out that Trump's attacks on the legitimacy of the election have reinforced distrust in the system, particularly among his own 70 plus million supporters. That isn't the sign of a healthy democracy either.
Finally, Posner writes of Trump's hope of overturning the election results, "Perhaps," he says, "If enough voters took to the streets and enough officials calculated that a grateful Trump would award them with future Senate cures, these officials would have delivered for him, but that didn't happen."
