A Collage of Reactions to Trump Win
...how did it happen? what does it mean? what do we do?
My last post included this excerpt, speaking about election Tuesday…
…as the night wore on depression set in, lasting well into Wednesday. By Thursday morning I was over the initial disappointment and reflecting on what had led us to this point. A point where more than half of the voters in this country lapped up the sewer sludge spewed by an insurrectionist and aspiring autocrat, and handed him the keys because they weren’t informed enough or smart enough to seek out and act on facts. Or maybe because that aspiring autocrat gave voice to their own hatred, ignorance, racism, and stupidity.
Then I pivoted to suggesting that we Take Time to Lick the Wounds and Breathe Deeply, to recharge so we could Buck Up and Move On.
In the subsequent days I have read and curated a number of reactions and reflections that I’d like to share with you. They fall into a few categories:
How did this happen, and what does it say about us?
Do they (Trump voters) know what comes next?
How can we stand our ground and fight back?
—————————————————————————————————
How did this happen, and what does it say about us?
Perhaps my favorite comment was in the form of a question posed by a reader to a panel of WAPO reporters…
How was the 2016 election free of voter fraud, the 2020 rife with voter fraud, and the 2024 election miraculously free of voter fraud?
It’s just so hard to figure out?
Of course, the few times MAGA figures have spoken to this, they credit all the work they have done on “election integrity” since 2020.1 It’s BS.
__________________________________________________________________________
From Peter Wehner, who worked the Reagan and G.H.W. Bush administrations and the George W. White House laments what it says about us…
“This election was a CAT scan on the American people, and as difficult as it is to say, as hard as it is to name, what it revealed, at least in part, is a frightening affinity for a man of borderless corruption. Donald Trump is no longer an aberration; he is normative.”
_______________________________________________________________________
One-time conservative Milwaukee talk show host Charlie Sykes, an early Never-Trumper, reflecting on the loss…and, again, what it says about us…
…it’s legitimate to ask questions about what failed. But it seems far more important to take a longer and deeper look at what “succeeded.” …the campaign embraced by a solid majority of American voters “was the most vicious campaign of lies, misogyny, racism, and xenophobia ever waged” (Susan Glasser in The New Yorker). This is what “worked.” This is what “won.” That seems like a bigger story than what failed. As Glasser noted, “It is a disastrous revelation about what the United States really is, as opposed to the country that so many hoped that it could be.” ___________________________________________________________________
Do they know what comes next?
The NY Times’s Jamelle Bouie asked in his weekly newsletter whether Trump voters — particularly those who are not well-off — realized what the fruits of their votes will be. He closes with: “I’m going to guess that they don’t know. But they’ll find out soon enough.”
On Tuesday, Donald Trump became the first Republican in 20 years to win the national popular vote and the Electoral College. The people — or at least, a bare majority of the voting people — spoke, and they said to “make America great again.”
What they bought, however, isn’t necessarily what they’ll get.
The voters who put Trump in the White House a second time expect lower prices — cheaper gas, cheaper groceries and cheaper homes. But nothing in the former president’s policy portfolio would deliver any of the above. His tariffs would probably raise prices of consumer goods, and his deportation plans would almost certainly raise the costs of food and housing construction. Taken together, the two policies could cause a recession, putting millions of Americans — millions of his voters — out of work.
And then there is the rest of the agenda. Do Trump voters know that they voted for a Food and Drug Administration that might try to restrict birth control and effectively ban abortion? [Or]…for a Justice Department that would effectively stop enforcement of civil and voting rights laws? [And]…a National Labor Relations Board that would side with employers or an Environmental Protection Agency that would turn a blind eye to pollution and environmental degradation?
Do they know they voted to gut or repeal the Affordable Care Act…for cuts to Medicaid, and possible cuts to Medicare and Social Security if Trump cuts taxes down to the bone?
Do they know that they voted for a Supreme Court that would side with the powerful at every opportunity against their needs and interests?
I’m going to guess that they don’t know. But they’ll find out soon enough.
_________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps the most provocative idea I read came from The Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last, who wrote a piece titled: A Modest Proposal: Let Trump be Trump — Democrats should not try to save America from itself.
This closing excerpt captures the theme.
…Democrats can no longer afford to spend political capital protecting anyone who can’t support them electorally, just because it’s nice or the right thing to do.
At the end of the day, that should be the precept that guides Democrats’ decisions about when and how to spend capital trying to obstruct Trump during the next two years.
If Trump is trying to break the rule of law, then yes, Democrats should attempt to stop him.
If Trump is taking an action that would hurt a Democratic voting group or a Democratic state, then yes, they should attempt to stop him.
But for everything else? Democrats should stand back and stand by. And then, when the fit hits the shan, they should demagogue the ever-living-crap out of Trump for any bad outcome that occurs, anywhere.
Make him own it. All of it.
The American people have chosen. They should not be insulated from the consequences of their choice.
How can we stand our ground and fight back?
The conservative thinker and one-time Republican staffer-turned Never-Trumper Bill Kristol wrote in The Bulwark about the need “to have the confidence not to give too much deference to the judgment of the majority,” i.e., don’t “surrender in advance.”
Orwell once said that in our time, “restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” So here’s an obvious fact: Even in a well-established and long-functioning democracy, even in the exceptional United States of America, even in the enlightened 21st century, the majority can be wrong.
This shouldn’t be a controversial or startling statement. It’s self-evidently true. But I will say that I’ve been struck, in the days since the election, by the degree to which we tend to shy away from it. I’ve been impressed—as so many finer thinkers have been before me—by not just the political but the psychological power that the majority wields in a democracy.
Once a popular verdict has been handed down, once the people have spoken, it’s surprisingly hard to say: Fine, that’s the popular verdict and of course we abide by it. But we aren’t going to pretend to agree with it. And, even as we’re going to seek to understand and explain it, that doesn’t mean we excuse it.
In a democracy, the people rule…And the majority decides…But we don’t therefore surrender to the majority our right, our duty, to make our own judgments about the wisdom of their decisions.
So,…as we brace ourselves to deal with many challenges to come, we do need to have the confidence not to give too much deference to the judgment of the majority. (Emphasis mine.)
[We can] say that it was foolish and short-sighted, and maybe worse, to judge that Joe Biden’s economy was so terrible that Donald Trump’s bigotry and demagoguery counted for nothing. [And that]…it was wrong to embrace…the deportation of millions of residents living here peacefully, or abandoning tens of millions of Ukrainians fighting for the survival of their nation and their liberty….respecting the decision of the people doesn’t mean surrendering one’s judgment to them.
______________________________________
Ben Raderstorf, at Protect Democracy, wrote that an aspiring autocrat counts on wearing us down, tiring us out — and the need to resist that:
Authoritarianism thrives on hopelessness, loneliness, and despair…Historically, when autocracy takes over, it does so by wearing people down, by convincing them through intimidation or exhaustion to retreat from public spaces. To obey in advance. If democracy dies in this country, that will be how it happens.
But that means we also know the antidote. Hold firm to our sense of agency. Embrace our communities, our connections, our networks. Find spaces for resilience and even joy. Make healthy, peaceful, and patriotic noise.
___________________________________
Recharge…then buckle up for the long haul.
Of course this did not stop Trump and his woeful lackeys like Mike Johnson from telegraphing their “suspicions” about a rigged election, with undocumented people being a primary scapegoat of this imaginary crime-to-be. A tactic engaged in to convince his base of MAGA-morons that a loss could only come via cheating by Democrats so as to make them easily mobilizable in the event of a loss.