The polarisation is so deep in US society that I rarely meet anybody who might consider voting for Trump in 2020. True, one doesn’t brooch the subject of politics in polite society, so I might miss a few lurking MAGA’s hiding in plain sight. But I don’t think there are all that many. This is one of many factors that entrench that same polarisation, because we are not exposed to the other view even if we try to find it. Liberal periodicals are full of articles of brave journalists venturing to middle America earnestly trying to find out what (beyond lazy assumptions about racism) might fuel the other team: few resulting pieces read convincingly to me. I fear the other side don’t even look very hard, because they see liberal bias in everything they despise about establishment culture, and use that as fuel to become yet more stubborn.
I fully acknowledge that I am guilty of my own prejudice in the way I framed that last paragraph. My team are right, yet earnest and accommodating, while the other team just have their heads buried in the sand. They no doubt think the same of me. Such is our predicament.
Still, I tried an experiment of working out how I might use precious moments with someone who might actually be a possible Trump voter but might listen to me. These people might exist; actually I think I know one of them. My theory is that if meet Trumpers we tend to waste our opportunity, because we immediately display disrespect for them and lose our ability to articulate, such is our overwhelming disgust at the litany of the man’s sins. So out spews an incoherent mess that could be summarised as “it’s obvious, you cretin”. Strangely enough, that probably does not help to swing this poor waverer into my column.
So here is the elevator speech. I think there are three strikes. Take them together and the man should be voted out without any balancing consideration.
The first strike is the climate emergency. Isn’t it obvious by now that this is a slow moving wreck for humanity? OK, so the science is confusing and has a wide range of error, and environmental activists can be a bit of a pain in the butt with their cries for us to return to caves and subsistence living (all the time enjoying their comfortably central heated first world lives made possible by fossil fuels). True, if my Michigan factory has just been taken over by some Chinese who have laid most folk off and removed benefits from everybody else, I might have more pressing concerns. True, every politician equivocates and accepts messy compromises and lies and poses and generally fails when it comes to climate leadership.
But Trump is in a category of his own. He is actively stoking the crisis, and doing it brazenly just to spite his elitist enemies. Withdrawing from Paris may have been largely symbolic, but, wow, what a symbol. It might have been just about tenable as a negotiating ploy, if followed up by any sort of negotiation to amend the deal. Instead, we have climate erased from the website, non-participation in any discussion of the subject, and subsidies for coal, condemning his own supporters to early deaths and everybody else’s kids to a constrained life and possibly worse.
We are all a little bit guilty here. Intelligent people still refer to the climate crisis as an afterthought or as one item halfway down a list, rather than the emergency it is becoming. If I had a vote this week in the UK, I would vote green, unless I could be persuaded that my vote might tactically swing a marginal race. Isn’t it time that more of us took this line? But even if we don’t go that far yet, we can’t in all consciousness accept a leader who actively feeds that crisis. Surely that is the big picture in 2020, and any stuff about stock markets and China and abortion shouldn’t obscure that big picture? Strike one.
Strike two is the mess that is US foreign policy. All of the risks to Americans (and everybody else) have become graver as a direct result of Trump, with absolutely nothing on the positive side of the ledger. Start with the underreported story of nuclear proliferation, especially with Russia. Treaties have been left to rot, with the obvious consequences of loss of trust and proliferation. Of course Russia cheats and must be stood up to, but it is a dereliction of duty to just complain, then shrug, then walk away and spend. That only leads to accidents and eventual crisis.
Then look at everywhere else there are nuclear weapons. The Iran policy has only strengthened Iran (and Lockheed Martin’s sales to the paragon that is Saudi Arabia), the North Korea so-called policy has just encouraged the boy, and strengthened China, and the India policy has rekindled Kashmir and made war with Pakistan more likely. These are not mere human rights disasters; these are direct threats to world peace. Bullying Europeans into buying more weapons will only make matters worse.
Then there is China itself. I hear people say that it is good to stand up to China. Well, that is true, China is rising and leaders need to find a way to accommodate that safely and justly. China’s actions in Xinjiang are despicable, and its trade behaviour required moderation. But what has Trump achieved, in three whole years? The answer is nothing but destroying trust, reducing prosperity for everyone, enabling human rights abuse and reducing the long-term competitiveness of the US. For three years we have had posturing and threat but no proposal and no progress. My guess is that there will be much-trumpeted deal during 2020, timed for electoral effect, but that it will not address any of the structural issues, simply requiring China to buy more US stuff. Meanwhile, China builds influence through belt and road and an independent lead in next generation technology. Strike two.
Strike three is probity. This is about the standing of the presidency and key institutions, their ability to earn respect in the world and to maintain democracy and justice against periodic threats. It also relates to wider society, in establishing norms of decent behaviour.
It is fun and even fair to elect somebody who challenges the establishment, is blunt and occasionally disrespectful and who upends conventional wisdom. Elites can be smug. But Trump is a wrecking ball, one that ultimately damages everything he touches. Even among ardent supporters, few would deny that he bullied Ukraine towards a partisan goal, that he has openly demeaned women, that he pays scant regard to truth, that he blows his dog whistle cynically, that he undermines congress by blocking subpoenas, that he has multiple financial irregularities, that he uses key meetings as photo opportunities, and much else.
Institutions can withstand such an assault, with good luck, for four years, and might even emerge reinvigorated. But to risk four more years would be reckless in the extreme. We can all see it. Strike three.
So those are my arguments. I will try to avoid getting into the weeds of other areas, despite all the evidence and temptations. Healthcare, gun control, inequality, and all the departments with no competence and less policy are open targets. But perhaps then the discussion would get ambushed into risks relating to Elizabeth Warren or abortion or something about the stock market.
It is better to stick to the big picture. What are presidents for? Where do they have lasting influence? They must lead in the face of generational issues, they must conduct a sound foreign policy and they must defend the very institution they have been elected to lead. Nobody can realistically defend Trump in any of these three areas, and these are the areas that ultimately matter.
Would any of this speech work, even were I to get a chance to engage in a serious conversation with somebody leaning towards re-electing the man? I doubt it. Nobody wants to listen to someone so obviously representing the smug elite, and foreign to boot. But I have tried. I am ready.
No comments:
Post a Comment