I still remember my emotions on the day after Trump was elected in 2016. IN common with others, I couldn’t watch as the results started to come in, and on the rainy Wednesday morning I was in a daze, unable to comprehend what had just happened. I went into Manhattan for a matinée and found the most people shared my somber, stunned, mood.
Later that week my thoughts moved more towards the implications and the damage that could be inflicted on our precious world, and to counting the months until the nightmare would be over. Each year brought outrage but also relief that somehow war hadn’t broken out and that some societal functions remained resilient against the onslaught. There was grim joy in concluding that Trump’s own gross incompetence had been one reason for the absence of many foretold disasters.
Then 2020 dawned and it became clear that the nightmare might indeed not end that year. Trump was at his high point in the polls, the Democrats looked likely to choose a vulnerable Bernie as candidate and the economy was humming along. As we now know, it was only Covid that turned things around, and even with that massive following wind, made only stronger by the deranged president, the election still finished in a near tie.
I still shake my head in sadness as I contemplate how over seventy million adults voted to re-elect Trump, how most of those still believe he won and how a frightening subset would contemplate violence to restore their imperium. As we look towards 2024, most commentators concede that a restoration to power is a likely scenario.
Just because we survived last time, we should not be complacent about a second dose. Trump himself will be older and would even less predictable and more intolerant. His next generation of yes men would be even more cynical than the last lot, have more nefarious agendas and perhaps be more competent. Weakened institutions, including the election process itself, might crumble under a new assault. China will be ready.
It is not disrespectful to democracy to dream up a strategy to stop this horrifying prospect, so long as the means are lawful. Indeed, it would be disrespectful to democracy not to focus huge efforts on such a strategy. So what should that strategy comprise?
Plan A was not too bad but is clearly proving insufficient. Apart from the morbid but clearly unreliable aspect of hoping Trump might die or become incapacitated, the components seem to be starving his voice, chipping away at Republicans, succeeding in government and legal avenues.
Some of these have had some success. The silencing, executed by social media platforms, must be a huge frustration for the ego-obsessed Trump. He has been driven towards marginal platforms with low resonance and to relying on proxies. Sadly, the main proxies remain effective. Fox News has not changed one iota. Nor has the populist press, and it is no coincidence that Murdoch owns many of those outlets too. The saddest part about all this is that many Americans only receive their news and opinion from this type of source, and the beguiling simple messages are constantly reinforced.
The legal approach is starting to bear fruit, but is inevitably slow, since that is how honest law operates. Those of us who hoped Trump might be in jail by now were always likely to be disappointed. There will no doubt be fines aplenty to come, but nothing to legally disqualify him. And any hopes that some of the mud might stick are delusional – Fox and others will only use setbacks as an opportunity for martyr and witch hunt narratives.
The other two plan A strategies have had almost no success. Almost no Republicans with any wish to retain or regain power have shown any backbone. To have hoped otherwise was always optimistic. To expect any change, especially after January 6, would be delusional. As for successful governing, this was always doomed. The 50-50 senate could not achieve much in the face of the resolute cynicism of McConnell, what is achieved legislatively will only bear fruit after several years, and the echo chamber will undermine any message. Opposition is much easier than governing, and the easiest part is pedaling strategies that need never be implemented (and even in government most Trump supporters don’t seem to have noticed that little of consequence was implemented). We can forget about Democratic success in government having an impact on voters.
So plan A has not really succeeded, though perhaps the legal approach can lead somewhere substantial in the end and must stay as a pillar in plan B too.
My main change in strategy would relate to the silent treatment. Having Trump deprived of his personal pulpit remains excellent, but it is not enough. Biden and Democrats seem to have been following a strategy of not mentioning Trump at all, perhaps hoping that this and the silent treatment will take him out of the news completely. This now feels foolhardy. Biden himself seems to have recognised this in recent weeks, especially with his personal attack of Trump in his speech on the anniversary of the insurrection.
I think the new strategy should involve more attacks, and be very focused on both Trump and aimed at those in his base. Endless outrage pieces have no impact, because the only ones outraged are the ones in the other echo chamber. The attacks have to chip away at the base somehow. That means repetition, simplicity, and a focus on demonstrating how Trump has no true respect for his own base and only harms them.
Trump is a walking scandal, and surely there is much more dirt than can be dug up, and not the lazy kind that only outrages people like me. What has he been on record saying about his own supporters? Who of his own base has he shamelessly robbed? Which of the values that his own base espouses has he trashed? I don’t think this would be an especially tough assignment for investigative journalists. Extend the field to include Trump’s acolytes and the assignment becomes easier still. What has DeSantis been up to? McCarthy? All the little Trumps?
This drumbeat of scandal can complement much simpler messaging from the Democrats about policy. It is tough for them to focus their messages, because there is so much they want to do and most of it is laudable. But is complex, hard to demonstrate, and also often easily drowned by some outrage from the other side. Immigration is a powerful Republican talking point. Where is the simple equally powerful (and less racist) message from the other side? I don’t currently see it, and without it the Trump faction could sweep the board, including by winning over many more Latino voters, who have become established in the USA by hard work and don’t see why it should be easier for others.
Then there are other potential opinion formers. Sports stars do their bit and there may some traction there. Companies can be stirred into action when their own interests are threatened or they see an interest in being responsible in front of their employees. What about churches? Money talks and habits die hard, but surely the Catholics ought to be progressive from their single issue campaign by now and noticing how the party they seem to lead towards has been captured by somebody whose values are the opposite of those in the Gospels.
Will plan B work better than plan A? Perhaps it will, and perhaps not. Playing dirty can feel like betraying values – remember Michelle Obama and “when the go low, we go high”? Perhaps I am panicking, but I think the time to go low has arrived. The stakes for all of us are too high this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment