For those who look to the future, the presidency of Donald Trump provides a multitude of reasons that scream for a change: chaotic and ineffectual pandemic response, degraded support for public health capabilities, working to destroy the Affordable Care Act without having a replacement, disrespecting allies and subverting international alliances that have fostered American security and prosperity; these are just some of them. It is not enough for his campaign to say that he has occasionally been part of a positive this-or-that. Twice a day a broken clock is right, but it is still broken.
Overall, Trump's presidency is a failure, and there's no reason to think that a re-elected Donald Trump would do anything differently -- he is on record as saying "I will never change." As president, Trump is as broken as any person can be, with only one or two prior presidents who might be competitive in a broken-president contest (no one reading this was alive during their times).
Trump has failed to accomplish any major effort to bring positive results to the majority of Americans. His two touted major accomplishments -- changes to the Federal income tax codes, and appointments of Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices -- are successful only for the supporting special interests. The great majority of the income tax benefits have flowed to the wealthiest individuals -- some were specially targeted at real estate developers, such as Trump himself -- and to large corporations, without producing the promised long-term structural investments. The more-conservative judiciary is the result of appointments by a president who lost the popular vote by millions and has never tried to reach out to the larger part of the U.S. population. That cannot bode well for the future.
As significant as are those failures, the compelling reason to fire Trump is something that is even worse. It is the things done by Trump that damage the fundamental structure of American democracy.
The presidency of Donald Trump has diminished the United States of America, both domestically and in the eyes of the rest of the world. This has been made crystal-clear by his repeated refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of presidential power should he lose the election. In fact, he maintains that his victory is inevitable because the "only way" he can lose is if the Democrats "steal" the election. These are the words of an autocrat or a dictator, not of a legitimate president of a democracy.
Curious to learn of reaction to this from somebody whose politics are right-of-center and who is what might be called "traditional Republican," I sought out a recent column by Ross Douthat (12/10/2020 at nytimes.com). Douthat -- not a Trump fan -- is searing in his assessment. He says that ultimately this will come to little, if anything, because Trump is a "weakling" president, and a "corrupt incompetent who poses as a strongman on Twitter." Those are among Douthat's milder comments.
Having said similar things, I cannot disagree. If Trump were a confident, secure leader he would not be saying over and over again that he, not Hillary Clinton, really won the popular vote in 2016 because of "millions" of illegal votes cast and counted; oddly, apparently and incredibly, every single one of those, in Trump's telling it, was for Clinton.
Let's remember that one of Trump's first official acts was to establish a commission to identify and document voter fraud. The commission disbanded empty-handed. As also shown by independent studies, voter fraud is insignificant. Most voters are honest people, but also numerous safeguards against fraud are built into the American voting systems.
Trump has been a weak president because he has never had a governing mandate -- the popular vote loss in 2016 denied the mandate at that point; it became three times worse in the 2018 election, as measured by votes for Democrat and Republican House candidates, when Trump asserted that people should vote for Republican candidates because "the election is about me!" -- and he has never tried to be a unifying leader who could build such a mandate.
But I think Douthat lets Trump off too easily. There's more in this than the actions of a desperate loudmouth. In saying he can lose only because his opponent is dishonest, Trump has announced to Americans, and to all the world, that American democracy and its supporting "rule of law" might not be the best way to run a country. Trump is the only U.S. president to have said such a thing.
Does it really need to be said that trust in the validity of the government and the law is foundational for American prosperity and international influence? As a reminder, at least, perhaps it does.
If a candidate for president maintains that the only valid electoral outcome is the one in his favor, then once the election is finished how can the results be universally trusted? If that trust does not emerge, then the entire system will be shown as a house of cards that falls in the first strong breeze.
Without even so much as a facetious apology or one of his well-known wishy-washy restatements, Donald Trump has sent a message that is heard both domestically and internationally: The American government and its laws might not be trustworthy. Foreign investors should view investment decisions differently, and possibly take their monies elsewhere, or at least demand a higher risk premium when going to the U.S. Americans should prepare themselves for a less prosperous future as imports become more expensive, domestically-produced items also become more expensive and of lower quality and less innovative because of reduced competition from imports, and talented workers and entrepreneurs from elsewhere choose to avoid the uncertainties of American governance and of the potential weakening of the rule of law.
None of this should be a surprise. After all, how can Trump communicate trustworthiness when his 2016 election campaign was supported by Russian government efforts? Remembering that Vladimir Putin, Russia's perpetual president, has publicly declared Russia's hostility towards the U.S. makes it easy to ask a question such as: What geopolitical deals lurk in the shadows?
Trump tells people at his mostly-maskless campaign events that his recent bout with covid-19 has left him immune from re-infection. Such immunity is not yet established. And in any case, the event attendees could become victims of infection, illness and possibly death from others in the crowd. Trump's message is that people should support him notwithstanding the possible suffering. This is simply a statement that the ends are so good that they justify any means of getting there. Sound familiar? He is echoing the ends-justify-the-means communist theory of the Soviet Union of Cold War days.
Put all of this together and only one conclusion emerges: Trump has undermined and continues to undermine democracy in the United States, he has diminished the standing of the U.S. in the eyes of the world, and he has displayed himself as un-American.
Presidential behaviors are the legacy that either contribute to or detract from making progress in achieving the Constitution's goal that reads "to form a more perfect union." The United States of America is not perfect, and probably never will be. But it can be made more perfect, even if that has to happen in fits and starts.
The evidence of Trump's years in office, and of his June 2016 declaration "I will never change!" is proof that he will never build on the legacy of his predecessors to lead towards the future. Instead, through lying, mockery, ignorance, bullying, disrespect and divisiveness he indulges in self-absorbed delusions of grandeur. In addition to seeking foreign alignments with non-democratic leaders in preference to those who are democratic, his public adulation of the white supremacist leaders and imagery of the failed Confederacy borders on worship of illegal secession.
Sadly, these are the things that Trump does best. But again, don't take just my word for it. In the aftermath of the first debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump -- in which Trump would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election, and also infamously incited armed and rogue white supremacist militias to "stand by" -- Lexington, the U.S.-based columnist of the British publication The Economist, a business-oriented periodical, has this to say of Trump's behavior:
He interrupted, contradicted and traduced Joe Biden, and sometimes also the moderator, Chris Wallace of Fox News. He cavilled and scowled; he huffed and he ranted. The ferocity of his claimed grievances was formidable. It was also ludicrous. It might once even have seemed comical, were he not America's president. . .Was there a strategy to this beyond his usual refusal to be constrained by rules and need to dominate? Maybe not; those urges explain most of what Mr Trump does. But the strategic implications of his thuggery look no less dire for being, in all likelihood, unplanned. . .
If the need to mobilize and manage national resources to fight a
pandemic has not caused change in Trump for the better -- and it has not
-- then nothing will. In asserting that the virus will "just disappear" Trump displays both ignorance of, and disrespect towards, science and the disease itself. He shows no ability to act on any level higher than one that is staged by his urges for thuggery.
There are many reasons to elect Joe Biden as the next president of the country. He shows he is different from the incumbent because he is respectful and will work to promote trust -- he has clearly said that if the voters reject him he will accept defeat. That right there is the basis of democracy and a hallmark of successful leadership.
There is one compelling reason to elect Biden and fire Trump.
Donald Trump is un-American.
###
