He has spent the last year telling and showing us exactly who he is. After every “holy crap!” moment, both sides kept expecting him to start behaving like a mature individual. He never did. So why NOW to we expect him to change? Wasn’t it Maya Angelou who said, “When people tell you who they are, Believe them.”
A friend sent this excellent article today. Though my quote is lengthy, the article is much longer. I encourage all to read the whole thing.
It begins:
The author goes on to list the rules of surviving in an autocracy:
*“Good faith” in the opposition served Obama really well the last eight years, right? :rolleyes:
Given the anxiety many on the Left felt about the possibility DJT wouldn’t concede, I don’t find these two speeches to be out of hand with our preferred expectations… other than who was giving them, of course.
But do we “owe” Trump a chance? No more than what he is legally allowed, and even that should be blocked, delayed, and fought as much as possible.
Eh, his victory speech was a lot more mature than I expected it to be. While of course I don’t think he will really “change” who he is, I think he’ll at least take the job seriously (whether he can actually handle it or not is another matter).
We do. Sam Harris compared it to him being the pilot of a plane going down. He have to root for him to pull it out, regardless of whether he is the pilot we would prefer. I’m rooting for him, though his actions already have me less than optimistic.
We expected, wanted Trump to concede when he lost. It was, in fact, a matter of contention during and after the 1st debate and was part and parcel of the “rigged election” rhetoric and response:
“The election is rigged!”
(“Will he concede?”)
So… Hillary lost and had to give a concession speech. Anything else would have been a betrayal of this principle. Obama’s side lost and, in adherence to the principles of American Democracy, is working for a peaceful transition of power.
Once January 20th rolls around, then it’s a new ballgame for the two of them.
When everyone involved in the Cliven Bundy standoff walks because the prosecutors chose not to push the case or obviously sabotaged it by being sloppy, that will be when I know he intends on being an utter prick.
The only thing we owe him is a watchful eye. He’s a con artist, first and foremost. I fully expect him to try to spend as much time as possible at his Trump Tower, where he can rent out rooms for the extensive numbers of strap-hangers that travel with the president, and charge the cost to the taxpayers.
We don’t owe that fucker the time of day. I hope the protests for the inaugural are huge and continue for every single day that pervert serves as the usurper in chief. Democrats should oppose every single thing he proposes and not give him a single vote on anything. If he wants a resolution proclaiming Girl Scout Week, filibuster it.
He knows that he needs to appear presidential because he is now playing the role of president. Putting on a role is something he is good at. When he was playing a candidate he whipped out the outrageous rhetoric.
Now, I do not think he has the ability to do the job well, even if he tried, but he might actually try hard (and fail). Also of course even if everything he said when in campaign mode was just mere words, we don’t actually know where he stands on anything, and his policy could potentially shift at the drop of a hat.
The Masha Gessen piece you linked is well-written and a valuable caution. Still, I’m less pessimistic than she is that this outcome is likely, and not just because I didn’t (unlike Gessen) escape an authoritarian state rather recently.
The US has long-standing democratic institutions, traditions, and norms - Russia didn’t. Judges and civil servants by and large support them. I think it’s good that BHO and HRC do their part to keep up appearances there with the peaceful transfer of power boilerplate, because once people stop believing in those things, the magic is gone. (And it’s absolutely appropriate for people who aren’t BHO or HRC to kick up a fuss.)
Other reasons it may not be quite as country-endingly awful (while still being really awful for lots of people in lots of places):
Federalism protects us, too - the President can’t just, say, order all the county sheriffs to round up troublemakers, he has to convince them to do so. (Yes, many may not be hard to convince if he tries.)
Plus, for all the talk about Trump’s taste for revenge, I will also point out that his acts of revenge thus far in his life have been limited to mean tweets, strange letters, and the occasional frivolous lawsuit. I have some hope that his laziness and limited intellect will keep him from throwing Farendholt & co. into gulags.
Liberals already see every Republican as racists, hateful Neanderthals. So Trump comes along and fights back. He didn’t back down his like predecessors. Because Liberals are really bullies, they can’t handle it. Liberals built up Trump to be the personification of evil because they can’t stand opposition. They can’t stand that Americans aren’t validating their beliefs.
Do you want to live in a functional society or not? This is the crux of it. Do you want to live in a society that is polarized more and more until we hit the point of civil war and millions are dead or don’t you? Do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem? Coming together and giving him a chance doesn’t mean you accept his solutions just that you’re allowing a conversation to take place.
The left warned us about an autocracy when Bush was elected. The right said the same thing about Obama. I’m not taking any thing seriously until autocratic policies are actually implemented.
BTW, Trump already took over the media. Not because he’s autocratic and has influence over the media, but because the media is biased toward sensational and simple minded stories and he figured out how to exploit that.
Is that how you would want Republicans to act when a Democrat is President? I was against Republican obstructionism and now I’m against Democratic obstructionism.
Campaigning is not the same thing as governing. Trump hasn’t made a single policy proposal yet, so it’s too early to start opposing him. I am giving Trump a chance until he actually starts governing poorly.
See, I just can’t behind this. If he proposes privatizing social security, sure, filibuster, march the streets, go nuclear. But if he were to propose something sensible, like an infrastructure program that doesn’t completely ignore cities’ needs, there’s no reason to oppose that. That’s a good program.
In other words, hold his feet to fire when he proposes dumb stuff, but don’t oppose for the sake of opposition. Oppose for the sake of getting better results.
They are staying in D.C. for Sasha’s last years of high school, poor souls. But Obama has to be careful about how vocal he is. The current members of the ex-Presidents Club have generally avoided public criticism of their successors’ policies, and I could see a backlash. We need powerful voices from current and future leaders if we are to move forward.
I certainly don’t owe Trump a chance to roll back the rights of Blacks, Muslims, immigrants, women and gays. But I don’t expect him to want to remain in office once he’s fixed trade and tax laws in his favor. Then we’ll have to deal with something worse: President Pence.