We’re used to candidates whio promise wonderful things but govern horribly. Now we have a president-elect, Donald Trump, who promised horrible things but is now backing away from many of his worst promises. How do we adapt?
What If Trump Breaks His Worst Promises?
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
21 Comments. Leave new
«Don’t do stupid shit» ?…
Henri
With regard to Mr Trump, the first part of William Blum’s Anti-Empire Report #147 is well worth a read, not least the final paragraph :
«The Trump dilemma, as well as the whole Hillary Clinton mess, could have probably been avoided if Bernie Sanders had been nominated. That large historical “if” is almost on a par with the Democrats choosing Harry Truman to replace Henry Wallace in 1944 as the ailing Roosevelt’s vice-president. Truman brought us a charming little thing called the Cold War, which in turn gave us McCarthyism. But Wallace, like Sanders, was just a little too damn leftist for the refined Democratic Party bosses.»
Henri
That is the problem with having two parties of the right.
Like the Model T Ford, you can have any color you want as long as it is black.
Interesting report. Thanks for the link.
Of course, the TRVE story of George Washington and the cherry tree proves that the US president can never lie, so in Mosul, 1.5 million terrorists are being brought to justice by the US-led coalition, while in East Aleppo, sorry, ALL of Aleppo, peaceful, non-violent, unarmed pro-democracy civilians are being brutally murdered by three evil dictators, all of whom are guilty of war crimes and all three regimes should have been changed by President Clinton. We have no idea if Trump will do his solemn duty and remove those three evil regimes, as we know St Hillary would have done. And the US is so strong that regime change in Russia would be as easy as, or easier then, regime change in Libya. St Hillary worked hard to transform impoverished, brutal dictatorships and state sponsors of terror into peaceful and prosperous democracies, and the world is a sad place since the Russians hacked the US election and gave votes to Trump, who whould have lost by a total of 0% to St Hillary’s 100% had it not been for the Russians.
«St Hillary worked hard to transform impoverished, brutal dictatorships and state sponsors of terror into peaceful and prosperous democracies, and the world is a sad place since the Russians hacked the US election and gave votes to Trump, who whould have lost by a total of 0% to St Hillary’s 100% had it not been for the Russians.» Those Russians really are a nasty piece of work !…
Bill Blum is always worth reading ; I strongly recommend a subscription to his monthly Anti-Empire Report….
Henri
So this is, like, Trump Revisionism already?
The Democrats are now salivating at their prospects in 2018, not for their chance to improve things for the many, but for the opportunity to become increasingly more evil than ever before and still gather liberal votes as the lesser evil of two evils.
How will the Democrats run, if, instead of being able to pose as the lesser evil vs Trump, they have to find a way to start reducing their own evil with respect to a Trump living up to his campaign promises to working people?
Not that I think any of the upside of this hypothetical is ever going to really happen. But interesting anyway.
I think it’s important to remember that Trump has no actual interest in doing anything. This is all a show for him, just a way to get some more adulation. So I can’t see him actually proposing much of anything. He’s putting in the usual suspects for his cabinet, so we should mostly expect the usual. The only question would be whether he would have the nerve to veto a bill to privatize medicare since he campaigned on leaving medicare alone. Or social security, or whatever. That would seriously piss off the republicans. I can’t see him bothering to do the work to try to pass a bill to build a wall, or anything else.
Trump ran against the party, so it would be consistent for him to continue to distinguish himself from the party by acting contrary to it.
Plus, Trump is very thin skinned and wants to get positive feedback from his supporters, whereas most politicians seem content to feel the power of pissing people off while primarily pleasing their campaign contributors and insiders.
Trump decided to forgo big money contributions and valued direct appeal votes more highly than campaign money, the opposite of Hillary. He just made another post election “campaign” stop in Indiana just for the buzz.
If it weren’t for the Trumpen-proletariat he never would have come close to winning and winning is very important to him, so he will continue to need their love right through the next four years and beyond to be a winner again.
I didn’t vote for Trump, but he did make some very strong criticisms of the system (such as repealing NAFTA) that were not to be heard by a candidate who would win a major party primary.
Obama said he would repeal NAFTA, but very soon after denied it and said that his statement was only “campaign talk” and not to be taken seriously. Just like Guantanamo.
Then quite simply you haven’t been paying much attention.
> How do we adapt?
Well, his base will say, “You’re Fired!” four years from now. But if he actually turns out to be a good president, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. (I’m not holding my breath on that one.) (See what I did there?)
Mr Rall has said he knew Trump would win, and was much worse than Secretary Clinton. I did not see that from his cartoons. I DID see that Adams, the author of Dilbert, said Trump would win the election in early ’15. At first, he said he did not like Trump or Clinton, but he was for Clinton since, to be against Clinton, would put his life in danger since he lived in California.
Later, he said he strongly supported Trump.
Now he says (correctly) that the first job of every politician is to get nominated. Trump’s campaign got only about 1/3 of primary voters, and so should have lost. But he won. Was he brilliant, or did the system break down? We’ll never know.
The second job of every politician who won the nomination is to get elected. Trump won four Rust Belt states by paper thin margins. Was that brilliant, or dumb luck? We’ll never know that one, either. Trump also carried Florida by trashing Castro (among other things). Again, brilliant, or luck?
Anyway, Adams figures Trump said and did exactly the right things to get elected, and none of the things he said or did means anything, which is what Mr Rall (and every sane person in the world) is hoping for (except for the bit about not going to war with Russia: we hope Trump can keep that promise even as he comes under intense pressure to become a normal American president and go to war with anyone and everyone).
«… we hope Trump can keep that promise even as he comes under intense pressure to become a normal American president and go to war with anyone and everyone).» As I read recent history, a normal US president doesn’t go to war with anyone and everyone ; rather he goes to war (undeclared, of course) with smaller countries, where it is assumed that military success can easily be achieved. The two main exceptions to the above were the war in Korea and the war in Indochina, where the US military objectives were not achieved. That which seemed new in the late campaign was that one of the proponents seemed to be willing, nay, determined, to go to war directly with Russia, while the other proponent has dared to declare that doing so was not the most brilliant foreign policy initiative ever devised….
The candidate advocating war with Russia (her defenders might say that she didn’t do that at all – but that’s the way I read her) has lost, while he who didn’t think it was so brilliant has won, The question now is whether he will act with that insight in mind. Who the hell knows ? Certainly not I, but I submit that we’ll soon see….
Henri
Trump got elected by being the smartest person in the room. Look at Hillary. Look at Barack. They’re both millionaires. Neither of them will ever, ever worry about making the mortgage payment. Neither will even have a job outsourced. Their children? They will lives of privilege and comfort. Those children will go from one stunning accomplishment to another. Even if they screw up every thing they touch, they will continue to get the cream every single time.
All of that is true for Trump. And Trump realized it. How to differentiate himself? He stole a page — THE page — from the Clinton (Bill) Playbook. He looked the disadvantaged square in the eye and said, “I feel your pain.” And he offered them hope. How? He actually acknowledged what all those people have been living through for 30 years. Go back through every single speech Hillary made during the election. Point to one thing she said about the used-to-be-middle-class poor that actually stirred your blood in an emotionally positive way. One thing. I watched a lot of her glib pandering. I don’t think she every said a single thing that I thought, “Wow. She really thinks that. At the core of who she is, that’s one of the central pillars.”
That’s how Trump won. And we better all hope like hell he comes through because I think some of his supporters will go bugfuck crazy if he sells them out like politicians usually do. I don’t know how Trump will do it, but he better bring manufacturing back. Because the people he promised these things to? They’re right up against the wall. Calming platitudes won’t work any more. You don’t reason with a starving person. You can’t convince a drowning person to not claw at you as he tries to keep from sinking. Trump has about two years to start coming out with healthcare that works, a lot of living wage, benefit-encrusted jobs, and so forth.
«… And we better all hope like hell he comes through because I think some of his supporters will go bugfuck crazy if he sells them out like politicians usually do.» Hot time in the old town tonight….
Henri
Henri, the cities will burn through the night. I really mean it. People voting for Trump was pretty much as far down the line as they can go. Repudiation of both parties means they won’t come back next time. And that means the NEXT two elections (2018 and 2020) will see even more fracturing. If Trump’s a one-term president, I’ll put my bet down right now: none of the four candidates next time will get a 270 majority.
Four? The Dems will run someone (not Hillary. I have about a 10% suspicion that she’s actually quite ill, which is why Trump isn’t having the Foundation investigated).
The Progressives will run Sanders (or Sanders/Warren).
Trump will run on the Republican ticket.
The rest of the Republican Party will run someone none of us — not even Ted — has heard of.
My hand to God’s ear, we better all be lighting candles for the wildly successful presidency of Donald J. Trump unless we all actually DO want that revolution because it’ll be like someone dropping a big bowl of cranberry sauce from the top of a flight of stairs. The mess will never get cleaned up.
You waste your worry, Alex. I loved Trump sticking it to the RINOs, but no one can do anything now about the demise of America. There can be no unifying across the colossal racial and cultural chasms the Left has dug.
There is no way of forcing the world to keep the US dollar as reserve currency. We have had historically low interest rates for years and all D.C. has done is blow up the debt to a level it can never be paid down. Any increase in interest rates (like the one coming this month) will crash the market. All while everyone expects more spending.
There’s much talk on this blog of how the duopoly allows so few different voices, but there can be no peace, cohesion or continuity in a land that has too wide a range of discourse. In a way it is shown here as you all believe *any* Republican is an extremist and anybody to your Left to be right wing.
For my part, I struggle to think of how Sanders could be any more extreme. Outlawing profiting from investment? Calls for violence? Condoning pedophilia? Forcing straight people to get gay married? Mandatory abortions? Mandating each American household shelter a rapefugee?
> There can be no unifying across the colossal racial and cultural chasms the Left has dug.
The. Left. Has. Dug.
Seriously? The people who want to join hands and sing Kumbaya have dug this chasm? Oka-a-a-ay – what about the cops who shoot unarmed black kids? Do they, then, bridge this chasm? Or those who would deport people based on their religion – are they bridging that chasm? Those who would discriminate against people based on their sexual behavior – is that going to build the bridge we need?
To paraphrase the late, great, Molly Ivans – “The first law of chasms is, ‘When you’re in one, stop digging’.”
«For my part, I struggle to think of how Sanders could be any more extreme. … Forcing straight people to get gay married?» Someone seems rather to be «struggling» between attraction and repulsion – the return of the repressed ?…
Henri
«> There can be no unifying across the colossal racial and cultural chasms the Left has dug.
The. Left. Has. Dug.»
But you see, CrazyH, the «Left»is to people like «Jack Heart» as the «Russians» are to Ms Clinton and the DNC, i e, a bugaboo to be trotted out when anything that in their judgement is Evil happens. If only the «Left» (and the Russians) did not exist, everything would be just hunky-dory. Another theodicy conundrum for the theologians to wrestle with….
Henri
«Henri, the cities will burn through the night. I really mean it. People voting for Trump was pretty much as far down the line as they can go.» Alex, if I understand aright, while Ms Clinton won a majority in the larger cities, Mr Trump amassed enough votes in rural and smaller urban areas to win the Electoral College. If, indeed, that is the case, will it be the (large) cities that burn if Mr Trump disappoints his core supporters, or rather smaller cities and the countryside ? Or will, in accordance with Maoist (or William Jennings Bryan) tradition, the countryside surround and take over the cities ? That which argues against this latter scenario is that, unlike in China 100 years ago or the US in Mr Bryan’s day, a majority of the US population resides not in the countryside, but in the cities….
Hot times may well be coming to both the old town and the countryside….
If we get so far as to 2020, I can’t but wonder if the Progressives will not run Michael Moore. Recently Swedish Television broadcast Michael Moore in Trumpland, which I manged to catch online (no TV) ; I noted that he threatened/promised to run in 2020 in the event that Mr Trump did not keep his promises. One of his campaign promises, Moore said, would be to see to it that there would be a single standard for all AC adapters and chargers ; in which case he could certainly count on my vote, in the event I enjoyed the franchise in your country….
We live in interesting times….
Henri