I asked the corresponding question back when I believed that Hillary Clinton would be elected president but now that we’re faced with the reality of a Trump presidency I think it’s highly appropriate for me to return to the question. How do we mitigate the risks of a Trump presidency? I’ll provide some of my thoughts on the subject but I genuinely welcome other suggestions.
1. What risk?
IMO anyone who believes that a Trump presidency carries no risks is willfully blind. Every presidency carries risks and, given Mr. Trump’s history, lack of experience, and the way in which he conducted himself before, during, and to a lesser extent after his campaign, the risks of a Trump presidency are clearly higher than those in most.
2. Leave the country
That’s risk avoidance not risk mitigation. If Trump is as bad as you think he is, leaving the country probably won’t be enough. Read On the Beach.
3. Peaceful protests
It’s possible that peaceful grassroots opposition could bring fence-sitters over to your way of thinking. Violent protests that are clearly professionally organized and supported may have the opposite results of those you’re presumably trying to accomplish. If you support peaceful grassroots protests, how do you mitigate the risks of violent protests?
4. Make common cause with Republicans
Many Republicans don’t like Donald Trump any more than you do. Obstructing the Republican-led Congress bears the risk of forcing them to side with Trump. Does that increase or reduce risk? Believe it or not there are plenty of things on which Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree.
5. Stop smearing and slurring people who disagree with you.
It creates a lager mentality. It increases the risks rather than decreasing them.
6. Do what you can to encourage a fair and unbiased press.
It’s vitally important that we have a fair and unbiased press. The appearance and the fact of being unbiased are both important.
Please present your own ideas in comments.
Develop and advocate policies that help many of the people (working class) and regions (Midwest) that are shown to be in distress in this election. Not the self serving policies marketed as helping by the democrats in this election. Trumps strength and ability to act ultimately rests on popular support and am I naive to believe Americans are rational and will switch sides if better ideas come along?
Jesus Christ, another round of pity-the-white-man. So you’re calling for calculated dishonesty. You want us to stop saying things about Trump and his supporters that decent Republicans have been saying for months.
And how do we do that, exactly? David Duke: you are no longer a racist! Tada! Steve Bannon: you are not a white supremacist! I know you say you are, but it’s really not up to you, Steve, we are entering the era of conservative PC and racists must be referred to as, um, what? Well, someone will come up with a euphemism.
They’re not Nazis, they’re. . . Zanies! Much better!
And how are we going to get PoC to go along with this? Oh, right, you don’t hear them anyway. They don’t really exist.
White privilege, white self-pity, white dishonesty, white blindness, white denial, yeah that’ll make it all better.
Yeah, that’ll teach ’em.
Have you never heard the proverb “you get more flies with honey than with vinegar”? I’m not suggesting pity. I’m suggesting trying to make allies and build support.
There are a number of things on which the Democrats could work with Trump. However, the Hastert rule will need to go, Ryan will need to agree and Ryan will need to risk losing his Speaker position. I don’t really see the GOP suddenly eager to spend money on anything other than defense or tax expenditures for their favored interests. (Protesting, violent or not, is a waste of time.) Also, I would favor a constitutional amendment that would require anyone who threatens to leave the country if candidate X wins, to be forced to carry out their threat. Finally, on #6, no one would ever admit that anything less than overwhelmingly positive coverage for their team is not bias against them. (Rushed so hope that makes sense.)
On number 5, I must confess I am a bit tired of conservative whining. (As a rule I hate whining.) Some Democrats, a minority, have suggested that some Republicans are racist or sexist or whatever. Yet from the right we hear a steady stream of slurring and smearing. If you are on the left you aren’t a Real American. You are statist/socilaist/communist. Because some kids in some colleges are wimps, everyone on the left is now a social justice warrior. Everyone on the left now, according to the right, hates the idea of religious liberty. Heck, we hate all liberty. To be clear, I suspect/hope this also represents the POV of a minority of those on the right, but it is a pretty large minority. Not something I am going to whine about every day, unlike the weenies on the right, but let’s at least acknowledge what is really going on.
Steve
Yet again I agree with almost everything in your last comment. I presume you’re aware that like you I have regular backburner discussions with people who are much more conservative than I and on a regular basis I suggest that they’re being unreasonable and hysterical in their hatred of “the Left”. You might have noticed that the words “the Left” almost never appear on my blog and when they do they’re always in quotation marks (because I’m quoting rather than saying). I am regularly castigated as a shill for the Democratic leadership, a Leftist, or worse.
The key point is how do you cultivate support and, since the balance of power is in the hands of Republicans, how do Democrats build support with Republicans and independents?
My largest concern is foreign policy, and I’m not sure how to address it. It’s been encouraging to hear some foreign leaders reach out and express an interest in early meetings with Trump. Trump strikes me as a narcissist, but a people-person. Flattery and recognition will get you somewhere. I’d consider drawing a line on unacceptable appointments to various positions, but I think it would backfire. If John Bolton is his guy, he’s not going to be denied Bolton’s counsel. But heck, there could be worse than Bolton.
I’m not sure who.
Sarah Palin?
Bolton is an experienced hand and even critics thought his short stint as UN Ambassador exceeded expectations. One of my chief concerns is Trump rambling and saying something off-script in foreign policy areas where there are a lot of specific diplomatic code words that are to be used or not used. Bolton knows the diplomatic language and would be helpful in diffusing _unintended_ crisis and conflicts.
For the last couple of hours I’ve been mulling over a post about best case/worst case nominations for various Trump appointments. I’m beginning to despair because it’s a lot easier for me to come up with worst case scenarios than best case.
For example, the two names floated as potential Secretaries of State, Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton, are very nearly worst case for me. I think that Giuliani or Trey Gowdy would be fine at Justice, maybe Stephen Feinberg or maybe Bullard at Treasury. I can’t come up with anybody for State.
For the dystopian list:
Bolton (or Palin) at State
Rand Paul at Treasury
If you buy the Jackson analogy as the best predictor, it is very important who has Trump’s ear and trust. I’m not sure all of the cabinet positions are nearly as important as State, which has a certain independence of the portfolio to be managed. What does the Treasury do these days?
I’d say the most important cabinet jobs were State, Defense, Justice, and Treasury. In terms of State, when you get past the neocons and superhawks on Team Red, it begins to get pretty lonely.
Sadly, the modern AG is pretty much the attack dog of the administration. That’s why I say Giuliani or Gowdy.
Jeff Sessions for Defense?
In non-Cabinet jobs I’d say the most important were National Security Advisor and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. I think that Flynn probably has NSA locked up. I have no idea who’ll be chairman of CEA. I can’t imagine Trump taking anybody’s advice but his own there.
Michael Reynolds seems to have differing standards for Euro-Americans and Jews and sees Israel as a refuge. That would be
the place Bishop Tutu among others said has a worse, more racist system than South African apartheid.
http://thesmartset.com/the-question-of-israel/
Bolton (or Palin) at State
Dude, Palin at Homeland Security!
Ron Paul at the IRS. Rand Paul at State. Tony Robbins as SecState. Hulk Hogan at Defense. My old friend Simon Pang at Interior. (Simon once told me his dream was to go into outer space and find a pristine forest planet – so that he could cut down all the trees and sell them to the Japanese. Did I mention he was Malaysian?)
Well, she can see Russia from her front porch.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-russia-mideast-idUSKBN13A2CN?il=0
Trump should give Russia the green light to work with its friends in the region regardless of Israeli concerns.
I can’t think of anyone worse than Bolton or Giuliani at State.
State, Defense and Nationa Security Advisor will tell us if Trump is serious about a more tranactional FP or if it will be a continuation of the existing “warheads on foreheads” FP.