So, it has come to this. Trump 2.0 is upon us. Once again we stand on the precipice, oblivious to the perils waiting below, and hoping - nay praying - that gravity does not have its way with us. Like all great republics that have fallen over the centuries, our demise may seem predestined, but it really wasn't. We had a front-row seat to it for four years, and like the dementia patient, conveniently forgot it, or simply swept it under the rug. Like the chronic alcoholic, we rationalized that this time it'll be different. But the rhetoric coming from Mar-a-Lago is not merely the ramblings of a man who is venting. It is a harbinger of what is to come.
The first time around, he was a novice, unfamiliar with the workings and trappings of the bureaucracy. The people he appointed were, for the most part, well intentioned, even if they may have been further to the right than we would've preferred. They had respect for the institutions they served, and on those rare occasions when they disagreed with their commander in chief, they did so respectfully. He pouted, ranted and raved, and, yes, even fired some of them, but for the most part, his worst proclivities were kept at bay. And when he tried to remain in power after he lost, the guardrails held, if barely. Turns out the men who founded this nation were smarter and bigger than he was.
But like that classic song by the Monkees, that was then, this is now. This time around, he means to follow through on his promises. This time around, the people he appoints will have no such respect for the institutions they serve; they will be completely loyal and servile to his every whim. He will use the various agencies - the IRS, the DOJ, the FBI, and the FCC - as weapons to go after his opponents; and his opponents, according to him, will be anyone that dares criticize or hold him accountable. He's not even trying to hide his intentions; indeed, he is gleefully boasting about them every chance he gets.
The word fascist has been used to describe Trump. Many have criticized the use of the word because they think it too strong or an over simplification of the root causes of his popularity. But I suspect that the real problem is that we've never had a serious discussion about what the word actually means. According to Wikipedia, a fascist is a dictatorial leader who centralizes power, forcibly suppresses his opposition and believes in the "subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race."
It's easy to look at men like Hitler and Mussolini and call them fascists. But they were much more than that; they were deranged sociopaths who were responsible for the incarceration and mass murder of millions of their own people. Trump is certainly no mass murderer, but he exhibits many of the same character traits as the aforementioned men. His constant need for attention, his lack of empathy, his penchant for pitting one group of people against another, his refusal to take responsibility for his own actions, his contempt for the rule of law and his lack of a moral compass are the very epitome of, if not a fascist, then certainly a sociopath.
And now that this sociopath is about to start his second term in office, the threat is very real. This is not merely about the damage Trump can and will do to the economy and our prestige around the world. We've seen this movie before, so we know how it ends. It's about our democratic norms and values, and what it means to be an American, both of which are now hanging in the balance. If the capitulation we've seen by the media over the last few weeks is any indication, we are truly fucked as a nation. Seriously, I've seen greater pushback from a condemned prisoner about to eat his last meal.
That millions of voters looked at this man and saw fit to return him to office just confirms what Carl Sagan said years ago: "The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance."
There can be no greater dereliction of duty than a fourth estate that cannot or will not hold power in check. It is anathema to the very concept of a free press. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in an address before Congress on January 6, 1941, spoke about the four freedoms; the first of which was the freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world. Roosevelt was very cognizant of what was going in Europe, and even if America didn't see the danger, he did.
It is the responsibility of the media to inform the public when anything or anyone poses a threat to its freedoms, even at the risk of persecution. Trump is not the first autocratic, wanna-be dictator this country has had to contend with; he's simply much better at it than his predecessors. What is different this time around is the mechanism, which for over two centuries has acted as a sort of bulwark against such tyrannical impulses, has atrophied to the point of irrelevance.
The sad truth is that a growing number of people now get their information not from news outlets but from social media platforms. Twitter and Facebook have replaced CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS as the umbilical cord of knowledge for an increasingly ignorant population. Subjective truth has replaced objective reality; insurrectionists are now called conscientious objectors; treason is referred to as patriotism, and the highly educated are despised, while the poorly educated are heralded as virtuous.
To say these are perilous times would be putting it mildly. In times like these we look for any sign of hope that we can hitch our wagon to; any reassurance that there will be a brighter future tomorrow. Sadly, I can't offer up any. Unlike the songwriter Jewel in her song "Hands," I don't think we're all ok. I think this time we caught the bullet. Our press is useless, our institutions strained to the breaking point. It seems gravity is the one law Trump can't break.
But perhaps in our last gasp as a free people, we can be comforted in the knowledge that once upon a time there were brave men and women who were not intimidated by power, who had the audacity to challenge it, live in front of their viewers, without fear from possible retribution.
I leave you now with the words of just such a man; a man who became a legend in his time, an inspiration to countless journalists who tried to follow in his footsteps, and a painful reminder that courage requires more than mere wishful thinking.
"No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.
"This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
"The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
"Good night, and good luck."
Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954.
Comments