A Consideration of the First Month of the Trump Presidency
People I respect fall into three camps when it comes to President Trump and the Trump Administration. In category one are about 50 percent of my cohort who despise the President. I do not think I exaggerate either the percentage nor the adjective I utilize to describe the depth of their feelings.
About 30 percent of my cohort are supportive of the President. Indeed, I would imagine at least half of this group are enthusiastic about the Trump presidency. The other half are quietly, privately supportive of the President. I need to note that despite what those folks that despise the President presume, my associates in the group of active and quiet Trump supporters are not of one demographic cluster. What I have found since sitting in a diner in Iowa the day before the Iowa caucuses, supporters of Donald Trump break across different demographic classifications.
Finally, there is grouping of about 20 percent of my cohort that are not at this moment highly critical of the President and his Administration. I can best describe them as holding their collective breath, perhaps hoping for the best.
I have always maintained friendships from across the political spectrum. Indeed, I have always voted across the political spectrum, from the very first time I cast a ballot in 1980. During that election, I voted for Ronald Reagan for President and Patricia Schroeder for Congress. (Unfortunately, many folks will not remember, perhaps even know of Pat Schroeder. I encourage those who do not know her to look her up.) Politically, perhaps no two people differ as sharply as President Reagan and Representative Schroeder.
I could vote for both of them because I respected them personally. My own politics have always been and remain that of a raving moderate. Yes, I cherry pick when it comes to issues. In other words, I agreed with President Reagan on some, but not all issues. And, I agreed with Representative Schroeder on some, but not all issues. But, I digress.
As I listen to people who despise Trump speak, as I listen to individuals who admire Trump speak, I tend to (up to now) privately reflect that I’m not sure if anyone is really seeing the forest through the trees. Emotions are running so profoundly high at this juncture in time across the political spectrum, that I sometimes wonder if a good deal of facts get lost in the process.
I’m not being accusatory by suggesting this. I am just making a personal observation. For example, in posts put on social media from both sides of the Trump debate, there rarely is anything put forth by pro-Trump folks and anti-Trump folks that doesn’t contain misinformation.
I necessarily note that I do not oppose all of the proposals of the Trump Administration that thus far at least appear on paper. I am unabashed in my deep concerns about the Affordable Care Act and its collapse. I think the nation’s infrastructure does need major intervention of the type mentioned by the President and the Democratic Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.
In watching the machinations of the Trump White House over the course of the past month, I’ve reached the conclusion that – at least at this time – my thoughts about folks across the political spectrum not fully seeing the forest through the trees has become utterly irrelevant, and here is why:
It’s pointless to try and see the forest through the trees when the owner of the woods has doused the foliage with gasoline and lit it ablaze.
I have written, and spoken, about the importance of symbolism, what oftentimes is called optics by political hacks (of which I am one). Reagan got it. Schroeder got it. Bill Clinton got it, until he stopped getting it. Obama, not so much. Trump, not at all.
I rarely hear anyone discuss the constitutional reality that the U.S. President is both head of government and head of state. When I do hear it accidentally discussed, the concept of the President also being the head of state is chortled about derisively, as if that role doesn’t matter in the U.S.A. in the 21st century.
The President as head of state does matter, and I suggest perhaps more at this juncture in history than at any time since World War II.
When entering the Oval Office for the first time, the President not only assumes the role of overseeing the mechanics of running the executive branch of government, he assumes another mantle in which he (or she) embodies the nation itself. As head of state, the President legitimizes the sovereignty of the nation in his (or her) person, by his (or her) actions. This is not some outdated concept. This remains the reality of governments established by human beings.
I was appalled when President Obama made a milquetoast statement about the killing of James Foley, the first U.S. civilian to be beheaded by ISIS, and then was on a golf course doing hand-bumps a full eight minutes after making his remarks. Symbolism matters. Optics matter. As people, we are visual creatures.
I perfectly understand that 50 percent of my associates, those that despise the President, believe the President and his Administration are failing across the board when it comes to matters of policy. I suggest that facts do not support that extreme conclusion. On the other hand, I recognize that my associates that are supportive of the President believe that all of the Administration’s policies are spot-on. I suggest that facts do not support that extreme conclusion.
I return to the seeing the forest through the trees analogy. When it comes to policy issues and the Trump presidency, I tend to think neither partisans nor opponents of the Administration are seeing the trees clearly.
But. (And this is crucial.) At this moment in time, I don’t think this lack of clarity matters. As I made mention, seeing the forest through the trees becomes irrelevant when the owner of the woods douses the foliage with gasoline and lights it all ablaze. And that is precisely what Donald Trump and his key advisors are doing at this time.
President Trump, and those around him, are failing to understand the duality of the U.S. Presidency. Not only is this exemplified by a good deal of the conduct of the President himself, but underscored in a frightening fashion by some of the principals of the White House staff, including Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Sean Spicer, and Kellyanne Conway.
The symbolic importance of the Presidency, and its central place in the life of the nation, is threatened when those charged with its preservation include a President seemingly more worried about an upscale department store snubbing his child, not to mention stewing about attendance figures at his inauguration four weeks past, than the manifold array of issues we face.
The unifying potential of our nation’s head of state is destroyed when minions of the chief executive behave like ignorant, and even sinister, tiddlywinks in front of the media and to the public time and time again. I speak of Sean Spicer and the newest entrant to that category, Stephen Miller.
(I must digress and confess that when I first witnessed Stephen Miller in action on clips of the major Sunday news gabfests, I wondered what in the world Agent Smith from the Matrix was doing on Face the Nation … and Fox News Sunday … and This Week.)
Not only the unifying potential of the Presidency, but the very office itself, is jeopardized when lurking in the shadows is a person like Steve Bannon, with demonstrable racist beliefs topping the tip of the iceberg that is the Counselor to the President.
The fire is lit. The President and his minions pour more gasoline on the conflagration every day.
At this moment, the blaze is yet to rage out of control. Only the President and his team can put it out. If they do not gain control of the raging fire, this Presidency will collapse.
Fond as I am of predictions, Donald Trump will not face impeachment. Rather, if Donald Trump and his key advisors do not start behaving like the guardians of the Presidency itself that they are, this Administration will end in an ignoble whimper. The provisions of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States will be invoked by a majority of the Cabinet and the President will be removed from office.
I do not want the Trump presidency to fail any more than I wanted the George W. Bush or the Barack Obama presidencies to fail (and I was never an enthusiastic fan of either … one made me switch parties, the other oftentimes made me regret that decision). In the end, the Trump presidency fails not because of the work of its opponents. It fails because of the actions of those slinking down the narrow halls of the West Wing as I write this essay.
The Presidency burns.
Mike Broemmel
