APPROVAL RATING FOR DONALD TRUMP as
of 02/18/2019: 36%
(reported by CBS News)
The time is
fast approaching when we must take a closer look at Trump supporters and begin to assess them more carefully as to who
they are and what they will continue to support no matter what is really occurring.
I need to
share with you what I think is being treated in a cavalier manner. This is not just about the winning candidate
of a national party; this is about the supporters of that pretend president. Some time ago, Republican operatives, Bush supporters and workers
and department staff began to leave the GOP for higher ground. I’ve even heard, as I’m sure you have, that
some of those neo-conservatives think there is no longer a true Republican
Party but that it has morphed into the Party of Trump, with right-wing radicals
calling the shots.
Be that as
it may, we must begin to look more closely at the remaining die-hard Trump supporters
who apparently make up about 36% of those who still find Trump to be their man
in the Oval Office. Many questions
center on who these people are, and what motivates them. Here is one description
(based on surveys by CBS News when support for Trump was at about 42%) of those
supporters:
President Trump's support and
opposition falls mainly under three groups, as the CBS News Nation Tracker has
shown over the course of a year.
Believers (18 percent)
Believers
are President Trump's staunchest supporters and include almost one in five
Americans. They tend to be on the older side, with three in four aged 45 or
over, a third 65 or over. A third are retired. Believers are the least racially
diverse group. Over eight in ten are white. Geographically, almost half live in
the South, a region that went heavily for Trump in the election, and three in
ten live in rural areas. About four in ten identify as born-again Christians.
These identities are important to them: in the most recent survey, this group
is the most likely to feel that the President is fighting and standing up for
their culture and way of life, and working for people of their faith, as much
as their economic class. This sentiment is mixed with strong conservativism.
Believers are most likely to call themselves "very conservative," and
twice as likely to do so as other Trump supporters, more of whom call
themselves "somewhat" conservative. For example, Believers are the least likely
group to view health care as a right – most say health care is a service to be
purchased like any other.
Conditionals (24 percent)
Conditionals
currently support President Trump, but they say that he has to deliver what
they want in order to keep them. This group makes up nearly a quarter of the
public. They are similar to Believers in that eight in ten are white, and
geographically, with a similarly sized plurality residing in the South and
three in ten living in rural areas. On the other hand, Conditionals tend to be
younger than Believers are. Four in ten are under 45; only 21 percent are
seniors. They are more likely to get their health insurance through an employer
than through government programs. While more than a third identify as born
again, they are overall less likely than Believers to say that religion is
"very important" in their lives.
Conditionals
tend to be more economically focused than culturally focused, which may
partially stem from being younger and less religious… facing greater economic
difficulties, such as unemployment and student debt, than older generations,
according to recent research. Along these lines, Conditionals are less
confident than Believers are that the American Dream is still achievable, and
more likely to say circumstances and opportunities determine outcomes more than
hard work and effort do. Only half say the economy is better than it was one
year ago, compared to over eight in ten Believers. And three quarters say that
if President Trump does not fix the economy, he would lose some or all of their
support. Conditionals are more mixed on social issues like Mr. Trump's transgender
ban in the military. They are warmer towards immigrants and more likely to
describe their general viewpoint as "moderate".
Curious (17 percent)
The Curious
are currently against President Trump but are willing to reconsider him if he
does a good job. This group is approximately one sixth of the country. They are
the youngest of the four groups, with 59 percent under 45 and almost a third
under 30. By a large margin, they want to see Republicans and Democrats work
together to improve Obamacare. The Curious are the most racially diverse of the
four groups. The Curious are also the only group more likely to live in cities
(four in ten do) than in suburbs or rural areas…and their diversity is
associated with more positive views about immigrants –six in ten are opposed to
a U.S.-Mexico border wall. They are the least likely group to have voted, with
more than half doubting the efficacy of voting. They are less polarized,
leaving them more in play politically, and possibly more open to supporting
Trump... more than half would consider voting for a Republican.
My major concern
is that we are treating the cohort of Trump loyalists (Believers and some Conditionals)
as though they are no different than any other opposition group. After all, we do believe in this country that
political party membership, or ideological differences are not something to get
too upset about. Some often say that it doesn't make any difference which major Party is in control, they all act about the same! We carry on as though
we can work with the opposition and strike compromises, explore common ground
and come up with bi-partisan legislation as we always have.
It is also somewhat of a
fundamental axiom that we don’t penalize or unnecessarily demonize or punish
people of another political persuasion.
We attempt to work for the common good no matter who may be in the
majority, or hold the most seats in the Congress, in the state houses, or in state
legislatures. We don’t even get
particularly upset when the judiciary is packed with appointments that
represent the views of one group more than another. We tolerate each other and try as best we can
to work together on common causes and concerns.
Are we making a MISTAKE this time in being that calmly unaware of our differences? We may be, and here's why...
Here’s
the RUB: is it reasonable or acceptable to allow support of candidates, office-holders,
administrative department heads, judges and Justices who declare or uphold a
belief in the “de-construction” of the administrative state? Or, to abide and even support the use and
abuse of children of asylum-seekers in order to discourage other migrants and
refugees from immigrating to this country? Or, to allow the non-constitutional precedent of shutting-down a large
portion of government to force legislators to comply with the building of a
wall? Or, to overlook brazen conduct of criminal enterprises by a president while in office? Or, to denigrate, defame and de-fang our intelligence agencies (and others like the EPA) by getting rid of dedicated career professionals?
Do those who
support Donald Trump and his administration realize that they are supporting
and abetting:
· governance that ignores, belittles,
overrides and punishes legislators and other public servants when they resist or oppose “their leader?”
· governance done by executive directives
and manipulations, including the undermining of health care insurance for many
millions of citizens and grossly exaggerated tax breaks for the richest less-than-one-percent?
· white nationalism that allows and supports
racism, sexism, gender discrimination, as well as denial of dignity to another
world religion, certain nationalities, those with disabilities and others who
are struggling with the myriad effects of homelessness and poverty? All of which are also supported by indecent budget
proposals and directives that deny government help to those who face special
challenges and undermine the General Welfare.
· an assault upon truth, unbiased data,
studies, intelligence gathering, and fact-finding, so much so that one cannot
discern what is truth, what is fiction, and what is plain falsehood? A government run on such chaotic lack of
truth is a government that whittles away and ultimately destroys the will of
the people and the ultimate basis for conducting an open and transparent
government and its programs.
· an assault upon rights such as
freedom of the Press and the right to be free from establishment of a religion,
its practices or its doctrinal utterances.
· Russian interference in our
elections, in our secrets, in our relations with other countries?
· the criminal enterprises of Donald
Trump appointees, of Donald Trump Enterprises or of Donald Trump’s family (such
as employment of undocumented illegal immigrants or the receiving of payments (“emoluments”)
from foreign governments?
Do his Believers understand the complicity involved in supporting this man: his adultery, his
racism, his obstruction of investigations, his lying to voters and to Congress,
his hate speech involving women, Muslims, homosexuals, immigrants, Mexicans and
other Latinos? Or his refusal to act to prevent destruction of our environment and
ultimately our planet? Or, his failure to comply with a court order to re-unite
kidnapped immigrant children with their parents, possibly causing irreparable
harm to them? Or, his support of Russia to the detriment of the United States
and his belief in the words of despots rather than his own intelligence
agencies? Or, his destruction of nuclear-reduction treaties, and relationships
with long-time allies of this nation?
It is time to reveal the bottom line
here. We must begin to treat Trump’s closest supporters, as potentially complicit destroyers of benevolent
government, of representative government that has a legal
obligation to protect the people's welfare as their primary activity; and,
of open accountable government built upon truth not lies. We must begin to treat Trump loyalist supporters
not as a normal opposition or just another Party, but as a malevolent force
that contributes to overthrow of our democracy and democratic values in favor of
despotic governance aiming to initiate one-man rule, rather than the rule of Law. It is time to realize that the enemy of the
People is in the White House, and that his followers in the Congress, the
Judiciary, and state governments must be called out and prevented from holding
office or influencing government functioning because of their unquestioning complicity in
Trump words and actions.
I do not favor
repression, oppression or regression to a McCarthy-era witch-hunt. I am simply
advocating for a recognition that this is not
a normal situation where the opposition can or should be tolerated. Toleration of this scofflaw and his beliefs,
and those of his loyal followers, is a direct threat to our form of government,
and equivalent to inviting the overthrow and downfall of our entire system of
governance. Cooperation is equal to being co-opted. Adjustment to a “new normal” is equivalent to
a moral numbness that will bring a cancer upon our constitutional form of government. Compromise is equivalent to a turn-over of
vital powers to a militant force bent upon authoritarian power, control and destruction.
Every time his loyal followers (or his detractors) act as though Trump, his advisers, his
administrators, and his sycophants are following acceptable principles,
processes and concepts that vary only slightly from the norm, we risk the overthrow and
destruction of our form of democracy because such crowd acceptance overlooks deconstruction,
“absolutism,” and an alpha-male who will always denigrate, reject or annihilate
perceived enemies.
In other
words, this is equivalent to accepting a coup d’etat - accepting a Fascist
regime without raising any objections - all the while believing that “we are
working together across the aisle.”
Tolerating this crowd in their red caps is equivalent to the facile
acceptance of the fascist tendencies of Adolph Hitler and his “brown shirts” by
a plurality of Germans in the 1930’s. It
is equivalent to the failure of industrious, hard-working, but politically numb
people of German towns and cities who believed threats to their way of life were
coming from the far Left of the political spectrum (communists), not from the
far Right (believers in a new fascist German Empire). Today, as we speak, those Trump “red caps”
are being led down the same path – brain-washed by orchestrated waves of propaganda
(repetitive big lies) into believing that their greatest threat is from “socialism”,
not from (white) “nationalism” falsely touted as making “America Great
Again.”
We have
come to a point where a major question must be considered:
Have Trump supporters and sponsors become co-conspirators (abettors,
willing participants or agents) in a criminal enterprise or revolutionary,
destructive force that intends to eliminate our form of democracy? If so, it is imperative that he and his close
followers be kept from ever being able to run for, or to hold, public office.
So, what are
the guardrails that must be constructed to prevent the capture of public office by persons intent upon the destruction of democratic values
and processes (such as white supremacists, Klansmen, Nazis, Communists, and a
host of other haters of one kind or another)?
Here are a few thoughts on the matter:
1. Party vetting –
political parties must take upon themselves the awesome responsibility of deep
and thorough probing into the beliefs and behaviors of potential candidates. As
part of this, every candidate should have to submit a written survey of their
political beliefs and concepts (to serve as a basis for oral questioning), accompanied
by a signed statement (see #4 below), their tax returns for at least the prior
5 years, and an obligatory financial disclosure form
2. Refusal to endorse – political parties and their members must refuse to endorse any potential
candidates whose ideology, plan or platform includes any of a myriad of
destructive and divisive despotic concepts (such as the 14 points discussed in
my Blogs of 8/6 and 8/14/2017, 1/13/2018, 2/5/2018)
3. Organized Resistance -- opposition to such candidates must also come from resistance groups
and private organizations specifically organized to denounce and derail any
such candidates that slip into any campaign for public office
4.
Signed Statement (contract?) -- that indicates a promise to adhere
to the oath (or description) of the office to which they aspire, and that certifies
their acknowledgement of a fiduciary responsibility attached to that
office; this signed statement should be required to be provided to the sponsoring Party, the Board of
Elections, and the person or entity under whose jurisdiction and oversight the office-holder
will serve.
(A Fiduciary is an individual in whom another has placed
the utmost trust and confidence to manage and protect property or money; usually, a person who holds a legal or ethical
relationship of trust with one or more other parties (person or group of
persons). Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or assets for
another person. A fiduciary
relationship is one wherein one person has an obligation to act for another's benefit
-- all actions are meant to be performed for the advantage of the beneficiary. While the courts have not specifically defined
the circumstances or restrictions on such a relationship, the courts stringently
examine transactions between people involved in fiduciary relationships toward one
another, placing particular scrutiny on any transaction by which a dominant individual
obtains any advantage or profit at the expense of the party under his or her influence)(sources include: Wikipedia; legal dictionary; Oxford
dictionary, etc.)
5. Recall (or Impeachment) – any person who exhibits despotic, unjust, illegal or blatantly divisive
activity, or harmful treatment of one group over another, should be subject to
a recall vote in either a special election or a pending general election; the
process calling for such should be broadly accessible to voters and easily
enabled; impeachment might be an alternate (or concurrent) proceeding, if available
6. Court Challenge
– if an office-holder is failing to live up to his/her oath of office or Fiduciary
responsibility, or is suspected of a criminal liability, that person should be
subject to a suit or trial in the proper Courts brought by a person or entity with reasonably appropriate “standing” before the court (and I believe ordinary citizens should be given that standing!)
Once again, I believe that “free speech” does not apply to
circumstances where particular speech or behavior is threatening to life or
liberty, or, is hateful speech potentially leading to violence against its
subjects, or, is a threat to the very existence of our constitutional and
democratic government and its values.
It is all too possible that many Trump supporters are now abettors
who are becoming complicit in anti-social, anti-democratic, and anti-fiduciary,
albeit potentially illegal activities undertaken by this man and his
administration. In my opinion, they must,
therefore, be called-out for what they are: co-conspirators with what Trump embodies and represents. As more revelations surface as to the nefarious
activities and threats undertaken by this man and his minions, he and his Believers
are becoming greater threats to our national security. They must be treated as such by excluding
them from public office and opposing their views at every opportunity until they
denounce his (and their) tyrannical, treasonous and despotic creed.
An American axiom avers that we tolerate each other and
that we cooperate with each other for the common good; that we reach across
the aisle to work with the opposition. There
is another axiom of equal validity: Destructive
Authoritarians of every stripe must be confronted early and continuously to
defend and protect our constitutional democracy; perhaps with the fierce
determination of one of our longest-serving Congressmen, recently deceased.
After the events at Charlottesville occurred, at age 91, the former
Congressman from Michigan, John Dingle, tweeted that he enlisted once to
fight Nazis, and he’d do so again if necessary. He also reminded Donald
Trump that resigning from his office “could be fitted into a tweet!”
SO BE IT!
