There are all kinds of lessons we want to teach our kids about competition, but chief among them is how to be a good loser and how to be a good winner. Winners often learn that they have to be extra kind, even if they don’t feel like they are, because there are long-term benefits to taking the high road.
This is especially true for governance, especially in a polarized climate. When it comes to losers, not showing bitterness is usually a trait of losers who have hope for the future.
Of course, these basic rules of political decorum are ones that Donald Trump has rarely followed. To be sure, the president-elect has shown a little more grace since winning this election, but part of that is because he won a more decisive victory than he did in 2016. Considering the very narrow popular vote margin, he feels pretty good about himself. And he should – his theories about campaigning and working-class voters from all walks of life have proven true. He has amassed political capital, and his victory will only give him the opportunity to accumulate even more…if he wishes.
That’s what I’m really wondering about is how he plans to carry out this presidency. How much of his presidency will be focused on revenge, how much on reform, how much on self-enrichment, and how much on amassing power for himself and his movement?
So far, he seems more inclined toward revenge than reform, given his selection to cabinet and other positions.
I’m sure Mr. Trump might claim to be appointing reformers because he accepts on some level the idea that one man’s revenge is another man’s “reform.” Again, the arsonist who set the building on fire would not be mistaken for a reformist architect. Perhaps an arsonist could argue that he cannot share his vision without first burning down the existing site.
What ultimately matters is whether these people can govern like reformers or simply serve as conduits for Trump’s revenge. And while it’s hard not to see all of this as more revenge than reform, from drawing up a list of generals to fire to threatening to purge apolitical federal employees, it’s hard not to see this as anything other than a revenge cabinet. It’s hard not to watch. .
And politically, it doesn’t make much sense.
By getting the Senate to acquiesce to the selection of former Rep. Matt Gaetz to head the Justice Department, former Fox host Pete Hegseth and Robert F. Kennedy to head the Pentagon, he Let’s say you succeed in trolling and “owning the ribs.” Mr. Junior will lead the Department of Health and Human Services, and former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard will become Director of National Intelligence. What does that accomplish for him and his voters in the long run? If the reason for choosing these people is pure revenge and they do what President Trump wants, then it really Will it help him carry out his actual agenda? If he chooses to have all these early fights with what are essentially the biggest and most important parts of government, how quickly the chaos that will be caused will go from “Change can be painful, let’s be patient” Will we move to just “instability hurts, we need to do it”? “Let’s find balance to calm the waves”? Don’t believe it. Rewind the tape to President Trump’s last term.
And it’s that question that bothers me more than anything else. Why does he make every post about the most controversial hot stock he can think of? Why does he want everyone in his cabinet armed with sledgehammers? Is he this angry about the so-called deep state? Is he convinced that the government has framed him over Russia or the various other civil and criminal cases he has faced? Or is he convinced that the government knows all about his troubles and is afraid of it?
Are either answers satisfactory to the average voter?
Either Trump was right and the government was weaponized to stop him, or the government was right, Trump is a unique threat and the parts of the government most trusted against him are the military and federal law enforcement. Either they are trying to undermine it. .
This is the political problem Trump is creating for himself: he now has complete ownership of the entire bureaucracy. There is no fantasy or mythical “deep state” to blame for not fulfilling his promises. He has appointed people who share his vision, so he has no excuse to be sabotaged by the old establishment wing of the Republican Party (as happened during his first term).
This time, he has to carry out his policies, and his ability to do so means that he not only carries out his own orders, but also somehow fulfills his promises to a whole new group of voters, for whom he is “striving” depends on whether stable political actors can be mobilized. Out” was my first experience with Trumpism.
If the next six months at the Pentagon are more about which restrooms the public can and cannot use, and who can and cannot protect the country (and Nancy about the whereabouts of one member) Trust me if you’ve been watching Congressman Mace’s latest spectacle) Congress goes to the bathroom and Hegseth (You’ll see how quickly Trump tried to start a culture war even within the Pentagon, and all the evidence shows that’s his mission). The position of Secretary of Defense is more important than the one he actually chose for the post, which he will find himself taking even more heat for.
There are many potential landmines that President Trump and the newly empowered Republican Party will need to avoid. One is that we misunderstand their cultural mission.
Many voters seem to be saying in their polls that culturally they don’t like being told how to behave. The country has a strong liberal bent, and can appear either “left” or “right” depending on which party is in power. What if the Republicans went from preaching against “DEI” to essentially imposing their own culture, forcing Bible study in public schools (see Oklahoma), or whether someone belonged on the front lines of a battle? They will if they start using gender stereotypes rather than pure merit to make decisions. They would be committing the same crime they accused the coastal elites of “imposing their culture” on masses who disagree with all their beliefs.
A diverse and multi-ethnic democracy will always be a more comfortable place to “live and let live” than to try to impose one set of values on another.
And this is the very risk President Trump is already incurring by his decision to choose the most controversial people who could fill some of these key positions. If his choices cause instability, the people will reject this government sooner than he thinks.
One of the things Trump and the Republican Party already misunderstand about his so-called mandate is that he was elected despite his personal unpopularity. In other words, he was not actively elected by the voters who supported him. He was chosen because of who he is.
This is not a decision voters made because they like Trump. On the contrary, they made this decision because they believed the Biden-Harris administration did not understand their way of life. Does Trump understand that? Maybe he doesn’t think so, but he certainly knew how to turn their grievances into a vote-getting message, and he certainly knew how to turn their grievances into a vote-getting message, and what Democrats were saying about how the working class was faring in this economy. He certainly revealed that he had no clue.
However, this peak of political capital is fleeting, and when it passes, it disappears. Just ask President Joe Biden.
Mr. Biden saw the political capital he had amassed at the beginning of his presidency completely disappear by the time he failed to withdraw from Afghanistan less than a year into his term. What was remarkable about this moment was that Biden was never able to dig out the hole in his approval ratings left by the August 2021 debacle.
I’ve long wondered why voters abandoned Biden so quickly, and why Biden didn’t capitalize on that suspicion. The conclusion I came to is that voters weren’t sold on Biden being president to begin with. He was elected more for who he is not (Trump) than for who he is (Barack Obama’s vice president).
And make no mistake: voters deciding the election simply wanted calm and stability after the coronavirus turmoil. It’s not a wholesale ideological shift in philosophy, it’s a departure from the instability brought on by Trump. Well, I think the reason why Biden lost so much ground with his failure to retreat is because decisive voters thought Biden was as insane or as wrong as the person he was in the Oval Office before. I think it’s because he thought he was (or potentially could be) incompetent.
Biden won the 2020 Democratic primary by fighting hard, asserting his cause, and establishing his own political identity, rather than winning the 2020 Democratic primary, which was halted midway due to the virus. If he had won the old-fashioned way, perhaps the world would have given him some reprieve for his first big mistake. But that’s not what happened, and the lack of connective tissue between Biden and voters didn’t help him much once his administration was judged on merits.
All parties believe the same problem – perceived excesses – will spell the end of their time in power. Whether that overreach is against cultural norms, dismantling (or “reforming”) government, or simply misreading voters themselves, nothing spells political failure more than partisan overreach. And there is no better cure for a losing party than being able to run against the excesses of the party in power.
The question is whether Trump and his Republican Party understand how they won. If they don’t accept the premise that they won because of who they are not, not because of who they are, they will lose support just as quickly as they did for Biden. Now, Trump has gone too far and has yet to take the oath.
If the first thing that comes out in January is a mass deportation plan that looks as unstable and insane as the first appointment, President Trump not only won’t have a honeymoon, but he will also have to make new appointments. You may end up meeting a submissive Republican. If his approval ratings bottom out as badly as Biden’s before the end of his first year in office, he will control the Congressional races.
