More to the point, the final three paragraphs of a recent CNN editorial by Julian Zelizer summarize what's at stake:
Unfortunately, the US will pay a price for Trump's decision to stonewall Biden's transition. Former Chief of Staff John Kelly blasted the President on Friday and said his refusal to help with the transition "could be catastrophic to our people regardless of who they voted for."
If Trump is unwilling to fulfill his duties as President in the next two months, then the least he can do is step out of the way so the incoming administration can be in the best possible position come Inauguration Day. By refusing to recognize Biden as President-elect, Trump is cleaving the country in two, hamstringing the new administration's ability to move forward, sealing the country's fate with a grave loss of human life due to Covid-19 and potentially dealing a devastating blow to the economy.
If Trump continues on this path, it will be tragic. And historians will look back on the next two months and debate what might have been -- how many lives and livelihoods could have been saved -- if only Trump had been capable of thinking of someone other than himself.
See the complete article here: Trump's Refusal to Concede
Since even the most cultic Trump followers start realizing he will not be next president, most are transitioning into the last phase of "historic revisionism" of the narrative.
ReplyDeleteFor example pundits saying that: "history will prove Trumps response to covid the best ever......."
Nck
Hmm, since I only read screaming headlines without context for news, I cannot help but notice that Biden threatens that there will be "many dead, if Trump does not cooperate with transition."
ReplyDeleteNck
Hey Miller.
ReplyDeleteI just had an insight.
I read AOC and likeminds might split the Democrats .
The Republicans are in fact split between the "old guard" like the Bushes and "new wavers" like the teaparty people and now the "trumpists".
To an American this might look like a "frightening perspective." However it occurred to me that most western nations have on average 15 political parties represented in parliament with at times coalition governments existing out of 3 or more different parties. Even the Conservatives in the UK had to accept the "Liberal Party" in a coalition several years ago.
Of course such development would require a complete remake of the American system of representative government.
I am just proposing that the United States might just develop into a more mature nation now, into many political shades, now that the country exists for a couple of centuries, while the current constitution might only work for a "start up."
Just a thought. Didn't even look up if some Law Professor, Constitutional Lawyer or Ivy League Law Department already thought about my proposal in an academic way.
My experience is that that is often the case..............since I have a habit of being out of the box.
nck
There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates two political parties or precludes the formation of multiple political parties. The notion of dividing into two parties originated at the beginning of the republic with the federalists and anti-federalists. And, although other parties have always existed, for most of our history different shades of opinion have found representation within the two major parties. It wasn't that long ago that both the Republicans and the Democrats had liberal, moderate and conservative wings. The development of Republicans and Democrats into ideologically distinct entities (conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats) is a development of the last 40 years. Hence, the current bipolar situation is dictated by experience/tradition alone. And, frankly, in the current climate, any movement in the direction of a multipolar model would be a welcome development.
DeleteThe bipolar model is dictated by the 50 percent plus one vote takes all district/state etc.
ReplyDeleteFor instance in the UK the liberal party at times had 20 percent of total votes but hardly a soul in parliament and only gets to co rule once every century.
It's a structure aimed to create George Washington's royal presidency".
Nck
Washington has grown increasingly corrupt! Drain it! It doesn't matter what party affiliation it has taken root in.
ReplyDeleteWell politics is about "stakes."
DeleteWith corrupt you mean that the politicians themselves have become self enriching "stake" holders, as compared to nation above self?
Nck
I was also referring to those who are entrenched in the Military Industrial Complex. Here is a portion of an excellent article by Glenn Greenwald that is worth digesting.
Delete"One major reason for this transformation is a fundamental difference in how to understand Trump: is he the primary author of America’s pathologies or merely a symptom of pathologies which long pre-dated him? Relatedly: is removing Trump from power a vital step in returning the U.S. to its previous status as a benevolent and law-abiding republic, or is isolating him as the principal cause of the nation’s woes a cynical propaganda tactic for whitewashing the sins of those who are actually responsible so that they can rebuild their reputations and again assume power? Were Trump’s policies some radical, unprecedented aberration from U.S. political tradition or, stylistic quirks aside, a standard continuation of it?
How one answers those questions — along with whether one believed that the Kremlin had infiltrated the White House and assumed command of the levers of U.S. power through elaborate blackmail schemes or whether one recognized that this was a CIA-fabricated propaganda fraud excavated from crusty Cold War scripts — determined where one fell on many of the most contentious political debates over the last four years (my answer to all of the questions is the latter choice).
That’s why the millions of Americans who, due to fear of Trump, began paying close attention to politics and consuming news products only in 2016 were such easy marks for peddling fear-mongering narratives and revisionism: because they lacked the crucial historical context in which to place Trump and understand his ascension to the presidency."
FULL ARTICLE
DBP,
DeleteOnce again, although we disagree, you have demonstrated that there is thought and reasoning behind your support of Trump. I do not consider you to be one of the folks whose support is based on emotion. I do not consider you to be part of the cult of personality that has developed around this president. Moreover, your willingness to engage with those who disagree with you is indicative of sincerity, seriousness and intellectual curiosity.
Having said all of that, I think that this article is condescending and simplistic in its evaluation of those who have opposed Trump. I have been a student of American history and politics for most of my life (my majors in college). I was paying attention to the body politic long before 2016. And, as far as the narratives about Russian interference, regardless of what one thinks about the degree of truth contained in those narratives, Trump's and his team's actions reinforced it.
Personally, I believe Trump is a symptom of a larger phenomenon - NOT the cause. I think Trump tapped into a general dissatisfaction with immigration policy, trade policy and the political class generally speaking. He was a vehicle to give the establishment the middle finger and irritate/agitate those "damn liberals." In a sense, Trump and his supporters used each other for their own ends.
Some of Trump's supporters realized that their motivations and purposes were not precisely the same as the man they had chosen to represent them, but they accepted that reality as part of the bargain. Others never realized that Trump had his own agenda, and that he wasn't always looking out for their interests. The fatal mistakes that Trump and both kinds of his supporter made, however, was that they never tried to reach out to or accommodate the other side. Indeed, the very nature of Trump's movement made it impossible to do so (that desire to stick it to the other side).
Both sides have their propaganda, but it is the duty of every citizen to see that for what it's worth. It is the duty of an informed citizenry to evaluate the information that both sides are putting out and reach its own conclusions about what to believe, and which side represents its best interests.
Hence, I believe that I have a good understanding of what's transpired over the last five years. I think that my posts also make very clear that I did not believe that this outcome (a Biden victory) was a forgone conclusion. I hoped that Biden and the principles which he represented would win, but I also didn't have any delusions about the appeal or the popularity of Trump and what he represented. That was NEVER my problem.
Nck wrote, "With corrupt you mean that the politicians themselves have become self enriching "stake" holders, as compared to nation above self?"
DeleteIs there corruption in Washington? Has the corruption within our political parties become so entrenched that they are unsalvageable? If accusations of corruption are censored, then the answer would be emphatically NO! Is it impossible for that corruption in Washington to collude with the media? Is the MSM impervious to corruption and error? Increasingly, these questions are being labeled as "conspiracy theories." Next, they will be "verboten." Silenced. Truth will now only be delivered on a silver platter for your convenience by the Ministry of Truth.
"If you’re a fan of corporate media outlets, if you are eager for Silicon Valley giants to more aggressively and unilaterally censor who can and cannot be heard online, if you believe that true power and authoritarianism rests not with the national security state and the political parties funded by oligarchical centers but in random fringe bands of your fellow citizens, then you are many things. A warrior against fascism and authoritarianism is most definitely not among them."
Well.
ReplyDeleteIf the past was any better, we are lucky to be having a president who was born closer to the assasination of Lincoln than today.
Nck