Donald Trump’s 100 days are up
with very little to show for it, save a few items to satisfy bigots that Trump
hasn’t turned “soft” on them, like claiming that he wants to be president for “all”
Americans, not just a minority consisting of white xenophobes and nativists. Far-right
commentators and Republican lawmakers—and “lawmakers” should be put in quotes
when applied here, since Republicans tend to spend their time undoing laws when
they are not just lounging about on the taxpayer dime—are warning that if Trump’s
anti-healthcare agenda, pro-rich tax “reform,” and racial and ethnic paranoia
is not translated into something more substantial than mere rhetoric, then
there will be “hell to pay” in the 2018 mid-term elections. Of course, one
recalls when a party actually does something constructive—like passing
affordable healthcare for all, (some) regulation against a reenactment of the
“Great Recession,” rolling back the worst abuses of the Bush-era tax cuts, and
saving hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs by keeping the domestic auto
industry afloat—there was still “hell to pay” from voters who thought it was too
much and it was time to put a stopper on it.
That equation might be different
now, because Republicans are in power and they do what they always do, rule by
subtraction. Some voters seem to believe that “less” is “more,” but that
equation only make “sense” for those who think less wages and benefits for working people should mean
more for the few. One paper-pushing corporate CEO who “earns” $100 million a year
in compensation is probably paid at least $98 million more than they are worth,
and that money could have been applied to a $10,000 raise for 10,000 low-wage
employees; multiply that by a few factors (after all, we are talking about just
the top .001 percent in that example), you can see just how out-whack this
country’s priorities are. And Trump’s proposed tax “reform,” cutting rates for
the rich by half, is supposed to “help” working Americans?
There were those who were
farsighted enough in the depths of the Great Depression to know that the top marginal
tax rates of 70 to 90 percent went far to undo such imbalances by making it
more beneficial for corporate executives to employ more people and pay higher
wages, since personal greed was not “profitable” for them. It also helped the
federal budget because more people were paying taxes (not to mention not being on
public assistance), instead of being “replaced” by a few idle rich doing what
they could to avoid paying taxes at all. But along came Reagan, and the era of
personal greed over national well-being prevailed, and continues to be so. Trump and Republicans claim that reducing tax
rates to 15 percent for the super-rich will create jobs, which even the
economists who pushed a much less “radical” cut under Reagan admit that its
trickle-down benefit never came about, in fact going in the opposite direction ever since.
Trump and many of his supporters
in Congress are the product of personal greed and social elitism, and voters
who believe Trump is for the “little guy” will soon become disabused of that
notion if his agenda actually becomes law; ethnic and racial scapegoating will
not create jobs, but likely cost jobs by forcing businesses to shut-down because
complaining is an easier occupation than getting one’s
fundament off the sofa while watching Fox News. No, what might make a greater
impression of what a Trump presidency really means won’t be apparent until he
actually does manage to get the Republicans to pass his agenda. It might not
become apparent right away, but it did take less than a decade for the massive
anti-regulation financial “reform” of 1998 which the greed-ridden Clintons endorsed
to do its work, and outside a few of the worst institutional abusers, the ones
who “paid” were working people.
One wonders if the reality of
Trump matters more than if his agenda becomes substance or not by 2018. Polls
on healthcare reform and immigration seem to indicate that the opinion of a radical
minority carries far more weight than that of the majority in the minds of
Trump and the Republicans, but what does that matter? Does doing nothing “safer” than doing
something, or does simply rolling back “change” to the “bad” we already know easier
to tolerate? Perhaps people don’t want too many “complications” in their lives,
especially those things they can’t perceive directly effecting them, since
ignorance of the “unknown” tends to unleash powerful emotions, like paranoia
and scapegoating.
But does that also mean they don’t
like the idea of having “choices,” which Trump intends to deprive them of? If
people can’t afford healthcare, or their employer doesn’t provide it, does that
mean they don’t want the “choice” of an alternative (like Obamacare), other
than dying? Do they feel more comfortable not having a “choice” about whether unregulated
financial institutions are allowed to gamble away their hard-earned money, like
they tried to do before the Great Recession? Do they prefer not having a choice
if there is environmental and food safety regulation, and polluters are allowed
to pollute unfettered by any regulations or laws? Or are we a nation of the
kind of person I once overheard, an older man, demanding to know why he should pay
taxes to fund public education. He has no kids.
What do I think will happen in
2018 if the Trump/Republican agenda does not come to fruition? Probably no more
than if it does, and nobody notices too substantial an effect on their lives
either way. Gerrymandering has entrenched the Republicans in the House of
Representatives, and they might lose a few seats in the Senate. This is a
country that only understands pain of the personal pocket book kind; for now,
Trump and the Republicans have found it expedient to focus white paranoia on
the usual suspects, but that will only work if things are only so bad enough
that the most vulnerable can be blamed. Anything bigger, white voters will have
to consider that maybe—like in 2008—minorities and “liberals” were not to blame
for the state of country, but people like Trump, his rich friends and
Republicans.
