top
US
US
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Trump Trump Hate

by Don Eichelberger
The hate divide in America is great and growing. Can we work toward a non-violent approach and deal with the Trump administration by building on areas we can find agreement on? Here are some ideas for modeling a more positive political process in the face of world insanity.
I have stood flat footed these past weeks of the Trump presidency trying to make sense of the world. No luck, yet. A divide has grown in America and being spread to the world between two intransigent factions; there is very little overlap of any opinion, only brute animosity from both sides, and I feel stuck in the middle.

For guidance I must look toward the mission of my life’s activism: striving for a world where violence can be tamed through communication and understanding. I now see myself trying to build bridges in the face of so many walls being built, both literal and figurative. Building walls isn’t even a descriptive metaphor. Both sides are building barriers against each other as if side-by-side; fences against fences.

Building a bridge toward Trump is not a popular idea in the circles I run in. His sleazy, sexist remarks caught in an unguarded moment on a hot mic, more public racist comments about Mexican murderers and rapists, his compulsion to build a wall on the Mexican border, threats to immigrants of mass deportations, a war against Islam, foreign, environmental and security policy in the hands of big corporations and the “alt-right”, and a loosey-goosey attitude toward the truth all conspire against wanting to have anything to do with reaching out to Trump. But I think we should.

It is a gesture that was altogether forbidden to President Obama over the last 8 years. Democrats want to adopt the Mitch McConnell playbook of obstinate non-cooperation. But to do so, I worry, will only escalate the vast divisions among Americans and feed the growing spiral of distrust for American governmental systems.

Choosing a non-violent route toward social change requires that we first try to use all legal means available to us. If the existing system of checks and balances is shown to be inadequate to hem in fascism, then we mobilize to change and mold new checks and balances that work for the vast majority of the people, as opposed to what we have today.

Strategic non-cooperation and public protest will, of course, be essential to preventing the worst of Trump’s agenda from being implemented. But we need to pick our fights carefully and not just be reactive to every provocation. Constant assaults on Trump’s legitimacy as President embolden his bully mentality. He will continue to overload the Tweetosphere with mostly disinformation, innuendo and name calling, playing to the 25-30% of his hard core followers. If every Tweet provokes street responses, especially where the anger can’t be controlled and they become violent, it will wear down our opposition and give his administration implied permission to escalate their tactics against dissent.

Trump claims to be a deal maker; he would say he “wrote the book” on the subject (The Art of the Deal). Over the last eight years of Republican sandbagging against President Obama, deal making has become a lost art in DC. It may be too late; the watchword of this administration may already be “see you in court”. Building understanding in this zoo may be a fool’s errand, but I would like to have seen us, in non-violence parlance, “try to be nice at first”; seek out areas of agreement we could expand on.

One opportunity that presented itself early-on was an infrastructure bill. Trump campaigned for one, but, as soon as he was declared winner, Bernie Sanders threw down a Democratic proposal like a gauntlet, rather than hear what the new administration would put forth, and Trump was convinced by the Republicans not to pursue a bill for now. Would Trump have taken the route of rule by decree if he had been given space to propose legislation with at least the possibility of negotiating bipartisan support? That is the hopeful dream of non-violence usually trampled to death by the “realists”.

For years, many of us fought tooth and nail against globalization. NAFTA, and its GATT predecessor were trade deals we knew would lower the boats for many Americans; even Ross Perot warned of a “giant sucking sound” of jobs going to Mexico. The stated hope was to raise the boats for others. We’ve seen the hit to American manufacturing and job losses predicted, but the main gains have evaded the middle class and accrued to the top-most tier of investors. We have not seen boats in Mexico raised by much, either, thanks in part to NAFTA displacement of subsistence farming in Mexico, so our borders are saturated with poor people searching for a better life, an understandable goal. Meanwhile, five people in the world now control more than half its wealth.

Is there a way to negotiate the economic situation in North America so that there is less poverty in Mexico, making America less a magnet? We could try, or are we so protective of our own plenty that we let a prison wall be built against the poverty of Mexico? Trump is big talk about negotiating “win-win” deals; he should be held to those closely and given every opportunity to succeed.

The whole issue of Russian influence in our election feels like the smokescreen Trump claims it is. There is no doubt outside influences were at work in the election, much of it fomented by Russia and their Eastern European allies. But for there to be enough of an influence to actually help elect a loose cannon candidate is more a statement about the fragile state of our democracy than the wiliness of Russian propagandists. Flynn’s reassuring talk with a Russian ambassador was no doubt a breach of protocol, but does it rise to the level of treason? Or was it a case of an incoming administration trying to signal a less hostile approach in its dealings with Russia to head off a confrontation with Russia it would inherit? As a Quaker friend said to me, “What’s wrong with being friendly with Russia?” Trust, but verify.

Trump seems eager to renegotiate the role of the US military as the world’s cop. Trump’s designate to run the Pentagon got a “no” vote from Sen. John McCain because he favors reduced military spending. The last two presidents, Bush and Obama, grew accustomed to diplomacy from the bow of a war ship. I hold no hope the Trump administration is pacifist, but it couldn’t hurt to open a dialogue about other options to America maintaining the strongest military in history to protect Europe from Russia and enforce its will wherever its “strategic interests” are threatened (although that last part is probably not a Trump priority).

Finally, the (un)Affordable Care Act now has a chance to be renegotiated and, in Trump’s own words, made “better”. His effort to repeal the mandate portion of ACA would likely undercut access to health care for millions, some of whom are rightly miffed about being required to pay egregious premiums in order to prop up profits for the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry. In 1999, prospective independent candidate for President, Donald Trump, said he believed that health care should be a right and not a privilege, and expressed support for universal healthcare. His willingness to undo a multi-billion dollar industry is doubtful, but with all the chips in the air, now is the time to push for the improbable.

I am truly afraid that a war culture society is taking root that finds its meaning in force and sees negotiation as some Commie intellectual plot. But, like my grandma used to say, it’s easy being friendly with friends; making friends with enemies takes more work.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network