Prior to the June 16, 2015, announcement of his candidacy, I paid no particular attention to Donald Trump.
Without watching his game show, “The Apprentice,” or following his business or personal stories, I knew he lived flamboyantly, put his name on objects and spoke with his lips rolled into a circle. That was all I needed to know. He was neither appealing nor interesting.
His announcement of his intention to run appalled me. Besides the disjointed syntax and the sentence fragments, his negativity, his call to division and hatred that rested on unfounded accusations concerned me.
I turned back to Barack Obama’s declaration, an organized speech which began in the call-and-response style of the black church, then moved on to list the accomplishments that came from the Illinois Capitol where he spoke, before calling for a “working consensus” of a “campaign (that) must be about us.”
Before two weeks passed, Trump’s inability to speak in complete sentences caused me to estimate his IQ to be between 95 and 100. I thought he would never survive the primaries and caucuses. I was wrong. He swept the Republican primaries.
How? In his announcement, Obama cited Lincoln’s use of the “power of words.” But how did the garbled phrases and bromides of a Trump speech persuade?
More to the point, why do those at the bottom put their faith in a man who bragged about his wealth?
All political campaigns call for change but what change does Trump propose? There is the famous wall and the destruction of the ACA and the blocking of Muslim immigrants, but, is there anything positive? While Trump claims he will become “the greatest jobs president,” his personal record on paying service providers is troubling. In recent years, some of his projects have folded, meaning a loss of jobs.
Factcheck.org recently took on his claim to be the biggest employer in New Jersey, giving that title to the Wakefern Food Corp. with 40,000 employees.
In 2015, CNN found difficulties in determining just how many people the Trump organization employs, estimating that he provided jobs for 34,000. However, CNN consulted with research firm PrivCo whose numbers came in at 22,450. Contrast Trump with the Koch brothers’ 60,000 or Ford Motor Co.’s 170,000.
A receptionist I love for her straightforward friendliness, her efficiency and her work with abandoned animals confided in me that, “We need change.” I did not ask what sort of change, but I wonder if people realize that government in America has tended to be centrist or right-centrist and that Trump represents a tick to the solid right.
More to the point, handing the White House to Trump might mean that Congress will remain in the hands of the Republicans. Despite Congress’ refusal to give Merrick Garland a fair hearing, the general discontent with Congress has been taken off the stage by the election. However, in July of this year, Rasmussen reported that 29 percent of those polled rate Congress as fair, while 57 percent rate that body as poor.
Obama called for a “working consensus” in February 2007. Instead, he was stonewalled. We can not predict how Congress would react to Trump as president.
Is change possible? To prepare for the election, I enrolled in a course called The Role of Law in Democracy, which largely deals with some of the most important Supreme Court decisions. Looking back to the time of Chief Justice Marshall, it is easy to see the roots of the conflict between the originalists and those who see the Constitution as a living document.
I also watched “The West Wing,” which I had not previously seen. Working with former government officials, the show scripted the same sort of predicaments we still face. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
But, I worry about how the seething under the surface has been exposed. In an interview with NPR on Oct. 16, author and pastor Max Lucado voiced concern “with the anxiety that has settled upon the country.” Rev. Lucado asked his flock to exercise personal responsibility by weighing the platforms and the characters of the candidates and then to vote. He continued by asking that the next day people reach out to those they have disagreed with to work together.
I also think of how then-Senator Obama asked people “to disagree without being disagreeable.”
Unfortunately, disagreement and rancor are now giving way to threats of violence. If change is difficult without violence, violence will make change impossible.
But, this woman, while trying to heed the good advice of Max Lucado and Barack Obama, feels she cannot trust in a Trump presidency to pour balm on the troubled waters of the electorate, to bring change, to represent the best of this country.
Susan Wozniak is a retired journalist and writing professor who lives in Easthampton.