Dal nostro corrispondente in California, Tony Tasca, riceviamo questo articolo che fa il punto su Trump a quattro mesi dalla sua elezione a Presidente degli Stati Uniti d'America.
Il pensiero di Tony non corrisponde a quello che il comitato di redazione generalmente pensa sui provvedimenti varati da Trump da quando si è insediato alla Casa Bianca e sulla sua politica magistralmente delineata nel programma che lo ha portato sorprendentemente a vincere sulla Clinton, ma lo pubblichiamo egualmente in quanto, a nostro avviso, corrisponde tutavia al pensiero di una gran parte degli americani.
L'articolo è in lingua originale e consigliamo ai nostri lettori che masticano poco l'inglese di avvalersi del traduttore di Google. Buona lettura.
Il direttore
Carlo Ricchini
-------------------------------
The 2016 election was the 16th since I came to America. The aftermath of Trump’s win over Clinton is like nothing I have seen before. The vitriol, rancor, and mass hysteria are well documented and public. Why?
Everyone has his own take or spin. Here is mine …
Democrats had pretty much concluded that Hilary’s win was in the bag. After all, Trump was a racist, misogynist, homophobe, and other choice epithets. Intelligent and compassionate people surely would reject him wholesale. National polls confirmed this view. Clinton was so much ahead that Trump could not possibly close the gap.
Democrats met on Tuesday evening November 8th in various parts of the country expecting to celebrate the historical win by a female candidate for President. There were balloons, joyful background music, beverages, and hugs aplenty. People were cocky sure that it would be a great win, including control of the Senate and possibly the House as well.
As election results started to trickle in, the roar of the celebrating crowd started to dim. Surely these initial results were coming from red states or republican counties, some folks thought. Once votes started to come in from the urban areas, the vote count would surely change trajectory. As state after state was being called for Trump, the celebration became more and more silent. A remaining ray of hope was the wall … Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. There was no way that Trump would win in these blue states … so people were asked to be patient and wait for the count from these democratic bastions.
It was about midnight on the East Coast when the writing on the wall was crystal clear. Trump would carry by a small margin, not only Florida, but also Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Watching the reaction to the vote tallies as they were announced was quite poignant. Tears, hugs, displays of irritation, bursts of anger, and signs of desperations were everywhere.
Stoking the Fire?
Soon progressives began to stoke the fire by suggesting that a Trump win would result in mass deportations, registry of all Muslims, a surge of intolerance, emergence of a plutocracy running the nation, a dismantling of the safety net, and an dangerous foreign policy.
Shock soon gave way to anger (Not My President). Disappointment soon succumbed to threats (Chants of By Any Means). Unpreparedness was immediately followed by a call to action (Resist, resist, resist). Many progressives got caught up in this fury … their tactics seemed to become more rigid and extreme. Those who disagreed with their conclusions were shouted down, others were not even permitted to speak.
It did not help the situation when a few republicans gloated about the victory of Trump and the defeat of Clinton. It was like rubbing salt on the wounds.
Reality soon overtook all the rhetoric and electioneering. It was a historic rejection of the progressive agenda nationwide with a few exceptions along the western coastline and the Northeastern corridor where Clinton outperformed Trump in the national vote by over 4 million votes. Republicans not only won the presidency, but also retained the majority in the Senate and House. In the words of President Obama: another shellacking.
Progressive vowed to make Trump an illegitimate president, by the ominous chant of by any means. They became determined to throw any and all roadblocks to effective governing. Trump’s objectives of increasing manufacturing jobs, streamlining regulations, strengthening the military, muscle up our foreign policy, replace the healthcare, and building the wall should be obstructed all the way. The fear is that if Trump delivers on his promises, the republicans would surely control the presidency for the next 16 years.
The Democrat’s Kabuki Dance
Unable to accept defeat, by any means became a reality:
Blame the defeat on the Russians
Blame the loss on the FBI Director
Attack the Electoral College as undemocratic
Ask for a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania
Offer electors in the Electoral College favors for switching their vote
Start demonstrations, marches, and confrontations
Initiate lawsuits in as many States as possible
Caricature whenever the newly elected President
Hurl epithets, profanities, and threats against the republicans
While these events might have helped diffuse the anger and move some folks toward acknowledgement, the paranoia, whining, and pent-up resentment are still present. Trump’s late night twitter messages have not helped his cause or the situation. They have actually inflamed and harden positions.
Democrats’ remaining strategy is to slow down the legislative process and mire the nomination of cabinet officers. Powerless to stop the republican machine, their fate has been relegated to evening news snippets of accusations of corruption, questionable dealings, and conflict of interest.
Strategies for Change
Research on change has taught us that there are eight “pure” strategies for change. Pure is intended to connote a theoretical rather than practical framework. In practice, these eight strategies are used in combination. I had to dust off my academic papers to find these descriptions.
Fellowship Strategy
Confrontation Strategy
Economic Strategy
Political Strategy
Academic Strategy
Military Strategy
Engineering Strategy
Normative Re-educative Strategy
Each of these strategies has advantages and disadvantages. When grouped together, we have three major types of change: power and coercive (Political, Economic, Military, and Confrontation), rational-empirical (Engineering, Academic, Fellowship), behavioral science (Normative-Re-educative).
The strategy so far adopted by the resistance movement combines power coercive (Confrontation) with rational-empirical (Fellowship).
The basic assumption in the Confrontation Strategy is that through nonviolent argument one can force people to look at problems, and as a result, desired changes will be made. This strategy is useful in releasing tension, venting anger, and arguing for moral values. The strength is that it makes people take a look at problems they would otherwise ignore. However, this strategy offers no solution and is sometime ineffective because those who use it typically lack power, and also generates a backlash.
The basic assumption of the Fellowship Strategy is that getting people to know and like one another will facilitate mutual influence and change. This strategy’s strength is its commitment to the individual and giving dignity to that individual. It is good at getting things started. Problem is, however, that due to conflict avoidance and inability to effectively reach decisions, such a strategy suffers from a sense of directionless. This lack of direction can decrease commitment of those involved.
Getting Back to Reality
Demonstrations, marches, town hall confrontations, and other displays of opposition will help democrats release tensions, vent their anger, and argue for moral values as we tackle emotional and hot button issues about illegal immigration, abrogation of the Affordable Health Care, defunding of Planned Parenthood, and social justice grievances. Being in your face forces people to acknowledge that we have problems that need our attention and resolution.
Community organizing is an effective manner of getting people to talk to one another, to respect one another’s dignity, and station in life. However, no significant decisions will come out, and the many grievances it tries to resolve diffuse energy.
It would much better if democrat members of Congress identify those areas of common interest with the republicans and work together to address them. I am basing my assumptions on the fact that reasonable people can look at problems in rational terms. By focusing on those who have power, decisions can be more easily achieved. A toll order? Perhaps, but what are the other options?
IF Trump is successful in achieving these six goals, the republicans for sure will control the presidency for at least the next 16 years:
· Fix the decaying infrastructure
· Grow the economy at 3%+ per annum
· Increase number of high paying jobs
· Make trade policies fairer
· Fix the immigration problem
· Enact a healthcare system that works for all
What is your take on what’s going on with our political system? I welcome your thoughts.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento