Trump challenges a corrupt system by blowing it up
S aturday is the first anniversary of U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration, though it certainly seems longer — a lot longer. His has surely been the most disruptive first year in the history of the U.S. presidency.
It’s almost impossible to write about the man without generating waves of fury and revulsion. No other holder of that office has divided his country and created such detestation beyond its borders in so short a time.
He is rude, foul-mouthed, egotistical to a fearsome degree and given to chronic exaggeration that merges almost seamlessly into lies. And he glories in it.
Yet if I may borrow a line from Winston Churchill in the Munich debate: “I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget, but which must nevertheless be stated.” And this is that Trump spoke to a portion of the country that felt left out.
Over several decades, a culture of genuine corruption entered the heart of American politics, driven by fabulous donations of cash that enabled the ruling class — Republicans and Democrats alike — to ignore the voters they supposedly represented.
Proof? Before the election, Congress’s approval rating stood at 13 per cent. Two-thirds of Americans said they would un-elect every member of the House and Senate if they could.
Yet in the 2016 election, 97 per cent of congressmen and women were reelected, and 93 per cent of senators.
Trump is president because he was the only candidate on either side willing to confront a broken system. And here is where the dilemma arises.
In carrying out this confrontation the only way he knew — by direct assault — he brought about a level of disunity not seen since the Civil War.
With his ill-considered tweets and bullying tactics, he demeaned the office he holds. He fought with subordinates, made poor personnel appointments, and conveyed a sense of chaos within the White House. The country — and the presidency — has been deeply harmed as a result.
Now there is talk of impeachment, or failing that, resort to the 25th amendment, which gives the vicepresident, acting in concert with a majority of the cabinet, the power to remove a president who is unable to perform his duties.
Neither is likely, but that is where Trump’s tactics have led.
Yet lost in this maelstrom is the fact that he has indeed made progress.
He helped pass America’s first income-tax reform in 30 years, reducing the corporate rate from third highest in the world to just below average.
He slashed red tape, shamed several NATO countries into paying more of their fair share and, by words as much as deeds, drove down illegal immigration.
The stock market is at an all-time high, the economy has grown at rates not seen since 2005 and business confidence has soared. The jobless rate among African-Americans is the lowest since records were first kept, and the number of people receiving food stamps has dropped significantly.
To what extent the economic turnaround is due to Trump’s policies is debatable. Some will argue it is merely a continuation of a rebound that began after the 2008 recession ended.
I recognize, as well, that many of these “accomplishments” — and here I could include withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord — are controversial. Some, indeed, are loathed by half the country.
There have also been notable failures, first among them his party’s inability to reform the health-care system — a key Republican promise. And it remains to be seen how the North Korean nuclear crisis works out.
So how do we rate the first year of Trump’s presidency? That he will never satisfy his critics is a given. For he has taken on just about everything they hold dearest. Indeed, he has tried to demolish their citadel.
The question, I believe, comes down to this: Was it worth trying to remake a broken political system by first demolishing it?
Only history will provide the answer.