Dear Editor,
I am perplexed as to why Mr Trump’s victory is described as a “stunner” by SN (November 10), and a host of others who should have known better. This did not call for any heavy expertise, but only some reading of the writing on the wall. It was not that obscure.
Four months ago, in ‘Is Brexit the beginning of a wave of the future?’ (SN, July 1), I wrote that “it is the same kind of disenchantment and rage that has propelled Mr Trump to where he stands rather securely presently, and from where he stands poised to go all the way.” The rage mentioned would be the smouldering closeted white rage (now labelled ‘whitelash’) over such significant issues as immigration, jobs, affirmative action, and a generalized breakdown in law and order. Richard Nixon used that code phrase before to signal intention to crackdown and crack heads to make the streets more civilized and safer.
When Donald Trump spoke of “making America great again” that was one of the not-so-invisible planks, and represented a lot of unspoken unchannelled anger. Certainly, the fiery and violent street protests following clearly unjustified police killings did more damage than the unthinking had in mind. Even more clearly, the killings of police officers themselves only solidified the hard-edged sentiment that Mr Trump had to be the man. All of this has come back to haunt, and I fear that minorities will pay a harsh price in the years to come.
This is so because president-elect Donald Trump finds himself in an enviable and nearly unique situation: He is at the head of the executive arm of government, his party controls the legislature, and he has (currently) one nomination to make for the US Supreme Court.
Additionally, and looking up the road, there are three aged serving justices on that same Supreme Court, who could step down for one reason or another, including giving room to Mr Trump to make choices. The legislature is there to help, which could result in a total of four confirmed nominations to this highest judicial tribunal, not counting sitting conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.
Thus, all the arms of government, including the checks and balances, would be, could be, likeminded with Mr Trump if not in ideology, then in outlook. I believe that many of the advances of the Warren Court and the (less so) Burger Court can, and will, be subject to continuing dilutions, if not reversals.
Clearly, Mr Trump is a part of the continuum that captured public attention with the arrival of Brexit; it is about reactionary nativist passions and resentments against the usual bogies. They need no reintroduction. It explains why this man could have gotten away with every kind of insult, overcome serious allegations, and be where he is today. Any other candidate with a less demagogic appeal would have been doomed. Also, the choice of opposition certainly helped his cause.
Editor, the election is over and I am concerned about the implications of this triumph for the future. The American landscape can be altered through determined political, legislative, and judicial activism towards the treasured conservative agendas that reigned prior to 1964. There is the perfect confluence of political forces and people in place to do a lot of damage.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
