The United States has a long tradition of current Presidents not criticizing their predecessor(s). This is an important tradition both within and without the country, as it promotes harmony between otherwise antagonistic political parties and intra-party factions, as well as presenting a seemingly coherent and smooth transition from one Administration to the next.
But when we return to sanity, how will the next President handle the inferior position in which Trump will leave the United States? I stumbled across this article in the Los Angeles Times:
China has now assumed the mantle of fighting climate change, a global crusade that the United States once led. Russia has taken over Syrian peace talks, also once the purview of the American administration, whose officials Moscow recently deigned to invite to negotiations only as observers.
France and Germany are often now the countries that fellow members of NATO look to, after President Trump wavered on how supportive his administration would be toward the North Atlantic alliance.
And in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S., once the only mediator all sides would accept, has found itself isolated after Trump’s decision to declare that the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
In his wide-ranging speech on national security last week, Trump highlighted what he called the broadening of U.S. influence throughout the world.
But one year into his presidency, many international leaders, diplomats and foreign policy experts argue that he has reduced U.S. influence or altered it in ways that are less constructive. On a range of policy issues, Trump has taken positions that disqualified the United States from the debate or rendered it irrelevant, these critics say.
Many of the maneuvers and stumbles of the Trump Administration will need to be repudiated, inside and outside the country. I hope the Democratic Party is having a quiet discussion of the topic, because it’ll be important to present a united front as well as a coherent explanation of the strategy, whatever it might be.
The GOP, on the other hand, is too much in the grip of Trump to actually consider having such a discussion on a formal basis, although possibly more moderate members talk about it over dinner. The rest of the Party, however, is still convinced they’ll be holding on to power over the long term with the Party in its current extremist form.
I think the proper strategy is simply to admit the error of electing Trump by blaming him. Within the United States, it sends a firm message that these many stumbles are directly connected to Trump, and it’ll be important to attribute many of those mistakes to his deceit and even self-delusion, as well as his lack of curiosity. Trying to attribute his mistakes to being an amateur or someone from the private sector would send a message incompatible with the basic mythos of the United States, that being any kid can grow up to President of the United States. One cannot rule anyone out, but it’s acceptable to say You’d better be ready to study your fanny off! to anyone thinking of running for the position – making ludicrous promises and lying like it’s an art form are not acceptable approaches to campaigning and governing, and that message needs to be emphasized.
Outside the United States, it’ll be an implicit acknowledgment of the mistake our Democracy has made with the election of Trump to the Presidency, an apology to friends – and a warning to those countries’ leaders who considered Trump a role model.
