English Version / YtaliGlobal
“It doesn’t have to be this way,” Kamala Harris often repeats, referring to the type of future that her opponent represents for the country. The question that arises spontaneously, but which is not asked and does not receive an answer, is – first of all – how could it have happened “like this”. The current political/social climate in the United States may give the impression of having arisen, as if suddenly, as a result of Donald Trump’s campaigning and leadership style, but this would give him far too much credit. The truth is that the stage has been set for Trump over decades, with a series of events resulting in a slow but inexorable deterioration of respect and trust in two foundational institutions of American political life: the media and the government itself.
American political culture suffered a serious blow with the Watergate scandal. Yet despite the trauma of that event for the nation, there was a real reverence for the office of the presidency at the time, and perhaps even more so for the media. Think about the success of the book All the president’s men and its film version, which made journalists heroes for uncovering the scandal. Newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post they were respected and considered a vital part of the system, as was the evening news.
American children had grown up with pride in the nation’s constitutional democracy, in the division of governmental powers designed to maintain fairness and “checks and balances,” and perhaps above all in the seemingly inviolable separation of church and state. It was this last, fundamental aspect of our nation’s governance model that fell first.
Image: Flickr.com
The 1980s saw the rise of Jerry Fallwell’s group the Moral Majority. It represented the first break in the principle of strictly secular government. Never before had there been an openly religious group that explicitly tied its agenda to a specific political party. And so they found themselves completely embraced by the Republican Party. Subsequently, the Moral Majority faded with the end of the Reagan presidency; however, the wall between church and state was finally broken.
Within a few years, the presidency of Bill Clinton, who was called the “man of hope,” staged the next great breach of public trust. The Republican Congress, led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, produced a document known as the “Contract with America.” It is the first document to embrace and promote the idea that government itself is the real problem. Until then the dominant theme in American politics was that government should be the solution, the entity responsible for addressing the problems that affect all Americans, the main lever for correcting injustices and guiding the country in the right direction. Gingrich et al destroyed this notion, attacking the idea that government can be trusted unless it is in the hands of certain people.
Gingrich and the Republican congressmen present the Contract With America. Image: X.com
With Clinton’s presidency we then witness the destruction of another pillar of US politics: respect and reverence for the office of the President. The baseness of the attacks on Clinton’s business affairs, his circle of friends and his very character, epitomized by the voluminous Starr Report on the president’s libertine relations with a young intern, have dented the veneer of reverence for the office.
The election for Clinton’s successor led to another fundamental element of US political life being thrown into doubt, this time the electoral system itself. The controversy over the outcome of the 2000 vote, the scene of (paid, organized) protesters storming an election office in Florida, and the eventual awarding of the election to George W. Bush by the US Supreme Court drove a stake through the heart of the public’s trust in what may be our most important institution of all: the vote. Gore may have conceded the election peacefully, but the idea that the presidency had not been decided by the clear “will of the people” but rather by lawyers and courts poisoned the well of public trust – again, permanently.
Bush’s war in Iraq certainly drove a wedge between Americans (if you were against the war then you didn’t “support the troops”, or worse, you were “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”). However, it was John McCain’s presidential campaign that took a sledgehammer to that wedge, deepening the divide in a new and destructive way. His slogan, “Country First”, ran counter to the years of American intervention in foreign affairs around the world, not to mention the notion of the US as a “shining beacon” on the hilltop, a model of democracy and inclusion for the world to admire and emulate. But it was his choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate that pushed the nation’s divide into uncharted territory.
The election of Clinton’s successor will call into question another fundamental element of American political life, this time the electoral system itself. The controversy over the outcome of the 2000 vote, the scene of (paid and organized) protesters storming an election office in Florida and the eventual awarding of the election victory to George W. Bush by the US Supreme Court they drive a stake through the heart of public trust in what may be our most important institution of all: voting. Gore could have conceded the election peacefully, but the idea that the presidency was not decided by the clear “will of the people,” but rather by lawyers and courts poisons the well of public trust, once again permanently.
Sarah Palin was the first to promote the notion that there were “real Americans”, and conversely, everyone else, who were by inference not true Americans. Furthermore, the image she powerfully and successfully projected was of a very specific type of person – people who looked and thought like her and her family. Aggressively pro-gun (recall her shooting wolves with a high-powered rifle from a helicopter), pro-Christian and anti-science/fact, Palin introduced a new model for US politicians that was on one hand wholly superficial, and on the other profoundly divisive. Palin’s rhetoric set the stage for legitimizing the wholesale dismissal of large segments of the nation’s population as somehow being otherless deserving, and even threatening.
Sarah Palin is the first to promote the idea that there are “real Americans,” as opposed to, everyone else, who by inference were not real Americans. Furthermore, the image she powerfully and successfully projects is that of a very specific human type: people who look and think like her and her family. Aggressively pro-gun (remember when she used to shoot wolves with a high-powered rifle from a helicopter?), pro-Christian, and anti-science/facts, Palin introduces a new model for US politicians, on the one hand completely superficial, on the other deeply divisive. Palin’s rhetoric set the stage for legitimizing the liquidation of large segments of the nation’s population deemed somehow different, less deserving, and even threatening.
John McCain e Sarah Palin (MPR News)
At the same time, the candidacy of Barack Obama produced another major breach in our political culture. The so-called “birther” movement, which questioned the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate – and therefore his status as a real Americanwas the first time a presidential candidate was attacked on the basis of his race. Here it must be acknowledged that even John F. Kennedy was questioned for being Catholic (another sign of how much things have changed in the decades since), and Mike Dukakis’ Greek heritage was a topic during his campaign, the challenging of Obama’s citizenship and American-ness went far beyond those incidents. It is also necessary to recall one of the major forces behind this nativist attack – Donald Trump.
At the same time, Barack Obama’s candidacy was followed by another major breach in our political culture. The so-called “birther” movement, which questioned the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate – and therefore his status as a true American, the condition without which not to access the US presidency – it was the first time a presidential candidate was attacked on the basis of his race. In this regard, it must be recognized that even John F. Kennedy was questioned for being Catholic (another sign of how much things have changed in the decades since). And if Mike Dukakis’s Greek ancestry became a theme during his campaign, the challenge to Obama’s citizenship and Americanness went far beyond those incidents. It is also necessary to remember one of the main forces behind this nativist attack: Donald Trump.
Image: Mediamatters.org
The first months of Obama’s presidency produced another watershed moment in the decay of America’s faith in its institutions: the so-called “Tea Party” movement (TEA was an acronym for Taxed Enough Already, already taxed enough). The Tea Party presents itself as a spontaneous popular reaction to fiscal policies oppressive of the new Democratic president. This is essentially accepted uncritically by the media and the public, despite the fact that the movement could not boast anything on that ground. In reality, it is merely a well-planned and well-financed coalition of politicians, and the tax policies they are supposedly so angry about are actually those of Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. It was literally impossible for Obama to have had any effect on fiscal policy in the first three months of his presidency, but that didn’t seem to matter. Think back for a moment to the Contract with America. The immediate impact of the Tea Party demonstrates that the idea that government, particularly in the “wrong hands,” is the problem has become ingrained in American culture.
Tea Party Protest (Grados.net)
Thus, as the 2016 presidential campaign begins, much of America’s faith and trust in its government and institutions is severely undermined.
During the decades of this decay, the media in America has experienced a similar and unprecedented fracture. Americans of a certain age can still remember names like Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Bob Woodward and others. The nation trusted them to deliver the news intelligently, impartially and, as far as possible, accurately. Before the 1980s and the introduction of Fox News, the media was never suspected of having partisan bias. Fox News purposely changed everything, forever.
Trump. How America got to all this was last modified: November 2nd, 2024 by PAUL ROSENBERG
Trump. How America got to all this last modified: 2024-11-02T16:05:00+01:00 by PAUL ROSENBERG
Subscribe to the ytali newsletter.
Support us
DONATE YOUR 5 PER THOUSAND TO YTALI
Add your signature and tax code 94097630274 in the SUPPORT OF THIRD SECTOR ENTITIES box of your tax return.
Thank you!
