Opinions

President-elect is no friend of the common man

A species of historians specialize in what's called the "longue duree," the long view; they're called structuralists. They conclude that systemic and enduring forces drive and explain culture and history more in the long run than specific events.

So how will structuralists interpret the Trump phenomenon? They may note the founders, having matured in a deferential society where most people deferred to those considered "betters," distrusted democracy. That's why the Constitution provided for only one popularly elected portion of the government, the House of Representatives. And that's why they provided the president would be elected by an Electoral College, rather than by popular vote. American democracy actually arose in the Jackson period, says Sean Willentz of Princeton University, as local and state political organizations began increasingly to include more common folk, and people began to grasp the implications of democracy.

The Jacksonians sought to protect the new American democracy from control by rising merchant capitalists who they thought would use their power to enrich only themselves, and in their day Jackson and his party largely succeeded.  For his authoritarian tactics, the president was often called "King Andrew."

[How will federal policies affecting Alaska Natives change under Trump?]

But by the end of the 19th century industrialization of the economy had generated concentrations of wealth that overwhelmed the system of democratic politics. That produced a second change in the electorate, its support of a vast expansion of government, to be used to protect the common citizen from such capitalist abuses as child labor, adulterated food and drugs, manipulation of securities and bank assets, and despoliation of the environment.

This was the movement called Progressivism, championed aggressively by Theodore Roosevelt. The New Deal led by Franklin D. Roosevelt was essentially a continuation of Progressive reform, necessitated by capitalism's ultimate failure.  Lyndon Johnson's presidency, reflecting the civil rights movement, was the culmination of the Progressive movement.

Though there had been critics all along, Barry Goldwater perhaps foremost among them, the Reagan revolution beginning in 1980 was centered in the belief that government had become too large and powerful, and it threatened the freedom that is the core of American democracy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Critics set out first to curtail, and then to destroy much of the reform. This has become a movement to curtail government itself, the most ardent critics aiming for a reversion to that earlier, smaller government. And in this they have had great success, witness the obstructionism that has paralyzed Congress and hamstrung the current president, and the persistent, continuing dismantling of the reforms. There is more to come.

It's no surprise that today's conservatives favor what the Jacksonians called the "monied interests." But it is perhaps surprising the legacy Progressives, today's liberals, are nearly as cozy with corporate wealth and power. Structural historians have noted part of the division in the country today falls along class lines, and they might note that this partly explains the 2016 election. But there is rich irony in the fact that Trump is no friend of the common man, his declarations to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Senate Democrats' surprising strategy: Trying to align with Trump]

Trump's allies have ridden to victory on the class division, and also on another long-standing American political habit: blaming endemic, complicated and unresolved social and economic problems on the current administration, and voting for change, any change.

This the voters have inflicted historically on both the right and the left. When those who feel afflicted by the persistence of those problems realize, in four or eight years, that they're still not solved, they'll take it out on the administration again.

In the meantime, there's the man himself, despite his election as president still a liar, racist, xenophobe and misogynist. This seems to be new. Not all U.S. presidents have been sterling character models. But never has there been one so disrespectful of people, devoid of common decency and so disrespectful of the traditions that have held American democracy together, especially willingness to accept our differences.

It's not unreasonable to label this behavior evil, both in moral and functional terms. And it's not unreasonable to assume, unless they declare otherwise, as Sens. Murkowski and Sullivan did, that those who voted for the man accept the evil, believe as he believes. Nothing good can come of trafficking with evil.

Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email to commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com

Steve Haycox

Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

ADVERTISEMENT