Everything won't necessarily turn out OK
The long view is comforting, but the decay that we celebrate in nature is not tolerable in government
Soon enough, what we’ve built decays, unless we work to maintain it. (Photo by Leslie Saunders on Unsplash)
Our first home, near a crossroads known to locals as Hoags Corners, was flanked by four out-buildings and a tumble-down barn next to a rushing creek. When we last drove by the old place a couple of years ago, the barn had disappeared, its place overtaken by the relentless march over its foundation of knotweed, bramble and spindly white cedar.
Nature is persistent, you know, and it has a way of reclaiming its authority. In a 2007 bestseller, The World Without Us, the science journalist Alan Weisman projected what would happen to the natural and built environment if humans suddenly disappeared from earth. New York City’s decay, for example, would begin within a half hour, Weisman calculated, as subways flood and then begin to erode their surroundings. Within two decades, major avenues would become rivers, toppling mighty skyscrapers. It might take five centuries for dense forests to completely overtake residential neighborhoods across the country, he imagined, but by then North America would mostly resemble what Christopher Columbus observed about that long ago. Even rats and cockroaches would die off without the food and warmth that human presence provides them.
The ebb and flow of nature — the cycle of life that depends upon decay of the old to nourish the new — has inspired philosophers throughout history. It gave rise to what sociologists call the social cycle theory: the notion that events and currents of societies tend to repeat themselves in cycles.1 In the 4th century BCE, Plato’s Republic laid out five forms of government, from aristocracy to tyranny, that Plato believed would tend to flow from one to another, with democracy the next-to-last stage. Machiavelli, writing during the Renaissance, thought governments would perennially rotate through three cycles, while Thomas Carlyle, an influential 19th-century Scottish essayist, saw history as a phoenix, societies growing and dying in stages much like the seasons of the year.2
There’s some comfort in such a long view for those of us horrified by the prospect of Donald Trump’s return to power, we who are fearful of the calamities that might attend his careless leadership of the world’s dominant society, and worry that our democracy itself is at stake. Maybe, we’re tempted to think, we ought to just take it easy. That’s better for our mental health, anyway. The earth has lasted a long time, after all, and we have reached this stage of relative comfort — for our part of the human race, that is — despite many terrible rulers.
Consider the antecedents: Adolf Hitler might have been the worst individual disaster ever to befall the world, but his rule lasted only 11 years. Humankind advanced notwithstanding the depredations of Atilla the Hun and Vlad the Impaler. So compared to them — that is, next to someone whose crimes against humanity led directly to 17 million deaths, or one who supposedly responded to three Ottoman visitors who failed to tip their hats by ordering the hats nailed to the offenders’ heads — Trump seems positively benign.
But it’s a delusion to think that everything will turn out okay because it always does. Actually, it doesn’t. Trump’s first term empowered violent radicals, widened economic inequality, dramatically increased the national debt, weakened the alliance that has stabilized international relations since World War II and, by minimizing the risk of the pandemic and the threat of climate change, surely already has cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and will lead to the premature deaths of hundreds of thousands more globally. As to our national character and its effect on our society in decades to come, we can only speculate about the damage that will have been done by the example of an amoral leader; our descendants will judge that, and feel its impact.
True enough, as the saying goes, “this, too, shall pass.” But that’s less comforting when we recognize that during the 45th presidency, Trump was inexperienced in the ways of government — he was the only president in our history with no prior record of public service — and he was fortunately flanked by some civic-minded people who had held positions of responsibility before, including retired military leaders and former officeholders. Now, with a more compliant Republican-led Congress and a party fully under his control, and with carefully-laid plans to fill government posts with hundreds of loyalists intent on change more radical than anything the nation has ever before seen, there is little doubt that we are confronting a more dangerous moment than we did eight years ago.
One of the reasons that few presidents have sweeping impact is because the sheer size of the government makes turning it cumbersome, and the fact that much of its work is handled by 2.95 million federal workers who do their jobs regardless of which party controls the White House. But Trump has plans to vastly expand his personal control beyond the 4,000 or so politically appointed positions that are exempt from Civil Service laws.
And it quickly became clear after the Nov. 5 election that Trump’s goal in choosing who will lead the government has little to do with expertise and everything to do with loyalty, and a willingness to do whatever Trump might want. This is exceptional, even in comparison to Trump’s first term. Presidents have typically chosen seasoned leaders or prominent advocates for major roles, and usually people with some expertise in the fields related to the departments and agencies they head. Not so for the impending 47th presidency.
Instead, Trump picked as his intended Secretary of Defense a Fox News commentator and weekend show host, Pete Hegseth (what, the first-tier talking heads from weekday shows weren’t available?). Leading the Pentagon is a job that includes heading the most powerful military force in history and the largest workforce in the nation, with 2.8 million employees. Hegseth was an officer in the Minnesota National Guard, but he has neither led a large organization nor engaged in international relations as more than a well-compensated barstool critic.
After that, Trump selected a retired wrestling promoter, Linda McMahon, to be Secretary of Education; she has a scant single year of education experience — in 2009, as an appointed member of the state education board in Connecticut. But she can boast a lot of credits as a political fundraiser and a failed Republican candidate. How might she ably advise a president on education, which is fundamental to a society’s advancement?
And to lead the Justice Department, with investigative and prosecutorial powers that he has vowed to use to get even with those who he says have crossed him, Trump wants to install a team of lawyers he has used as personal attorneys in the many cases, both civil and criminal, in which he has been a defendant. At their top would be Attorney General-designate Pam Bondi, who was Florida’s elected Attorney General before she became a lawyer for Trump, and who is also a former Fox commentator and occasional host.
Certainly, many presidents have turned to avid partisans and people unfamiliar with the complexities of governing to take on important jobs. John F. Kennedy installed his 35-year-old brother Bobby, who was his closest political adviser, as U.S. attorney general, and Richard M. Nixon gave the job to his campaign manager, John Mitchell, who had been a bond lawyer before he signed on to get Nixon elected, no matter what.
But not long after Nixon left office in shame to avoid impeachment, Congress and the White House began to implement both laws and orders setting ethical standards aimed at avoiding partisanship in government decisions — and, in the case of the Justice Department, ensuring independence to pursue justice without White House interference. A looseleaf text called the Justice Manual guides DoJ officials in conducting investigations and prosecutions, ensuring the independence that has characterized the Justice Department over the past half-century. But it can be overruled by the Attorney General and other senior leaders, and it doesn’t have the force of law.3
So it is entirely possible that Bondi, Trump’s second choice for Attorney General, could follow through on his threats — including his insistence that Special Counsel Jack Smith should be arrested, and his suggestion that anybody involved with the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 insurrection should be prosecuted, including the panel’s vice-chair, former Rep. Liz Cheney (Trump has said Cheney “should go to jail” for opposing him). Trump has called Democrats “enemies from within” and news reporters “enemies of the people” — which suggests his lawyers at the Department of Justice might feel free to target them for prosecution or, at least, harassment by investigation.4
What’s at stake is nothing less than the reversion of the federal government to a level of corruption beyond what we’ve seen in recent times. It would mark a regression that could be every bit as damaging to our democratic system as the imagined absence of human intervention could be to the ecosystem of New York City.
When forests overtake land once cleared for pasture, we may be struck by the richness of nature and the diversity of the life that emerges. If a president trounces ethical norms aimed at ensuring the equity and justice that the Constitution aims to enforce, there will be nothing so beautiful to celebrate.
That would be more akin to the decay of abandoned buildings under the force of storms, heat and cold. And it can remind us that human hands are essential if we hope to avoid the reversion to what once was. Nature ebbs and flows, and the long view of history makes it clear that life goes on even as governments change. But governments are human systems, and their success hinges on human involvement. Which is why we cannot sit idly by, reassuring ourselves that everything will eventually play out just fine. We can’t quietly accept the decay that is now a real threat.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt9c96x0p1/qt9c96x0p1.pdf?t=krnbh3
https://books.google.com/books?id=8Nvdx-4-CzoC
https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2024/10/02/the-policies-that-secure-an-independent-justice-department/?slreturn=20241122123328
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4996981-trump-enemies-fear-retribution/
DOWNLOAD OR LISTEN NOW
MORE FROM THE UPSTATE AMERICAN
IF YOU’D LIKE TO HEAR MORE from Rex Smith, check www.wamc.org for his weekly on-air commentary aired by Northeast Public Radio. Here’s a link to the latest essay.
AND IF YOUR INTEREST IS SPECIFIC TO AMERICAN MEDIA, you can download the podcast of The Media Project, the 30-minute nationally-syndicated discussion that Rex leads each week on current issues in journalism. In the seven states where Northeast Public Radio is heard, the program airs at 3 p.m. each Friday and is rebroadcast at 6 p.m. Sunday. You can tune in live, too, at www.wamc.org, or get the podcast there. It has been called “a half-hour of talk about finding and telling the truth.”
NEXT, LEARN TO WRITE OP-EDS
If you’d like to learn how to write opinion essays — for newspapers, audio or digital platforms — check out the live 90-minute class that Rex co-teaches that is offered by Marion Roach Smith’s global platform for writing instruction, The Memoir Project. Click below for information on our upcoming schedule of classes.
Our next class is Tuesday, Dec. 17, at 6 p.m. Eastern.
Lots of our students have been well published — and you can be, too!
THANK YOU for reading The Upstate American, and for joining us in the conversation about our common ground, this great country. I hope you’ll join us again next week — or send a message with ideas you’d like to see us address.
-REX SMITH
Everyone who voted wants to experience a sense of belonging. Some of the protest votes too, were perhaps an expression of that desire. Anecdotally, some voters in MA selected both Elizabeth Warren and the president elect on the same ballot. Is that more likely about dictatorship or belonging?
... 2010, in business school two Americans were debating the usual left vs right tax policies when a student from China said, "why don't we just talk about what works?"
We have laws prohibiting a hostile work environment. Productivity is negatively correlated with a hostile work environment. When some people in a workplace make others feel that they don't belong, it undermines productivity in myriad ways, and the business makes less money.
For patients in a health care setting, their experiences of belonging is positively correlated with better outcomes. Lower costs, and higher rates of return for the provider.
In society too, a sense of belonging is positively correlated with innovation and economic growth, leading to higher GDP
So, what works?
Belonging makes more money
Hostility makes less money
The rules that regulate business managers are founded on the assumption that, holding everything else aside, we can all agree we want more money over less money
So who does hostility benefit?
Who does backsliding benefit?
Because, it does not make more money
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/hostile-work-environment
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/sense-of-belonging/201906/the-importance-of-belonging-across-life
Absolutely agree with you. Well compared with natural decay. He represents the decline of a very selfish and self-serving economic and political system. We have a lot of work to do to try and protect basic human rights in this country and since we don't live in a vacuum, the rest of the world.