Selectivity in Trashing Trump

Progressives and Democrats have every right and reason to express revulsion at Trump's crude remarks about women, Mexicans and others -- and to resist Trump if he pursues the failed environmental, economic and domestic policies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But there seems to be an attitude of rejecting everything associated with Trump.

On Friday when I was moving among protesters on the outskirts of Trump's inauguration, I noticed a large number of signs denouncing Trump's interest in de'tente with Russia. There were repeated references to Russian President Vladimir Putin and to the CIA's unproven claims that Putin approved the release of Democratic emails showing the party' hierarchy's hostility to Sen. Bernie Sanders and revealing the contents of Hillary Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street and some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

This CIA-initiated narrative that Putin somehow rigged the election for Trump has become an accepted wisdom not only in Official Washington but among much of the Democratic Party and within the progressive movement. Little interest is shown toward the lack of evidence provided by the U.S. intelligence community and the dubious reasoning involved, since it would have been a huge gamble for Putin to have interfered in the U.S. election and then faced the likely outcome of an angry President Hillary Clinton seeking revenge once she took office.

There's also a logical inconsistency in portraying Trump as a Manchurian candidate, since the idea of putting such a secret agent in the White House would involve the person talking tough against Russia during the campaign -- to garner political support -- rather than declaring publicly a desire for better relations with Russia, a position that was widely viewed as harmful to Trump's chances.

Trump never hid his interest in avoiding a costly New Cold War with Russia and took a rhetorical beating for it, both during the Republican primaries and during the general election. That would not have been the approach of a true Manchurian candidate.

A Current Danger

But the current danger for Democrats and progressives is that -- by bashing everything that Trump says and does -- they will further alienate the white working-class voters who became his base and will push away anti-war activists.

There is a risk that the Left will trade places with the Right on the question of war and peace, with Democrats and progressives associating themselves with Hillary Clinton's support for "endless war" in the Middle East, the political machinations of the CIA, and a New Cold War with Russia, essentially moving into an alliance with the Military (and Intelligence) Industrial Complex.

Many populists already view the national Democrats as elitists disdainful of the working class, promoters of harmful "free trade" deals, and internationalists represented by the billionaires at the glitzy annual confab in Davos, Switzerland.

If -- in a rush to demonize and impeach President Trump -- Democrats and progressives solidify support for wars of choice in the Middle East, a New Cold War with Russia and a Davos-style elitism, they could further alienate many people who might otherwise be their allies.

In other words, selectivity in opposing and criticizing Trump -- where he rightly deserves it -- rather than opportunism in rejecting everything that Trump says might make more sense. A movement built entirely on destroying Trump could drop Democrats and progressives into some politically destructive traps.

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's "Neocons: the Anti-Realists" and "Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon."]

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).