Donald Trump thrives on conflict. I doubt he’d even get out of bed in the morning if he didn’t have a fight to pick. And that need explains his provocative language. After all, why say his election will mean a “bloodbath” instead of the less exciting claim that American industry would benefit and Mexican industry would suffer?
His need for conflict also explains the downright weirdness of some of his appointments. Face it, if you’re conflict-averse, you don’t tap Matt Gaetz for AG, Kennedy for HHS, Hegseth for DoD, Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence. Those choices absolutely scream “make my day,” which is, of course, at least half the point.
Trump knows his audience, half of which is unrelentingly hostile to him and the other half would follow him anywhere. He has a good idea of how anti-Trumpers, and particularly those in the legacy media, will react to him, that their “resistance” is a gift to him and red meat to his supporters. So his natural propensity for conflict gets a double boost.
All that means that, if you think “The Swamp” needs to be drained, he’s your man, a guy who’s spoiling for a fight, because, friend, he’s going to get one. The Swamp (whatever you consider it to be) didn’t get to where it is by making nice with enemies. No, the power and money of entrenched governmental and K Street interests have no intention of giving an inch and know that Donald Trump is at most a four-year bump on their yellow-brick road. Plus, it has too many staunch allies on Capitol Hill, in the courts, the administrative state and the press to roll over for anything as insignificant as a president.
Now, it’s not at all certain that voters generally elected Trump to drain The Swamp. His core, yes, the rest, probably not. Swamp drainage is more his idea than theirs. What they told exit pollsters was that they just want a measure of sanity in economic and immigration policies. Maybe they’re tired of being ignored; maybe they’re sick of being slandered as racists/misogynists.
Whatever the case, eight years ago, Trump vowed to drain The Swamp but never got close; this time, he’s got the bit in his teeth, regardless of the polls.
Me? I think there’s a lot of The Swamp that needs to be drained, so, with some hesitation, I welcome Trump’s efforts. But I also welcome the pushback.
No president should expect to dramatically remake the status quo without opposition. Yes, there’s vast governmental bloat, unresponsiveness to the legitimate needs of the people and incompetence at carrying out basic policies. That needs to change. But much of what the federal government does is good and necessary. Kennedy has good reason to question the FDA, but do we really not want our medications to be safe and effective (as almost all of them are), our food to be what it claims to be? Yes, the FDA is, to a great extent, the handmaiden of Big Pharma, but let’s not lose sight of exactly how beneficial it is. No serious person wants to return to the bad old pre-FDA days.
Cutting government is necessary, but messianic enthusiasm needs to be tempered by good sense.
Which brings me to another good reason to attack The Swamp: the coming struggle will be an education. Over the next four years, we’ll learn things we don’t now know, discuss things never before debated and consider novel alternatives. Do we really need to spend $238 billion each year on a Department of Education? The Swamp may find itself on the defensive, with its authority confronted, its corruption revealed, unable to dictate the terms of the debate, no longer having the final say.
The optimist considers that to be a healthy process, one necessary to any functioning democracy, a vital increase in public awareness and having the potential to improve both governments and governance.
The pessimist sees how vastly wrong it could all go, the baby and the bath water down the same drain.
One key to exactly how it does go will be the news media. If they do as so many of them have over the last eight years – simply choosing a side and relentlessly, and often mendaciously, attacking the other – the country will miss a golden opportunity, be egregiously disserved and end up adopting policies distorted by a dishonest public discourse.
On the other hand, if they take a stance of principled support/opposition, the nation and the government could all be better off.
This is a turning point, a watershed. Trump’s been elected and some soul-searching on the part of some Democrats and media personnel has followed. But there’s also been some of the standard-issue anti-Trump madness. Trump and his appointees are plunging ahead; The Swamp is girding for war.
What will be the media’s response? Try to destroy every Trump initiative just because it’s his, as in his first term? Or did the GOP’s sweep of all three federal branches chasten anti-Trumpers to legitimate opposition?
For now, it looks like both tendencies are alive and well. (More on that next time.)
However it plays out, batten down the hatches; there’s a storm a-brewin’.
This article originally appeared at The Word of Damocles.
