Recovering from Trump: what will it take?

Recovering from Trump: what will it take?

 was August in 1974, and I was in Washington, D.C. for a couple of days. On August 9, Nixon had resigned as president and flown off to California. Everywhere I went, the atmosphere was astonishing. It was like a rush of fresh air—a sense that a heavy burden had been lifted. A feeling of freedom and hope seemed to envelop every person and everything around us.

But as the weeks went by, it became clear that the issues the nation faced were still there. The difficult, unglamorous work of governing had not gone away. The new president, Gerald Ford, was in the unusual position of having been appointed—not elected—as vice president, replacing the disgraced Spiro Agnew in December 1973. Ford worked hard to restore trust in government and helped negotiate the Helsinki Accords on human rights. If there were only a few major legislative achievements during his brief term, the nation still owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude for the hard work he did to make integrity and honesty hallmarks of the presidency once again.

That memory has returned to me lately because something similar will happen when Trump is finally gone. Media pundits—even some from the far right—have been proclaiming the looming, ignominious fall of Trump. Yes, he has a way of surviving, and he may find one again, but the pundits might be right this time. There will be a wave of relief and elation—perhaps even joy—but the nation’s problems will remain stubbornly in place.

Whether we will then elect responsible representatives who can address those issues with the determination to find workable, if imperfect, solutions remains to be seen. The Trump era has normalized zero-sum politics, in which there is no good-faith negotiation—only the determination to win by destroying the other. Progress seldom comes in sweeping triumphs. It comes through compromises that are acceptable rather than ideal, and through steady, persistent effort that builds rather than dazzles.

Rebuilding the country from the bottom up and the middle out, as Biden often put it, cannot happen if the electorate does not believe it has ownership in what candidates promise and legislatures deliver. The people who identify as bottom or middle—and those who represent their interests—must engage in a political process that rejects MAGA ideology and the anti-democratic agenda of Project 2025 that has directed Trump-era intentions. It means rejecting the assumption that everyone who is not MAGA is somehow not conservative, or is probably a left-wing liberal. Rejecting one extreme does not mean accepting the other. It means restoring trust in representative democracy and the belief that government is the means through which prosperity and security are secured for all people, not just some.

Center-left, center-right, centrist politics have been reviled and ridiculed as unimaginative mediocrity, unable to address serious issues in serious ways. But the history of American progress has been one of forceful perseverance by voters and parties committed to finding workable solutions. It is a process that has often had to confront intense—sometimes violent—opposition from those who resist progressive change and occasionally from those who believe change has not come fast enough. It takes courage and stamina to work through immovable obstacles and political landmines laid down by those unwilling to negotiate in good faith.

We have lived through too many years of manufactured distrust—a deliberate sowing of animosity toward one another—and it has taken deep root. It will take time, patience, and considerable effort to pull up that noxious weed and keep it from infecting us or the generations who follow.

Two issues stand out as essential first steps for the nation to recover its democratic footing. First, Congress must find a way to eliminate corporate, super PAC, and dark-money campaign financing that has bought the loyalty of too many members of Congress and state legislatures while intimidating those who cannot be bought. Second, states must be induced to adopt fair redistricting methods. That may require vociferous moral outrage from the electorate, led by prominent public figures whose integrity is beyond challenge.