Restoring National and Personal Responsibility

David Super

      As all of us that have been deeply troubled by what President Trump has done to the country bask in the voters’ response this week, I want to think about what is to come.  I will no doubt have some of my usual technical procedural posts once the dust settles and we get a clearer sense of how the new Congress will shape up.

     For now, however, I want to focus on one particular problem that could be quite immediate.  Numerous news reports that I take seriously suggest that President Trump may be contemplating action in Iran that would be a clear, and particularly severe, war crime.  Some of these accounts suggest that he might use nuclear weapons, possibly against Iran’s suspected nuclear research facility. 

     Not only would any further war crimes in this deeply misguided, pointless war be tragic in their own right, but they also could erode international norms against similar actions.  That could embolden Russia to take similar actions against Ukraine, China to do so against Taiwan, or India and Pakistan to do so against one another. 

     Whether this actually happens or not, the fact that it could – the fact that our nation has amassed such staggering destructive power and then twice put that power in the unconstrained hands of someone like Donald Trump – poses a fundamental moral challenge for all Americans, not just those that supported President Trump.  We are the only ones that can prevent American power from being applied against vulnerable people around the globe and to destroy norms that have protected the world for decades.  That unique power, I believe, gives us a unique obligation to prioritize preventing anyone like him from ever holding that power again. 

     I fear that the concepts of core national responsibility, and of personal responsibility to ensure that one’s country fulfills is elementary national responsibilities, have fallen dangerously out of fashion.  Of course, progressive opponents of President Trump did not and would not vote for him, but I do not think that voting alone comes close to discharging our responsibilities where the stakes are so enormous.  Our fundamental imperative should be, before all else, to do whatever we can to prevent anyone like Donald Trump from wielding this country’s awesome power ever again, even if that means postponing important domestic priorities. 

     I spent much of September teaching at Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv.  The experience affected me profoundly in many ways.  Perhaps the most important was learning how Ukrainians think about individuals’ role in responding to the on-going tragedy that is Russia’s full-scale invasion.   The invasion and everything that goes with it – the kidnapping and brain-washing of Ukrainian children, the indiscriminate drone and missile attacks on civilians, the massacres in occupied areas, the torture, mutilation, and killing of POWs – is obviously far more than any individual, or discrete group of individuals, could possibly defeat.  Unless they all work together, they are surely lost. 

     But they do work together.  Each person looks deep inside themselves to see what they have to contribute.  Many go to the front lines.  Others design and make armaments to replace those that our country has cut off.  Or seek to communicate Ukrainians’ situation to the broader world.  Or care for those that come back from the front lines battered in body or mind.  Except in the most egregious cases, people are not assessing how much others are contributing:  they are focused on what they themselves can do.  This focus on personal responsibility rather than criticism was so refreshing and no doubt contributes greatly to their impressive national unity. 

     A great many Americans who agree with us about very little voted for Democrats this year, possibly for the first times in their lives.  A great many other people who agree with us about little stayed home despite wild, panicky calls to vote by the President and his allies, knowing that their abstentions would likely allow Democrats to prevail.  Others put aside years of skepticism about the political process to come out to vote; they may or may not have progressive views.  All these people gave Democrats a chance to prove that their trust was well-placed.  Few will immediately become regular Democratic voters, and likely no election in the immediate future will match this week’s blue wage.  But if we can make those anti-Trump voters feel that their experiments in voting for Democrats did not lead to something they find awful, we may be able to win their support again next time someone as dangerous as Donald Trump runs for president. 

     If, on the other hand, progressives treat these votes as endorsements of the entire progressive agenda, or if establishment Democrats continue to prioritize accommodating the traditional entrenched interests over responding to these voters’ very real concerns, they may never be willing to vote for Democrats again – and any Trump-like figure that can win the Republican nomination will have a good chance of becoming commander-in-chief again. 

     The initial indications I have seen are not promising.  Progressives have been absurdly over-reading these results while established party leaders still seem to think that they can just wish the progressives away and return to business-as-usual.  Many mock President Obama’s very wise calls for unity, for consolidating the anti-Trump coalition even while that coalition remains divided on many other issues. 

     I hope more of us will adopt the Ukrainian approach of thinking about what each of us personally can do to stabilize and strengthen this fragile coalition of people who feel responsible for keeping this country’s vast power out of unrestrained, irresponsible hands.  We can and should debate issues among ourselves, but can each of us resolve to do so in a less caustic way than we often have?  Humor is important in difficult times, but can we find ways to laugh that do not depend on the dehumanization of others – even President Trump – that does not reflect well on us and that surely will alienate some of our potential allies.  This country has many dire domestic needs that the progressive agenda can address, but can the components of the progressive community enter into respectful conversations with one another to put forward a coherent, staged program rather than all stampeding forward to “issue-max” our own specific agendas?   Attempting too much change too fast will have many swing voters regretting their votes this year. 

     Above all, can we finally, absolutely put to rest the spectacularly irresponsible taunt of “TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out).  Given how bad his plans tend to be, we should be delighted whenever he fails to carry them out.  We have ample evidence that he is extraordinarily thin-skinned and takes highly consequential actions in response to perceived slights.  How horrible would it be if he devastated the lives of innocent people in countries far less powerful than ours merely to “own the libs” that call him a TACO.  Of course, he is responsible for his own bad actions.  But those of us enjoying all the privileges of living in this country should never want to contribute in any way to the suffering of those overseas who have no means of influencing what is done to them.

     @DavidASuper.bsky.social  @DavidASuper1