Uncertainty reigns in the new landscape. This feeling stems from the damage caused by the Trump presidency. The only doubt is about the durability of the catastrophe caused by the four-year period that is now ending.
In the context of contentment with the cessation of the nightmare, an expectation of a certain longing is revealed.
It is based on the strategy of confrontation in the face of what has been called the formation of a dictatorship within the oldest democracy in documented history. We wondered what to do when we woke up. We were obsessed with a schedule that was full of number one.
Some of us feared that in the extreme moment of anticipating the success of the confrontational strategy, we would remember that in the panorama of significance and unity of questioning the president’s irrational politics, we would be unfairly accused. Unusually, we had an unwanted partner in the urgent eviction of the inconvenient tenant from the White House.
We did not know how to be grateful, so to speak, for the help from the epidemic that is still gripping the planet. The president’s irrational behavior in the successive stages of Cobid19, its development, expansion and implantation across the planet became Trump’s worst enemy and best ally of opposition behavior.
At the same time, there was an outrageous feeling that the virus was planting and the consequent refusal of Trump to join the opposition’s political efforts to achieve the rejection, even if it was within the limits of his administration.
Every person infected in the United States, as well as every approved death, followed by Trump’s erratic health policy, were recorded as “votes” in the November 3 election tally. The hope that Covid-19 will magically fade overnight, as Trump himself surrealisted in early spring 2020, would lead to the demise of the archenemy that was looming over the White House.
Meanwhile, opposition to the president has been in the clear majority of the United States and on a global scale abroad devoted to an agenda exclusively riddled with reactions to every assault on the president. However, there was an absence of a strategy with a “day after” agenda.
In the democratic sphere there was no plan for the future. The debate continued about the best candidates. These details were not clarified until the decision was made in Biden and Harris’ favor. In an environment reluctant to form “kitchen cabinets” there was no government program implemented after November 3.
In light of the hidden bad feeling of insecurity, it was feared that one day it would be possible to shout with badly subtle nostalgia: “Against Trump we were living better.”
The origin of this expression goes back to the thought expressed by the Spanish Communist Party at the time of re-establishing democracy in Spain after the disappearance of the Franco regime.
The precedent for this was the claim that the remnants of the regime put forward: “With Franco, we lived better.” The Communists, who occupied their reserved space by the new democrats, admitted that when they were in opposition they had more effective power than parliamentary democracy.
Opposing Trump may have to express itself in the same way once the system is fully unlocked at the end of January. This sentiment will have based his behavior on criticizing each of the government’s “policies”.
In fact, it was just whims expressed in the wee hours of the morning by clicking on the noise on the mobile phone. The huge void left by the Trump administration will remain busy with a suitable vaccine and the verification of its uniqueness, a task that will extend to the end of 2021.
This will depend on how effectively the new government’s urgent measures are implemented so that voters are not tempted to listen again to the 2016 siren songs.
Rebuilding the economy, reducing damage to sectors most in need, improving immigration integration, and resolute struggle to eradicate racism are some of the new government’s most urgent tasks.
Only by her reasonable decision will that part of the 70 million who voted for the outgoing president be avoided, tempted by the statement: “With Trump, we lived a better life.”
Joaquin Roy Jean Monnet Professor and Director of the European Union Center at the University of Miami
© Inter Press Service (2021) – All rights reservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service