Editor’s note: This commentary is by Nate Denny, a former woodworker and teacher from Northfield.
A Nov. 15 VTDigger article featured a map using data supplied by the secretary of state, and this was how I learned that in my hometown support for Donald Trump increased in 2020 compared to his 2016 performance. What did my neighbors admire about Trump’s rather unpresidential performance? Is it possible that his support among nearly half of the country’s electorate reflects a coherent view of the federal government and the role of the United States in world affairs?
Consider Trump’s criticism of alliances and the use of military power: The U.S. has supported the movement of people, goods and services by deploying thousands of military service members to hundreds of bases around the world. We have been, according to Trump, taken advantage of by our allies. Should we, as the West’s hegemon, have taken on this role? Under the threat of Soviet expansionism the answer is a clear yes. Trump is correct, however, that the presence of American troops abroad is often resented by local populations and radicalized university students. For 75 years the face of American imperialism has been a young soldier fresh out of Military Occupation Specialties training and either not the ideal ambassador for American-style personal liberty or the perfect example of it.
The careless use of military force by recent presidents of both parties has caused the rest of the world to consider that perhaps our young democracy lacks the gravitas to be trusted with global security. But was Trump’s objection to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based on: a) a deep analysis of our role in leading the Western alliance, or was it: b) that he was appalled that we weren’t turning a profit? The correct answer is “b”. Then there is Trump’s reported avoidance of and disdain for military service, even calling fallen soldiers “losers” or “suckers.” How does this align conservatives with Trump’s failed reelection campaign? It doesn’t, but there are many instances where the abused stay with their abuser out of a misplaced loyalty or feeling of helplessness.
Turning to immigration policy: Has the fact that our borders have historically been quite porous harmed the economic prospects of Americans? Economists would say that the answer is complicated, but that immigration is mostly beneficial for the growth of a nation’s economy. That’s great if you are the owner of a construction company, but not so great if you are a journeyman carpenter. Great if you own a berry farm in California or if you like strawberries in Vermont in the middle of winter. Not so great if the flow of people between countries facilitates the drug trade and violence on both sides of the border. But the majority of Trump’s criticism is focused on the southern border, not the longest border in the world between the U.S. and Canada, which could lead you to think that the main concerns of immigration hawks are the issues of skin color and culture. Whatever the reason, should there be an updated system of immigration? Absolutely there should, but it is the rabidly nativist Republicans who block progress, knowing that this issue ranks high on the concerns of their voters. Better to obstruct than to admit that the United States has a duty to help improve the lives of all Americans, a term which actually includes the citizens of two continents.
On to climate change: The worst crises of the previous century were faced down by the greatest president in U.S. history, whose accomplishments ranged from the beginnings of a social welfare safety net to CCC-built dams and recreation areas to the defeat of the Germans and Japanese in WWII. FDR created a coherent (dare we say “great”?) nation out of a demoralized populace. In the remaining years of this century the world will have to deal with the fallout of the previous two hundred years of industrialization and fossil fuel burning. In facing the challenge of mitigating the effects of climate change a wise president would attempt to seize the opportunity to reclaim a leadership role in the world by heading an international effort to protect the earth’s natural diversity and fragile ecosystems. Instead Donald Trump has sought to destroy the shaky beginnings of cooperation on this critical issue in an effort to further enrich his wealthy backers and please his science-phobic supporters.
So, these are some of the things that many of my neighbors voted for. They didn’t get all that they wanted from the Trump administration, but they would say that at least the man tried to keep his promises, and anyway it was a satisfying four years of breaking the china. Yet we will have to face the fact that we are being supplanted on the world stage by China — irony intended — a nation undeterred by the tantrums we throw in our spasms of blinkered nationalism. At least we may take comfort in knowing that great Asian nation has been broken on the rocks of history numerous times only to rise again. It is unlikely, however, given the trajectory of our domestic discord, that the United States will ever be able to look back on 5,000 years of continuous existence. Yet Donald Trump will definitely be remembered as the worst president we ever had. If we are lucky.
