The Repudiation of Trump

Published in La Jornada
(Mexico) on 15 November 2018
by Jorge Eduardo Navarrete (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Tom Walker. Edited by Eric Stimson.
For the second time, the majority of the voters in the election this past Nov. 7 repudiated the party of Donald Trump, even more strongly than four years ago. As often happens in the United States, the vote count has been delayed and is still controversial. A week later (Nov. 15), it hasn’t even been finalized (the winners have yet to be named for nine seats in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate).* However, it is already clear that the majority (between 32 and 40) will go to the Democratic Party in the House and to the Republican Party in the Senate. In the popular vote, the Democrats beat the Republicans by 14.5 million in the election for the Senate and by 5.4 million for the House. If, as many analysts have argued, this election was a referendum on Trump, the repudiation of the president was clear. In 2016, he won the presidency with 2.9 million fewer votes than his opponent. Now, in 2018, he has increased his majority in the Senate, but with a party that got only 41 of every 100 valid votes cast, less than the opposition party got. These are among the idiosyncrasies of the model democracy of the U.S.

In my opinion, the most striking and promising thing about the so-called midterm election was the number of victories by younger candidates, especially women – 117, among them the first Muslim woman and the first Native American woman – and by representatives of minority ethnic, religious or sexual orientation identities. The new House of Representatives will be the most balanced in history in terms of gender and the most representative of the country’s diversity. Trump is set on denying this richness and is trying to suppress it. The vote in favor of a pluralistic and diverse House, multiethnic, devoted to various gods or to none, rich in different behavioral, political and social attitudes, constitutes an emphatic rejection of the image Trump has been trying to impose: uniform and standardized, robotic and vociferous.

It is the result of a resistance movement, a term previously reserved for clandestine opposition to occupation regimes. This movement has arisen since 2016 among Democrats and independents in response to the increasing frequency and extent of lying and actions harmful to the natural, social, political and policy environments by the ever more irresponsible Trump administration. (For a look at this remarkable political reaction, see “The Resistance Strikes Back,” in The New York Times, Nov. 10, 2018.) One example is the Sixth District in Georgia: prosperous, with a high level of education, Republican for decades, carried by Trump in 2016. This time, the Sixth District went for a Democratic candidate who is African-American and an advocate of gun control. “But the steady work of citizens who’ve been trying, over the last two years, to fight the civic nightmare of Trumpism bore fruit.” In brief, as of Wednesday, Nov. 14, the Democrats have gained 33 seats in the House for a majority of 30, and have lost one seat in the Senate, where the Republican majority is being increased to four, not counting the three independents who generally vote with the Democrats.*

Another aspect of Trump’s repudiation was expressed in the elections for governorships and state legislatures. These races were also influenced, and in some instances constrained, by local issues in the various states. In summary, of the offices in contested elections (in which neither of the two major parties had an unbeatable majority), the Democrats won seven governorships: Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin. At the time this article was written, two more races were still undecided: Georgia and Florida.** In these cases, the election process may continue for several weeks more; total recounts, or even runoff elections, may possibly be required. In Georgia, Stacey Abrams, with a clear chance to become the first female African-American governor, has refused to accept the apparent victory of her Republican opponent, Brian Kemp, who, as the current secretary of state of Georgia, oversaw the election process, and there is ample evidence that he manipulated it in his favor. A runoff election may be required.*** In Florida, there have been frequent election disputes. Last Monday [Nov. 12], Trump demanded that the recounts required by law be halted, as had happened by judicial order in the 2000 presidential election: blatant meddling in affairs that are not the business of the president. After all the votes are counted, the balance, which is currently tilting toward the Republican side, will be leveled to some degree, at a time when the 2020 presidential election is already on the horizon.

In an attempt to provide a comprehensive summary of the lessons of this election, David Axelrod wrote: “These Democrats didn’t get elected, by and large, to war with Trump. They got elected to try and get some positive things done on issues like health care and economic issues for their constituents.” Perhaps Axelrod is overlooking one fact: To make advances in health care, the economy and many other areas, it is indispensable to fight Trump and his policies.

*Editor’s note: As of publication, only two House races remain undecided. Democrats have gained 38 seats in the House of Representatives, and Republicans have gained two seats in the Senate.

**Editor’s note: The Republican candidate, Ron DeSantis, was certified the winner of Florida’s governor’s race on Nov. 20, after a recount.

***Translator’s note: On Nov. 16, Abrams acknowledged that Kemp would be the next governor of Georgia. However, she did announce plans for a "major federal lawsuit against the state of Georgia for the gross mismanagement of this election and to protect future elections from unconstitutional actions."





El repudio a Trump

Por segunda ocasión, el partido de Trump fue repudiado por la mayoría de los votantes en la elección de este 7 de noviembre, en forma más contundente que hace cuatro años. Como suele ocurrir en Estados Unidos, el cómputo ha sido demorado y controvertido: una semana después aún no ha concluido (falta adjudicar nueve asientos en la Cámara de Representantes y dos en el Senado), aunque ya es claro que en la primera, la mayoría (entre 32 y 40) corresponderá al Partido Demócrata y en la segunda, al Republicano. En el voto ciudadano, los demócratas superaron al partido de Trump por 14.5 millones en la elección para el Senado y por 5.4 millones en la elección para la Cámara de Representantes. Si como afirmaron muchos analistas, esta elección fue un referendo sobre Trump, el presidente recibió un repudio evidente. En 2016 obtuvo la presidencia habiendo recibido menos votos: 2.9 millones por debajo de su rival. Ahora, en 2018, amplió su mayoría en el Senado con un partido menos votado que el partido rival, sólo 41 de cada 100 votos válidos emitidos. Peculiaridades de la ejemplar democracia estadunidense.

A mi juicio, lo más notable y promisorio de la llamada elección intermedia fue la victoria de candidatos jóvenes, en especial mujeres –117, entre ellas la primera musulmana y la primera indígena–, representantes de minorías étnicas, religiosas o de orientación sexual. La nueva Cámara de Representantes será la más balanceada de la historia en materia de género y la más representativa de la diversidad de la nación, riqueza ésta que Trump se empeña en negar e intenta suprimir. El voto en favor de una cámara plural y diversa, multiétnica, devota de varios dioses o de ninguno, rica en distintas actitudes conductuales, políticas y sociales, constituye un contundente rechazo a la imagen uniforme y estandarizada –autómata y vociferante– que Trump ha intentado imponer.

Es fruto de un movimiento de resistencia –término antes reservado para la oposición clandestina a regímenes de ocupación– gestado desde 2016 entre los demócratas y ciudadanos sin partido ante la creciente frecuencia y alcance de la mendacidad y de las acciones dañinas al entorno ambiental, social, político y externo del país del cada vez más irresponsable gobierno de Trump. (Véase un ensayo sobre esta notable reacción política: The Resistance Strikes Back en el New York Timesdel pasado 10 de noviembre.) Un ejemplo: el Distrito 6º de Georgia –próspero, de alto nivel educativo, republicano por décadas, ganado por Trump en 2016– optó esta vez por una candidata demócrata, afroestadunidense y partidaria del control de la posesión personal de armas. Rindió fruto el trabajo sistemático de muchos que por dos años combatieron la pesadilla cívica del trumpismo. En suma, para el miércoles 14 los demócratas habían ganado 33 posiciones en la Cámara, para una mayoría de 30, y perdido un escaño en el Senado, donde la mayoría republicana se amplió a cuatro, sin contar los tres independientes que por lo general votan con los demócratas.

Otra oleada del repudio a Trump se manifestó en las elecciones para gobernadores y para las legislaturas estatales, mezclado, y en algunos casos moderado, por las circunstancias locales de diversos estados. En suma, de las entidades disputadas (en las que ninguno de los dos grandes partidos disponía de una mayoría consolidada), los demócratas obtuvieron siete gubernaturas –Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Nuevo México y Wisconsin– y, a la fecha de esta nota y quizá por varias semanas más continuarán las disputas, con posibles recuentos totales o reposiciones del proceso electoral, en otros dos: Georgia y Florida. En Georgia, Stacey Abrams, con una clara oportunidad de convertirse en la primera gobernadora afroestadunidense, se ha negado a aceptar la aparente victoria de su rival, el republicano Brian Kemp, quien, como secretario de Estado del actual gobierno, manejó el proceso electoral con amplia evidencia de haberlo manipulado en su favor. Quizá se repita la elección. En Florida las disputas electorales han sido frecuentes. Trump exigió, el lunes pasado, que se interrumpieran los recuentos ordenados por ley, como ocurrió por decisión judicial en la elección presidencial de 2000: una intromisión desembozada en asuntos que no le competen. A fin de cuentas, el balance, que ahora se inclina del lado republicano se equilibrará, en alguna medida, cuando ya está la vista la elección presidencial de 2020.

En un intento de sintetizar al máximo la lección de esta elección, David Axelrod escribió: Los representantes demócratas no fueron elegidos con el mandato principal de hacerle la guerra a Trump. Fueron electos para buscar y alcanzar resultados positivos en asuntos tales como el cuidado de la salud y los temas económicos. Quizás Axelrod pasa por alto un hecho: para avanzar en asuntos de salud, economía y de muchas otras áreas es indispensable combatir a Trump y a sus políticas.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Australia: Donald Trump Is Taking Over the US Federal Reserve and Financial Markets Have Missed the Point

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Topics

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Ireland: Irish Examiner View: Would We Miss Donald Trump and Would a Successor Be Worse?

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Related Articles

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump