In retrospect, none of it should have been totally
unexpected. Yet the events surrounding the inauguration of Donald J. Trump sent
seismic waves around the planet. On January 20th, 2017, the 45th
President of the United States took his oath of office. A highly enthusiastic
crowd of Trump supporters came out to cheer the triumphant event. Yet just
blocks away, an anti-Trump mob came out to throw stones at police and set fire
to a limousine. His inaugural speech was wildly populist although iterating
most of the rhetoric he developed on the campaign trail. Yet the press reported
it as a right-wing nationalist call to arms that would set American diplomacy
back a half century.
What it does predict is a likely war of attrition that may
possibly continue over the next four years of the Trump presidency. The liberal
press, firmly entrenched after eight years of predominance over the Obama administration,
has viewed the Trump ascension as the advent of an Orwellian reactionary super-state.
Trump blasted back using the same analogy, citing the double-speak of Orwell’s 1984 as the leftist recipe for serving ‘alternative
news’ to the American public and the nations of the world. Whatever the case
may be, both sides are portending a future series of events that will serve no
good purpose as time goes by.
The size of the crowds attending the inauguration became
the first item of interest over the weekend. The media derided the turnout as
one of the lowest in recent decades. Trump called the declaration a bald-faced
lie meant to debase the Trump Nation. He insisted it was as well-attended and
enthusiastic as that of any previous Democratic inaugural events. The press
countered with aerial photos, showing enormous crowds at the first Obama
inauguration. Trump fired back with clips of plastic-covered areas that covered
the White House lawn, resulting in the crowd being divided into sectors that
appeared to be sparsely occupied.
The media proved even more divisive in televising the
nationwide demonstrations following the inauguration. Relatively few networks
(such as Fox News and One America Network News) followed the Trump celebration
at the inaugural ball. The majority chose
to provide non-stop coverage of the anti-Trump events, from the riotous
protests in Washington DC to the so-called ‘female protests’ in large cities
across the country and around the world. It was publicized as a women’s
backlash against a misogynistic Trump regime. Yet it can be seen how the events
were misrepresented in order to enhance the turnout.
Women around the globe had been fed a steady stream of
propaganda by the Clinton campaign depicting Trump as a male chauvinist. Making
matters worse was Trump’s strong position on Christian issues, one of the
foremost being anti-abortion. It made him an opponent of pro-choice groups;
even worse, it placed him against health legislation that linked benefits to
abortion options. Activist groups were quick to promote the idea that Trump
would repeal women’s health benefits along with Obamacare upon assuming office.
The world-wide response appeared as if the women of the world had united in
opposition to the new President.
One
of the more problematic selling points facing the media was the composition of
the Trump administration. Trump’s wife Melania had already announced herself as
being a champion of family issues. Ivanka Trump was already consolidating her
position as one of the most influential ‘first daughters’ in history. There was
also campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, education secretary Betsy DeVos and UN
ambassador Nikki Haley, among many others. Unlike many women in the Obama and
Bush administrations, these persons do not seem to be hired according to gender.
Most come from backgrounds that indicate they will come out swinging from the
opening bell. If Trump was assembling a male-dominated staff, he seemed to be
uncharacteristically near-sighted in doing so.
At
that juncture, White House press secretary Sean Spicer excoriated the media
over their purveyance of ‘alternative facts’ and biased opinion during the
inaugural weekend. Trump followed up by asking Cabinet and Congress members to
refrain from disseminating information that might prove detrimental to the administration’s
agenda. It was the equivalent of setting skirmish lines along the political
battlefield. The media rose up in arms, and Orwell’s futuristic novel found a
resurgence that took it to Number One on Amazon’s bestseller list. 1984 had flash-forwarded to 2017, and the
fate of the world was at stake once more.
Once
again Trump took the offensive, pointing to the press’ claim that Hillary
Clinton had won the popular vote and should have been President were it not for
the electoral college. He went on to announce that he would conduct a formal
investigation of Democratic strategies in utilizing illegal immigrant votes to
decide city and state election results. This reopened a can of worms surrounding
allegations that the Putin regime in Russia masterminded the Internet hacks of
the Democratic National Convention. The Clinton campaign contended that Russia
had leaked information convincing voters that their integrity was highly
questionable at best. It led to a new round of mud-slinging that has a long way
to go.
One
thing that stands out is the Democrats’ indignation over the alleged Russian
interference in the electoral process. The most profound revelations were the
DNC’s betrayal of Bernie Sanders in favor of Clinton, as well as the financial
indiscretions of the Clinton Foundation. Although the exposes were, in all
likelihood, disastrous to the campaign, the vital question remains. In an
America where freedom of information has been declared an inalienable right,
would it have been moral for voters to have been denied access to those
details?
Another
angle that many conservatives had forgotten was the intense backlash in many
areas of the country over the Obama regime of the past eight years. Although
the liberal press was strongly supportive of the Obama administration, the
Republicans’ adversity was so strong that Obama was forced to rely on executive
orders to make progress on key issues. There was also the fact that Obama
received more death threats than any other President in history. The media
conveniently downplayed much of this, making it seem as if America had entered
a blissful era of inclusivity and diversity on both sides of the aisle and
across Main Street USA. The Republican right was now uncovering what the media
had swept under the rug.
The
question of validity surrounding the electoral college brings the Democrats’
sense of values into light. The reason for the electoral college was to prevent
major cities with overwhelming populations to dominate American politics. It
allowed states with comparatively small populations to enjoy their fair share
of influence over the outcome. Further, it is a sociological fact that citizens
of lower income flock to large cities due to the abundance of public assistance
programs. They become a magnet for demographic groups who will vote for liberal
groups supporting welfare platforms. If the electoral college were abolished,
conservative parties might never win another election.
There is also a concern over the nature of Donald J. Trump
as a self-made billionaire. He is a general in the world of commerce with few
peers, a man who has developed successful campaigns and conquered markets on an
international scale. He is an understandably proud man who has earned the
respect of millions around the globe. Being vilified, slandered and libeled is
something he is not used to and is not taking lightly. It is something he will
have to get used to if the White House war against the media will ever come to
a truce.
For certain, the American public and the nations of the
world will have to learn and discern in separating fact from fiction. If not, tidal
waves of ‘alternative facts’ may evolve into the tsunami disaster of the
decade.
