THE POLITICS OF SPITE
January 14, 2017

Trumpers eagerly plan to obliterate President Obama’s programs. They are lined up, stumbling over themselves to pick and shove, claw and untangle the last eight years.


Actually, the Emperor Elect is going after the Affordable Care Act, not because he thinks it's a bad idea. He really doesn’t care about health care for people. He’s going after the ACA because it was President Obama’s baby. And let’s get this straight: It’s not fiscal policy or philosophy, it is strictly vindictiveness. 

He despises Obama, always has. He denied Obama’s American birth, he led the “birther” movement, he insulted President Obama again and again. And now, he’ll try to undo everything Obama did—for the most selfish reason of all: a deeply personal, irrational, hatred. 

It’s reminiscent of demagogues who lash out at those they hate. They smash statues, slash paintings, and outlaw even the mere mention of their nemeses’ name. 

In the end, of course, the final winner will be Obama. For demagogues never outlive history, and history has a strange way of resurrecting the past, uncovering the long buried pharaoh or king. 

So how does political policy based on vindictiveness work? Babies get thrown out with the bathwater. It does not matter who gets hurt, as long as the Trumpers succeed in destroying—GET IT STRAIGHT—DESTROYING, not building, not replacing, not substituting something else. Vindictiveness has no philosophical core, no tradition of carefully thought out principle or logical premise.

By definition, it is emotional. In our current case, it is based on the prejudices, beliefs, wishes, anger, etc., of a single man, and is rooted fundamentally in his insecurity. Thus, we can expect that foreign and domestic policy and programs will be altered and implemented on the basis of a highly irrational, temperamental man. The purpose of a vindictive public policy is to quash anyone who offends his sense of himself. It’s likely that he has a “hit list,” journalists, politicians, actors, comedians, or even simple Americans who disagree with him. Those will be tagged liars, cheats, crooks, etc., and the full force of the nation will be exerted to obliterate those who disagree with him. 

Our founders wanted to escape these ruthless, arbitrary hereditary kings having absolute power. They replaced the so-called “divine” right of kings to be the sole accuser, judge, jury, and executioner. They built a Constitution, a legal framework to ensure access to a cool, rational legal system removed from the raging emotions of the accuser—or king. 

But our man prefers the role of king. “She’s guilty as hell!” he said recently, forgetting, of course, that even he—the emperor—is as yet, not able to point his finger and say, “Off with her head!”


Not yet.

For a while at least, everyone still has access to formal legal procedures: a formal accusation, trial or hearing, possibly a jury, and a verdict reached through weighing the evidence and making a decision based on that evidence, not on someone’s opinion, rage, or tweet.

I find it ironic, that often men have said that women are unable to rule because they are too emotional, that their biological processes prevent them from being logical and rational. 

Well, we really know the truth, don’t we?

Everyone is entitled to my opinion.