The World Keeps Turning: Rejoining the ‘loyal opposition’

In the weeks since the gut punch of Donald Trump’s reelection, The Boston Globe reports that some fervent supporters of Kamala Harris have fully retreated from the political arena — an area which now feels like the Roman Colosseum where slaves and gladiators are summarily dispatched with a reversal of an emperor’s thumb. They are overwhelmed by a cacophony of discordant emotions including anger, rage, disbelief, stupefaction, sadness, and despair. A psychologist could probably sort them all into one of the stages of grief related to the probable loss of a loved one: our dear, departed democracy.

At least one person fled from a consumer transaction because an employee was wearing a MAGA hat. Others cannot bring themselves to utter the T-word, spelling it out instead, or using a general reference like “he” to describe the elephant in the room.

I certainly felt buffeted by some of those painful, emotional winds during the early hours afterwards, but eventually came to grips with the fact that Americans voted for what they thought they wanted. Now, we’ll see how they like it.

Maybe they will like it. I predict that I won’t, along with many Trump voters who feel buyer’s remorse when he and his administration break a program (e.g., insurance through ACA) that has regularly helped them. I will support any programs or actions during Trump’s term that help unify the country, and address the massive income and education gap that divides us. But I am doubtful, since I heard nothing during the campaign to indicate Trump’s positive plans for a multi-ethnic population, a strong middle class, or a society in which all men and women are given even symbolic respect and power.

I also predict that the issue of “loyalty” will soon become a serious source of conflict. Previously, the term “loyal opposition” has not been an oxymoron that combines two mutually exclusive terms, like “working vacation,” “only choice,” and “virtual reality.”

Dating at least to the early 1800s in England, the loyal opposition, there and here, engaged in spirited debates while remaining supportive of the overall system. They have often been hardy patriots who made valuable contributions to the nation and system they believed in. A recent example is the relationship between Tip O’Neil, a proud Massachusetts Democratic liberal dedicated to designing government interventions in many areas of American life, and Ronald Reagan who ushered in our current anti-government era with his belief that government is the problem, not the solution. After hours, they were famously cordial, even friendly.

Like many other actual and would-be authoritarian leaders, Donald Trump views all opposition as disloyal. He has feuded with and dismissed countless aides and supporters with a vengeance suitable for a mob boss who is terminally suspicious of people who approach him standing on their own two feet, rather than kneeling in obeisance.

Equating opposition with disloyalty also has a long history. People, including myself, who opposed the Vietnam War were regularly charged with hating the country and bringing dishonor to its veterans. In many cases, they were told to “love it [America] or leave it.” We argued that opposition to the war was actually very patriotic, standing against a government which sacrificed the lives of an entire generation for its own pride, with little or no gain in the end. Today, historians are generally kind to those peaceful protesters who opposed the war rather than those in power who conducted it. In that case, it seems we came out on the right side of the battle.

I hope that many who worked to elect Harris will channel their energies into opposition to policies which are harmful to our people, our economy, and our environment. But sadly, we will have to choose our battles since it appears that there will be a hurricane of legislative and executive action that it will make it impossible to react to each drop of fierce, driving rain.

For example, which of Trump’s cabinet appointees has the capability of doing the most damage? I vote for the secretary of defense and attorney general, since each could turn our powerful military and law enforcement organizations into weapons against those seen as disloyal, “the enemy within.” Trump has often said that he would like to inspire fear, like other dictators he admires. An attorney general and secretary of defense without respect for the Constitution would help turn our country into one where many people live in fear of a man who lacks compassion or even a hint of a moral compass.

Allen Woods is a freelance writer, author of the Revolutionary-era historical fiction novel “The Sword and Scabbard,” and Greenfield resident. His column appears regularly on a Saturday. Comments are welcome here or at awoods2846@gmail.com.