Trump Apocalypse?
Michelle Goldberg, in “Anniversary of the Apocalypse” (2017) asserts that the age of Trump’s presidency is an apocalypse, in which the President can do outrageous things and we don’t even care anymore because we have become so accustomed to it. She describes the warning of what Trump’s presidency would look like, uses pathos and logos to show how unpresidential and unseemly she thinks Trump has been, and shows how this has become the new normal with a cynical and depressing tone. Her purpose is to convince liberals who promised to resist Trump that they can’t continue to allow Trump’s inappropriate behavior to become the norm. She relates to adults who, like her, are disturbed by Trump’s actions, but are simply tired of being outraged and have accepted his ways as normal.
While I agree that there should be outrage over any action of our President that is unseemly, unpresidential, or illegal, I disagree in characterizing Trump’s presidency as an “apocalypse,” similar to what occurred in Turkey and Russia. It is true; Trump does many questionable and unpresidential things on a regular basis. However, let’s be clear on what an apocalypse is. As per google’s dictionary, an apocalypse is “an event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale.” The damage the President has done thus far has only been in the message that the President sends and the image he represents. Through his divisive comments and questionable actions he has been a bad role model and example for the country, and he has insulted and alienated people of his own country several ways. But he has not destroyed this country or taken away freedom of press and speech, and to suggest that he is another “autocratic demagogue” is a serious exaggeration. Trump’s presidency does not even compare to the leadership of Kim Jong Un, Vladmir Putin, or other terrible authoritarian leaders who have taken away freedoms and caused serious destruction to their people. Our president is certainly unconventional and disrespectful, but he has not yet damaged the liberty and freedoms that we are privileged to have in this country. The press can and does criticize him for his misdemeanors on a regular basis. They cover each outrageous action in great detail and with great passion. No one is afraid to use their constitutional rights to protest the actions of the president, just as conservatives who hated Obama weren’t scared to protest his actions with great passion and even anger. President Trump might make a comment about their criticism of him on twitter, but he does not use his power to physically silence those that use their freedom of speech and press. Ordinary people continue to protest in a number of different ways, too, whether through articles or physical protest, and they are still totally free to do so.
We shouldn't overexaggerate the severity of the Trump presidency. Rather, we should criticize each individual action of the President that we are troubled by, instead of painting a false picture of what America is like now under his leadership. We’re not in some kind of apocalypse, as Goldberg suggests, and we don’t need to pretend like we are.
Akiva, I do not have any corrections regarding the structure of your precis. I thought it was very well written.
ReplyDeleteI also thought your response was well written. I do, however, think you might have misinterpreted something in Goldberg's article according to my understanding. It seems that you are saying that you disagree with Goldberg because she is categorizing Trump's current presidency as an apocalypse due to the fact that you do not believe he's destroying the country. However, I do not think Goldberg is calling Trump's actual actions thus far during his presidency apocalypses. Judging by her title, the ANNIVERSARY of the apocalypse, the apocalypse Goldberg is referring to is Trump's election as president a year ago. Him being elected was according to the definition you brought up, the "event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale."
*Goldberg is not saying that his actions now are what make his election a year ago an "apocalypse" in her eyes, but instead, it is the illogical and illegal mindset that Trump embodies and promotes that makes his election so destructive.*
While Goldberg brings up multiple examples of times when Trump/his administration have either been disrespectful or ignored legal protocol, her main point is not that these actions will forever ruin our country. Instead, she is showing that the real destruction that is occurring as a result of the "apocalypse" that was Trump's election is that illegal activity, hateful talk, and being disrespectful are becoming normalized due his actions. In other words, the events Goldberg brings up are all proofs of just how many times Trump has done something unacceptable, and how because of this, he as President is normalizing the idea of acting irresponsibly and immorally. Essentially, her point is that Trump and his administrations apocalyptic presidency stems from the fact that they are fostering the idea that it is acceptable to disregard the rules.
It is really the idea of illegality and immorality becoming normalized that Goldberg is weary of, more so than the actual effect Trump's actions or policies will have. Your response does not argue why this is wrong, but instead focuses on why you believe Trump's presidency is technically not destroying the country's existence as a democracy. You say that Trump is nothing like King Jong Un or Vladmir Putin and while it's true that he is not cutting off heads or putting people in jail for their right to speak (which by the way, I am not sure if he would be opposed to if he was not limited by the American legal system), this does not prove wrong Goldberg's point that Trump is normalizing a destructive mindset to Americans and society which is that it's okay to be irrational, do illegal things, make racist, antisemitic, and sexist comments, and the list goes on and on. You don't prove wrong Goldberg's claim that Trump's election was apocalyptic because of his normalization of unacceptable and undemocratic ideals.
To wrap up my main point, I think your argument could have been stronger if you were to address your opinion on the issue of normalization, whether you disagree that Trump is normalizing immorality/illegality, or whether you think disagree that it is catastrophic that these things are being normalized because of his presidency (instead of just talking about why you think Trump is not truly destructive to the country through his actions). I think this would have addressed Goldberg's underlying point in her article more precisely.