By Matt Underwood Newsom at UN talks: ‘Donald Trump is temporary’
The core idea here is that while Donald Trump’s time in the political spotlight is finite, the repercussions of his actions and the movement he represents – often referred to as MAGA or Trumpism – are far from temporary. It’s a nuanced perspective, acknowledging the inevitable end of Trump’s specific tenure while expressing serious concern about the lasting damage to the United States and its global standing. The general consensus appears to be that Trump himself is a symptom of a larger, deeper problem within the US.
The consensus appears to be: Trump is temporary. However, the actions taken during his time in office, the policies enacted, and the ideologies he has emboldened, are far more enduring. Some see Trump as merely the most visible manifestation of a deeper-seated issue, a “tumor” on the American body politic, while the underlying disease persists. The concern is that even if Trump leaves office, the forces he has unleashed – the political polarization, the erosion of democratic norms, and the spread of misinformation – will continue to shape American society for years to come, possibly decades or even a century. There’s a real fear of a “cancer” that keeps returning, no matter how much “chemo” is applied.
The damage caused by Trump isn’t limited to domestic affairs. His policies and rhetoric have had a significant impact on international relations. Some comments highlight the untrustworthiness that his actions have instilled in the US, with some people, like those living in Canada, indicating they no longer trust the US and are distancing themselves as a result of it. The lack of continuity in the country’s vision is emphasized, noting how contracts and agreements can be rendered worthless in just four years, undermining the US’s reputation as a reliable international partner. This perspective suggests that repairing the damage to the US’s international standing will be a long and challenging process.
Some commentators see beyond Trump himself, pointing to the underlying forces driving his policies, specifically the Heritage Foundation and the individuals behind it. The argument is that while Trump may be the face of the movement, the true architects of these policies are the ones who will continue to influence events long after he is gone. This underscores the concern that the removal of Trump alone will not be enough to solve the problems facing the US; a more fundamental reckoning with the underlying ideologies and power structures is necessary. There’s a recognition that Trump is playing a role, reading a script. The deeper worry is those in the shadows, waiting for the figurehead to fall so that they can take over.
The discussion touches on the role of political figures like Newsom. Some feel he should take a lead, engaging with other nations to ensure that international relations can be repaired and progress can be made, or even be a spokesperson for the US. His potential role in 2028 is mentioned, suggesting he might go after the administration and hold them accountable. This reflects a desire for strong leadership to address the issues. There’s also the suggestion that the US is in a state of national “schizophrenia,” highlighting the deep divisions within the country.
There is a sense of urgency. The argument is that the damage is happening now and that every moment under the current administration exacerbates the problems. The idea is that not only is the damage currently being done, but that some of the actions are irrecoverable, and it will take generations to fix it. This further emphasizes the need for decisive action and a long-term strategy to address the challenges facing the US.
There are concerns about the future, with worries about the spread of political violence and the potential for a “worse cesspool” of political and social issues. The idea of the US being a cesspool is repeated, suggesting that the problems go deeper than just the current administration. There is a sense of hopelessness, and a fear that the country may never be functional again without a radical shift in how it operates. There is a sense that the situation requires more than a simple change in leadership; a fundamental transformation of the political landscape may be necessary.