No one stood for anything except their desire for power

The second debate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.  Like most political debates, it was rich on talking points, and poor on any real substance.  

- - - - - -

During the first debate, only two candidates would say that they considered Trump unfit to serve as president.  It was fitting that there is no venom as strong as that from a politician who feels as if he was previously denied his place as #2 on the presidential ticket.  Chris Christie was that man.  Everyone else that made it to the second debate was willing to kiss the ass of Trump so that they could be his VP choice for the 2024 nomination.  

Why is this important?

The GOP no longer has any leaders who can steer the party away from the cult of Trump.  The only hope for the GOP would be for Trump to eat a prescribed diet from the Heart Attack Grill in Las Vegas, and pass away like its former spokesman.  Virtually all the candidates are afraid of Trump's followers, as many have used violence (or the threat of violence) to intimidate GOP leaders who believe in real law and order.  So, they avoid taking positions against him, even though they wish hed go away and give the GOP a better chance of winning next November.

90 years ago, another democracy was under threat from a cult leader (and his followers) who believed that his will would triumph over all.  Heck, a movie (Triumph of the Will) was made at one of his rallies won the a gold medal at the 1935 Venice Biennale, and the Grand Prix at the 1937 World Exhibition in Paris.  His nation was under great social stress as ours is today, and like Trump, he promised redemption.  True redemption never came, as this leader led his country into war and its distruction 6 years later.  Established politicians thought they could control this monster, as they once thought they could control Trump.  But the cult got out of control, and the evil leader ended up ruling everyone by fear - as is the threat if we let Trump get back into power.

- - - - - -

One problem with cults is that no one likes to admit that what they are part of is a cult.  The cult has its own myths that must be accepted to be a believer, and has its own reinforcement mechanisms to prevent its followers from questioning the cults beliefs or leaving the cult.  Some cults are benign, only affecting the lives of their followers.  Heaven's Gate was one of those groups, even though everything ended in a mass suicide.  Jim Jones' People's Temple cult was more malignant, as a congressman investigating the cult and 4 members who wanted to leave were murdered before the mass suicide in Jonestown.  (This is from where we get the expression "Drinking the Kool-Aid.")  But worst of all so far, is the cult of Trump.  At least 6 outsiders died as a result of the January 6th insurrection.  And yet, 35% of GOP members believe that the rioters were defending their country.  What flavor of Kool-Aid did they drink?

On January 7, 2021, most GOP legislators were willing to speak the objective truth about the soon to be former president.  Yet, within 2 weeks, they became afraid of their base and decided against impeaching him a second time (and finally convicting him for a threat against their lives.)  The leaders are afraid of the cult, and its leader is still spewing venom.  Trump has no respect for the rule of law, as it has never been effectively used to stop him from achieving his goals.  His followers have no respect for the rule of law, as they only want it applied to people who are not members of his cult.

- - - - - -

As I write this, one of the extremist members of Trump's cult is calling for the removal of the Speaker of the House for cutting a deal with the opposition party to keep the government running.  These extremists do not care how many people in their districts will be hurt by a government shutdown.  They only care about serving their cult's leader.  And he wants to destroy the government, so that it can not destroy him.

The year coming up will likely be a very interesting year.  But I yearn for the relative peace of my youth.  Things were much better when the two political parties would work out deals with other and both take credit for doing good things.  We need that spirit to return, and we need to develop mechanisms to keep the lunatics from gaining control of the asylum....

What happens when two peoples have title to the same land?

 

A lot of noise is being made in regard to the war between Hamas and Israel.  Sadly, most people around the world are getting misinformation, and sound bites aimed to keep their respective ethnic groups supporting corrupt leaderships.  In the case of the current Middle East conflict, the reality on the ground is much more nuanced than most people are led to believe.

A little over 100 years ago, allied powers forced the Ottoman Empire to divest itself of lands outside of Asia Minor.  This meant that control of lands such as Lebanon and Palestine (I'm using the older meaning of this place name, and not today's meaning here) were ceded to Western powers such as France and the United Kingdom.  Unlike the Ottomans, the French and British ran these lands in a ham-fisted manner.  Neither cared much about the delicate interactions that took place between Christian, Muslim and Jew.  In some cases, the same land was promised to multiple ethnic groups as payment for a temporary peace.

After World War 2, there was pressure on the UK to divide Palestine into a Muslim and a Jewish state.  However, leaders on the Muslim side did not accept compromise, and in the late 1940's Israel had to fight for its right to be a Jewish homeland.  Muslims who stayed on their land and cut peace deals with the Jewish state to be were allowed to stay and have full rights in the Jewish state.  Sadly, the Muslims who fought against the Jewish state to be could not be allowed to return to their ancestrial lands.

Today's Palestine (which contains areas belonging to Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza) is not a two-state solution which has been talked about since the 1940's.  Palestinian Muslims have been herded into both the West Bank and Gaza.  This might not have been such a bad thing, if Jewish settlers hadn't turned the West Bank into a "Swiss Cheese" of a territory - what could have been a Palestinian homeland is dotted with illegal Israeli settlements due to population pressures in the Israeli state.  The Israeli state doesn't care to remove these settlements to lay the groundwork for a healthy Muslim Palestine to evolve.  The people have no political rights.  And what rights they do have are often ignored by the Israeli government for reasons of political expediency. 

To make things worse, the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, and is not trusted by the people.  In the West Bank, they selected Fatah to run a government, and things have been tolerably calm (until now).  But, in Gaza, things are much different.  This part of Palestine is run by Hamas, and hasn't held an election since it took power over 15 years ago.  Unlike Fatah, Hamas has both acted like a government AND retained its goal of the total destruction of Israel.  There is no room for Israel to compromise when its neighbor advocates for Israel's total destruction.

Palestinian Muslims say that the Jews did not have a right to come in and take their land.  But how long should a claim to land exist?  The Jews were pushed out of Palestine by the Romans.  Should their claim to a homeland be denied?  But this question got me to thinking about North America.  Europeans came to North America over 500 years ago, and displaced the native peoples.  Should we be forced out?  How should the legitimate rights of the natives to their land be dealt with?  Does might make right?  In the US, we have evolved a tolerable middle ground (tolerable for "old world" settlers, that is) that allocates "reservations" (unless that have valuable resources) to native tribes.  We have a peace based on both higher population and on superior technology.  The native tribes accept our existence on what was their lands and have found ways to live in peace with us.

A while back, a prominent US politician stated that Israel will either be an apartheid Jewish state with no rights for Palestinian Muslims, or it will be forced to become a non-religious state to survive.  Previous Israeli inaction in regard to the West Bank settlements may have made a two-state solution impossible.  But what does this mean for options which may lead to a meaningful peace?

As I see it, Hamas must be vanquished at all costs.  At the same time, Israel must work with Fatah to make the West Bank a viable, functioning Palestinian state.  Peaceful actions must be rewarded, as much as they may make Israel uncomfortable.  Violence must be crushed with extreme prejudice.  A future Palestinian state may have to be sacrifice Gaza in order to become a truly independent state.  Yet, the question of Gaza remains.  Can Israel destroy Hamas' leadership in Gaza without a scorched earth policy?  No matter what, I expect to see many innocent Gazans die because Hamas wanted to prevent a grand peace deal from becoming reality.

But what can be done?

Muslims and Jews both self-select "news" that supports their own beliefs that they alone should be in control of historical Palestine.  Outside regional forces have reinforced the views on the "Arab street" that Israel can never be up to any good.  Arab media is just as biased as American media outlets such as Fox, Newsmax, and ONN have been in the United States.  Even if one was to force the media outlets to only report objective news without biased opinions from bloviating media stars, it would take generations to undo the damage caused by information biases.

So, what do I see happening?

The Grand Deal regaring Mideast Peace has been scuttled for a while, but it will return.  The Saudis have too much at risk to allow Iran to gain more power.  The Turks (successors to the Ottomans) will try to gain influence in this region, possibly by turning itself into a peace broker.  The Iranians will continue to try to stir up trouble by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.  But this will be a losing effort, as forces allied with the Saudis and the Turks will quietly work with Israel to defeat Iran.  Israel will get involved in a protracted ar with Hamas, keeping Gazans imprisoned in their small strip of land, as they are a danger to any land that accepts them - including a West Bank Palestinian state.  

Now, what happens to innocent Gazans?

Israel needs to clean Hamas out of Gaza.  It may need to rebuild Gaza as a Hamas free zone and pay for the rebuilding of Gazan infrastructure.  But it will not govern Gaza - this has been proven unworkable in the past.  Part of a potential peace deal might involve the temporary administration of Gaza by a third power, a transitional government and media structure geared to "teach" Gazans how to live in the modern world and demand a government that responds to their needs first.  Until then, we will have war....

The Trump Presidential Library - An Oxymoron and a Joke

Has anyone ever noticed that after a president leaves office, funds are reserved for a library that will hold all papers related to the former president's time in office?  Similar libraries exist for notable politicians from both parties whose papers are worthy of cataloging and being made available to the public for research.  

Presidential papers are considered public property under Federal Law and almost all former presidents have chosen sites where their non-classified records are available for research.  For example, former President Obama chose to have his presidential library in Chicago, Il.  President Clinton chose to have his presidential library in Little Rock, AR.  However, notably absent from this list of former presidents having publicly accessable research centers is former President Trump.  If one accesses the government website for his library, it is merely a spaceholder.  No building yet extsts at this time, nor it it likely to exist any time soon.

Why is this important?

Unlike our other former presidents, Trump is not known for having things put down on paper for future reference.  Like all grifters, he knows that any and all forensic evidence can and will be used against him in a court of law.  And that's what's happening right now in New York, Florida, Georgia, and Washington, DC. with Trump's 4 indictments.

Do I think Trump will be re-elected?  The odds against it aren't overwhelming.  There are way too many followers in his cult who act as if he's a messenger sent by god.  (As for me, Jake and Elwood Blues were the only characters I know who were on a mission from god.  But I digress.)  Given a choice of rational understanding and irrational faith, irrationality wins every time.  This is why cults are dangerous - they can cause a lot of trouble for non-believers.

Right now, the Florida case against Trump has to be litigated.  He claimed that all of the presidential papers are his property and not public property as his initial defense.  According to the presidential records act, this is a bogus claim.  He claimed to have declassified the classified documents, all without proof.  Again, this is a bogus claim.  But what is most notable here is that none of the unclassified presidential papers would be in a publically accessible library, given Trump's actions.

So what is available so far?

If one examines the Research page on Trump's presidential records website, the two key resources are his archived websites and his archived social media.  There are no books or letters to be found.  This is what one would expect from a mob boss and not a president.  It takes dogged prosecutors to do the research needed to convict a mob boss, and the same is needed to convict a grifting ex-president. Yet, like mob bosses, it will be hard to obtain a conviction, as there is little recorded evidence.

I expect that unlike all other presidents, that Trump's presidential library will end up being the side of a tiny book library found on Amazon for $249.95 (at time of writing). At least, someone has taken the time to archive all of his tweets and websites.

The looming threat

Our former president's mug shot.  

No matter what they say about Trump, things could be worse.  The man was totally incompetant and not able to change the nature of our political system, but he came close to doing so.  He normalized being openly hateful of vulnerable minorities, and unleashed a movement of malcontents which will likely survive his potential incarceration. 

So why do I say that there is a looming threat?

Several things have happened as a result of this man's time in office.  First, this man has said that if he regains the office of president, he will attempt to consolidate political power in the executive branch.  This is dangerous, as our system was designed to work (or, not work, as of late) with the powers of each branch of government being checked and balanced by the other two.  Second, this man has only anger to propel him.  He has never forgiven the public, nor the honest officials that some may have elected, for not putting him in office for a second term.  What revenge would he try to take at the expense of his perceived enemies?  Most elected leaders in his party are afraid of his cult, and are following his mob to stay in office.

But what happens if this man is not nominated to be his party's presidential nominee?  Will the followers of his cult believe that the elections weren't rigged?  On 01/06/21, we saw the violence that his cult was capable of.  Could it happen again?  What if the man were convicted in one of the courts? Even worse would be the chaos that might happen if the election were close.  For years, Americans have been self-selecting into like-minded communities.  People live in communication bubbles where they select news from sources that reinforce their views, and find it hard to imagine how others could have different views when "the truth" should be self apparent.  If you lived in Rural America, watched Fox "News" on a regular basis, and have been trained by your church to see the world in binary terms, would you be able to challenge the orthodoxy that you've been fed for years?  Wouldn't you want to defend your country from "criminals" from the left?

Years ago, Senator John McClain held a campaign rally where one of his loyal GOP constituents started labeling then Senator Barack Obama as a communist traitor.  Senator McClain interrupted this woman, saying that Senator Obama was a good man with whom he had political differences.  Could anyone see this happening today, where radicals from the far right are calling for President Biden's impeachment? The leaders of one political party have enough "sober" people to govern, while the other's leaders are afraid of the mob who elected our former president.

In 2016, our former president ran for office with the campaign slogan:  

Make America Great Again

Did any of his constituents ever ask: 

When did America stop being great?  

Why is America not great anymore?  

What needs to be done to make America great again?

I never heard any of these questions answered to my satisfaction.  Instead, MAGA anger comes from people who have lost their place in society.  They see our former president as someone who would (at least) give lip service to their feelings, if not restore their former positions in the larger society.

The next year, the former president held a campaign rally in Charlottesville, where he effectively said that there were good people in the neo-Nazi movement :

“You had some very bad people in that group,

 but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

Once a person implies that there some good neo-Nazis, where does permission to act on one's hatred end?  I can still remember chants of:

"Jews will not replace us!"

As if any self respecting Jew would want for his/her children to grow up with skills so limited that they could not earn a good living.  What successful person of any ethnic group would want for their child to become a bagger at the local Piggly Wiggly?  Many of the MAGAloons are poorly educated, resistant to change, and follow bombastic leaders without bothering to ask: "Does what they are saying make sense?"  They gravitate to "strongmen" who say things that validate their feelings, and not to people who understand the nuances of objective truths.

So, what is the looming threat?

In short, the threat is that our ex-president has unleashed a monster that can not be sent back to its cave before it causes a lot of destruction.  As I started writing this, Jacksonville, FL is dealing with the aftermath of a white nationalist killing 3 black people at a local supermarket.  What will it take to stop this?  I don't know.  But if the ex-president again comes anywhere near the levers of power, god help us.

A potential constitutional crisis

 

Most people know that I lean a little bit left of today's center.  By historical standards, I would have been a "Goldwater Republican."  That is, I don't want the government legislating or enforcing morality, I don't want government needlessly interfering with business, and I want to limit the functions of government to those things it can do well.  Sadly, the GOP has shifted to being a radical right wing party, one that looks to use government as a tool to quietly(?) reverse civil rights gains we've had over the last 60 years, one that looks to subsidize big business and billionaires at the expense of the working person, one that would use morality as an excuse to mistreat people whose looks and bahaviors differ from the fundamentalist White Christian Males who have historically had power in this country.

Our founding fathers understood that our nation was imperfect from the beginning.  The Preabmble to The Declaration of Independance opens with:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of  Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

They knew that men are imperfect, and that governments derive their power from the people.  It continues with:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.

But here lies the problem with the January 6th insurrection.  The majority of the people were happy with our system of government.  They were not happy with the actions of a government that no longer seemed to care about their needs.  And they were ripe to become part of a cult which would enable a despot to overthrow the government while leaving a shadow of its structure intact.

The heart of the Washington, DC indictment of Donald Trump says that he was trying to overturn the electoral college election of Joseph Biden by interfering with the counting of the votes from the 50 states (plus DC).  Assuming that Trump is convicted, he could be considered to have engaged in an insurrection against the United States, as some conservatives are now posing.  Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the constitution reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Since there is no chance that the Democrats in either house will vote to remove this disability, what would happen if lunatics in the GOP make Trump its 2024 presidential nomines?  I pose that we could have a constitutional crisis if the following events occur:

1. Trump wins the GOP nomination.
2. Trump is convicted on January 6th issues (and maybe, Georgia RICO as well)
3. Trump wins the Electoral College.
4. Trump is ruled ineligible to serve as president during 2024 (case on rapid appeal to SCOTUS.  SCOTUS says Trump ineligible.)
5. Electoral college vote in chaos.

Since Trump would be ineligible to serve as president and the electoral college hasn't voted, what happens next?  Some states' EC election laws would commit electors to vote for Trump/President & Mate/Vice President.  Other states' laws might allow electors to vote for VP as President, but who gets VP vote?  Even more confusing, we could have issues of "Faithless Electors."  Could the election go to the house?  Could we see a President of one party and a Vice President of the other?  28 years ago, Jeff Greenfield wrote a book about this problem, albeit in an era where we couldn't dream of a criminal being elected as president.  Now, the electoral college risk is much worse, and people need to understand it.

Right now, we must start thinking of amending the us constitution to deal with the issue of what happens if a President/Vice President slate is elected by the 50 states (plus DC), and one member of the pair becomes ineligible to serve or unable to serve before the electoral college elects a President/Vice President slate, or before it takes office.  As part of this amendment, we also need to fix the anomaly of what would happen if the presidential election goes to the House of Representatives, and the vice presidential election goes to the Senate.  Currently, if this were to happen, we could see a President elected from one party, and a Vice President from the other.  Maybe we need to make sure that both legislative houses agree on both the president and vice president as a pair before the president is considered selected.

Language - We all use it, but not well.

This is one of my favorite scenes from Blazing Saddles.  To me, it is one of the best anti-racist films ever made.  And that's because of Brooks' use of language.  Could you imagine the impact of this scene if it were limited to politically correct language?  Try this comparison:

"One move, or the black fellow gets it!"

or

"One move, or the n----r gets it!"

Which is more funny in the context of this film?  Given how dumb the racist whites in the film are being shown to be, I feel the latter line used by Brooks has a greater impact in more ways than one.

- - - - - -

What a person says, how it is said, and the context in which something is said gives much meaning to an utterance.  This is why Germany has strict rules regarding the display of Nazi symbols to this era.  I find it sad that America has greater freedom in the use of Nazi symbols, and with it, a larger neo-Nazi movement.  Sadly, symbols can carry meaning more effectively than words. And during the Trump era, we've seen more Swastikas and Confederate Battle Flags on display than I'd ever have dreamed would be socially acceptable in any part of America.

I was sickened when our former president said "there were good people on both sides" when referring the the Charlottetown protests.  Are Nazi sympathizers good?  How so?  Does this mean that black rights are bad?  I still remember them chanting "Jews will not replace us."  How can they do that, given how few there are in this country?  Maybe, it's because these people don't want want to invest in the education needed to get the jobs of the future?  Maybe, it's because these people don't want to move to where the jobs are?  Maybe, it's because they don't value people who are not as bigoted as they are, and employers reject them because they want a healthy workplace?

Over time, we saw how bad a person our 45th president was. Recently, Business Insider posted an article noting how the Russians have been cultivating this man as an asset for years. The article links to another in the Guardian, that references a new book on the KGB's development of assets in America. Given what is now known about our 45th president, it's easy to see how a foreign power could manipulate a person's use of words to harm a nation while plausible deniability is spread all around.

It's hard for me to say this, but maybe we need guardrails on the 1st amendment.  Germany strictly regulates the use of Nazi symbols.  But it does allow them to be used.  How many of us know that in a country that generally prohibits the use of the Swastika, that Mel Brooks was allowed to use it in a theater where "The Producers" was being performed?  Yet, Germany prohibited the use of the image outside the theater. So, a pretzel flag was used instead. Even Germany realizes that a symbol of hate has to be exposed to the contempt it deserves.  

- - - - - -

Sometimes, freedom of religion conflicts with other people's property rights.  Several years ago, a bunch of ultra orthodox Jews sued to allow their Eruv to be extended from Rockland County, NY into neighboring areas of New Jersey.  What couldn't be openly discussed in the courts is that the neighboring New York religious community had a much higher rate of poverty (50%-60% on public assistance) than in the community on the New Jersey side of the border. The folk in New Jersey wanted to keep their parks for their own community, and not be crowded out by outsiders.  They wanted to make sure that their properties would not be bought out, then turned into illegal multi family homes.  The 1st amendment actually got in the way of free and responsible speech in this case.

- - - - - -

All of our freedoms come with responsibility.  Sometimes they come into conflict with each other.  When I contrast our 45th president's encouragement of a mob storming the capitol on January 6th with the court battle regarding the Eruv, I see evil (as evidenced by the 1/06/21 mob) vs. good (both sides of the Eruv dispute).  In the former case, people had no respect for the law, and would use any and all tools to get what they want.  In the latter case, the court system was responsibly used.  Although the settlement was not perfect, it is being adhered to, and has had a peaceful outcome.  

Language when used effectively is powerful. But without law, it can also be dangerous.  My question is: Do we need explicit limits on 1st amendment freedoms?

Is there a peeing section in the swimming pool?

 

Soon, our four year ordeal will be over.  The minute that Joe Biden takes office will be the minute that Donald Trump can be indicted on State level charges of election fraud.  No amount of Federal pardons can keep any of the states from indicting an ex president.  In fact, it is possible that the mere acceptance of a federal pardon will provide the admission of state level crimes.

Even if Donald Trump spends the rest of his days in prison, the disease he represents is still affecting America.  There are still too many people whose lives have been destroyed by globalism, as our coastal elites have not provided safety nets, nor have they provided meaningful employment to those left behind by global trade.  The people in the heartland have a legitimate grievance against the coastal elites, as the elites have benefitted as the expense of the American working class.  

Although Trump is a grifter who played well out of his league, he finally got caught due to his own failings. Many of Trump's supporters never look inward to determine the nature of their problems. If they did, they would see that they continually make bad choices, and then blame their failures on others.  So it only makes sense that these people chose a "bigger than life" persona to represent their interests.  Unfortunately, they didn't bother to look at this man carefully.  If they did, they might have seen the grifter who no major American bank would lend money to.  They might have seen one of the few men who could lose money running casinos - something very hard to do in this world.  They might have seen a man who was posing to be a false messiah.  And they might have seen a very little man behind an emerald green curtain. In short, with a little bit of effort, they would have seen someone who had only his own interest at heart, and would play them for suckers once again.

Years ago, I read a news article about a young man in Appalachia who asked his state's senator for career advice.  The senator gave the young man honest advice, telling the young man to leave.  There was no opportunity for him in his state.  The senator realized that his  state's would retain political power if it cound keep poor people from moving away for better opportunities. Yet, he was honest enough to give good advice to the young man.  What would have you done if you were that senator?  And this is the nature of the problem for many in the heartland.  There are not enough good opportunities to go around, and politicians often have interests which conflict with the needs of the people they represent.

Many of the coal mining companies in Appalachia are winding down their operations.  They know that the days of coal as a fuel are numbered.  Some of these companies have tried to retrain people for their growing renewable energy businesses and were willing to relocate these employees.  Yet, many of these employees return to the soil of their birth, as they have strong family bonds.  They make a choice to return to a land of poverty for family ties, rather than to prosper in new areas.  How would many of our ancestors have thought about this, given that they came to America and severed ties with their old lands?  They loved families that they left behind.  But they realized that they needed to make better lives for themselves, and that the old country wouldn't be fertile soil for those lives.  Too bad that today's people aren't the risk takers their forebears were.

A while back, I attended therapy sessions with an unconventional therapist.  One of the metaphors he often used was the idea of choosing the same door every time one wanted to exit a room, and getting beaten up each time that door was chosen.  It was his way of trying to get me to choose differently when things weren't working the way I wanted. When I think of typical Trump supporters, they want to live in a way their great grandparents lived without dealing with the problems they face today.  They are not able to choose a different door, and they continually get beaten up when they open the same door again and again.  Success and failure in life depends on the choices we make, and no one can help us if we are excused from the results of our bad decisions.  

So where does this leave us with the populist disease for which Trump is a symptom?  For the short term, we probably need to look back into history to see a solution our government tried 85+ years ago - the WPA (Works Progress Administration).  This "socialist" program made work for many unemployed people, giving them a purpose in life, and some hope for the future.  When people are housed, clothed, and fed, they are less likely to support populist kleptocrats like Trump.  They are also unlikely to fall into the depths of despair and become self destructive.  But if they do, we need to treat these people without applying moral stigma. Instead, we need to find ways to make them choose the right paths in life.  "Little brother", not "Big Brother" must show the way out of despair.

You'll note that I've only mentioned Appalachia so far.  These same problems exist in urban areas as well.  Our economy is shifting to work that can be done anywhere, with a few minor exceptions. So we have to work with business to educate people for the jobs that need to be filled, and make sure that businesses hire the people we trained for these jobs.  Is this too much to ask?