Rejecting Trump's Version of Populism

THE DAY AFTER TRUMP was elected, street protests broke out all over America, as angry citizens vented their shock and grief. The day after he was sworn in, millions of women held marches in big and small cities all over the world, as a demonstration of their determination not to allow Trump's right wing populist avalanche to reverse social gains made by women over the past fifty years. Women's equality, a great dream whose time is long since past but has not yet fully come, will, once it finally, fully arrives, sweep across the world, and remain forever, Trump, or no Trump. There have recently been marches supporting science, the environment, minorities rights, all of which occurred as a reaction to Trump's policies, and you might expect to see the Occupy Wall Street movement spring forth again, if Trump's executive orders and Congressional action continue to favor the wealthy over the poor, Wall Street over Main Street. So much for Trump's "populism". It is a sham, and always has been. Trump is rich, and he is out for the rich, no doubt. Conservatism by definition cannot be populism, because conservatism rejects government involvement in the economy, rejects social engineering, without which the already rich and powerful will remain rich and powerful, and the poor will remain poor and powerless, which is the opposite of populism. Perhaps, by 2018, the vast majority of the American people will understand that. Populism, dear reader, requires government involvement, government action. Social, economic, and political power and equality for every man, for the little guy, is the heart of populism, and how is that going to happen without government support and action? By accident? By getting government out of the way, and letting society function on it own, as Trump and the right wing are now beginning to do? Gimme a break.