Crossings
A FEW days after the attacks of September 11, George Bush Jr. visited a mosque in Washington. He reiterated that Islam was a peaceful religion, that the fight against terrorism was not a fight against Islam, and that Muslims should not be harassed. This did not pacify Bush's critics, particularly after he called the war against the Taliban a "crusade". To be fair, Bush never flaunted his vocabulary. He probably got tired of saying "war" and reached out for the thesaurus and found "crusade". But people accused Bush of believing he was Richard the Lionheart reincarnate, waging holy war in Afghanistan.
Many mistook Bush's poor judgement for malice. After the bungled response of the Federal government to hurricane Katrina, Bush was accused of racism. Bush was hurt, and he later confessed to Oprah Winfrey that what stung him most during his presidency wasn't "Bush lied, people died", but accusations of racism against African Americans.
Whatever Bush's faults, he distinguished between someone found fighting for the Taliban in the Tora Bora caves and a doctor on a work visa from one of the seven countries banned by President Trump. Far from being credited for nuance, Bush was demonised. Trump has thrown nuance to the wind. In hindsight, Bush wasn't a bad lad. Whether or not Trump will make America great again, he has, in just over seven days, made Bush great again.
Trump has a curious Midas power - Americans become attached to whatever he changes. He vowed to transform the Food and Drug Agency (FDA), which he believes hampers drug innovation because it over regulates drug development. Instantly, the FDA became the saviour of the people, the new church of the country. When he threatened to curb pharmaceutical companies for making drugs unaffordable, people felt for pharma. Trump has made both the FDA and pharma great again - an extraordinary achievement when you realise that pharma is not fond of the FDA.
One of the raging debates in the country is how strictly to interpret the Constitution. The Conservatives, and Libertarians, want a strict interpretation of the Constitution, known as "originalism", which means guessing the original intentions of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Their rationale is that if you don't take the Constitution literally, you risk sliding down a slippery slope, leading to a situation where a capricious leader lacking scruples could abuse power.
The Progressives see in the literal interpretation of the Constitution a barrier to social programmes which promote welfare. For example, while the Constitution says citizens have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it says nothing directly, about the right to medical care. The Progressives want a more flexible interpretation of the Constitution. Like Portia begged Shylock in The Merchant of Venice to stick to the spirit, not letter, of the law, the Pro-gressives want a more spirited interpreta-tion of the Constitution, the so-called "living constitution."
By demonstrating how far a determined president can go, without violating the Constitution, Trump has made the Progressives have new-found respect for the rule of the law. He has made originalism great again. He has made the rule of law great again. He has made the Constitution great again.
It is too early to deduce the legacy of Trump's presidency. Perhaps his biggest contribution will be the restoration of perspective in the masses. As he goes about systematically changing institutions, he will make people see the value of those institutions. In four years' time, Americans will realise that the country they left behind in 2016, the presidents they excoriated, the institutions they despised, the healthcare system that frustrated them, the free trade which bothered them, and the values they hated, weren't all that bad, after all. He could make Americans, with hindsight, realise that America is great again.
Saurabh Jha
