大象传媒

Can we rebuild the United States after President Trump is gone? And how would we do it?

It鈥檚 a good question, and it鈥檚 looking more important as new evidence of his criminality emerges on what feels like a near-daily basis.

You would be forgiven if watching the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump last week left you with the feeling that the constitutional system of government is on life support. Even acknowledging that Trump is corrupt and guilty of everything he鈥檚 charged with, it鈥檚 disheartening to watch Senate Republicans twist themselves into knots to justify a craven vote to not call any witnesses or see any evidence for a trial in which they鈥檙e supposed to be impartial jurors.

But if there鈥檚 anything consistent about Trump, it鈥檚 that he doesn鈥檛 see the U.S. as an example of democracy, freedom, or any other positive ideal. He said as much on national TV shortly after the election, both-sides-ing away Russia鈥檚 campaign of murdering journalists by saying, 鈥�?鈥�

You could almost say he started out thinking we weren鈥檛 any better than anyone else, and since then has worked to make that statement indisputable truth.

But let鈥檚 look forward. Let鈥檚 assume that, despite his near-inevitable acquittal by the Senate, Trump loses in November (because the alternative is unthinkable), and after much complaining and pouting and calling the election 鈥渞igged,鈥� he鈥檚 finally shown the door when Chief Justice John Roberts goes ahead and swears in a new president. This country鈥檚 systemic problems were already deep. If the constitutional glue holding the U.S. together has proven to be so brittle, what鈥檚 to stop the nation from flying off into 50 (or more) mini-nations, joined only by a flag or a common currency or the ability of federal agents to run airport security scanners and ?

The first and perhaps only job of a new president, after what is likely to be a very close race, is going to be to start the long, arduous process of rebuilding our corroded institutions and installing new protections against a return to Trumpism.

At this point, it鈥檚 pretty dubious to continue asserting that the U.S. is exceptional after everything this administration has done to undercut almost every norm established by the much-lauded Constitution. So let鈥檚 start with dropping all that 鈥淎merican exceptionalism鈥� talk, take an industrial-strength dose of humility medicine, and start looking around the world to see how we can do better.

The nativist sentiment that permeates U.S. culture has always been rooted in a suspicion of foreignness, whether it comes from people, products, or ideas. Historically, we鈥檝e convinced ourselves that no one was as good as us, therefore we couldn鈥檛 possibly learn anything from anyone else.

But we鈥檝e known for a long time that wasn鈥檛 true. Consider health care, which any honest observer will admit is a complete mess: the U.S. 鈥渟ystem鈥� is a largely cartel of under-regulated private insurance companies that have . (Most companies, even if they offer insurance to their employees, have an extremely limited selection of options.) Meanwhile, costs for care and pharmaceuticals skyrocket out of all proportion to their actual value, and there is little to no transparency in pricing from one market to the next, or even among hospitals within the same market.

Time to go with something else? Many would like a Medicare-style single-payer system for everyone, with the government buying most or all care for the population. That would follow the example of countries such as or the . Or we could adopt a universal coverage program, such as the in which the government insures everyone. For the free market crowd, the Swiss model provides an entirely by the government. Switzerland has higher out-of-pocket expenses compared to other European countries, but the cost is still minuscule compared to U.S. rates.

No system is perfect, but quite a few are a lot better than the one we鈥檝e got now.

Or let鈥檚 look at the U.S. school systems, which by many measures. Do we want to ? Finland leads the pack in this, and the country also provides comprehensive social services to students in need, without means-testing. Are we better served by schools designed to educate future workers, or those designed to improve STEM subject test scores, such as schools in or ? Should we address extreme inequality among public schools and in favor of a more equitable statewide or national support, as Canada has done in several provinces?

We could do the same for policy directions large and small. The has become the standard for ensuring people鈥檚 personal data isn鈥檛 exploited by technology businesses. Norway is often credited with having the in the world, with a correspondingly low rate of recidivism. (Or, we could act on one of the good ideas that has come from recent organizing in the U.S., and as inherently discriminatory, cruel, and ineffective institutions.)

And let鈥檚 not overlook that fundamental bedrock of democracy: elections. Ours are corrupted by billions of dollars in dark money, and the laws are inconsistent from state to state (and from year to year). Voter suppression is rife, especially for people of color, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, and an archaic 18th century electoral system means that the presidential election is decided in one of a handful of swing states, while Senate representation is designed to give disproportionate power to less populous states.

Around the world, many nations already have a form of , while Freedom House, which tracks free and fair elections worldwide, in 2019, tied with Belize, and right behind Greece and Latvia.

Any number of things can be improved in American society. In many cases, someone else already is doing a better job. Maybe it鈥檚 time we drop the pretense that we know everything, recognize that our 鈥渢raditions鈥� can be outdated and barriers to progress, and open ourselves to the best ideas from around the world. After all, we鈥檙e going to have a long rebuilding process ahead of us once Trump exits the national stage. We might as well do it right.