The many who from the outset dramatically opposed both a Trump presidency and any change at all in U.S. policy directions include numerous entities fighting for Hillary against both Bernie and The Donald. A significant percentage are those whom A.J. Nock referrred to aggregately in the 1930's as the organization of political means—today non-exhaustively including elected officials, big business, the deep state, and kindred minions like pliable main stream media (MSM) outlets—all of whom contemporarily are far enough out of touch with reality to obtusely underestimate the depth of 2016 electoral disenchantment with America's status quo.1
Consequently the electorate's long-sought change for good or ill is now put forward by a duly elected Neanderthal administration which like sundry rednecks cannot be second-guessed because even they know not what their next move will be. Nevertheless for hopeful observers everywhere it beats the alternative of no change at all and holds the possibility of briskly pushing the policy pendulum far enough to one side to instigate a recovery swing with gusto.
And there is always the attractive possibility of repairing relations with Russia despite the opposition of those who benefit most from the rift—the contemporary organization of political means. The enormous revenue streams at stake recently acquired additional fortifications from President Obama's last ditch efforts spun-out before exiting office and fueling anti-Russian hysteria with bogus tales of Trump collusion and grossly misleading tales of reportedly "well-funded" Russian propaganda stealing MSM's thunder while MSM, without investigation, rides the official hype to windfall profits.2
In any case it's far too early to make meaningful assessments of Trump activity. We expect a modicum of good amid all those worst-case scenarios being fashionably touted by the organization of political means. After surviving Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas, our continually enervated nation nonetheless will survive The Donald despite assured additional handicapping.
In the end of course instead of "making America great again", ultimately we must "make America humane for a change" in order to experience long-term survival. A nation devoid of humantiarian goals, dismissive of human rights, and primarily exporting war can hardly be admired by sentient beings anywhere and most assuredly adds nothing to what Nock called the "progressive hunmanization of mankind" or "civilization" as it might be idealistically defined. Eventually the U.S. will follow the Greens' suggestion of putting "people, planet, and peace before profit" or suffer the inevitable consequences of the excruciatingly prolonged demise already underway.
1By way of contrast independent journalist Michael Moore called the election in July 2016 and again about 30 days before the election. We take issue with some of Moore's arguable reasoning nevertheless it was he who uniquely predicted the outcome.
2Previously we have reported WAPO enjoying spikes in sales due to anti-Russian fake news and the NYT contritely pledging a return to "honest reporting".
Since WWII western media outlets have dominated global airways and consequently have little experience seriously contending journalistically. With Russian news constantly gaining international audience-share simply by reporting more facts with less unwarranted spin, the western outlets seem clueless as to what must be done in order to compete. Instead of raising journalistic standards the west is employing disparagement of competitors and intimidation of their key sponsors via propaganda and extortion—things more familiar than journalistic integrity.
Today RT.COM reported on a disparaging article published by the U.K.'s Sunday Times on 5 February 2017—coincidentally the same day Fox's paragon of journalistic integrity, Bill O'Reilly (BO), called Vladimir Putin a "killer" on national TV, and about 7 years after he (BO) began to publicly advocate execution of truthseeking whistleblowers. .
The first 18 days of America's "lesser-of-two-evils" administration have passed without apocalyptical fructification nevertheless those who voted "for" in hopes of catastrophic change have not yet despaired.
"The ... [POTUS ink pen] writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it." 1
As would the many voters "against" un-equivocating American exceptionalism irrespective of global consequence.
1apologetically paraphrasing Omar Kayyam.