We crossed a bridge into 2018, and many of us felt like burning that bridge behind us. But we’ve learned a lot. My, how we’ve learned.
As we count our blessings and recover from holiday hangovers, here are three of the biggest takeaways from 2017.
The Trump administration is very much under investigation.
What happened: Multiple investigations were launched into Trump’s campaign to determine if there was any collusion with Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. So far, there have been four indictments.
Obstruction of justice became part of the investigation, during which Trump asked then-FBI director James Comey to “let go” of the FBI’s inquiry into Michael Flynn, a short-lived national security advisor who was eventually charged and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Trump fired Comey in May, leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to head the inquiry. Trump also asked two intelligence officials to publicly deny that there was evidence his campaign had colluded with Russia.
Through it all, Trump maintained a more or less cozy relationship with Russia. He even gave classified information to Russian officials in May, putting a spy at risk.
What’s next: Republicans have expressed concern that if Democrats win a majority in the House of Representatives, they would begin impeachment proceedings against Trump, putting the GOP agenda in peril.
At the same time, the FBI investigation has risen to Trump’s inner circle and could already reach Trump himself. Mueller has the obligation to investigate any crimes he finds may have been committed, so if more charges are filed, they could be unrelated to the issue that launched the probe – possible collusion with Russia during the election.
We’re witnessing an ethics and transparency backslide.
What happened: 2017 produced a few casualties. Among them: the typical adherence to ethics, transparency and avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest. Some of this stemmed from Trump’s wide business interests, which by default expand the possibility for conflicts.
But the Trump administration took its own approach from the beginning when it comes to ethics. The nascent administration opted not to take the same ethics training that George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s administrations had taken, and the White House initially tried to keep its ethics waivers secret. Meanwhile, Trump hired his daughter, Ivanka, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to work in the White House, placing sons Don Jr. and Eric in charge of his business operations.
While a president hiring relatives AKA nepotism wasn’t unprecedented, the decision to put Don and Eric at the head of Trump Organization broke with the previous standard for presidents to divest their business interests or place them in a blind trust. Those moves would in theory prevent a president like Trump from making decisions to favor his own pocketbook rather than the American people.
To top it off, in an almost comical twist of irony, six White House advisors, including Kushner, have used private emails. That’s after the Trump campaign led chants of “lock her up” in response to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.
What’s next: If partisan media holds true to its audience, Republicans and Democrats disagree dramatically on what is ethical and appropriate for public office. That goes without saying, but it means that whether something is considered unethical depends heavily on who is doing it and what side you are on.
This split is already eroding American principles, because a key assumption with ethics is that they reflect a common set of standards. If those standards change from party to party and person to person, higher principles have already left the picture or been lowered tremendously so that whoever’s in charge can stay in charge even if they do questionable things.
The thing with ethics is that they sound really boring, but those simple guidelines help prevent corruption. Without those ground rules, the idea that a government official could take advantage of his position becomes a greater possibility.
There’s a growing anti-media sentiment at the same time that the government’s afraid of leaks.
What happened: The Trump administration kicked off its first term by calling journalists “the opposition party.” Both former adviser Steve Bannon and Trump used the phrase, which set the scene for disputing any news perceived as “against” the White House. So-called negative stories aren’t true. They’re fake news.
This way of thinking trickled down to local newspapers and other politicians. In Colorado, a Republican state senator called his local newspaper “fake news.” In May, Republican candidate for Congress Greg Gianforte body slammed a Guardian reporter, broke his glasses, and went on to win the election.
Roy Moore, a Republican from Alabama running for Senate, managed to slide through his campaign without resigning despite reports that he had pursued and had sexual encounters with teenagers when he was in his 30s. He and his supporters disputed and downplayed the stories, and when he lost to Democrat Doug Jones, it was by a small margin.
CNN and other media organizations have received threats in response to their reporting, and a far-right organization, Project Veritas, attempted to sabotage the Washington Post and other media orgs.
Unsurprisingly, Americans’ views of news organizations hinge on their politics. Only 10 percent of Republicans think the media has a positive impact on the country, and Democrats also have a fairly low opinion, with just 44 percent believing news orgs are good for the United States.
What’s next: As the newspaper industry flounders and the landscape for local television changes, Americans are losing touch with the news in their own communities. Without some common, unbiased news coverage, particularly on local issues, it seems only a matter of time before our partisan views shift even further apart.
The news industry bears some responsibility for creating and exacerbating this rift. News has always been a driving force in culture, politics, the economy and making sense of our place in the world. The question news organizations must answer in the coming year (and years) is if that role has changed due to Americans’ fundamentally different views on reality. It’s relevant to ask if the mainstream attempt at objective news coverage is enough to combat lies and propaganda, which we’ve taken to kindly calling fake news and misinformation.
Contact Mollie Bryant at 405-990-0988 or bryant@bigiftrue.org. Follow her on Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr.
