Modern Political Art

What do all those splashes of Presidential policy and executive orders mean?

All those splashes of paint applied seemingly at random on the canvas, with no apparent rhyme nor reason…what does it mean… if anything?

These kinds of paintings, using a technique known as ‘splattering’, fall under the banner of Modern Art. While colorful in appearance, the usual response from many viewers is to question whether this is really considered art. Likely that would be a common reaction from those who never took an art appreciation class (yours truly being among those lacking such experience) or who rarely frequent art galleries where the latest trend is on display. For them, and me, a work of art is the Mona Lisa (because we were told so) or a realistic landscape that mirrors our own observations of looking off at the far horizon. Mountains, trees, cloudy skies, a pasture, and winding stream are sure to get a receptive action from us laymen.

Still, even with our lack of knowledge about abstract art, if we take the opportunity to view the work, we might see something that reflects our own experiences.

* * *

When I started off as a reporter many years ago, my main beats were covering the Fowlerville Village Council and School Board meetings and any major news or special events occurring in this neck of the woods. At my own initiative, but with no objections from the editor, I soon added high school sports to the itinerary. Like many others, I had grown up playing sports—mainly football, basketball, and baseball—followed the U-M and MSU teams as well as the Detroit professional franchises and was just a big fan of this realm of human endeavor. I also liked to hunt and fish so there was also this offshoot.

A couple of years later, growing a bit tired of the hometown topics I was covering, I decided to quit and test my wings in the freelance market. Instead, the editor offered me the vacant post of sports editor which meant covering all of the teams in the five school districts located in Livingston County. This was no small assignment, given that with all of the boys and girls teams being fielded (thanks to Title 9), there might be around 25 to 30 coaches who needed to be contacted each season.

Also, there were certain sports such as volleyball and hockey coming where I possessed little knowledge. This quickly became apparent to the coaches of those sports, with one of them having the patience to provide me with a tutorial. The job entailed other duties, but covering high school sports was the main priority.

To get through all of the articles I needed to produce each week, usually in a narrow time frame, I resorted to using a template where most of the reports were written in the same manner, including the use of certain pet words. I had created an assembly line with my output.

After doing this for awhile, I went to the editor and asked if I could return to my former beat of covering local government and other community news and events. The publisher, Richard Milliman, who stopped at the Livingston County Press office in Howell on a regular basis, upon learning of my request and needing to sign off on it, said to me, “First, you’re covering Fowlerville, then you want to cover sports, now you want to go back. What’s going on?”

My reply was that I found writing on nothing but sports, day in and day out, to be boring. “I enjoy having a variety,” I told him.

I can’t say for sure, but of all the answers I could have given, this one seemed to register with him. He nodded and said, “Go ahead.”

I’ve been following the muse of variety—also known as diversity—ever since, albeit with the awareness that lacking a specific realm of expertise in my journalist career has put me at a disadvantage. I’m not an expert at anything other than putting out a smalltown weekly newspaper.

For example, I reside about 30 miles from the State Capitol building in Lansing but have little knowledge of the inner workings of state government or the ‘who’s who’ of powerbrokers at any given moment. I rely on the reporters who do cover the workings and know the powerbrokers—the experts, if you will—for my information and analysis. While I could join them, given that this career pursuit has always been an option, the lure was never overpowering even with my interest in politics, government, and current events.

For me, it would have been similar to covering high school sports when I was the LCP’s sports editor. A steady diet of the ‘same old, same old.’ This would be true were my beat public education, the outdoors, or doing nothing but personality profiles.

I long ago embraced the title of ‘generalist’ and would say that if an expert is someone who knows “a lot about a little,” then I’m the person who knows “a little bit about a lot of different things.” Put another way, unlike the trained hunting dog who follows a scent to the intended target, I’m more like the mutt who wanders about the yard, sniffing at this and that, pausing every so often when an interesting smell or object is detected.

Of course, writing the kind of commentary that I do, this approach has given me a lot of topics to examine. The saving grace is that I assume most readers are aware of my lack of a specific expertise and are usually in the same boat I am as far as being a ‘generalist.’

Yet, I don’t want to be too dismissive of myself or those readers—most of us members of the general public. Sometimes, in looking at all those splashes applied at random on a canvas, aside from saying “what the hell?”, we might actually find a pattern, or lack thereof, different than the expert. Sometimes, our wider, view might see something missed by the narrower focus.

* * *

That’s true of art, would likewise be true of current political and social events.

As an ordinary citizen who happens to be in the newspaper business and considers himself to be a writer, I—like many others in this country and around the word—have been witnessing (second hand in most cases) what’s been going on since President Trump and his Administration took office on January 20^th.

Since this exchange of presidential power occurred, a potpourri of words, executive orders, and official actions have upended numerous agencies of the federal government, a couple of noteworthy actions being the elimination of the Dept. of Education and severe reductions to public health monitoring and staff, coupled with the halt of funding for various programs, including those that go to state and local government, international relief efforts, and university research.

Coinciding with this has been the stepped-up deportation of illegal immigrants and even a few legal ones, but also their incarceration in prisons (most famous being the facility in El Salvador)—most of it done without due process, but rather under the guise of protecting national security. A headline I saw stated that Administration officials have a private goal of one million people being rounded up with this dragnet.

Added to this alarming policy have been recent hints that American citizens might be put on the list and subjected to the same treatment for the same reason.

Also of concern is the news that a private prison in Baldwin, Michigan—which had been mothballed during the Biden years—is being re-opened under a contract with ICE for the stated purpose of handling deportees—one of several facilities scattered around the nation that are now being used or will soon be employed for this purpose.

A couple of questions arise from this report. Given that there is a finite number of people considered illegal immigrants in the country, is long-term imprisonment rather than sending the immigrants back to their home countries the actual plan? If not, then what is the future use of the Michigan prison and other for-profit facilities once this pool of detainees is supposedly sent back to their home countries?

Are there studies indicating that the prison population comprised of inmates found guilty of committing more traditional crimes be large enough to handle this extra capacity—assuming we still have state-run facilities— or will the definition of ‘illegal’ be widened? The latter comprised a large pool falling (perhaps) under the heading of ‘national security threats’?

News that the large law firms have been threatened with the loss of security clearance to federal courts and denied access to files unless they sign agreements with the Administration is another series of splashes. These are firms that had the resources and expertise to defend clients or take on lawsuits against the government. While a number of firms have pushed back against this tactic, unfortunately too many of them have accepted the neutering.

Federal watchdogs have been fired, as have the heads of many agencies that Americans rely on, foremost being Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Military commanders, not least being the Joint Chief of Staffs, have been removed from their posts. Career prosecutors in the Dept. of Justice have been removed or resigned in protest.

U.S. Attorneys deemed loyal to the President and his requests have promised to investigate political opponents. Along the same line, the Dept. of Justice has been directed by the Administration to investigate two former Trump staffers who served during the President’s first term, but who have since been critical of their former boss, ripping away the long-standing independence of this law enforcement agency.

And then we have the soap opera of the tariffs, first on, then off, then on, then partially off, some still on, others now exempt. Also, the verbal insults and tariffs aimed at Canada, the usual ill treatment of Mexico, the pulling away from NATO and our support of Ukraine, the threat to annex Greenland and the Panama Canal that seem to be pillars of our new foreign policy.

There are the efforts to intimidate the larger media outlets, including CNN and MSNBC; the threat to the large conglomerates who own TV stations and newspapers of being investigated or having their government contracts ended; references to journalists as “enemies of the people”; and the use of lawsuits to silence newspapers who are too aggressive in their watchdog role.

There is the strategy of forcing universities to eliminate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs by withholding federal funds and to use the same tactic to bring public K-12 schools into ideological conformity. Added to this are the usual attempts to curtail voting rights and ban certain books.

The lower court federal judges who have put the brakes on many of these initiatives, with several referring to them as “unconstitutional,” have been criticized by Trump Administration spokesmen, along with being threatened with impeachment or physical violence by the more ardent supporters.

All eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court to see if a majority of justices will (as Trump critics pray) remember their oaths to uphold the Constitution and reverse many of his policies or (as Trump supporters assume) pledge their allegiance to the President and his cause. More likely, they majority will find some way to parse the situation which, i guess, is better than handing the Administration a blank check.

In the wake of all this have been ruined careers, a diminished social safety net, economic uncertainty, fear of deportation or imprisonment, and shattered dreams.

A lot of splashes to be sure.

At times I think it’s a case of tossing things against the wall to see what sticks and other times it seems a chaotic and spur-of-the-moment decision making. There are moments where a diabolical plot seems plausible, even evident, and other occasions when it appears to be the usual tug-of-war over policy as well as gaining the hearts-and-minds of the citizenry.

Is this akin to a mythical battle between ‘good and evil’ as some characterize it, but with each side prying to the same God and pleading for His intervention on their behalf or is an example of the banality of evil’ to borrow that well-known phrase.

I can’t speak with any expertise on immigration law, tariffs, or what the President can or cannot do legally. I rely on the experts—the ones I trust—to provide me with this information and their interpretation. Instead, as a generalist, I attempt to take a wide view of the canvas rather than only a small, specific slice.

So, what can be discerned from this political version of ‘splashing’? Is it a series of random applications of policy done seemingly without any discernable pattern or does it possess an intended purpose?

Well, I’ll answer the question by posing this supposition: What happens when you remove people from positions of power and influence in government and federal agencies who might have served as a counterbalance; threaten universities, big business, state officials, the media, law firms, and even judges into becoming silent and acquiescent; use federal funds as both a carrot and stick; create scapegoats like the trans athletes; and stir supporters into violent passion and do the same to critics, with one pitted against the other?

Let’s just say that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to be concerned, even alarmed, at what this version of Modern Political Art means and where we, as a society and nation, not to mention the rule of law and our democratic rights, might be headed.

Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist and commentator.