For almost two years in the mid-seventies, I had the good fortune to serve as a Russian-speaking guide for a US cultural exhibit touring the USSR. Our exhibit showcased American home technology, but this was mostly a pretext. Its real purpose was to provide an opportunity for exhibit visitors in six Soviet cities – Tashkent, Leningrad, Moscow, Minsk, Zaporozhe, and Baku -- to talk with a real live American, something very few Soviet citizens in those years could experience. Every day several thousand visitors flocked to the exhibit, which for the month it was open in each city was the biggest show in town.

Some of the discussions that took place on the exhibit floor were memorable. Our show opened in January 1975 in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, now an independent country, but then one of 15 Soviet republics. This was only a few months after the resignation of Richard Nixon, and we guides frequently were asked to explain Nixon's downfall to a skeptical but very interested audience. We found different reactions among our exhibit visitors. Many, of course, did not understand why Nixon's offenses were so serious. "Why, these things happen all the time in so-called 'democracies.' What's the big deal?" they might ask. Others, however, seemed almost wistful that such an event could so dramatically alter the political landscape of a country, let alone the United States. I remember one jokester declaring: "Every nation in the world has the government they deserve. Except the Americans!" The implication, of course, was that we deserve much worse. Judging by the appreciative chuckles from the audience, there seemed to be pretty broad agreement with this sentiment.

Reflecting on the first two years of the Trump presidency, I wonder if that long-ago observer might think that Americans finally do have the government we deserve. He might marvel at how we managed to elect someone who is clearly incapable of serving as the US leader -- or that voters could have chosen a man who may in his own right present a threat to US national security. Recently, in fact, a participant in a Russian TV political talk show suggested – only half in jest, I think – that Putin no longer had to work very hard to achieve longstanding Russian objectives, including the weakening of NATO and the EU, because Trump would do all that for him.

There are many causes for how we got here, I suppose, and scholars will be dissecting this for years to come. What is important for me, though, is a different question: Now that we're in this mess, how do we get out of it?

Many Americans want Congress to impeach Trump. If it is demonstrated that the president committed impeachable – or criminal -- offenses, then I suppose the constitutional remedy must come into play. But I don't believe it's the most desirable outcome. Removing Trump from office would confirm his supporters' suspicions about the "Deep State." Echoes of this mindless support for him would reverberate in our politics for years to come.

It would be far better to repudiate Trump at the ballot box. He might still become a political martyr for his addled fans, but he would also be diminished as a self-defined "loser" who could not maintain the power he had gained in 2016. More important, electoral rejection of Trump would prove that his political tendencies and prejudices are unacceptable to the majority of Americans.

Of course, for this to happen, Trump's opponent would actually have to win the election. Recent polling indicates that a solid majority (56 percent at this writing) of Americans would not vote for Trump in 2020. There are signs his support may be faltering even among his base; another recent survey shows only 28 percent of Americans would definitely vote for him. It's tempting to believe that this is the beginning of the end of his presidency.

That view, however, fails to take into account the Democratic Party's tendency to get in its own way (see Northam, Ralph; Fairfax, Justin; and Herring, Mark) and its penchant for circular firing squads. It is unclear what kind of nominee will emerge from a messy primary scrum -- or whether a third party candidate will split the vote. Most of the recently-declared candidates are pandering to the party's left wing, just as Trump does to his base. To further complicate things, a potential independent candidate claiming to represent moderates has appeared. This individual's approach so far seems to be to attack Democrats rather than Trump. None of this looks like a winning strategy.

Polls suggest that conservatives and progressives constitute about one-third of the electorate. According to one 2018 study, "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape," the remaining two-thirds are the "exhausted majority," people who "share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation." Most of us, I think, probably fall somewhere in this group, regardless of political affiliation – or lack of it.

Our civil institutions, politics, and alliances are resilient enough to stagger through two more years of Trump, but four more years of chaos after that could do lasting damage. If Democrats can avoid a hard left turn, there is hope that 2020 will see the beginning of a return to political sanity and civility, an expiration date for nativism and tribalism, and a government built on compromise. To beat Trump, Democrats must put forward a candidate who speaks to the majority of Americans and offers realistic policies on such issues as climate change, rebuilding our dilapidated infrastructure, health care, taxes, immigration, trade, and foreign policy. The race is theirs to lose, but if they fail, it is the American people who will bear the cost. We do deserve better.