Friday, February 8, 2019

The Gloaters-in-Chief


The spectacle was illuminating in its juvenility.  The president and the Democrats had been locked in combat for months.  Moreover, it did not look like there would be movement on either side.  Onlookers called for compromise, but the players were not prepared to give an inch.
Then Donald Trump did two things.  He decided to allow Nancy Pelosi to postpone the State of the Union, even though her excuse for doing so was transparently slender.  More importantly, he agreed to a three-week interruption of the partial government shutdown so that the two parties could negotiate their differences on the border wall.
That’s it.  Yet it was as if the sky had fallen.  Nancy immediately made it plain that Trump had “caved.”  She had gone face-to-face with the monster in the White House and backed him down.  She showed him who was boss and from this moment forward it was clear where the power lay.
Chuck Schumer was more explicit.  Trump had been taught a lesson.  Henceforth he had better understand that congressional Democrats would exercise governance; not the illegitimate upstart residing on Pennsylvania Avenue.  Once liberals said no to a program—it was over.
Actually, the Democrats thought they had done something more. They were convinced they had humiliated Trump into impotence.  By forcing him to capitulate, they were certain that he had been so humbled that he dared not to fight back.  For years, they had used resistance to stall his every initiative; finally it was mission accomplished.
These left-wingers, however, had missed an important truth.  When I was boy in Brooklyn, we loved playing touch football.  I especially loved it when I scored a touchdown.  The first time or two I was visibly gleeful.  Look what I did!  I was defeating the other side.  
It quickly became apparent that this was not the case.  Those other guys didn’t enjoy having my achievement rubbed in their faces.  The more I gloated, the angrier they became.  Indeed, the more determined they were to get even.  They were not going to allow me to portray them as losers.
It did not take long for the Democrats to discover this scenario applies to politics too.  Donald Trump did not experience a mortal blow.  He and his allies would have plenty of time to plot revenge.  They have not been rendered impotent; nor liberals invincible.
First, the State of the Union was only delayed a week.  Wow!  Some loss! Now Trump had been handed a platform that could attract more attention than ever.  If he uses it wisely, it can be a cudgel that redounds against the Democrats.
Were it up to me, I would use the opportunity to depict the Democrats for what they are.  I would not be bipartisan.  I would make it one hundred percent clear that the other side was intransient. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, two years of offering them olive branches produced more childishness than ever.
If this provoked the Democrats not only to withhold their applause, but also to march out of the chamber, this would suit me fine.  It would reveal to the public just how small-minded the opposition was.
Second, I would drive home the point that although I had sought to negotiate the border issue for months, there was no good faith rejoinder.  All I got for my efforts were insults, such as being compared to the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux, Klan.  
Furthermore, I would explain—in gory detail—that what was happening on our southern border was a major crisis.  Something had to be done.  This was a genuine emergency that a president was duty-bound to solve.  Otherwise it would fester.
In other words, Trump should make it apparent that his hand had been forced. Even though he wanted to work through normal channels, the Democrats decided to undermine traditional democratic governance.  This was therefore on their heads.
All of this needs to be said with sadness, not anger.  It was not retaliation.  It was a defense of our national interests against an unprecedented challenge by extreme socialists.  If a patriotic commander-in-chief did not declare an emergency and build the wall, it would not be long before there was no nation to defend.
This is a tough prescription, but we are living in tough times. When opposition politicians are arsonists, they should expect fire in return.  Yes, this may cause dreadful damage, nevertheless the absence of a backfire can only make things worse.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Kennesaw State University

No comments:

Post a Comment