The murky world of politics (and other things) as seen from the Bog

Time to read:

3–5 minutes

Tag: Republicans

  • Trump’s Cowardly Enablers

    I have to write this. It’s a compulsion. I’ve been thinking of drafts and writing snippets since George Floyd’s murder and I can’t avoid it any longer. When the President of the United States of America issued a tweet insinuating that a 75 year old protester in Buffalo, NY was attempting to steal some kind of code so he could jam the police department’s communications system, I laughed. But I knew I had to do something more. So do you.

    That tweet was just the most recent example of the President’s mental and moral unfitness for the office. George Floyd died less than two weeks earlier at the hands of the police, cities were in flames, protests were being held in hundreds of cities and he felt compelled to tweet about a 75 year old attacking the police and intentionally cracking his own skull! The worst part is that when he propagated nonsense theories about one protestor, he completely ignored the causes that were being protested – police violence against black and brown people, systemic racism and George Floyd among others. I’m no longer surprised but still shocked by his daily behavior.

    What does still surprise me is the Republican enablers pretending they are deaf or blind. Didn’t hear the story, didn’t see the tweet, too busy running away from electronic devices to ensure they won’t see it. They are afraid the president will make fun of them, criticize them, campaign against them. They run away from the racism implicit in Floyd’s death and ignore the vindictive mindlessness implicit in the tweet.

    Most of the enablers apparently thought he would change or that they could control him if he was elected although they didn’t think he would be. Many of the same Republicans told reporters two or three years ago they just wanted to hide out until he was gone. “Please don’t make me say anything bad about him. He’ll get mad at me and he’s a bully. I’m afraid.” They have been hiding from him as well as from their constitutional responsibilities and oaths.

    The Constitution is our governmental rule book. But it can’t cover all situations. For example, there are few limits described for presidential powers. That’s not because the framers did not want limits. It’s just that they couldn’t anticipate everything and write it down. For many years, the control of presidential power resided in the norms of behavior expected of the president. It was self imposed, Witness Richard Nixon turning over the tapes. Those norms were more or less guaranteed by the method of selecting the candidates. Only in the late 20th century did that process begin to fail as the primary election system took hold and grew. The party bosses lost control and could no longer guarantee a candidate who would behave. You can argue whether that method of democratizing the nominating process is good or bad. It undeniably enabled candidates who have few or none of the character traits that have always been selected for such as willingness to abide by the law and not to push beyond the boundaries on every issue. Witness the current, impeached occupant of the Oval Office.

    If the selection of the candidate can no longer guarantee that a nominee will conform to the unwritten rules and expectations, then Congress in its oversight capacity has to insert itself more aggressively and the president must comply. If the president simply refuses to comply, then the presidency is well on its way to an autocracy.

    Running the USA is not a win/lose proposition. It is a long term event that we want to continue. It requires tolerance and forbearance for the other team. So when your side loses, it’s best not to sink the ship but try to influence the navigation. When your side, wins, it’s best not to throw the other side overboard. You might need them to help fight pirates. So the president claims to drain the swamp but is in reality just jettisoning the ballast and the spare sails, throws the signaling equipment overboard and sells the lookout station. Congress watches, cowering, from the hold hoping the ship doesn’t flounder before his term expires.

    So how does this event – remember I’m writing about the president’s tweet on a Buffalo protester – play into all of this and why did it finally motivate to write again? It isn’t the president. I expect nothing of him. It’s his enablers. Especially the ones who have been in government for ages (i.e., the Senate apologists) and refuse to address even a single episode of destructive behavior because they are more interested in staying in power than they are is doing their jobs. Most of them have not condemned Floyd’s murder, police brutality as a practice, systemic racism nor the insane tweet that set me off. They are the ones who have abandoned the constitution and the people of the United States. Enough.

  • The Republicans Brought This on Themselves!

    The grandees of the Republican party are nearing panic over the potential of Donald Trump becoming their nominee for President.  They alone are to blame for their fate.  And this fate does not depend solely on whether Trump becomes their candidate.

    Republicans created the environment that allowed, maybe even enticed, a candidate like Trump to run and win or come close enough to  fracture the party.

    They created an atmosphere in which complete disrespect for the other party is not only OK but expected. The 2008 decision by Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor among other Republican leaders to obstruct every Obama initiative gave substance and sustenance  to massive disrespect.  The contempt with which party leaders and now the candidates spew disdain for anything Democrat paves the way for Trump’s outrageous comments to fall on numbed ears.

    It extends to public disdain for “the other”.  “The other” is any bogeyman the current political speaker needs to blame for whatever they don’t like to generate an emotional response.  The Republican list currently includes Democrats, immigrants, scientists, Muslims and the press.  For the Democrats, it is “Wall Street”.  That is a shorter list and more nebulous but just as dangerous.  Both parties have culpability in the search for bogeymen.

    It is hard to deny the disrespect Republicans create when they attempt to shut down the government rather than advancing principled but achievable options; when they spend more time fund-raising  than they spend working; and when they fail to do their constitutional jobs like passing budgets and confirming court nominees.  If Congress doesn’t respect the government, why would we not expect the people to drift toward a candidate to promises to “make America great again”. Whether you think government should be smaller, larger or just work, most people expect their representatives  to work to make it so and not just avoid tough votes.

    Facts have never been of major concern to political campaigns.  Nonetheless, the Republicans’ continuous attacks on science from denying climate change science to defunding the Office of Technology Assessment, helped increase the general populace’s acceptance of the idea that facts are subject to political vetting.  When they assign Representatives who fundamentally do not believe in the process of science to the House  Committee on Science and Technology, you have to think they don’t take science seriously.  (Paul “science is spawn of the devil” Broun for instance.  Google it.  There are now at least five Republican anti-science members of that committee.)

    If facts don’t matter in science or political campaigns, why would it matter that 76 of 77 statements made by Mr. Trump and fact checked by Politifact turned out to be false?

    The Republicans have also shown a systematic revulsion for their own ideas when proposed by a Democrat – e.g., ACA, Cap and Trade, and Common Core (which was more bi-partisan but a grass-roots initiative).  When a Republican dominated Congress spends six years arguing over purely symbolic issues instead of trying to improve anything, how can a large part of the public avoid a level of cynicism that makes the Donald look attractive relative to professional politicians?  At least he gets things done – according to his branding.  The fact that he makes stuff up, makes outrageous claims and has no political theory is of no consequence if all other politicians are regarded as the same!  Then, simply the facts that he is from outside and reflects the frustration is enough to give him a platform.

    Hilary – similar lessons applies to the Democrats!  Wonder why Bernie looks so appealing?