Trump and the Press

How soon they forget...

Quote from  A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times:

I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous. I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.

I repeatedly stressed that this is particularly true abroad, where the president's rhetoric is being used by some regimes to justify sweeping crackdowns on journalists. I warned that it was putting lives at risk, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country's greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press.

It was just over two years ago that newspaper all over the world proclaimed that, yes, they had told us that previous Republicans were dangerous but they were fibbing. Donald Trump really is dangerous and all of the rules of journalism are off. No more pretense of being unbiased. Since then they have run poorly sourced (meaning one off-the-record source who was wrong), run opinion pieces disguised as news, and, in general, have been relentlessly partisan. Unlike previous presidents, President Obama pays attention to the news and reacts to it. He also hits back. The press spared no effort trying to prevent his victory and since then has attempted to hobble his administration. So why are they surprised that he responds in kind?

When Kids Lead

Recently the Left has been embracing kids as their leaders. Actually it's young adults but they are showing their inexperience and naivete. First there was the Parkland "survivors" led by David Hogg. I'm calling them "survivors" because many of them were never actually close to the shooter. They are survivors the same way that I'm a survivor of a drowning because I was on the same beach at the same time (true story). Anyway, their proximity to violence is supposed to give them special insights. The truth is that they sound ignorant and inane, resorting to magic thinking that with just a few more gun laws no one will ever go on a school killing spree again.

More recently the Democratic Party has been fawning over Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, proclaiming her the new face of the party. While she is young and pretty, at least compared to Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and she is earnest, she is also vapid and uninformed. She has degrees in economics and international relations. Either she slept through class or she should demand her tuition back. Over the weekend she went on record as having no idea how the economy actually works (she seems to think that evolution and not capitalism is responsible for the rise of the West). While railing against Israel, she had to admit that she didn't actually know much about Israel and Palestine.

This is what happens when you live in a bubble. Her professors probably spouted off social justice propaganda to her for years and neither she nor any of her classmates actually asked any probing questions. They just accepted what they were told.

So the new face of the Democratic Party is an intellectual embarrassment. And she's not even a Democrat. She's a Social Democrat and the head of the Social Democrat Party now says that communism is good.

This is the problem with turning things over to inexperienced newcomers. Ocasio-Cortez has never been been outside her bubble. Up to this point she's gotten by by parroting lines from other people. She never engaged in introspection.

And for the record, I don't have a degree in international relations but I can explain what's going on in Palestine much better than she could. And I can explain both sides of the argument. That's because I'm older and more experienced and I don't live in a bubble.

So What Do the Anti-Trumpers Want?

The Republican elite, also knows as the never-Trumpers, have made it clear that they would prefer to see the Democrats win Congress than to love another day in a country in which a Republican Congress supports a Republican president. This list includes but is not limited to George Will, Max Boot and Jenifer Rubin, all of the Washington Post. Boot was the most recent to pen a "I hope the Democrats win" column.

So, exactly what do you guys want? What principles do you hold so dear that you would rather see a party that's leaning socialist take control of Congress than have the Republicans stay in power?

Let's start with immigration. I've read your columns for years. When George W. Bush proposed immigration reform you were against it until we closed the border. That goes back to President Reagan - we have to secure the border as a condition of allowing any sort of amnesty to those already here. You hammered on that in 2005.

Now you complain about how uncaring we are to rip families apart. What did you think border enforcement was going to look like? Did you expect a bit stop sign would be enough? Maybe you were in favor of a wall. I remember calls for a wall or at least a substantial fence in the early days of the Obama administration. But now that Trump wants a wall you think it's the dumbest thing in the world.

Or are you actually in favor of open borders so that you have cheap housekeepers and gardeners? If this is true than say so. Come out and say "America needs to have the same control over its borders as every other nation with the exception of cheap labor which should come pouring across."

Then there's trade. Max Boot said that he's in favor of free trade. Funny thing, President Trump says that he is, too, and he wants trade barriers to come down. But other countries don't want to drop their protectionism. The choices are endless talks that don't accomplish anything or a new round of tariffs. Yes, Trump's tariffs could backfire but negotiations didn't get anywhere. Again, come out and state your position on this, "Trade wars are too messy. America needs to accept that they are at a disadvantage in trade and shut up."

Boot Complained about appeasing dictators meaning Korea's Kim. They need to say, "I'd rather North Korea continue to develop the capability of destroying New York than see President Trump shake Kim's hand."

Other things they could confess, "Yes, for years I've been saying that lower individual and corporate tax rates are a good thing and that we need conservative judges on the Supreme Court but now I believe in raising taxes on corporations and the rich. And I've decided that having conservatives appointed to the courts isn't worth having Trump in the White House."

Or they could come right out and tell the actual truth, "I know I'm supposed to be a conservative and stand for certain principles but when it comes down to it, I prefer style over substance and, like late night talk show hosts, I'm happiest when the opposition is in power and I can rant about how everything would be better if we were in power. I'm not comfortable when our side has to make real compromises and I'd feel a lot better with a centrist like Romney who looks and acts the part than someone like Trump who is enacting a conservative agenda but doesn't have the proper decorum."

When you get right down to it, the Republican elite haven't liked an actual Republican president since Reagan, if then. They were lukewarm about Bush-41 and they hated Bush-43. They don't have anything good to say about Nixon or Ike, either.

Which is why no one listens to them except the other side.

Failing the First Rule of Politics

Before changing political norms, the first thing you should always do is ask, "What will happen if this is turned on me?" Invoking the nuclear option in the Senate should have warned the Democrats. They were too anxious to pack the courts with Obama appointees so they eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments except for the Supreme Court. In response, the Republicans didn't give aththa second thought to applying the same standard to the Supreme Court.

Now Democratic leaders and others are openly calling for confrontations with members of the Trump administration where ever they are. WaPo blogger Jennifer Rubin declared that Sarah Huckabee Sanders deserves a "life sentence" of being harassed publicly. The original excuse was that "tearing children from their parents is so extreme that it requires an extreme response". That is no longer the case. A woman posted a video of herself reading a statement to Scott Pruit, head of the EPA, calling on him to resign. In he video it was apparent that he'd already finished his meal so he left rather than start a fight. She called him a coward for not responding to her. There have been other similar incidents.

Rather than calling for more violence, Democratic leaders should be looking at the long-term damages their policy of confrontation will cause. First is will this set the tone from now on? Hillary Clinton admitted that her policies would put "a lot of coal miners out of work". Will miners and other people displaced by a future administration be justified in confronting the EPA administrator? I'm only throwing this out as a single example of possible outrage.

This is where the Democrats are showing their shortsightedness. Just as the nuclear option was used against them so can confrontation.

There is also a problem with perceptions. One reason the Democrats are pushing this strategy it to fire up the base. It makes them feel that they are accomplishing something. But the image of activists confronting administrators may not be popular among the general electorate. It may repel independents and motivate Republicans. But calling off these confrontations will demoralize the base.

Democrats have forgotten Saul Alinsky's 4th rule and Republicans haven't: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." They keep adopting strategies as if they are the only ones who can use them. They assumed that eliminating the filibuster would never be turned back on them. They assume that, after harassing Republicans, they will never be harassed. With a Supreme Court vacancy, they are assuming that they can change the rules to stall for time and that it will never be used against them.

And they keep acting like they are in charge and will always be. They tell themselves that their cause is just and the Republicans are evil so co-existence is no longer an option. They are sure that somehow President Trump will be removed from office, if not by impeachment then by the 2020 election. They still haven't learned that their dominance is not preordained. They were sure of their permanent Democratic majority in 2008 only to lose Congress in the 2010 and 2014 elections. They were positive they'd keep the White House in 2016. And they act as if they haven't lost state elections all across the country. They need to relearn how to coexist with the Republicans and stop acting like spoiled children.