"Never complain and never explain."
The quote is attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, and Wallis Simpson, and Katherine Hepburn.
Donald Trump gets it.
Donald Trump gets it.
 |
| Trump: So what? |
These conflicts are not "technical" or in some sort of gray area. He mixes presidential visits with asking foreign leaders to use his hotels. He has development projects that need foreign government approvals. The conflicts are obvious and material. More important, they take place in the context of Trump having said he wanted to "drain the swamp" of conflicts of interest.
Is Trump acting sheepish? No. Trump stands tall and says he can do it and says it is not a problem. Case closed.
Trump called Hillary Clinton "crooked" and blasted her for illegal and dangerous handling of classified material. FBI Director Comey distinguished between Hillary and General Petraeus, who pled guilty to mishandling material. Petraeus did it intentionally, he lied to the FBI about it, and the FBI found the evidence of his guilt hidden within the ceiling insulation of Petraeus' home--obvious evidence of intent to deceive. Hillary cooperated with the FBI's investigation. Trump is openly considering Petraeus for Secretary of State.
No mumbling of excuses from Trump.
Trump's recent tweets on the election have a direct contradiction, as this blog noted yesterday. He was both indignant that Jill Stein would question the election result, and simultaneously said the election was fraudulent and rigged. The news is calling him out, saying his comments are false, pure and simple.
No mumbling. No apology, no explaining from Trump.
Trump is thin skinned and is very sensitive to slights. He understands that he is the subject of questions and criticism. Key to Trump's method is that he does not accept the validity of criticism. He responds to this by attacking. He accuses. He is right and they are wrong. Period.
 |
| No apology. He was hungry. |
President Obama projected a very different sensibility. Obama communicated that he saw America within the context of other countries and saw himself and his presidency within the context of checks and balances. Mitch McConnell certainly forced that consciousness onto him because Obama could get little passed. This is the constitutional system and it fit Obama's tone.
Voters voted for it but they are simultaneously impatient with gridlock. They were uncomfortable with Obamacare but Obama pushed forward with it, so the Democrats lost their majority and ability to legislate. It made Obama look constrained. Republicans called him weak and feckless and compared him badly with Putin. Trump was the strongest and most Putin like of the Republican alternatives and a big part of that was how he handled being caught in contradictions or inaccuracies (sometimes referred to as "lies".)
He acts like he does not notice and he does not care, not one bit. There is no apparent sense of guilt or shame or inconsistency. He is impervious. It come across to many people as strength and resoluteness.
He acts like he does not notice and he does not care, not one bit. There is no apparent sense of guilt or shame or inconsistency. He is impervious. It come across to many people as strength and resoluteness.
Trump communicates that he will break through gridlock, because he cannot be contradicted. This frightens Democrats but it excites a great many voters. Trump will shake things up, people think. He communicates that he won't be deterred by critics, and until he begins making actual changes people think they want things shaken up.
2 comments:
"The Left Loses Its Voice"
“The Russians are coming”, “fake news is undermining our democracy”, “electors have a right to ignore their voters”, “sanctuary cities stand at the ready to thwart deportation of criminals”, and “Trump wants to violate our constitutional right of flag burning”, our side’s newspapers proclaim. The sky is falling. We need to calm down.
(1) The “fake news” label is now our bane. Obama didn’t use the term, but Germany’s Merkel did on the same stage with the President. Hence, it is now the coin of the Democratic party. (See, NYT, “Obama, With Angela Merkel in Berlin, Assails Spread of Fake News”, https://goo.gl/WDLrQ8, Nov 17, 2016). No sooner did the left coin “fake news”, than the right has been able to throw it in our faces as to our own fake headlines. And it is a powerful delegitimizer of whatever credibility the NYT, Washington Post, and CNN had left. “The Russians” defaced our election? No, the left’s falsehoods about Russia defaced it as much as the right. (See, WP, “If you’re even asking if Russia hacked the election, Russia got what it wanted”, https://goo.gl/K4J7eD, Nov 28, 2016).
(2) A viral post by “Lawyers on the Left” touts the filing of lawsuits across the nation to strike down state laws requiring delegate loyalty to voters in the electoral college. See, DailyKos, “A lawyer in California just filed suit against the Electoral College as it violates equal protection”, https://goo.gl/kh1ppU, Nov 19, 2016). The November 29th post reads in part, “F _ _ k this peaceful transition of power”, and “let’s flood the federal courts this week”. Even assuming such lawsuits have legal merit, the sentiment that Democrats would be better off undermining the electoral system conveys a desperation and “anything goes” approach that can surely do one thing—undermine the left’s voice even further.
(3) Apart from Democratic values embracing immigrants and not terrorizing immigrant communities, the message that the left stands in unison with convicted immigrant criminals certainly resounds with most Americans—resounds very badly for us. With Democratic leaders from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles proclaiming that we most certainly will not let either the Obama or Trump administrations deport felons on the day of their release from jail sentences, well, who needs enemies? It’s a decidedly losing strategy to regain our majority.
(4) Finally, our left media is now ablaze with claims that Trump advocates violating the constitution in wanting to criminalize flag burning—something Senator Clinton voted for long after the Supreme Court articulated the 1st Amendment right to burn the flag.
(See, Newsweek, “Before Donald Trump Called for Flag-Burning Jail Time, Hillary Clinton Did”, https://goo.gl/43IXta, Nov. 29, 2016). Few left media articles mention Clinton’s vote. And while we’re told the Supreme Court memorialized this flag burning right, most articles hide that it was a 5-4 vote. You’d think a boogey man of the alt-right wrote this dissent in insisting flag burning is a criminal act: “The case has nothing to do with 'disagreeable ideas.' It involves disagreeable conduct that, in my opinion, diminishes the value of an important national asset". The dissenter? Liberal justice John Paul Stevens. (See, Texas v. Johnson, 1989, https://goo.gl/C0OwHI, Wikipedia). Its the same for Trump’s suggestion that citizenship revocation might be an appropriate penalty, a constitutional prohibition established on a mere 5-4 vote when no ultra-conservatives even served on the Court. (See, Afroyim v. Rusk, 1967, https://goo.gl/PP6M6P, Wikipedia).
Trump doesn’t need to “violate the Constitution”. He just needs a new 5-4 majority to overrule these tenuously established constitutional rights. And as we alienate our pitched voice from majority America, we bring Trump closer to the “achievements” we want to prevent.
"There is no apparent sense of guilt or shame or inconsistency." We are dealing with a man who lacks any moral compass, any principles. We used to call them onions -- you could peel off layer after layer and still find no core. It's a dangerous time.
Post a Comment