Posts

Posted on

Let the Dog Catch the Mail Truck: Why Democrats Should Let Trump Be Trump

The metaphor of a dog chasing a mail truck is often used to describe relentless pursuit without consideration of the consequences. With Donald Trump’s recent election victory, this analogy takes on new significance. Voters who fervently supported Trump’s return to the presidency have, in essence, caught the mail truck. Now, the question arises: Should Democrats expend their political capital to obstruct Trump’s policies, or should they allow these policies to unfold, letting the consequences speak for themselves?

This article draws inspiration from a thought-provoking piece in The Bulwark and recent Threads posts by Jonathan V. Last, who explores the idea of stepping back and “letting Trump be Trump.”

While this approach might highlight the destructive nature of certain policies in a way that words alone never could, it’s important to acknowledge the gravity of this concept if played out in reality. Allowing Trump’s policies to unfold without resistance would likely lead to catastrophic consequences for global peace, geopolitical stability, the U.S. economy, women’s rights, marginalized communities, and countless families.

It’s a scenario that, while theoretically illuminating, poses immense moral and practical challenges. As much as the end result—a public reckoning with these choices—might seem desirable, the devastating costs make it almost impossible to watch it happen without intervention. This tension, the near impossibility of standing by while harm unfolds, is part of the reason why Democrats often intervene, inadvertently shielding these policies from the full measure of accountability.

Historical Context: The Democratic Dilemma

Historically, Democrats have often intervened to mitigate the impact of Republican policies, sometimes shielding their opponents from the full political fallout. For instance, in Arizona, when a 19th-century law criminalizing nearly all abortions was reinstated, Democrats provided the necessary votes to repeal it, thereby sparing Republicans from potential backlash . This pattern of intervention raises the question: Is it more strategic for Democrats to step back and allow Republican policies to proceed unimpeded, thereby exposing their flaws and shifting public opinion?

Key Policy Areas to Consider

Foreign Policy: The Ukraine Example

Trump has signaled a potential withdrawal of support for Ukraine, a move that could have significant geopolitical ramifications. Instead of obstructing this policy, Democrats might consider allowing it to proceed, thereby highlighting the dangers of such a move when the consequences become apparent. This approach could serve to underscore the importance of sustained international alliances and the risks associated with isolationist policies.

Economic Policy: Tariffs and Trade

Trump’s reintroduction of tariffs is poised to impact the economy, potentially leading to higher consumer prices and strained international trade relations. Rather than blocking these policies, Democrats could focus on exposing instances of cronyism and the adverse effects on consumers. By shining a light on how these tariffs may benefit a select few while harming the broader population, Democrats can make a compelling case against such economic strategies.

Public Health: Vaccine Policies

The appointment of vaccine skeptics to key positions within the administration poses a threat to public health initiatives. In response, Democratic-led states could implement their own public health campaigns, promoting vaccination and countering misinformation. Allowing federal missteps to become evident may reinforce the importance of science-based policies and the dangers of politicizing public health.

Immigration: Mass Deportations

Trump’s proposal for large-scale deportations raises concerns about feasibility and societal impact. By not obstructing these policies, Democrats could allow the public to witness the chaos and human cost associated with such actions. This exposure might lead to a shift in public opinion, particularly among communities directly affected by these policies.

The Risks of Obstruction

Obstructing Trump’s policies could have unintended consequences, such as shielding Republicans from accountability and wasting political resources that could be better used in proactive policy development. By stepping back, Democrats allow the full impact of these policies to be felt, potentially leading to a more informed and engaged electorate.

The Benefits of Allowing Policy Implementation

Allowing policies to proceed without obstruction can lead to greater public awareness of their impacts. This strategy builds a case for change based on observed outcomes rather than theoretical arguments, fostering a more informed public discourse and potentially leading to more sustainable policy solutions.

Ethical Considerations

Balancing the duty to protect vulnerable populations with the strategic benefits of non-intervention presents an ethical dilemma. While immediate harm may occur, the long-term gains in public policy and opinion could justify a strategy of allowing policies to unfold. This approach requires careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits, ensuring that the pursuit of political strategy does not come at the expense of ethical responsibility.

Strategic Patience

Revisiting the dog and mail truck metaphor, Democrats face a choice: continue to intervene and potentially shield Republicans from the consequences of their policies, or step back and allow these policies to demonstrate their effectiveness or failure. By adopting a strategy of strategic patience, Democrats can let Trump be Trump, allowing the electorate to witness firsthand the outcomes of his administration’s policies.

Call to Action

Engaging the public in this discourse is crucial. Voters should stay informed and critically assess policy outcomes, holding elected officials accountable for their decisions. Democratic leaders are urged to consider the potential benefits of allowing certain policies to unfold without obstruction, fostering a more informed and engaged electorate that can make decisions based on observed realities rather than partisan rhetoric.

Bottom line: Trump, his sycophants, and the MAGA cult-at-large have fucked around. It’s about time they find out. However, we already know Trump idolizes both Hitler and Putin, and one thing we can learn from their rise, or the rise of neofascist authoritarians like Viktor Orbán—is that when the “finding out” happens, it may very will be too late to reverse the damage.

Posted on

A Plea for Rational Republican Voices

US Capitol House representative MAGA extremists

The concept of normalcy seems a distant memory in our current political landscape. The nation currently faces a situation where a handful of partisan MAGA extremists possess disproportionate power. The House of Representatives, with a slim Republican majority, is at a crucial juncture, where merely five Republicans out of 222 have the capability to scuttle legislation and plunge the US economy into uncertainty through a government shutdown.

However, the dilemma extends beyond any five individuals. The entire Republican faction of 222 members appears to have pledged allegiance to a controversial and polarizing figure—twice impeached and quadruple indicted, who continues to command the MAGA movement. Whether this unwavering loyalty stems from genuine affinity, apprehension of repercussions from extremist followers, or a prioritization of individual political ambition over national interests, the unity observed within the Republican party is palpable.

The prevailing narrative showcases a party bound by allegiance, enabling a minority to wield substantial influence and shape Congressional dynamics. This scenario calls for a reassessment and reflection within the Republican party. It is an appeal for the emergence of rational voices and patriotic stances that can steer the party and, consequently, the nation, away from the brink of internal destruction.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, along with his Republican colleagues, is at the forefront of this transformative opportunity. The path to normalcy necessitates cooperation and dialogue across the aisle, embracing democratic principles and eschewing the dictates of extremism. Five individuals with extremist viewpoints have showcased their potential to bring governmental processes to a halt, underscoring the urgency of addressing this imbalance.

However, this situation also presents an opportunity and a glimmer of hope. It signifies that the emergence of just five rational, courageous Republicans can alter the course of the narrative. These individuals, by taking a stand against extremism and prioritizing the welfare of the nation, can send a powerful message that the United States will not succumb to the whims of extremists.

The path to normalcy is undoubtedly fraught with challenges, yet it is not unattainable. The first step entails recognizing the magnitude of the situation and acknowledging the detrimental impact of allowing a minority to dictate the nation’s trajectory. Rational Republicans must rise above the divisive rhetoric and engage in constructive dialogue with Democrats to address pressing issues and foster bipartisan solutions.

This plea for sanity and rationality extends beyond party lines. It is a call for unity and a collective effort to safeguard democratic values and institutions. The American people, irrespective of their political affiliations, have a stake in the preservation of a functioning government and the prevention of a descent into chaos. Public discourse should encourage and celebrate those who prioritize the greater good over partisan interests.

The power dynamics within the House of Representatives serve as a microcosm of the broader political landscape. The actions and decisions of a few can reverberate across the nation, shaping public opinion and influencing future generations. In this context, the emergence of rational voices within the Republican party is not just a necessity but a moral imperative.

The time for reflection and introspection is now. The Republican party, and indeed the nation, stand at a crossroads. The choices made today will determine the legacy of this generation of political leaders and shape the future of American democracy. The pursuit of normalcy and stability necessitates courage, conviction, and a commitment to democratic principles.

I’m not holding my breath. I’m not confident there are enough Republicans with the moral compass necessary to put the nation above their own aspirations. But, it would take remarkably few to change the course of history and restore democracy—the same number it takes to disrupt and destroy democracy from within. We just need 5 who are as committed to preserving democracy as the minority extremists are to destroying it.

Posted on

Choosing to Forget: A Crucial Error for Liberalism

MAGA cult extremists attempted a violent coup on January 6, 2021.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. This oft-repeated phrase is as powerful as it is succinct, encapsulating the cyclical nature of human error. But while many focus on the unintentional act of forgetting, there is an even more troubling trend: the willful choice to forget or ignore history, which only aids those who consciously opt to duplicate it.

It is more fitting, then, to say: “Those who CHOOSE to forget the past are condemned to suffer at the hands of those who CHOOSE to repeat it.”

Consider the contemporary political landscape. Liberals, with their idealistic and often forgiving nature, seek to move on swiftly, embracing peace, unity, and the prospect of a brighter future. They are eager to appease and return to the status quo, a tranquil rhythm where the challenges of the past are left behind. However, this mindset, while noble, is also their Achilles’ heel.

Contrarily, Conservatives appear to remember history more fervently. Events like the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898 or the Veterans’ Riot in Paris in 1934 are not merely historical footnotes for them. These aren’t events to be glanced over in shame; they are milestones, each carrying a lesson, a tactic, and a strategy. Such events are studied, analyzed, and sometimes even idealized.

Today, with the significant shift of the Republican Party towards a white, Christian nationalist patriarchal stance, history appears to be echoing. Movements like the Tea Party and now the MAGA cult (led by the twice-impeached, four times indicted former president–a reality TV star who never had an approval rating above 50% and has never won a popular vote) draw parallels to previous incidents. The tactics, strategies, and even the rhetoric employed during these waves are eerily reminiscent of historical events. Moreover, these echoes from the past are often used to shield or even justify actions that challenge the Constitution or venture into illegal territory.

Meanwhile, Liberals operate under the presumption of normalcy. They approach the political arena as a battleground for ideas, hoping for reasonable dialogue and fruitful negotiation. But when faced with a faction that neither negotiates in good faith nor entertains compromise, the liberal strategy falters. It’s like expecting a civilized game of chess when the opponent is intent on torching the board. As Liberals extend an olive branch, some Conservatives are loading their weapons.

This isn’t a mere difference in political perspectives. It’s a deep-rooted ideological clash. While Liberals view Conservatives as political opponents, a growing faction within the Conservative realm perceives Liberals as enemies–nothing less than existential threats, undermining their vision of a white Christian patriarchy.

For Liberals, the solution isn’t to abandon their principles but to learn from history. The past is replete with examples of movements that embraced extremism, and understanding these movements can provide valuable insights into contemporary challenges. The MAGA movement and its allies within the Republican Party aren’t drawing from a forgotten history; they’re replicating a well-studied past.

The natural inclination to move forward is commendable, yet it is vital to remain grounded in the lessons history offers. Choosing to forget or ignore these lessons not only jeopardizes the present but could also reshape the future in ways we may come to regret.

The past, as they say, is prologue. It’s high time we started reading it.

Posted on

RNC Censure Is Evidence the GOP Is Heading for Extinction

The Republican National Committee (RNC) voted to censure two of its own representatives: Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

United We Stand?

What offense did they commit to earn this rebuke from their own party? Well, they have the audacity to take part in a bipartisan Select Committee to investigate the insurrection and attempt to subvert the will of the people on January 6, 2021. The investigation is ongoing, so we do not yet know the full extent of what they will find, but so far it seems like it will be very uncomfortable for many on the Republican side of the aisle–and may even result in the arrest and prosecution of key Republicans, up to and including the former president himself.

Once the attempted coup was thwarted and the Senate got back to business, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConell stated, “They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed. They failed. They failed the attempt to obstruct the Congress. This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic.”

He was not alone. On January 6, 2021, and the days immediately following, there was almost universal bipartisan agreement that this was a violent insurrection and an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. For a brief–very brief–period, we stood as one nation–Americans rather than Democrats and Republicans–united in our commitment to democracy and our alarm that a group of people sought to overthrow it through violence.

You Can’t Do Both

The RNC censure opens with a statement that claims the mission of the party is to elect Republicans who support the United States Constitution and share Republican values. With the unique exceptions of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, this appears to be an oxymoron.

You can’t do both. Everything Republicans have done in the past year–especially as it relates to investigating the January 6 insurrection and holding people accountable–suggests that Republican values are diametrically opposed to the concept of supporting the US Constitution.

If you’re complicit in attempted sedition and guilty of trying to undermine our democracy, it makes sense to not want to look too hard or connect the dots to see who orchestrated the insurrection. If you are not, there is no logical reason why you would oppose the investigation or attempt to obstruct the quest for answers.

As an individual whose own life was at risk as an unhinged mob stormed the Capitol Building, and an individual who swore an oath to solemnly swear (or affirm) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and bear true faith and allegiance to the same, you would expect unanimous bipartisan support for the investigation and conviction to hold those responsible accountable.

But, no.

Which seems to suggest that most Republicans fall into one of two…maybe three camps. Either they are directly involved and responsible for the January 6 insurrection, or they are afraid of what the MAGA cult will do to them if they stand against it, or they simply care more about power at all costs than they do about the country or the principles it was founded on.

There is certainly ample evidence of this third option across the country as Republican state legislatures seek to disenfranchise voters and limit or restrict the ability of citizens to vote. They know they can’t win a free and fair election, so they are working vigilantly to ensure future elections are anything but free or fair.

Replace Liberty with Socialism

The second part of the RNC censure makes a lot of ridiculous and intentionally incendiary claims–claims that go beyond political differences of opinion and fall squarely on the side of demonizing political rivals and painting more than half of the nation (as evidenced by the results of the 2020 election) as “un-American”. One of them is the assertion that Democrats in Congress have embarked on a systematic effort to replace liberty with socialism.

That is silly on a number of levels. First, I am not sure Republicans actually know what socialism is. In Republican double-speak, “socialism” generally refers to anything that might help or benefit people of color, or–more broadly–anything that doesn’t align with their agenda. It’s a convenient bogeyman to distract and confuse a gullible base of voters.

That said, socialism itself is not a “bad word”. The idea that we should all get our panties in a bunch over the word socialism reminds me of when Barack Obama was running for President in 2008 and there were rumors and accusations that he is Muslim.

Many debated the issue and there were attempts to clarify his Christian faith and verify that he was, in fact, not Muslim. My take was, who fucking cares? Dignifying the speculation with a defense was completely irrelevant. What if he is a Muslim? That is not disqualifying. A Muslim can be President if that is who a majority of the people vote for.

Is Congress trying to implement Socialism, the actual political ideology, or socialism, the Republican bastardization that just refers to anything that helps American citizens? Yes. Maybe. There are a lot of people in Congress and they span the political spectrum. I am sure there are those who want Socialism, and many more who favor and support socialism.

And?…

The point is, are they the majority? Did a majority of American citizens elect people who support an agenda of Socialism/socialism? Is there sufficient support in Congress to win the votes necessary to pass Socialist/socialist policies? Then that is fine. Better than fine–that is perfect and it is the way things are supposed to work in a democracy.

I’m sure it sucks if you’re in the minority and you’re adamantly opposed to those things. Too fucking bad. Come up with better policies and better ideas that a majority of voters support and you can shift things in another direction.

However, Republicans don’t have a monopoly on patriotism or “being American”. On the contrary, it often seems they barely understand what either of those things mean. Policies and views that run counter to the Republican platform are not “un-American,’ they’re simply “un-Republican.”

I don’t doubt that Republicans would like to elect Republicans and have the power and the votes to pursue their agenda. Unfortunately for them, that requires having good ideas that are popular enough to win elections.

Censuring the only people in the party willing to uphold the oaths they swore, defending a violent attempt to overthrow the government, standing by the incompetent former President while evidence appears to suggest he was directly involved in the attempted coup, showing more allegiance to Russia than our allies, and working to ensure as few people vote as possible are not winning strategies. They simple demonstrate how far the party has fallen and why it is more important than ever in this nation’s history for people to stand up and show up and remove these people from our government.

Posted on

I Disagree with Taya Kyle–and That’s OK

Nike Kaepernick #TakeAKnee

I have read Taya Kyle’s statement in response to the new Nike ad campaign with Colin Kaepernick. It is eloquent.

She is entitled to her opinion. I disagree with her.

First–much of the premise of her opinion is based on the racist fallacy that Colin Kapernick or other NFL players are protesting or disrespecting the flag itself, or the national anthem, or the military. That is wrong at face value, so it diminishes the credibility I give her opinion right off the bat. She is still entitled to it–but I don’t respect it.

Second–I don’t idolize and deify the military the way many do. There is certainly some degree of nobility in voluntarily swearing an oath to defend the Constitution even if it means your own death. The vast majority of those who serve, however, are not there out of a sense of honor or duty and don’t honestly believe their lives will ever be threatened. Most are there because they had few–if any–other options, and it’s a way to learn some skills and get money for college. I had other options–but I joined the military primarily to do something different and see the world. I am proud of my service, but I am also honest enough to know that it wasn’t heroic or noble in and of itself.

It is a marketing campaign. Is Ford the “Best in Texas”? Does Red Bull “give you wings”? Is there really NO substitute for a Porsche? Is being a fascist white supremacist who alienates allies and kisses the boots of enemies really making America great again? Objectively, these are all false claims made in marketing slogans.

Did Kaepernick sacrifice “everything”? Perhaps not. That is both a subjective and a semantic argument and one that I can’t make because I am not Colin Kaepernick. Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and countless others sacrificed their lives–and they weren’t even believing in or standing for anything. They were just trying to exist.

I served my country. I did not join to be a hero. I did not sign up out of a sense of honor. However, I am proud of my time in the military because—regardless of my intentions in joining—I did, in fact, swear an oath to defend the Constitution and what it stands for. To me, that includes protecting the rights conveyed by the Constitution for all Americans. That includes defending the right of Colin Kaepernick and NFL players to take a knee as a symbol of peaceful protest. Exercising the rights and freedoms the military fights and dies to defend is not disrespectful or un-American. It is the most respectful and most American thing you can do.

I support Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players who #TakeAKnee. That is just my opinion. Taya Kyle is welcome to hers. You are welcome to yours. Beto O’Rourke said it best, “Reasonable people can disagree on this issue…and it makes them no less American to come down on a different conclusion on this issue.”

Follow by Email
Facebook
Twitter