Trump Archives | Coffee and Politics

November 12, 2024November 12, 2024

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.

April 17, 2017April 17, 2017

We Need a New Strategy to Reach the Masses

Here’s the problem we need to overcome. I’m making these numbers up, but–in my opinion–roughly 25 percent of voters follow the smoke and understand there’s probably a fire there. Possibly a big one. Another 25 percent, however–the white nationalist, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh audience of the world–would believe that Trump was born on the back of a unicorn next to the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow if it was reported from a fake news source.

That leaves 50 percent, though. Half of the country isn’t so gullible that they believe everything Breitbart and Infowars say, but they also aren’t engaged or interested enough to tell fact from fiction. Many of my friends and family honestly believe that BOTH sides are engaged in intentional misinformation, and when they see mounting evidence of collusion and treason with Russia, they shake their heads and just say they’re so tired of all the “partisan bickering”.

What baffles me is that many of the same people who had no issue buying into fabricated controversies like Behngazi-gate or Hillary’s email despite any actual facts and evidence, are more than willing to shrug off a mounting pile of both hard and circumstantial evidence from credible sources that suggest Trump and his team are working hand-in-hand with Russia. I mean, at this point it’s almost like catching someone next to a dead body with a bullet through his forehead and a man standing next to him literally holding the smoking gun while a puddle of blood forms around his feet, and saying “Well, that’s what that dead guy wants us to believe–but how do we know this is the guy who actually killed him?”

We need to figure out how to educate that 50 percent. How do we help people understand the difference between facts and “alternative facts”, between credible news and “fake news”, between partisan politics and treason?

I believe the first step is to educate them about the fact that Breitbart, Infowars, Fox News and similar fake news sources are not credible. They are purely conspiracy theory machines. They fabricate and distribute propaganda–with just enough real news to provide a hint of credibility.

CNN is largely to blame as well, though, as far as I’m concerned. Why? Well, everyone pretty much accepts that Fox is Right Wing / Conservative and MSNBC is Left Wing / Liberal–and that if you watch those channels you will get ostensibly credible information viewed through a biased lens. CNN, however, was the middle ground–the referee. In an effort to appear fair and balanced, though, it continues to hire blatant partisan hacks to represent the Conservative point of view and allow them to spew obvious lies on air on the same panel where credible sources are sharing valid information. It creates a false equivalency that makes the viewing audience feel both perspectives are equal but opposite, when the reality often is that one is right and one is a brazen lie.

Start with this chart. Share it. Share it on social media. Share it with your coworkers. Share it with your in-laws who insist that all of this Russia stuff is just nonsense invented by the left. Do what you have to do to convince more people to listen to and trust the sources in the top middle of this chart, and to absolutely reject and ignore anything beyond “skews” in either direction.

Again, you won’t ever convince the 25 percent who are part of the Trump cult. When Trump said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” those are the people he was talking about–and he’s right. But we have to find a way to educate and reach that 50 percent that is sane and rational and does care, but just wants to live in peace and lacks the energy to be politically engaged.

I’m not suggesting that politics doesn’t have a shady side, or that morals and ethics aren’t compromised on both sides of the aisle to some extent. But, as long as a significant percentage of the population buys into the false equivalency that everything is bad and both sides are dirty, they will simply remain on the sidelines shrugging their shoulders while a band of morons cash in as treasonous oligarchs for selling out our democracy to Russia.

January 29, 2017

Inside Donald’s Head: Part 1 of 9

Have you ever read Donald Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal? It was on my list of things I aspired to read at one point, but I never did get around to it. In my defense, the book was popular when Donald was merely a questionably successful business person–it was pre-Apprentice, never mind pre-politics. In the wake of Donald’s swearing in as President, one group took a closer look at the book, though, to find clues to how this guy thinks.

One of the quotes pulled from the book addresses Donald’s thoughts on maintaining a schedule. He said, “I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can’t be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you’ve got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.”

I realize Donald probably didn’t actually “write” a single word of the book, and these are really the words of whatever co-author or ghost writer Donald was working with. It’s fair to assume, though, that Donald said something along these lines and based on how he ran his campaign and seems to be operating in the White House, the philosophy seems credible.

Personally, I don’t disagree. Anyone who has worked in a corporation and has been mired down in meetings knows what it feels like. You look at your calendar and see all of your day allocated to various briefings and meetings and just shrug your shoulders, knowing it won’t be a very productive day.

A recent study by Attentiv found that the average meeting includes nine people, and that 63 percent of meetings don’t have a pre-planned agenda. Most meetings are between 31 and 60 minutes, and more than a third of those who participate in the meeting find it to be a waste of their time.

That said, the President of the United States is not a CEO, and the United States government is not a business–so that strategy won’t necessarily work for managing a country. Admittedly, it might make sense to look at all of the various standard meetings, determine the goal or value, and then identify whether or not they can be reduced or eliminated. But, there’s a lot going on in any given day–decisions to be made, crises to address, plans to develop–and it’s not something that can be done by the seat of one’s pants…especially if the one wearing said pants has an adversarial relationship with facts and truth.

The good news is that Donald apparently likes to have an open door policy and keep his calendar clear. He’s not used to being an employee, but as his new boss feel free to stop in and tell him what you think of his performance if you happen to be in the DC area.