Has Trump Committed Political Suicide?

Not yet.  Although few observers of politics expected Donald Trump to last this long, his descent into the ranks of inconsequential candidates will come.  Just not as soon as serious conservatives might hope. For Donald Trump is certainly not a conservative nor serious (probably not even in his own mind).

By calling John McCain “not a war hero”, he has set in motion a major disaffection from his standard that, polls indicate, has already begun in New Hampshire, though not yet in Iowa. 

Republicans, and those of a conservative stripe, in particular, are pro-military and very supportive of those who serve.  They are repelled by those deemed to be antagonistic.  Trump has, in their view, joined their numbers.  And this will be so despite the fact that McCain is not viewed with warmth by conservatives since his “right” credentials are suspect.  But his POW experience, not McCain’s voting record, was Trump’s target.

It is certainly true, of course, that Trump’s fumbling criticism of Mexican immigrants, (“illegals only”?) has been applauded by many on the right.  However, support for the man will evaporate as his characterization of McCain’s POW experiences sink in.

On a superficial level, that may not be deserved since Trump’s attack was an angry retort to McCain’s terming the seven thousand attending a Trump rally as “crazy.”  He probably gave the subject little thought, if any, before the blast.  It’s as if he were responding to an unfair attack by leveling one of his own.  (“I can call you names, too.”)  It was childish. 

As previously displayed, Trump chooses not to use a filter before talking.  Seemingly, what stirs his emotions soon pops out of his mouth.  The fact  that he’s not inclined to apologize for his thoughts compounds the problem.  You won’t be forgiven for mis-statements unless you ask for it.

Thus, I suggest that the McCain remarks will not be akin to shooting himself in the foot, a wound from which he would recover.  This time, a political cancer has set in.  That may not be immediately obvious judging by some of his poll numbers, but it will prove to be fatal as Republican voters absorb the outrageousness of what he said about prisoners of war.

Note:  McCain was not a hero – doing an extraordinary deed - because he was a POW shot down over North Vietnam.  Rather, it was due to the character he displayed by refusing to be released by the Communists as a propaganda ploy.  As a result, this son of a high ranking navy admiral was subjected to years more of imprisonment and torture which he could have avoided.  That’s why he is properly viewed as a war hero. 

A Wing and a Prayer

Is that a fair characterization of the hope that the Administration has rested on the newly-minted Iran nuclear deal?

Under the circumstances that President Obama was committed to a deal – any deal - it’s hard to disagree.  Consider that the initial U.S. objective was to prevent Teheran from developing nuclear weapons.  What happened?  Now, to hear Obama crow, America is supposed to feel good that if the terrorist state abides by the agreement, they won’t have the bomb for ten years.

Of course, it’s appropriate to doubt that Iran will so abide.  The White House, however, contends that we shouldn’t worry because sanctions will be immediately re-imposed in the event of a violation of the agreement.

But the reality is that sanctions were a long time coming and aren’t likely to be “snapped back”.  And who thinks Russia and China will cooperate?  Both Putin and Beijing have focused in recent years on challenging U.S. interests. 

So, fine, let’s assume that Iran is on its best behavior for a decade.  What then? 

Will Israel be content that it has ten years to go until the Mullahs have the capability to destroy it?  And are the Sunni states (Saudi Arabia and Jordan, in particular) in the Middle East expected to wait patiently while the Shia stronghold uses the time to gather strength to use against them?

Of course, in 2025 Barack Obama will undoubtedly be happily ensconced in a Chicago library dedicated to his wonderfulness.

What has happened in the interim is not only not his problem – it causes him no worry either.  After all, he tried to instruct people - and nations - on how they should conduct themselves.  The fact that they didn’t listen absolves him of responsibility.

One can almost hear him lament “it’s a shame about Israel, but what was I to do?  Risk war?”

And history will respond, “but war came anyway, didn’t it Mr. President?”

A political forecast:

The three Americans held by Iran (political prisoners) will be released while Congress is considering whether to ok the deal.  A cynic (myself included) will note that John Kerry (with Obama’s approval) and Teheran entered into a secret deal hoping that the “surprise” release would be viewed as proof of Teheran’s good faith.  Too cute, by half. 

Donald Trump Wields a Double Edged Sword

Among most conservatives – in fact, most Americans – Donald Trump’s comments on immigration resonate (to an extent).

Certainly, frustration with Washington’s failure in the past several decades to stem the flow of immigration cuts across party lines.  Presidents from Ronald Reagan on share the blame.  In fact, anger comes to the fore when, as happened last week in San Francisco, an American is shot and killed by an illegal alien previously deported. 

“Why can’t we protect our borders?” is the outcry. 

Donald Trump pledge to do that and utters statements blasting criminal elements among Mexican immigrants without making a distinction between those who are here legally and those who are not.

Of course, the “open-border” types tend to label anyone opposed as bigots,  anti-immigrant and hard-hearted.  Trump plays into their hands.  His bombastic comments scare off those who would otherwise be allies in efforts to halt illegal immigration.

Most Americans want to be considered as reasonable, fair people.  We value what others think of us.  We don’t consider ourselves as racists or bigots.  (Of course, as do all people everywhere and of whatever background and racial heritage, we have our prejudices.)  We want to get along.

So we are sensitive to being in situations or circumstances that might cause others to think ill of us.  And that includes the company we keep.

Who wants to be seen as “being with” Donald Trump?

Trump is his worst enemy (and who cares about the fate of the loud-mouthed egomaniac?).  Far more importantly, he hurts the cause of lawful immigration.   Unfortunately, if one opposes illegal border crossings, one is lumped together with reality show host “The Donald”.  For serious GOP hopefuls, that’s not a welcome prospect.  Yet the subject must be confronted. The public expects resolute action.

Rest assured, with or without Donald Trump’s presence, feared epithets (“racist, etc.”) will be leveled against Republican candidates by the mainstream (“left”) media.  It’s more than a shame that those on the right will have to expend efforts to throw off the Trump albatross, as well.    

Is John Roberts a Conservative?

That depends on what is meant by the label.  He may be a conservative in the political sense as well as a conservative as a judge.  Those are not, in context, necessarily the same thing.

The Supreme Court Chief Justice has receive strong criticism on the right for, again, voting to uphold Obamacare.  And he has been attacked for hypocrisy in citing the lack of constitutional authority to overturn gay marriage bans while ignoring sound legal principals in refusing to strike down the health care law.

Certainly, in most cases before the high court, whether involving criminal law, gun control or federal regulatory authority, Roberts’ votes have been on the conservative side, politically.  Yet to be a conservative jurist also means a commitment to procedure and legal authority. “Judicial restraint” is the appropriate phrase.

 

Liberal political judges are properly blamed for choosing the desired result in a case before crafting “legal justification” for the decision.  That is not judicial analysis – it’s legislating from the bench.  So conservatives should not criticize a decision simply because they don’t like the result.  We are constitutionalists – the rule of law and procedures matter.  Those judicial principals are conservative, but their application does not necessarily equate to a pleasing political outcome.

This elaboration is not meant to absolve Roberts. His initial decision upholding Obamacare in 2013 was a tortured attempt to justify a ruling vigorously condemned by four other members of the Court.  It surely seemed designed to support an act of Congress approved under questionable circumstances.  But deference to the legislative branch is part of judicial restraint.  Defenders of the Chief Justice can also cite his apparent reluctance to thwart the key objective of the Executive Branch.  [Was that an understandable effort to keep the Court above politics?  Perhaps.  If so, it failed since the convoluted reasoning of Roberts was supported by the four liberal members with nary a qualm about how the decision was reached.]

This past month, Justice Roberts again sided with Obamacare, holding that a legislated directive should be ignored:  the law wasn’t meant to be taken literally.  Instead his opinion relied on legislative history (lawmaker comments) to devine Congress’ intention.

From a judicial perspective, that’s a questionable approach since, usually, an ambiguity in statutory language must be a precondition to reliance upon legislative history.  But, it is true that a contrary position has support among some respected legal scholars. 

What does not is a court’s preference for a policy as opposed to a supportable legal principle.  That is what the Court’s opinion – strongly opposed by Chief Justice Roberts – was in the gay marriage case.  It was judicial fiat – not constitutional interpretation.  The U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.  The 10^th Amendment provides: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  The definition of marriage is a state, not a federal, concern.

So here proper constitutional analysis has John Roberts on the right side of a constitutional issue.

However, his position on Obamacare, founded on suspect legal justification, aligns him with liberals.  Why would a conservative jurist do that?