Is Trump Turning On His Own?

Most conservatives have viewed Donald Trump with a jaundiced eye.  From June of 2015 when he launched his bid for the presidency – The Sensible Conservative was among them.  Duly noted was Trump’s apparent fondness for Democrats – he had been one, and his endorsements of political positions (e.g., abortions) popular in New York City circles.

Also was his lack of seriousness as a candidate.  Celebrity status, reality TV, his checkered domestic past and his vulgar public persona hardly provided gravitas to his campaign.

Yet, on the campaign trail, he voiced (or tweeted) generally conservative themes and, of course, he was running against the despised Hillary Clinton.  So we hoped for the best.  His initial appointments were greatly comforting from experienced military and business leaders (for example, Secretary of Defense General Mathis to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, ex RNC Chairman who “knew” the jungles of Washington).  But, to be sure, Trump remained his own man.  The bluster, insecurities and vulgarities naturally accompanied him into the White House; yet, early on, he fulfilled expectations.  Obama–era regulations and executive orders were jettisoned and a fine jurist was added to the Supreme Court. 

Hopes, alas, are proving to be illusions.  He dumps Reince Priebus after many weeks of leaks suggesting he wasn’t up to the job of running the White House.  He attacks his Attorney General, the first prominent conservative Republican legislator to support his candidacy – not for his job performance but for what he did not do (derail an FBI investigation).  And at the end of July, he brings in an ironically named communication director (booting out his first press secretary) – who proceeds to make a grand first impression by telling many of his White House mates in far vulgar language to go to hell. 

If loyalty is a one way street “down to up only,” the purported leader will eventually find himself all alone.  Then what? 

The Liberal Bias Against White Police Officers

Did you hear the sounds of outrage coming from the left when a police officer who was black (a native of Somalia) killed a white woman? 

Neither did I.

Apparently the two year veteran police officer fired his gun while seated in the passenger seat while his partner was talking to the woman who had made a 911 call to report suspected criminal activity near her home.

Common sense tells one it was an accidental shooting and, perhaps, negligent.  [He shot across the front of his fellow police officer seated beside him.  The bullet struck the citizen-complainant standing outside the driver’s side closed door.]

So it was appropriate to give the black police officer the benefit of doubt which was accorded to him by the local (liberal) media.  Unsurprisingly, the Black Lives Matter folks (of “kill the pigs” notoriety) were mute.  

But what if the racial identities had been reversed?  

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that there is a prejudice against police officers who are caucasians.

Note the common practice of the general media to use the police officer’s race (if white) and that of the person shot (if black) as if the racial differences played some role in the event.  

Such a presumption was probably reasonable and warranted in Alabama and Mississippi of fifty years ago.  But now?  And in liberal Minneapolis?

Think of all the civil rights advances and black assimilation which have occurred in the broader society since the fifties and sixties.  

So how does any other explanation than prejudice against whites (racism, if you like) explain a prejudgment against white police officers involved in shootings?  It’s as if white leftists who jump to such conclusions are embarrassed by their being caucasian.  How sick and sad is that?

How is a Conservative Supposed to React to the Trump White House?

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the White House, under the stewardship of Donald Trump, is facing a very steep learning curve as well as uncertainty as to America’s mooring in the world.

Based upon its first six months, the Trump Administration has certainly tried to do things of which conservatives generally approve:  new Supreme Court Justice, solid cabinet appointments and cancellation of anti-business Obama executive orders.

But there is so much more that needs to be done, including tax reform and a new health insurance reform.

Unfortunately, it seems as though the president is easily distracted and diverted from pursuing important policy objectives.  Of course, the overriding hindrance to Mr. Trump’s focus is his family’s Russian concerns.

It is tempting for conservatives to simply dismiss these worries as the product of a hostile liberal media.  To be sure, those pushing the investigation from the left do not mean well.  But facts recently uncovered (the president’s son’s emails) make clear that there are legitimate questions about the president’s campaign.

Thus, the possibility that Trump campaign leaders (and maybe with the President’s knowledge) acted improperly in seeking Russian assistance against Hillary Clinton cannot no longer be ignored by those on the right.

[To be sure, that the lead media organization investigating a possible Russia connection is The New York Times makes conservatives very suspicious of the reporting.  After all, the Times’ biased coverage of Trump’s campaign hardly vouches for its integrity or reliability.  But Republicans must acknowledge that the liberal organ was proven justified in pursuing this story – Trump Jr.’s release of his damning emails showed that.]

Conservatives must resist the temptation (generated by loyalty to Trump and hostility to his liberal foes), to reflexively side with the White House.  Our own integrity, for now and the future, should not be sacrificed.  We must not shy away from the truths we mightily condemned.

Slavish - and dishonest - conduct of the Obama Administration, for instance, pertaining to health care and Benghazi. Are we going to allow ourselves to be viewed by the general public in the same way?  There are troubling signs that that is exactly what is happening. 

Recent polling about Americans’ attitudes towards Russia shows a flip-flop among Republicans.  It used to be a given that the right was more suspicious of Moscow’s intentions than Democrats.  The GOP was the party backing a strong defense; the opposition was more inclined to favor accommodation and to be tolerant of Russian aggression (a typical attitude on the left was “what makes us think we’re angels?”).

Apparently this is no longer true.  A poll taken last week revealed that forty-eight percent of Republicans supported the indefensible – Trump, Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer regarding information on Hillary Clinton.  Only thirty-three percent of GOP voters opposed it.  In contrast, only twenty-seven percent of independents thought it was a good idea.  Sixty three percent were against it.

Something is very wrong with the Republican Party if so many of its members change their views to be in accord with those, apparently, of the White House.  Genuine conservatives should be guided by principles only.

The Connection Between Violent Speech, Acts and Their Toleration

There is a belief by many people that words, in and of themselves, do not  hurt.

But the fact of the matter is that words can have a very harmful effect.  The old nursery school adage referenced several weeks ago by The Sensible Conservative that “sticks and stones’ (you know the rest) is simply not true and never was. 

Words, on their own, do indeed hurt.  Yet, more seriously, they can lead to “broken bones”.  Society, beyond the schoolyard, has long recognized that fact.  So shouting fire in a crowded theater can be a criminal act.  As can words which incite rioting. 

Free speech, of course, as enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment is one of the core elements of America’s political system.  The Amendment’s proponents believed its existence would ensure that open discussion would occur and that unpopular and minority views would not be suppressed for those reasons.  Apart from proscriptions of incitement, there are no legal limits on language use, but there have long been social restraints.  Those participating in the political process as candidates, their supporters and pundits were expected to express themselves civilly and to be polite to those taking contrary positions.  Those not abiding by such unwritten, but generally recognized, rules of political behavior, were ostracized. [Albeit, the Civil War being a major exception.] In other words, political discourse was confined by general agreement within certain boundaries regardless of the absence of legally mandated rules of campaign conduct.

No longer.

Why?  As discussed several weeks ago, substantial elements of each party have a very low opinion of the other.  Hatred is not too strong a label to apply to the feelings of some partisans.  Understandably, it is next to impossible to be polite and civil towards those one despises.

The broader culture - of which one should always remember, politics reflects - now sanctions, even encourages, behavior unbounded by guidelines of appropriate conduct and speech.  Obviously, the disintegration of polite society didn’t begin yesterday. 

Remember the Jerry Springer Show which hit the airways some twenty-five years ago?  It was hardly alone in debasing civility.

Now we hear and see representatives of popular culture like Madonna calling for the burning down of the White House and Kathy Griffin holding up an effigy of Donald Trump’s severed head.

Has it now become OK to call for violence by word or deed against politicians of a different persuasion?  And if a political foe deserves harsh rhetoric, is the barrier against actual violence still strong?  Is harming members of the other side now more understandable and, hence, more tolerable? 

Consider a media interview with a resident (and softball coach, as she was described) from the Alexandria,VA’s  shooter’s home town of Belleville, Illinois.  She condemned the former resident’s actions but added that the regard for Congress was so low that she could understand his doing what he did.  Oh?

Trump Cheerleaders are No Help

It should be obvious that anyone who thinks that President Trump can do no wrong is not thinking clearly.  Such biased proponents do not serve the object of their adulation very well.

Of course, everyone knows that no one is perfect.  So why does Fox host Sean Hannity and White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders (daughter of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee) insist, seemingly, that he is above criticism?  People recoil from such characterizations.  They simply can’t be true. Thus, the proponents of such fantasies sacrifice credibility and believability.  Their pronouncements are not deemed trustworthy.  As a result, they ill-serve the person they seek to promote.

In the latest example, the President tweeted insulting and petty references to Joe Scarborough and his fiancée Mika Brzezinski.  To be sure, the co-hosts of “Morning Joe” on the left wing MSNBC network have been unstinting in their often personal attacks on Trump since his election.  But the incumbent in the White House is not a competing “talking head” on another cable outlet. 

Old fashioned people like The Sensible Conservative might note that such comments bring the President down to the level of his detractors.  A better position would be for President Trump to decline to respond in kind since to do so would be beneath the dignity of the office he holds.

 

No, that’s not the appropriate response, administrative spokeswoman Sarah Sanders implies.  (This is a president who “fights fire with fire.”)

To follow through with the analogy, wouldn’t a fire fighter’s first option be to put water on the blaze, rather than add fuel?

Alas, our President seems prone to be like the little boy running around the neighborhood with a box of matches.  The community, of course, fears that he might light a fire near them.  But more likely, his own home is at greater risk.  Would that his friends had the courage and where-with-all to put a stop to his reckless behavior.

A commendable exception.  Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News regular and a proclaimed liberal, appeared last week on the morning Fox and Friends show, usually a platform for unequivocal cheerleading, and took the President to task.  “I’m calling on my friend to swallow his pride and apologize to this woman”.  [Trump had made reference to Mika’s bleeding facelift.]