Moral Preening Versus Political Effectiveness

Late last year, the liberal media was flowing with effusive commendations for Senators Jeff Flake, of Arizona, and Bob Corker, of Tennessee, because they had been highly critical in public of President Donald Trump. 

Both Senators, neither of whom is running for re-election, termed the incumbent President, in so many words, to be unfit to serve as the nation’s chief executive. 

Whether such assessments are correct, from a political perspective, are irrelevant. 

Such comments would have had relevance prior to President Trump’s election last year but not now. 

For a serious politician, who intends to serve policy objectives as opposed to ego gratification as a priority, actions and words are intended to serve the desired end.  [I readily recognize that, for one to be in politics, ego gratification is certainly a motivation but the serious politician recognizes the fleeting nature of such satisfaction and focuses on the public policy matters that motivated him to get involved in politics in the first place.]  Thus, the fair question to ask of Senators Flake, Corker and others who have voiced similar sentiments against the president is what do they think they are accomplishing? 

The Sensible Conservative suggests that their opinions as to the President’s fitness are best unsaid.  Last year’s election, by the people of the United States, placed upon Donald Trump the label of “fit to serve”.  Some critics have cited the 25^th Amendment to the Constitution as providing authority for the President’s removal.  Reliance on that Amendment would require a determination that the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of this office”.  Inability to perform is hardly the same as fitness to serve.  In any case, given the fact that the amendment requires the approval of a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such body as Congress may by law provide”, that is realistically impossible, given the current composition of Congress.  

As for those who suggest the even more extreme measure of impeachment, “unfitness” does not fall within the standard of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. 

Thus, the sharp criticisms made by the Flakes and Corkers of the Republican Party would seem to serve no political purpose.  In fact, they may further harm America’s standing in the world.  To be sure, Donald Trump has a way of saying things that make the President  seem to be petty and nasty when confronted with criticism.  To that extent, at least, the President is contributing to the negative opinion held of him by many fellow Americans as well as those outside the country.  But there is no benefit for America to be served by Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, etc., contributing to the negative opinion already held of the President.  They are simply making the President’s job even more difficult than it already is due to the President’s own missteps. 

Thus, it is very difficult to justify the conduct of Jeff Flake and Bob Corker as serving any appropriate purpose.

Unless they were unaware that their conduct would have no positive impact on the situation they lament, the sole explanation for the attacks on President Trump is moral self-righteousness.  Such preening does indeed attract plaudits from the left but that’s hardly justification for their public statements.  [The same might be said for George H.W. Bush’s quoted comment that Donald Trump is a “blowhard” but the 41^st President has not been in a position to influence American politics for decades.]

In sum, to criticize the President publicly for his perceived inadequacies is a foolish thing to do.  Donald Trump craves, plainly, adulation.  To influence the President in a positive way would seem to mean that GOP politicians should focus on his positive actions and ignore those that aren’t going to be changed by attacks and criticism.  A pat on the head and a few complimentary words will go a long way in encouraging Donald Trump to make the right decisions for the country.

Trump Favors Immigrants From Norway Over Those From Africa – Is that Racism?

The initial outrage over this sentiment was sparked by the purportedly vulgar way in which the President expressed it.

[The various ways in which the term is depicted in the media is ludicrous!  For the more discreet outlets, the spelling omits a few letters with no doubt left as to how to fill in the blanks.  It’s like presenting an easy crossword puzzle for the viewer.   And then there are the “CNNs” which are boldly blunt with the sub-heading while the news anchors modestly refuse to utter the vulgarity.]

But the outrage was quickly supplanted by condemnation of the substance of the remark.  To critics, it was another example of Donald Trump’s racism.  (Anyway, the President’s penchant for “undignified” pronouncements has long been on display.)

On one level, the President’s comment referred to the living conditions in certain countries from which some American immigrants come.  And since the referenced countries were non-European, the comments could fairly be considered an expressed preference for immigrants sharing America’s “Western culture”.  In that sense, the President might have been attacking fashionable multiculturalism.

But the media generally ignored that explanation (which can be debated on that basis), noting that the subject countries  were populated by black and brown people.  So, of course, racism was the motivation for what Trump said.

Whether the President is a racist (a much abused term which used to mean deep prejudice that members of another race are inferior or worse), I do not know.  But it’s not an “of course” answer. Donald Trump, after all, a former supporter of liberal candidates and causes used to be in the good graces of New York City’s intelligentsia.

Donald Trump certainly has flaws as a person – and as our President.  But doesn’t his conduct deserve fair consideration?

Yet the media’s hatred of the man is so powerful he rarely receives it.

 

 

The Silly Media and Its Self-Justifying Fascination with Issue Polling

In the weeks before the late December Congressional approval of major tax reform legislation, the media was filled with articles highlighting its benefits for the “rich”.  Benefits for the middle-class were downplayed.

Thus, it was hardly surprising that opinion polls in that period showed widespread opposition to the tax bill because “it favored the rich over the middle class”.  In light of the preceding media coverage, any other result would have been startling.

The fact is that the proposed tax legislation was undergoing changes to attract sufficient support for passage until the very eve of its approval.  So, how could the “public” form an intelligent opinion as to the worthiness of the bill when they didn’t see actually know what was in it?

It is indeed naïve (as noted below) to think that public opinion on policy issues is based on a review of that subject with thought given to both pro and cons.  If it is not, why is the uninformed view of the public worth consideration as to the subject matter?

Of course, popular opinion in our democracy (more formally a representative republic) should matter if it is informed.

Polling that pre-qualifies respondents as to their knowledge of the subject (not a parroted opinion) offers something of value.  But what portion of the public follows current events closely enough to have an intelligent opinion?

Polling, ironically, suggests the number is small.  In reality, relatively few Americans understand how the government operates and constitutional protections.

A poll released last fall by The Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that more than 70% of the public was unable to name the three branches of the Federal Government.  Fewer than half knew that the Constitution’s First Amendment protects free speech.  And only fifteen percent were aware that it guaranteed religious liberty as well.

So, give general polling results on policy questions the respect they deserve – very little indeed.

The Quixotic Quest for an Israel/Palestine Peace Agreement

The Trump Administration’s pledge to transfer the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem generated a firestorm of protests from American liberals, the United Nations and, of course, the so-called Arab world which warned of widespread violence (which largely failed to materialize).

So why the heated reaction?  The implicit U.S. recognition of Jerusalem – a site considered holy by the world’s three major religions – was viewed as a hindrance to efforts to fashion a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

But common sense and history strongly indicate that the prospect – entertained by previous Republican and Democratic Administrations alike – is an illusion.

This past fall, The Sensible Conservative spent two weeks in Israel and toured major Israeli cities, including Jerusalem.  To be sure, it was a brief visit – my first – but long enough to know that the two peoples live very  much apart.  The interaction seemed limited to commercial contact.

I did have occasion to spend time with an Israeli who’d lived there for over fifty years (his family emigrated from Iraq).  He was proud, indeed, of his country and deeply suspicious of the Palestinians and their allies.  Having lived for most of his life on a kibbutz near the Jordan River, he remembers keenly the artillery shells that rained down on the area before the “Six Day War” (1967) from the Arab-held Golan Ridge towering above. 

He assured me that most Israelis felt the same way.

I did not have a similar conversation with an Arab Palestinian but their views are hardly hidden.  The hatred is intense and has not diminished over the seventy years since Israel’s modern nationhood.

Hammas lobs rockets from Gaza frequently into Israel and calls for the elimination of that nation.  The Palestinian Liberation Organization controls Arab areas in the West Bank and “recognizes” Israel’s right to exist.  Yet its internal propaganda paints Jews as despicable creatures.  Further, Palestinians killing Israel citizens in terrorist attacks are termed martyrs by the PLO and their families receive cash rewards.

Perhaps, in generations to come, the mutual hatred between the Israelis and Palestinians will dissipate to the extent that genuine peace is a reasonable prospect.

That time is not now and it is foolish – even dangerous – to think otherwise.