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.