Bill of Rights Only Applies to Some

 

Long ago, or so it seems, the leaders of American society – business, religious and educators – could be counted on to reinforce traditional American values including devotion to liberty, respect for differing opinions and a commitment to fairness.

No more.  One is more likely to encounter spinelessness than backbone from such sources these days.

If one did not vote to re-elect President Trump, that person might be interested in knowing why over 70 million did.

The publishing industry, however is not willing to satisfy that interest.  Major American book publishers have announced their intention to ignore submissions from those previously aligned with the Trump Administration.

Justification?

It appears that important segments of society now support the expression of opinion only if it is agreeable.  After all, the proponents of such censorship can claim on their behalf that there is no right to be wrong.

Well, actually, there is; it’s called the Bill of Rights.  Of course the Left is pro-Constitution as long as its terms are consistent with a desired outcome.  Thus, many societal leaders last summer cited the First Amendment protections “of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition” as far as Black Lives Matter protests were concerned.

[As a matter of simple statistics, the BLM claim of rampant police murders was a myth.  The numbers are infinitesimal,unlike the many victims of Blacks killing Blacks in Chicago.]

But attendance at a Trump rally on Jan. 6, attended by a half-million, was not OK.  The gathering was for the purpose of protesting the planned certification of Joe Biden’s election.  And since the premise was ill-founded, attendance was not a right to be protected.  Accordingly, a public school in Pennsylvania took appropriate action when it suspended one of its teachers for participation (presence on Capitol Hill during the riot was not alleged).

After all, shouldn’t the Constitution be applied selectively?  And fairness is to be considered only if it favors the correct side.

Aren’t the American values recited above out-of-date anyway?

Who Is For Democracy?

 

 

In the wake of the bitter November presidential vote, Democrats have been castigating Trump supporters who claim the election was stolen as foes of democracy.  They are accused, in fact, of supporting a coup to overturn the results.

That the outcome was fraudulent is certainly contended by many, albeit with scant evidence.  But Donald Trump proclaims such and that is proof enough for believers.  Accordingly, from their perspective, it is they who are upholding democracy, not the Biden partisans.

[To promote the voter fraud conspiracy, as the outgoing president does, is certainly ill-founded, but that doesn’t make him a liar, just delusional.  He seemingly always has been.  Bad things aren’t supposed to happen to him.  If forced to acknowledge their existence, his response is that someone or something else is responsible.  He believes what he wants to believe.  So, of course, he actually won in a landslide.]

Now that Trump has been impeached once again, Democrats are calling for the trial of Trump in the Senate after he leaves office.  Typically, an impeachment conviction would result in the office holder’s removal.  But the Constitution also provides for another consequence… proscription of future office holding.  And that is what the left is seeking.

Whether that Constitutional consequence is authorized against a person no longer in office is unresolved.  But it is ironic indeed that Democrats who loudly boast of their commitment to democracy are urging that Donald Trump be barred from running for president again… meaning that voters who might have wanted to vote for him would be denied the opportunity.  Isn’t that voter suppression?

How Should the GOP Treat Trump?

 

It is tempting – given Donald Trump’s responsibility (at least indirectly) for what happened in the halls of Congress last week - for the Republican Party to turn its back on him.

Such a fate for the President would be deserved.  His outrageous, unhinged conduct post- election has earned him such an outcome.

But for the Republican Party to endorse such a course would be viewed by the millions of GOP supporters who still back him as ostracism of them, too.

That would be a potentially fatal mistake by the GOP.

Over 80% of Republicans were enthusiastically in favor of Donald Trump on election eve.  Incredibly (to some) a majority of the faithful approve of his conduct on the day of the Capitol Hill rampage.

Is violence, an attack on police officers, and trashing the Capitol Building to be excused as long as motivated by a “good cause”?

How can it be that any patriotic Americans think that way?

Simple.

A sizable majority of Republicans believe that the election was stolen… because Donald Trump told them so.  And that’s all his fans need to know.  Facts and investigations to the contrary are ignored.  They believe, as people generally do, what they want to believe.

So, if you believe the election was indeed stolen, then democracy failed and patriots are justified in resorting to force to undo the wrong.

Demonizing the President by implementation of the 25^th Amendment or impeaching him again will serve the political interests of the Left.   Such action would further antagonize Trump’s base which already feels wronged.    The result would heighten conviction that the system is corrupt and that their participation in it is pointless.  And, of course,  reducing the role of Republicans in future elections would be wonderful for the Left’s prospects in America.

Obviously, the GOP approach should be much different.

As a conservative, I want the Republican Party to survive and grow.  It is the only vehicle we have to promote right-of-center policies.

We non-Trumper Republicans have our work cut out for us.

We should start from the perspective that the Party needs to retain the support of those attracted to Donald Trump  That will not be accomplished by deeming them fools and questioning their support for a deeply flawed, amoral leader.  [Whether the Presidential election was “stolen” is now an irrelevant concern.  Attempts at refutation will only backfire.  They will antagonize, not persuade.]  Remember, the Left and its handmaidens in the media have earned the contempt with which almost all Republicans view them.  So Trump adherents can’t fairly be blamed for following the axiom that “my enemy’s foe is my friend”.

The stain of the violent assault on Congress has surely disenchanted many with Trump.  But as indicated above, support for the President has nonetheless not wavered for many.  The task remains for Party leaders to undercut allegiance to him by focusing on the future and noting that whatever service of value Trump offered is now in the past.  Senators Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz are likely candidates to do this since they have earned credibility with Trump backers by their previous stalwart defense of the President.

 

 

Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds

 

Unfortunately, that trite expression brings Donald Trump to mind.

During his campaign of four years ago, the President pledged to “bring home” Americans involved in battles overseas.  As a consequence, U.S. troops stationed in Syria and elsewhere were pulled out with unsurprising, harmful results.  Our allies, like the Kurds in the Middle East, were vulnerable to assaults by their – and our - enemies.  Donald Trump was able to say, nonetheless, that he was keeping his promises to America..  But doing so didn’t mean that he acted in our country’s best interest.

The Administration’s recent pledge to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan to 2,500 by Inauguration Day is a case in point.

Previously, President Trump tied troop withdrawal to the Taliban’s observance of a cease fire while peace negotiations were ongoing and a disavowal of Al Qaeda.  Neither has occurred.  Yet, the draw-down is scheduled to proceed.

Ironically, that policy shift brings to mind President Obama’s forecast of America’s withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.  The resurgence of ISIS was the consequence.  That action, too, was in conformity with the Democrat’s campaign promise.

A president should act consistently to serve America’s best interests – which certainly includes keeping our word to allies and friends.  (We can’t expect future support and aid if we don’t.)

Consistency in fulfilling campaign promises, in isolation, is admirable.  But not when doing so conflicts with the President’s higher obligation to act consistently in the nation’s best interest.