"Tall trees catch a lot of wind." This traditional Dutch expression translates to something like: "people in high places catch a lot of flack." This is something we are all familiar with. No matter who runs our government, critics will quickly attach labels in an attempt to pigeonhole them, sometimes even well before they take power. These days many seem tempted to simplistically compare current political leaders to historical figures. Two of the more popular characterizations we have all become familiar with are: "Fascist" and "Machiavellian." Hitler's moustache has adorned George Bush as well as Barack Obama, while Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were often considered to be Machiavellian. No surprise therefore that Donald Trump is receiving the same treatment - be it probably more prevalent because he is currently more visible and more intensely controversial. However, none of this should imply that the characterizations being bantered about this time are somehow less simplistic or more appropriate.
Political antagonists from all sides of the political spectrum have made ignorant use of the term "Fascist" to describe their opposition to mean something or someone cruel, unscrupulous or arrogant. Political affiliation doesn't protect against this kind of assault. Back in 20017, Keith Oberman, political commentator for MSNBC, chastised then President George W. Bush for commuting Lewis Libby's prion sentence by exclaiming: "If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describe that toxic blend. You're a Fascist!" Ten years later, Seth Connell, writing for "The Federalist Papers," penned a piece headlined: "The Democratic Party Has Officially Gone Full Fascist." Any political leader in between has at some point become the focus of similar treatment. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright points out in her new book: "Fascism, a warning," "at this point, anybody who disagrees with us is a Fascist."
Many who use the term have often degraded it to the level of a swearword. It is usually not the "ideology" behind the term, such as it is, but the visual impression of Adolf Hitler that gets highlighted. As Secretary Albright explains, "Fascism is not an ideology, it is a process for taking and holding power." She continues: "A Fascist is someone who is willing to use whatever means are necessary - including violence - to achieve his or her goals. A Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist." The adoption of violence to impose fascist authority is key to Fascism. Hitler's objective was cleansing his Aryan race. He was a sociopathic narcissist, delusional egomaniac, unfeeling and cruel. Whatever tendencies Donald Trump is perceived to have, they don't raise to that level. Those equating Trump's supposed fascism with that of Benito Mussolini, in many ways the father of fascism, are wrong as well. Mussolini was obsessed with power, a trait Trump also appears to possess, but he was more cerebral, resorting to extreme manipulation by writing interpretative entries on the definition of fascism for the Italian Encyclopedia, and composing multiple biographies and speeches. Trump does not have the mental capacity to do these without the use of a ghostwriter. "The Art of the Deal" does not qualify.
Those depicting Donald Trump as being Machiavellian generally focus on philosophical content rather than propagandistic imagery. Superficially, being Machiavellian refers to being sneaky, cunning, lacking a moral code, and the idea that the end justifies he means. Early on, before Trump was even inaugurated, David Ignatius, in a Washington Post column, proclaimed that: "Donald Trump is the American Machiavelli." (Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2016.) He explained that: "Rarely in the United States have we seen the embodiment of the traits Machiavelli admired quite like Donald Trump," while referring to Machiavelli's masterpiece "The Prince," a book Trump had listed as one of his favorites. Ignatius goes on to enumerate some of the character traits Machiavelli listed as an advantageous or even necessary part of leadership, including: occasionally lying, bullying, mocking political correctness, decisively exercising power, and the proclivity to rather be feared than loved. The prince's task was to create a "strong state," not necessarily a "good one."
Several months later, Ignatius reversed himself, and wrote: "Trump is not so Machiavellian after all." (Washington Post, March 23, 2017). He stated that Trump embodied some of the moral qualities Machiavelli had recommended in his book: "He is ruthless, he lies, deceives and manipulates where necessary." However, he did not believe that our president, among other qualities, really embodies the spirit of "virtue," something Machiavelli regarded as essential for political success. Multiple analysts and observers agreed, sometimes even referring to Trump as the "Anti-Machiavelli." (See for instance: Stefano Albertini, "La Voce di New York," Jan. 14, 2018.)
One might wonder whether the attempt to attach superficially defined labels to our political leaders represents an act of convenience, not intended to educate but to agitate, counting on the unquestioning acceptance of a receptive audience. Then again, some critics may use ill-defined, but recognizable labels in lieu of what could be called "Trumpism," something even more difficult to define, since it tends to refer to unpredictability, and is ever changing, without a philosophical or ideological underpinning.
Friday, May 17, 2019
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
DEMOCRATS PONDER THEIR "TREXIT" STRATEGY
The Democratic Party appears to be in turmoil over what strategy to pursue to affect President Trump's exit (Trexit) from the White House. While playing defense, the Republican Party is laser-focused on protecting their leader, who only garners a 39% approval rating, from electoral defeat in the rapidly approaching national election.
Democrats are in a quandary about whether to impeach or not impeach. With the election just 18 months away, how this dilemma is resolved would almost certainly have an effect on its outcome. National polls indicate that only 37% of respondents indicated they favor starting the impeachment process, while 56% oppose that idea. Moreover six in ten independents appear to be against impeachment now, a sign of potential electoral danger for Democrats.
Article II of our Constitution states that a president can be impeached for bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The latter condition is not defined, and its application is purely political. Pro "impeachment now" Democratic members of Congress point out that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's heavily redacted but revealing report identified at least ten instances of potential obstruction of justice, impeachable offenses if proven, providing a blueprint for Congress to decide how to handle them.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters is clear in her conviction, proclaiming: "We're going to have to impeach. I just wish it was sooner rather than later." Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren the first of few major candidates to immediately call for impeachment, saying that "there is no political inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution," and asserted that President Trump's actions would "inflict a great and lasting damage on this country." Other candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, publicly concurred. By contrast, mainstream Democrats warn about the political risks of an unsuccessful impeachment. While Democrats control the House, and could muster the simple majority it takes to adopt articles of impeachment, virtually every political observer concedes that the Republican Senate would never round up the 2/3 supermajority it takes to convict.
Party leaders fear that the impeachment process would work to President Trump's advantage, giving him the sympathy vote, especially while a significant segment of the public is growing tired of the ongoing Mueller probe. Sen. Cory Booker, another Democratic candidate for the presidency, said that "there is a lot more investigation that should go on before Congress comes to any conclusion like that," meaning the need to impeach. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made clear that she feels that a meeting with Robert Mueller should precede any decision. Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated as well that impeachment might distract from other important issues important to voters that "works to Trump's advantage."
Democratic congressional leaders cautiously remind their membership about what happened when Republicans impeached President Bill Clinton two decades ago. The House impeached Clinton in 1999. House Speaker Newt Gingrich intimate that they did "because we can." He predicted that, because of what they were doing, Republicans would gain 25-30 seats in the 2002 election. However, the Republican Senate failed to convict, Clinton became even more popular than his 72 percent approval rating at the start of the process, ostensibly because people saw his impeachment as Republican overreach. The Democrats ended up gaining five seats in the 2002 election, and Gingrich was forced to resign. Speaker Pelosi could direct Donald Trump's impeachment as well, "because she can." But party insiders fear that the fall-out could well mirror what happened in 2002.
Given this historical context, Republicans might actually prefer confronting impeachment proceedings over the drip, drip, drip of ongoing investigations into the multitude of instances Mueller identified as possibly bordering on obstruction of justice. Democrats run the risk of being branded one-trick ponies. Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell argued that Americans expect more from Congress, and suggested they pursue a legislative agenda that includes "lowering prescription drug prices, creating 16 million good-paying jobs through a real infrastructure plan, and to make sure our government is working" instead. With the election around the corner, timing also becomes a factor. President Nixon's impeachment process took 14 months from the start of the Watergate hearings until he resigned. Given that timeframe, impeachment might still be debated when the election takes place. Many Democrats are unlikely to enjoy that prospect.
Even as they strategize to reclaim the White House, Democrats would benefit from showing they are able to walk and chew gum. This involves compartmentalizing their constitutional oversight responsibilities involving ongoing investigations, while simultaneously advancing legislative objectives. Republicans would benefit from signing on to these pursuits as well, and the country at large would be the better for it.
Democrats are in a quandary about whether to impeach or not impeach. With the election just 18 months away, how this dilemma is resolved would almost certainly have an effect on its outcome. National polls indicate that only 37% of respondents indicated they favor starting the impeachment process, while 56% oppose that idea. Moreover six in ten independents appear to be against impeachment now, a sign of potential electoral danger for Democrats.
Article II of our Constitution states that a president can be impeached for bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The latter condition is not defined, and its application is purely political. Pro "impeachment now" Democratic members of Congress point out that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's heavily redacted but revealing report identified at least ten instances of potential obstruction of justice, impeachable offenses if proven, providing a blueprint for Congress to decide how to handle them.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters is clear in her conviction, proclaiming: "We're going to have to impeach. I just wish it was sooner rather than later." Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren the first of few major candidates to immediately call for impeachment, saying that "there is no political inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution," and asserted that President Trump's actions would "inflict a great and lasting damage on this country." Other candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, publicly concurred. By contrast, mainstream Democrats warn about the political risks of an unsuccessful impeachment. While Democrats control the House, and could muster the simple majority it takes to adopt articles of impeachment, virtually every political observer concedes that the Republican Senate would never round up the 2/3 supermajority it takes to convict.
Party leaders fear that the impeachment process would work to President Trump's advantage, giving him the sympathy vote, especially while a significant segment of the public is growing tired of the ongoing Mueller probe. Sen. Cory Booker, another Democratic candidate for the presidency, said that "there is a lot more investigation that should go on before Congress comes to any conclusion like that," meaning the need to impeach. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made clear that she feels that a meeting with Robert Mueller should precede any decision. Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated as well that impeachment might distract from other important issues important to voters that "works to Trump's advantage."
Democratic congressional leaders cautiously remind their membership about what happened when Republicans impeached President Bill Clinton two decades ago. The House impeached Clinton in 1999. House Speaker Newt Gingrich intimate that they did "because we can." He predicted that, because of what they were doing, Republicans would gain 25-30 seats in the 2002 election. However, the Republican Senate failed to convict, Clinton became even more popular than his 72 percent approval rating at the start of the process, ostensibly because people saw his impeachment as Republican overreach. The Democrats ended up gaining five seats in the 2002 election, and Gingrich was forced to resign. Speaker Pelosi could direct Donald Trump's impeachment as well, "because she can." But party insiders fear that the fall-out could well mirror what happened in 2002.
Given this historical context, Republicans might actually prefer confronting impeachment proceedings over the drip, drip, drip of ongoing investigations into the multitude of instances Mueller identified as possibly bordering on obstruction of justice. Democrats run the risk of being branded one-trick ponies. Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell argued that Americans expect more from Congress, and suggested they pursue a legislative agenda that includes "lowering prescription drug prices, creating 16 million good-paying jobs through a real infrastructure plan, and to make sure our government is working" instead. With the election around the corner, timing also becomes a factor. President Nixon's impeachment process took 14 months from the start of the Watergate hearings until he resigned. Given that timeframe, impeachment might still be debated when the election takes place. Many Democrats are unlikely to enjoy that prospect.
Even as they strategize to reclaim the White House, Democrats would benefit from showing they are able to walk and chew gum. This involves compartmentalizing their constitutional oversight responsibilities involving ongoing investigations, while simultaneously advancing legislative objectives. Republicans would benefit from signing on to these pursuits as well, and the country at large would be the better for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)