Very little to salvage from the GOP

Recently, some prominent and respectable conservatives who dislike Trump have issued statements about voting in November.

George Will wrote in June that the GOP should be voted out of office and reduced to ashes for its complicity in the current state of affairs in America.

David French wrote that he prefers a more measured, thoughtful approach, judging each candidate’s individual merits.

The sad truth is I see very little difference in outcome regardless of which of those two approaches I embrace.

I’m no conservative, and definitely not a Republican. In a better time, I would definitely prefer French’s approach to the election. One of the stated tenets the GOP platform has been that people should be judged as individuals, not as part of a group. (I see monumental hypocrisy in execution, sure. But in an ideal world, that would be, in my own mind, how we should always view others.)

However, I see a couple of flaws with French’s argument.

First, it is fair to judge people, at least partially, on the company they keep. The modern GOP is neither conservative, politically, nor admirable in any way I see. In defense of President Trump, too many Republicans have paraded around embarrassingly false and ridiculous assertions. Those people are the “voice” of the Republican Party.

Second, there are so few Republicans currently in office who have any hope to hold up under such scrutiny, there’s very little difference in my mind between Will’s approach and French’s approach.

I have some sympathy for Republicans who have tried to distance themselves form what the GOP has become. But, in the end, they chose to stick with the party. As French points out, rejecting the party carries substantial risk with it. But that’s the company they kept.

Now, it’s relatively easy for me to hold this viewpoint. I wouldn’t be likely to vote for a Republican anyway. But what if the parties were reversed?

What if the Democrats kept propping up an incompetent, dangerous man in the White House? Would I be willing to vote for a moderate Republican (as moderate as Joe Biden is a moderate Democrat)? Yes. And while it might make me feel queasy that the party I prefer (but by no means worship blindly) had strayed so far afield, I would not support any president, of any party, who behaved as Trump does.

And would I vote for a Republican if they were running against an obsequious Democrat supporting such a president? As long as the Republican wasn’t also an extremist, yes.

Because when a party strays as far afield as the GOP has, it’s no longer the party you support or believe in. 

Whose fault is it anyway?

Fox News certainly is biased when it comes to politics, so it comes as no surprise they are critical of a new book from Clinton communications director. (Disclaimer, I haven’t read the book.)

Whether the book is full of excuses or not, it’s time to acknowledge some crucial facts about what happened:

  • The “fault” for the election loss is both nobody’s and everybody’s. This was, in the end, a close election. Trying to isolate blame to a single person or incident (Clinton herself, the “deplorable” comment, James Comey’s ill-timed announcements of investigations, etc.) is failing to recognize that it was a confluence of factors that resulted in the election outcome.
  • For those of us unhappy with the election result, the best thing to do is to reflect on whatever small role they had in the outcome, and what small influence they can exert to change future outcomes. Whether people feel they were too complacent, too dismissive of Trump’s appeal, too angry over Bernie Sanders’ primary defeat, too shrill, too quiet, etc., it’s time to reflect and focus on what each of us can do to effect change.
  • Recent victories by Democrat’s are, I think, a critical signpost for Democrats moving forward. Those elections weren’t won because everybody hates Trump. They were won because the candidates spoke to the true needs of the people who voted in those elections. Trump won because he promised people things they most wanted.
  • Criticizing Trump isn’t going to convince anybody. What persistent criticism communicates is that there is no better plan in place. There needs to be less criticism and complaining, and more counter-arguments with better solutions.

Reflection, self improvement, and actively pursuing a different future is what’s needed now.

What is a Liberal?

A Liberal should be open to giving multiple viewpoints fair consideration.

When I was in college, in the aftermath of Dukakis being derided for being a “Liberal,” one article offered this sentiment in a set of pro-Liberal points that it declared should have been in Dukakis’ response.

To me, a Liberal is, by necessity, a person of compromise. If you truly consider multiple viewpoints fairly, it is unlikely you will find your original view the only one with merit.

Outdone by Trump

It has been a while since I posted.

Trump is a special case. I have disagreed with many past presidents on policy. I agree with little Trump has done.

But more than that, I just feel embarrassed by his presidency. His abject failure to show any quality that I admire just makes me sad. He makes bad decisions faster than I could possibly comment on them. So I’m no longer going to focus on him as a daily travesty. When warranted, I’ll say something. But I’ll be spending time on other topics more now.

‘Blame Obama’ game

Trump’s is now saying former president Obama is orchestrating the protests against Trump.

There’s no evidence, but we’ve come to expect Trump to make unsubstantiated claims.

Trump’s real purpose is to delegitimize the protests in the minds of his supporters. First he paints Obama as some kind of bogey man and says the protests are all because of him. Then Trump’s supporters can view protesters as some mindless army of Obama-directed drones, and no longer consider whether the protesters have some legitimate complaints that should be considered. (Yes, I see the irony.)

It’s a cheap mind game. But, sadly, it will be very effective.

Corporatist, globalist media

Steve Bannon decried news coverage, saying it was run by “corporatist, globalist media.”

Trump is corporatist.

Trump is far more global than most US media companies.

Yet this statement got cheers from the conservative convention where Bannon was speaking.

People weren’t listening to what Bannon was saying. They were listening to how he said it. And because of that, they cheered a statement that, in my mind, doesn’t make sense.

Shouldn’t they be booing the corporate, global Trump if they really believed this?

Deflection and distraction

Trump’s press conference on Feb. 16 was a skillful sideshow that allowed him to determine the headlines on the next day’s papers and the rest of the day’s TV news coverage.

Sadly, most of the major media fell into the trap.

The real news from that conference is that he said nothing of importance, and tried to blame others for the chaos in his administration, be that Barack Obama or the news media.

What he didn’t say:

  • He takes responsibility
  • He has a solid plan to settling things down

The news media isn’t trusted by a majority of Americans. This is especially true for people who identify as Republicans, and I would speculate media distrust is even higher among Trump’s most loyal supporters.

And when coverage focuses on Trump’s attitude toward the news media, it runs the risk of appearing self important. Maybe it even is. I don’t much care what Trump thinks of the media, but the media clearly does.

By spouting allegations of “fake news” whenever he is criticized,  Trump is able to draw attention where he wants it. The news media need to stop falling for this subterfuge.

UPDATE: Here’s a good analysis of the situation.