Now they are Deplorable

As a Democrat, I have to say I’m getting a little tired of the constant criticism that Republican leaders are being subjected to, for simply being Republican leaders. This goes for everyone from Trump to Cruz and McConnell, Rubio and Hawley, Ron Johnson, the ever-ridiculous Louie Gohmert, and a whole lot more.

True, they are all hypocrites, clueless and idealess, which is a whole lot more problematic than being an idealist. They stand for nothing other than self-preservation in a dog-eat-dog world of politics, which is why it has become easier than it’s ever been to make fun of them or box them into a corner by throwing their own words back at them.

Nevertheless, ridiculing Republican leaders has become all too easy, because they are simply doing the only thing they feel they must do to hang on to their jobs—appeal to Republican voters by being loyal Republicans. They are wrong of course. They could be leaders, but leadership is not what Republican voters look for in their leaders. Trump won in 2016 because he said what Republican voters wanted to hear, not what they needed to hear.

For this reason, while media fatigue has allowed me to let Republican leaders off the hook, and because they deserve our pity more than our scorn, I am disgusted with Republican voters. Not just because more  of them seem to be white supremacist, racists, bigots, religious fanatics, law-and-order enthusiast who don’t respect the law, Constitutionalist who don’t respect the Constitution, and in many cases, may not have ever read the Constitution, or just plain folks who simply don’t care about anyone other than themselves.

I’m disgusted with them because they just don’t seem to be that smart.

I’ve listened to QAnon conspiracist rationalize why they supported and continue to support Trump and it’s mind-boggling—not only for what they think they know, but what they honestly don’t know, and make no mistake, QAnon conspiracist vote Republican.

So do a lot of other crazies—Proud Boys, boogaloo boys, that old standby KKK, those people who think masks aren’t necessary, or the ones who think guns are not only necessary but vital to our survival.

Too many of these not-so-smart Republicans think a debate on healthcare or wages or the economy or politics can be won by throwing out the words Socialism, traitor, un-American, fake news, Soros and lately Hunter.

They are so ill-informed, and willingly so, that Republicans were able to run in the last election on a platform completely devoid of ideas or policies, other than, we’ll do whatever Donald Trump wants us to do. This was the Republican platform and 74 million Republican voters said, “Sounds good to me.”

When Hillary Clinton declared Trump supporters were deplorable, and was rightfully called on it, she immediately apologized and admitted that not all of the 60 million people who voted for Trump in 2016 were deplorable, only many of them. Of course, she was talking about the white supremacists, bigots, racists, fanatics, conspiracist and extremists, but not every Republican voter fell into these categories.

Some were just lifelong Republicans, probably born and raised in Republican households, just as many Democrats are lifelong Democrats born and raised in Democratic households.

Close elections are generally not won or lost by these voters, but rather by those in the middle who tend to lean one way or the other depending on the year, the issues, or the candidates.

For any number of reasons, 60 million voters chose Trump in 2016, and while they were not a majority, they were strategically well placed to secure an Electoral College win for who turned out to be, the worst president ever.

Twenty-twenty was a different ballgame entirely. Democrats picked up 17 million votes, which wasn’t surprising considering Trump had spent four years bashing Democrats as Socialists and un-American traitors.

What was surprising, was Trump picking up 14 million more votes after a presidency that should have only pleased James Buchanan, a presidency that included a public love-fest with a Korean dictator and murderer, a tax law that benefitted millionaires and billionaires and very few middle class Republicans, two impeachments and the groundwork for numerous lawsuits once he left office. There was also a wall that Mexico never paid for because it was never built, an immigration policy that separated hundreds of children from their families, and a response to a world-wide pandemic that was disastrous for the nation and fatal to 500,000 and counting Americans.  

The events of January 6, 2021, as well as Trump’s behavior in the two months after the election, only solidified for me that Trump is not qualified to be president, and yet, he appears to have lost little support among his base. Seventy-four million Americans voted for Trump in 2020, after a presidency that gave him a leg up in the race for worst president ever. I shudder to think what those voters saw in Trump’s presidency that made them want to go down that road again.

The devotion of Republican politicians to Trump was evidenced recently by their behavior at CPAC, where they publicly proclaimed what we all knew they were doing privately—pledge their allegiance before a cartoonish golden Trump mannequin. I don’t expect them to behave any differently than they do. I’d like to think they answer to the Constitution, but I’m not naïve. They only answer to voters, Trump voters.

Again, maybe not all of those voters are deplorable. It’s possible that some might just be foolish, but the fourteen million new Trump voters, if they had been paying attention—and how could they not have been paying attention—surely they are deplorable.

No one in their right mind could have witnessed the last four years, listened to Trump speak, read about his missteps—no not missteps, but rather crimes since even Republicans attest to his guilt—and not realize that he is a dictatorial demigod, and totally unfit to be president.

As sensible, thinking Republican voters continue to jump ship, making the party less sustainable than a Trump casino, Republican leaders are not the problem so much as Trump voters, the deplorable ones are, and they are not just a problem for the Republican Party, but for the nation.

 

 

Trump and McConnell—two ‘fraidy-cats

Trump got a doctor, one of his dad’s tenants, to say he suffered from bone spurs to keep him out of the military during the Vietnam War.

This doesn’t make him a coward because a lot of people didn’t want to fight in Vietnam for a lot of different reasons. And the fact that he used his father’s wealth and privilege only makes him a scoundrel.

What makes him a coward is his inability to stand for anything, his lack of fortitude, his willingness to blame others and make excuses. Cowards are a dime a dozen. What makes Trump’s cowardice regrettable is that he is also president. His weakness and cowardice puts the nation at risk.

Weak presidents are nothing new. In the past, strong Congresses have made up for weak presidents. Unfortunately, Congress is also weak because it is hamstrung by a weak Senate being led by a man every bit as weak as Trump, and every bit a coward.

Nothing brings McConnell and Trump’s shared cowardice to light more than their failure to address the gun issue.

The vast majority of the country wants something done, but Trump is waiting for McConnell to make a move while McConnell waits to hear from Trump what that move should be. Of course, all Republicans are afraid of the NRA.

McConnell stonewalled a Supreme Court nomination because he controlled a Republican Senate also composed of cowards. He refuses to put issues on the floor for a vote because he can’t risk the vote going the wrong way and incurring the president’s wrath. Republicans in the Senate are okay with this because they fear losing the little status they have. They aren’t strong enough to be bullies themselves, so must concede to the two bullies in leadership roles.

The meanest party in history are a bunch of cowards being led by two cowards.

Any middle school student will tell you that being a coward goes hand-in-hand with being a bully.

Bullies aren’t cowards in the same sense that fair-skinned men are often blue-eyed. Their shared qualities aren’t coincidences. One actually derives from the other. A bullies is a coward first and after somehow arriving at a point where he has some authority, either physical size or position, and be it real or imagined, the coward becomes a bully.

Being a bully is a defense mechanism for those weighted down by fear. Because they fear a fair fight, and usually cannot win one, bullies use other means to tip the scales in their favor.

We have seen Trump throw his weight around against those he perceives as weaker than him to cover for his cowardice. Gold-star mothers, immigrants, Congresswomen, allies, movie stars, journalist, athletes, and everyone else who he perceives as having crossed him have all been attacked by the little man with the big mouth. His weapon is always words because talk is cheap, even more so for a man who only lies, and he doesn’t venture far from where those lies are accepted as truths. He admires dictators, the real strong men he wishes he were. His fear of them prevent him from ever crossing them.

The two most powerful men in Washington, in terms of the positions they hold, happen to be the biggest bullies and cowards, and they have surrounded themselves with cowards who fear them.

Being fearless is the only defense against a bully, even as bullying a heroic man is the only way a bully will fight. Because they are not fighting on common ground, the fight is often drawn-out and ugly. The winner is rarely determined through surrender, but rather by observers who must themselves choose between cowardice and fortitude, right and wrong, good and evil.

Trump and McConnell will never see the light and become honorable men because they are blinded by their own egos. Bullies must be knocked down—and remembered by history for what they were, not what they pretended to be.

Can we at least agree on what compromise is?

Why can’t they just reach a compromise?

Seems like a reasonable enough request. There’s only one problem. Many people don’t appear to understand what a compromise is.

Example: A high school girl has a crush on a classmate and offers her parents a proposal. If you don’t let me stay out till midnight with this boy I like, I won’t eat my dinner or do my homework.

Compromise isn’t, okay, if you eat your dinner and do your homework, you can stay out till midnight.”

The compromise is, we all know you have to eat. We also know you have to do your homework. These are not bargaining chips.

The real question, is how late the girl can stay out. The answer might be, because you really like this boy, and we know him and his family, and he seems polite, and we trust you, we’ll let you stay out an hour longer than usual.

Or, it could be something else. The thing with compromises is you never know what they’ll be; and you shouldn’t. If you do, they aren’t compromises.

Compromises aren’t accepting something bad to get something good. That’s hostage negotiating.

Take the immigration problem.

Most people, including members of Congress are on the side of dreamers in the DACA debate. At least they say they are.

Everyone agrees that we need more judges and agents handling immigration cases.

Everyone agrees that separating families and putting kids in cages make us look barbaric.

Everyone agrees government workers have nothing to do with border crossings.

These are not bargaining chips. Nor should they be. These issues can be dealt with easily and quickly. Then we can move unto solving the real problems, whose solutions not everyone agrees on.

Like an immigration problem that entails more than our southern border, or a very real drug dependency problem in this country that is much more complicated than stopping drugs from coming across the Rio Grande.

Almost everyone agrees that these problems are more complicated than the way the president presents them. Most people realize we don’t live in his gold-plated, black-and-white world.

Compromise is working on those areas where two sides don’t agree, but are willing to listen.

Yes, it involves giving in to some extent, but the giving in is in the area of contention. Most importantly, the discussions must revolve around indisputable facts.

On July 24, 2016, I wrote a piece, “The colors of compromise” that appeared in the Forum. It offered the idea that mixing colors is not something magical or mysterious, but rather something based on hard, cold physics. A tremendous range of colors (look at any Glidden paint display) can be derived from mixing just a few basic colors (red, yellow and blue). But, you can’t just throw them together.

It is a slow, deliberate process.

Compromise in Congress or between nations is rarely accomplished at the highest levels. Two sides can’t come to the table with demands and expect success. What they can expect are stand-offs like the one we currently have.

The way around this roadblock is for Congress to pass the laws it knows it can pass and get those issues off the table.

Then, people who aren’t the president or the Speaker of the House or the Majority Leader of the Senate can start talking. They can debate real facts, not hyperbole, and look for real solutions, not game winners. The compromise will be a position that makes the most of the best of both sides and uses the least of the worse of both sides.

I lean more in favor of Speaker Pelosi than Leader McConnell, but I understand that as veterans of Congress, both have a better idea of how compromises are arrived at. They both know they are dealing with a president who has gotten his own way his whole life.

These two leaders must first stand up for Congress and explain to the president how government works. Then they must assign their members to begin work in an orderly manner, paying attention to detail.

Sadly, this is what Congress did during the Bush administration and made considerable progress until outside forces scuttled the process. I believe smart high school students given the facts could do this again, if they truly wanted to.

These students would understand that compromise is more than just, I’ll give you this if you give me that. It depends on what this and that are, and do they relate to the problem at hand.

Profiles in Non-courage

Mitch McConnell was elected to the United States Senate in 1984, the year Ronald Reagan won the presidency by almost 20-million votes and an electoral vote margin of 525 to 13. Mitch’s campaign slogan against Democrat Walter Dee Huddleston was “Switch to Mitch.” That should have told the nation something about the man that Kentucky would send to Congress for the next 34 years—a man who would win future elections with the catchy “Repeal and Replace.” No one likes meaningless but catchy slogans more than Republicans.

The fact that this slogan only garnered him a plurality of 5200 votes out of more than 1,8-million cast (0.04%) tells us something else about the man who would one day become Senate Majority Leader.

Mitch has been a voice in Congress through the Iran/Contra Affair, two Iraq Wars, the 9/11 attack by terrorists on the Twin Towers, the S & L debacle of 1988, and the Great Recession of 2008—all of them events occurring under Republican presidents, as well as the tax cuts of Reagan, Bush, and Trump. Don’t let anyone fool you, tax cuts help the rich more than anyone else.

He was there for the Republican’s 6-year investigations of the Clinton’s during Bill Clinton’s presidency, and the fruitless and seemingly endless investigation of Hillary Clinton for the Benghazi attack.

He was there when Obama’s administration opened the door for 15-million Americans to receive previously unavailable healthcare insurance and has spent the last decade trying to take that insurance away.

This man has been in Washington for all the big events, all the momentous decisions, all the bitter struggles. So what does he call his proudest moment?