In politics, there are many rules. Rules of procedure, etiquette, campaigning - there are do’s and don’ts that cover even the unspoken rules. Of all the rules that have gone out the window in the Trump Era, the rule to never, ever disparage the voters seems to be the latest on the chopping block.
If you thought America was already divided, just wait until politicians of all stripes regularly malign and disdain those who have absolutely nothing to do with politics, other than their vote. If you think this is a harangue against Democrats, you’d be mistaken, as plenty of Republicans have also violated this Golden Rule of politics.
Romney broke it with his 47 percent comments in 2012.
Hillary Clinton broke it with her “basket of deplorables” speech in 2016.
In just the last week, CNN aired a segment in which two guests jokingly referred to Trump voters as Boomer rubes who can’t spell, speak coherently or read. Uneducated backwater hillbillies.
It still amazes me these people were able to keep the veneer of civility for so long, and in three short years have let the masks completely slip to show everyone what they really think of a somewhat large segment of the American public. And not just a passing dislike, but reflects a venom and nastiness that they revel in.
This has been one of Trump’s greatest gifts to the American public, in addition to the record unemployment, the realization of there no longer being a noblesse oblige in America’s ruling class. It’s a breakdown of our better’s class, the idea of responsibility to do right by those you rule. To put the needs of those less privileged on the same level as those of the higher class, or at least, once again, pretend like there is consideration for them.
I see it more frequently now, and with more regularity. It’s not just a bad politician, or a terrible policy, but those who support Person X (let’s be serious, these day’s it usually Trump) who should be removed from the halls of respectable life.
Beyond the normal tribal party alliances, this disdain for everyday working Americans, who aren’t concerned about impeachment and politicians with hurt feelings or pundits outside of power with axes to grind, only adds to the disconnect and division that many Americans see when looking towards our capitol.
The political class points to President Trump and his insults as the reason for the division, as apparently these smart people think that history began in November 2016. No thought is given to the decisions made over the last 25, 50 or 100 years that brought us to this point in history. The decisions small and large, that brought us here.
We are led by a class that sees no need for reflection or correction. The mistakes of the past, repeating with a modern twist. In and out with a revolving door and cushy jobs in the connected sectors when out of office, there is no failure, just more policy papers and arguments.
Looking at the numbers for outsider candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders, there are clearly a whole lot of people dissatisfied with the establishment and “inter-agency consensus” line of thinking that has pervaded D.C. Maybe it is time for less name calling, and maybe, just maybe a reorienting of our politics more toward domestic issues and less towards international adventurism.
The left’s Trump tantrum’s latest manifest is failing spectacularly in the Senate, with the Democrat case for impeachment well argued against by the president’s lawyers during the presentation phase of the case. I expect more than enough viral moments from the questioning phase of the impeachment trial... from both sides.
Beyond the results, the political nerd in me has been quite happy to watch the Constitutional Law arguments made by Alan Dershowitz and Jay Sekulow, as well as the rest of the president’s team. Monday’s nights presentation by Professor Dershowitz was skilled, based in both precedence and text, and was like sitting in on one of his lectures or seminars on impeachment law. It was a scholarly rebuttal, on both process and substance. I for one will go back to read it again, as a well reasoned approach to impeachment and the originalist reading of the background law in question.
Many of the arguments put forth by the president’s team mirror those made by the president, although in a more scholarly fashion, and have been based in the constitutional arguments of the separation and oversight functions of the branches of government. The natural push and pull between the legislative and executive branches is necessary for the health of our republic. It was expected by the founders, and at its core is the reason for our judicial branch.
Political considerations should always be secondary to constitutional considerations. It is unfortunate that Congressman Schiff didn’t consider that, while there may be more than a few Republicans who would be more than happy to rid themselves of the current president, many more might just be able to see past the Trump years and how this new standard for impeachment could be misused and abused in partisan hands.
The Democrat’s desire to give President Trump an asterisk forever, which was an inevitable conclusion with this batch of leftist Democrats running Congress, superseded the idea that policy differences are not a matter for impeachment, nor for that matter is asking a court whether senior level advisers to the president can be compelled to testify about that counsel to Congress.