During the State of the Union Address, Trump flipped from high-minded, “traditionally Presidential” rhetoric—otherwise known as “Teleprompter Trump”—to his standard rally spiel, and back again. He delivered some eyebrow-raising lines about “vengeance” (as applies to, presumably, Democrats investigating him for misconduct), implied that he’ll take his toys and go home if the Democrats don’t leave him alone, all the things that should be really worrying, but have become kind of standard over the last few years.
But he also extended an olive branch. Admittedly, he did so rather ham-fistedly, but then, that’s kind of par for the course, at this point. Along with laying out a vision for wiping out HIV by 2030 and combating child cancer, Trump also threw in a proposal for something the Democrats have wanted for a while now—a national, paid family leave program. Now, his proposal has been criticized for essentially requiring parents who want to use it (it would be opt-in) to delay receiving benefits from Social Security, but let’s leave that aside for the moment. At its core, this is Trump saying, “hey, I want a wall, you want some stuff, let’s make a deal.”
This is his big chance to prove what he’s always claimed—that he’s a deal-maker, that he’s great at getting things done. So, let’s try a thought experiment. If Trump is willing to trade, and if he’s desperate enough, he could conceivably throw a lot of different things into the pot to try and get the Democrats to come to terms. This is actually where Trump has an advantage over previous Presidents—on a lot of issues, Trump simply doesn’t care about the ideological or policy positions involved. He cares about himself, first and foremost, and he’s been willing to buck the party line before. So, if Trump keeps trying to sweeten the pot, he’s got a lot of options to choose from. You want universal background checks for gun sales? Sure, why not. You want paid family leave? Already on the table. You want, say, a single-payer healthcare system? Throw that into the pot, as well.
This isn’t getting into any of the policy specifics of those issues, or whether it’s feasible that Trump would offer them, or whether they could ever get past Congress. To me, the interesting question here isn’t actually about Trump at all: It’s about the Democrats. And that is: Is there a point where, once enough has been added to the pot, that the Democrats would look at it and say, “Okay, fine, we’ll fund your useless vanity project. We’ll spend $20 billion building a massive wall in the middle of the desert, and in exchange, nobody ever has to die because they can’t afford health insurance. Done.” Swap out the healthcare package for literally any policy, or combination of policies. This isn’t about anyone’s position on Issue A or Issue B, it’s about where you draw the line. Because as expensive as building that wall is going to be, even the cost of building and maintaining it won’t compare with something like a major overhaul of healthcare. There’s a lot of potential for bargaining here, at least as a thought experiment.
So, if you think the wall is a dumb idea, is there a point where you would say, “Okay, we’ll pay for your wall, here’s the thing we want in exchange?” And if there is, what is that point? You’re Nancy Pelosi and/or Chuck Schumer. What do you demand in exchange for the wall?
Or, if you think that the southern border wall is a vital national security requirement, what are you willing to offer in exchange? You’re Donald Trump. What are you going to offer to the Democrats to get them on board?
Please put your answers in the comments. Let’s get a conversation going, here.
Politics
The Link Between Pelosi’s Canceled Afghanistan Trip and Venezuela
While the end of the government shutdown, and the impact of Trump’s fight with and loss to Nancy Pelosi, have been and will continue to be analyzed to death, and the situation in Venezuela has rapidly become the next big, shiny story for the media to chase. That’s not to say that either event is unimportant; both of them have a massive impact on millions of people. But you can get analysis of either of those things everywhere you look, and there’s an interesting thread connecting the two that I haven’t seen much coverage of at all, so that will be the topic today. Given that the State of the Union Address is tonight, it is likely that these events will soon fade from memory, so I think one last good look at them is warranted.
The two events are the cancelation of Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Afghanistan, and the ongoing political turmoil in Venezuela—and more specifically, Trump’s order that American diplomatic staff remain in the country, despite the Venezuelans insisting that the diplomats leave after Trump called President Maduro’s election illegitimate. Both events reveal a disquieting lack of concern for the lives of American government personnel.
Trump’s response to Pelosi refusing to allow him to make a State of the Union address during the shutdown was a telling move. Pelosi was set to take a trip to visit the troops in Afghanistan. This is not a photo op; the congressional delegation, or CODEL, had a planned stop in Brussels, to meet with our military allies and US and NATO commanders. Canceling the trip is thus detrimental to American interests, and Trump either did not take this into account, or did not care. Sadly, this is going to be a common occurrence.
In revoking the standard use of a military aircraft when taking a high-ranking member of the government to a war zone (Afghanistan), Trump exposed what is supposed to be a tightly-kept secret to the world. They keep trips like the one in Afghanistan secret because congressional representatives, especially the Speaker of the House, are a prime target for hostile forces.
She’s second in line of succession to the Presidency, right behind Mike Pence. Killing her would be an utterly massive morale boost to any terrorist or rogue state aligned against us.
For terrorists, that translates into prime propaganda, and a massive subsequent influx of cash, weapons, recruits, and other essential resources.
And he did this in a fit of pique. And that’s leaving aside the allegation that the Administration then leaked the commercial flight itinerary. Which is essentially painting a massive, neon bulls-eye on that plane and everyone in it.
At best, this is the President of the United States denying essential protection to a high-ranking member of the U.S. government, an extremely high-value target, in a war zone, and he doesn’t care who might pay the price for that–it didn’t even register to him. That’s the interpretation of these events that paints Trump in the best possible light.
At worst, it was purposely signaling to hostile forces that Pelosi wasn’t protected, and was in fact very open to attack, because he was upset that she wouldn’t let him use the State of the Union speech to grandstand while he refused to allow the government to operate at full capacity.
That same pattern—subjecting government employees to danger and using their lives as bait for petty personal reasons—shows up again in Venezuela. Whatever the President’s reasons for declaring that his Administration doesn’t recognize Maduro as the legitimate President of Venezuela, his refusal to remove our diplomats afterwards was a calculated move that put American personnel at risk. If Maduro’s government were to take the bait—to attempt to remove the Embassy personnel by force—it could have spiraled into violence, and thus, a cause for war. This is precisely the reason that the Venezuelans eventually backed down, but it’s incredibly disturbing for the President of the United States to be engaging in such needless games of brinkmanship.
And that, of course, is once again giving Trump the benefit of the doubt—because as reprehensible as it is to use American lives as pawns so that Trump can take a victory lap, it would be far, far worse if this were in fact an attempt to spark an actual conflict—one which could potentially see the loss of tens of thousands of lives, in an entirely unnecessary war of Trump’s own making.
So when the President gets up to speak tonight, remember that whatever he might say while the cameras are rolling, he does not have the country’s best interest at heart. He never has—and his own actions show that all too well.
Welcome
Welcome to my little corner of the Internet. It’s a little sparse now, but I’ll be adding more as time goes on and I figure out WordPress and its quirks and idiosyncrasies. It’s my hope that I’ll be able to use it to express my views, and to spur debate and civil discussion. I’ve become incredibly frustrated about the increasingly polarizing political atmosphere, and the fact that people seem to be talking at one another, rather than to one another. There doesn’t seem to be enough places where discussion can be counted on to remain civil, and so I’ve decided to make one myself. While it’s a blog about politics first and foremost, I’ll also be using this site as an easy, one-stop place for all of my interests, including fandoms, which I’ll add to the main menu over time.
While I’m fine with, and even encourage, lively discussions in the comments, I reserve the right to delete comments and block commenters if it becomes necessary. There are certain things I will not tolerate—threats, harassment, endorsements of certain extremist groups, and spam come to mind. Similarly, I don’t have much tolerance for trolling.
This is not, despite what you may think, a violation of anyone’s right to free speech, which only applies to the freedom from government retaliation for, or suppression of, freedom of expression. You have no right to stand on someone’s lawn and scream obscenities at them. I’ve noticed that in addition to our legal, constitutional right to freedom of speech, there is a cultural expectation of freedom of speech, which for some people seems to mean the right to say whatever they wish without fear of social consequences. That is not the case, and it is certainly not the case here.
So I will delete comments and block individuals if and when it becomes necessary. I hope that this will come up rarely, if at all. If you can be considerate and decent towards one another, then you’re welcome here. Please understand that while I am encouraging civility amongst all of us in our discussions, this is also a forum in which I will be expressing provocative opinions. I look forward to the discussions we’ll have together.
Jonrich.com 