So far, the indications have not been encouraging. It is certainly understandable that Democrats' initial responses to the election focused on perhaps building unity and finding potential common ground with a President Trump. Even Elizabeth Warren went there, saying, "We’re going to stand up and say there’s a lot we’ll try to work with you on, there are a lot of places where there are going to have to be compromises,” At least she qualified that remark by continuing, "But on those core issues about treating every single human being in this country with dignity, on that we stand up and we fight back. We do not back down. We do not compromise, not today, not tomorrow, not ever." Some Democrats were less equivocal with that kind of qualification. Part of that was just the mistaken belief, for the umpteenth time in this election, that Trump might "pivot" to the center now that he had to actually govern.
But if Democrats didn't realize Trump would govern as he campaigned (and history shows that virtually every President has) when he appointed white nationalist Steve Bannon as his senior adviser, they should be in no doubt after the appointments of Flynn, Session, and Pompeo. The response of senior Democrats to these appointment was unnecessarily weak. Charles Schumer, asked about Jeff Sessions, stated, "It's premature to make any decisions but, except to say a very thorough and tough vetting for a Senate colleague, as well as for anybody else." It is hard to say how wrong this answer is. The default position for Schumer and the Democrats should be that Sessions is clearly unqualified for Attorney General based on his past racist comments and views, especially considering the parlous state of racial relations that the Trump campaign has further inflamed, and it will be up to Sessions to show us otherwise in his confirmation hearings. And never mention the words "Senate colleague" about a Republican - it just feeds the narrative of the old boys club. Warren came closest to a proper response when she said, "Instead of embracing the bigotry that fueled his campaign rallies, I urge President-elect Trump to reverse his apparent decision to nominate Senator Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. If he refuses, then it will fall to the Senate to exercise fundamental moral leadership for our nation and all of its people...Thirty years ago, a different Republican Senate rejected Senator Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship. In doing so, that Senate affirmed that there can be no compromise with racism; no negotiation with hate. Today, a new Republican Senate must decide whether self-interest and political cowardice will prevent them from once again doing what is right." The only thing I might have changed in that statement would be to say that Democrats will not compromise with racism and hate and expect Republicans to join them.
A second area where Democrats are also playing a weak game is in this idea of embracing the progressive ideas that Trump was able to essentially "steal" from the Democrats in this campaign. Schumer, now one of the principal voices for Democrats, showed that poor approach in comments today, saying, "Surprisingly, on certain issues, candidate Trump voiced very progressive and populist opinions. For instance, getting rid of the carried interest loophole, changing our trade laws dramatically, a large infrastructure bill...I hope on the promises he's made to blue collar America on trade, on carried interest, on infrastructure, that he'll stick with them and work with us, even if it means breaking with the Republicans who have always opposed these things." He is not the first Democrat to talk about working with Trump on an infrastructure bill. Pelosi, Warren, and Sanders have all mentioned it. But you have to wonder if any of them have actually read Trump's infrastructure plan, which he only introduced days before the election. It is less of a plan to rebuild than it is just another give-away of tax dollars and the public commons to private enterprise. It is in no way an infrastructure plan as most people define it. At its core is the development of public-private partnerships (PPP). These "partnerships" essentially provide tax credits for private companies to invest in mostly already planned infrastructure projects. With that government backing, the private companies would be able to lower their cost of borrowing, a tax credit of 82% of the equity they put in, and will get paid primarily through higher usage and end-user fees such as bridge and highway tolls or higher water rates, etc. It is basically a plan to privatize our public infrastructure. As Jordan Weissmann points out in the above linked article, this will actually encourage even more investment in high wealth areas where private companies believe customers can afford the higher usage fees. And it would do nothing for poorer areas that need infrastructure development more than ever or for those kinds of infrastructure where there is little or no return, such as infrastructure to improve more isolated and less populated areas. It is just another con-job on Americans just like Trump University. Why any Democrat would be for this is beyond me. So it is beyond me why we would already be agreeing to work with Trump on his infrastructure plan. But Democratic leaders are now already on record as supporting a Trump infrastructure plan. And those words will come back to haunt them.
Democrats could be in similar bad situation with Schumer's comments on the carried interest loophole and trade laws. Trump could easily eliminate the carried interest loophole as part of a horrible tax bill that will be a give away to the 1%. And who knows what kind of rewrite Trump can and will make to existing trade deals. But Democrats are now already on record as perhaps being interested in helping Trump accomplish those unknown objectives and now may be partially responsible for any negative outcomes.
The Democratic message since day one should have more in line with the tone that Harry Reid took in the aftermath of the election. He was right on point when he stated, "If this is going to be a time of healing, we must first put the responsibility for healing where it belongs: at the feet of Donald Trump, a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate. Winning the electoral college does not absolve Trump of the grave sins he committed against millions of Americans." The default position for every Democrat should be that he is a racist, xenophobic, sexual predator and swindler whose limited and sometimes vague policy proposals never added up. He has continually lied to the American people. We will not allow Trump to destroy our civil rights, sell our foreign policy to the Russians, break his promises on Medicare and Social Security or give massive tax breaks to the rich. We expect Trump's proposals will not, in fact, help the middle class but will certainly consider any of his proposals that actually do. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He will have to show us he really means to help the middle class and be a President for all Americans.
A second area where Democrats are also playing a weak game is in this idea of embracing the progressive ideas that Trump was able to essentially "steal" from the Democrats in this campaign. Schumer, now one of the principal voices for Democrats, showed that poor approach in comments today, saying, "Surprisingly, on certain issues, candidate Trump voiced very progressive and populist opinions. For instance, getting rid of the carried interest loophole, changing our trade laws dramatically, a large infrastructure bill...I hope on the promises he's made to blue collar America on trade, on carried interest, on infrastructure, that he'll stick with them and work with us, even if it means breaking with the Republicans who have always opposed these things." He is not the first Democrat to talk about working with Trump on an infrastructure bill. Pelosi, Warren, and Sanders have all mentioned it. But you have to wonder if any of them have actually read Trump's infrastructure plan, which he only introduced days before the election. It is less of a plan to rebuild than it is just another give-away of tax dollars and the public commons to private enterprise. It is in no way an infrastructure plan as most people define it. At its core is the development of public-private partnerships (PPP). These "partnerships" essentially provide tax credits for private companies to invest in mostly already planned infrastructure projects. With that government backing, the private companies would be able to lower their cost of borrowing, a tax credit of 82% of the equity they put in, and will get paid primarily through higher usage and end-user fees such as bridge and highway tolls or higher water rates, etc. It is basically a plan to privatize our public infrastructure. As Jordan Weissmann points out in the above linked article, this will actually encourage even more investment in high wealth areas where private companies believe customers can afford the higher usage fees. And it would do nothing for poorer areas that need infrastructure development more than ever or for those kinds of infrastructure where there is little or no return, such as infrastructure to improve more isolated and less populated areas. It is just another con-job on Americans just like Trump University. Why any Democrat would be for this is beyond me. So it is beyond me why we would already be agreeing to work with Trump on his infrastructure plan. But Democratic leaders are now already on record as supporting a Trump infrastructure plan. And those words will come back to haunt them.
Democrats could be in similar bad situation with Schumer's comments on the carried interest loophole and trade laws. Trump could easily eliminate the carried interest loophole as part of a horrible tax bill that will be a give away to the 1%. And who knows what kind of rewrite Trump can and will make to existing trade deals. But Democrats are now already on record as perhaps being interested in helping Trump accomplish those unknown objectives and now may be partially responsible for any negative outcomes.
The Democratic message since day one should have more in line with the tone that Harry Reid took in the aftermath of the election. He was right on point when he stated, "If this is going to be a time of healing, we must first put the responsibility for healing where it belongs: at the feet of Donald Trump, a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate. Winning the electoral college does not absolve Trump of the grave sins he committed against millions of Americans." The default position for every Democrat should be that he is a racist, xenophobic, sexual predator and swindler whose limited and sometimes vague policy proposals never added up. He has continually lied to the American people. We will not allow Trump to destroy our civil rights, sell our foreign policy to the Russians, break his promises on Medicare and Social Security or give massive tax breaks to the rich. We expect Trump's proposals will not, in fact, help the middle class but will certainly consider any of his proposals that actually do. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He will have to show us he really means to help the middle class and be a President for all Americans.
I certainly have no love for Frank Luntz but he has taught Republicans how to frame an issue and build a narrative. Phrases like the "death tax" and even "climate change" may be Orwellian but they have been effective. And Republicans have marched in lockstep to his message for years. Democrats have never paid enough attention to framing and they constantly neglect to speak with one voice. Sure, we can always expect a guy like Joe Manchin to go off the reservation. But Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, and most of the remaining members of the Democratic caucus need to get and stay on the same message. The default position must be that it is up to Trump to prove he has serious, positive proposals because his campaign and his business life has shown otherwise, that he is a liar and a swindler. And, on every issue, they must stick to that position. That will take discipline that has long been lacking from the Democratic party.
No comments:
Post a Comment