Democrats seek an identity

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Democrats lost the last elections.  They remain lost.

Who are they?

Right now, they have a split personality – at least in three ways.

The first group, which includes most congressional Democrats, believes the party was doing well before Trump’s comeback.  The Affordable Care Act, infrastructure spending, slowing inflation, low unemployment and attention to marginalized people all seemed to be reasons for satisfaction.

On the economy, the Democrats were vulnerable, not having made their case.  National numbers were good, but at the individual level, a combination of frustration and misunderstanding remained. 

They also ignored broad national concern about a seemingly unchecked flood of immigrants.  They failed to understand that many Americans were deeply worried that their powerful nation could not control its borders or might not even want to limit unauthorized immigration.

The Biden administration’s focus on issues like sexual preferences, aiding the victims of discrimination, and even repaying college loans did not resonate with working people harmed by inflation and discontented with an unresponsive government.  Some voters saw Biden focusing on marginal problems and not on their concerns.

The Democrats unwisely took for granted the support of such people.  Their lack of seriousness about inflation was evidenced by the naïve pronouncements of candidate Kamela Harris. The party demonstrated an overblown sense of pride in its agenda and accomplishments and incorrectly believed that the Democratic platform was popular.

What they saw as their success bred overconfidence.  Proud of their achievements and aware of the first Trump presidency, they were confident they could win.  But first they had to recover from the problems created by Biden’s prolonged attachment to his belief that he was the best suited to defeat Trump.

In the end, they misread the electorate.  Many people had lost faith in government and, as they had since the 2008 election, demanded change.  Good or bad, what the Democrats served up was more of the same, not change. 

The aging cohort that pursued that course still makes up much of the congressional Democratic contingent.  They are led by Sen. Chuck Schumer, who fails to project the image of a renewed party.  Lacking an alternative agenda, they allow Trump, still smarting from his 2020 loss, to keep running against Biden.

The second face of the Democrats are the progressives led by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  They campaign across the country, arguing that the Democrats can only win with policies rejecting the demands of billionaires, which come at the expense of average people.

In short, if the GOP has gained by going right, marooning traditional Republicans, the Democratic Party would gain by going left and either dragging traditional leaders along or dumping them.  Copying Trump, one young party leader wants to run progressives against older, establishment Democrats in congressional primaries.

Their platform may emphasize the issues that led many voters to believe that Biden focused on marginal groups. Their complaints against “oligarchy” may be too abstract.  But they make a strong case against Trump’s unconstitutional and illegal actions.  They encourage sorely needed party activists.

The progressives openly stage a challenge to establishment Democrats, whose incumbency can be used to defeat their more liberal agenda.  Open primaries between the two sides are unlikely to swing the party, and winning progressives could be markedly more liberal than the general electorate.

The third Democratic component are the pragmatists, considered to be moderates.  They want to produce solutions that are more practical than ideological.  They may agree with Republicans when they reach similar solutions and avoid knee-jerk partisanship.  That could have political appeal.

The pragmatists respond to concerns that the party may appears too “politically correct,” labeled by Trump as “woke.”  They understand that some voters worry the Democrats have become more responsive to the desires of the elite than to the needs of blue-collar workers.

As a result, they support policies to bring immigration under control, to update trade rules to redress relationships with other countries, and to simplify regulation to spur economic growth.  These positions may align, at least to some degree, with the GOP.

But they remain strongly opposed to Trump’s methods that override checks and balances by ignoring Congress and the courts.  They back efforts to prevent discrimination and to recognize the values of a diverse society.

They lack a single voice, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks the role.  It remains for him and others to win over establishment Democrats and progressives.

Democratic policy favors more government.  Republican policy demands less government. Is a pragmatic policy of “some of each” viable?

Whatever the solution for the Democrats, if they expect to halt Trump by prevailing in the 2026 congressional elections, they must find common ground and a common voice – and soon.  Otherwise, by leaving their current struggles unresolved, they will become responsible for more Trump rule.

 

Trump's personal presidency

Gordon L. Weil

Trying to figure out Donald Trump may be the prime American indoor sport.  His barrage of new policies has left people trying to figure out their president. 

Some see him as a great deal maker. Others see him as erratic.  Still others may believe he is not completely sane or that he is sliding into senility.

What do we know about him?

His goals are reasonably clear: (1) restoring American manufacturing by making imports more costly, (2) reducing regulation to improve corporate profitability and boost the economy, (3) ending “woke” policies, (4) cutting the size and functions of the federal government and (5) blocking and expelling illegal immigrants.

Each of these goals has its supporters, creating the coalition that backs him, but his unpredictable methods have raised concerns even among those backers.  His methods may do more harm than the good his supporters see in his goals.

Here’s a look at his policies and actions to see who Trump really is.

He focuses on the immediate, the short term.  Raise tariffs, change policies, shut agencies. Do that now.  That can produce surprise and quick results. It may be the way a newly elected president can best take advantage of his election victory.

But this almost impetuous style means that he ignores history’s lessons.  He does not understand why Ukraine won’t simply quit the war Russia started and end the bloodshed.  He has learned that other presidents favored high tariffs, but seems unaware of the disastrous effect of those moves.

By acting quickly, he ignores side effects.  His tariff policy might boost domestic production, but that takes time while tariffs take effect immediately.  Meanwhile, the economy will slow, prices will rise and markets will weaken.  He suggests that life will be painful for a while, ignoring the short-term effects on middle income and elderly people.

Though proud to be considered a great negotiator, he makes concessions to Russia, while gaining little from it in return.  He accepts the demands of the Russian aggressor and tries to pressure Ukraine, the victim, to surrender. 

He uses the economic tools at his disposal to force others to accept his views. Maine has only two trans students in high school sports, but he wants to cut off all federal funding to the state unless it outlaws the policy making that possible.

He is insensitive to intangible values.  He seems not to understand that his policy would strip Ukraine of its sovereignty, to him an abstraction compared to a ceasefire.  Similarly, attacking universities, he shows no understanding of academic freedom.  In both cases, he ignores the values and history of those he would control.

He reveals human traits.  He bullies those he would control.  He retaliates, using his government powers, against those he sees as past opponents, from government officials to law firms.  He persists in falsehoods that support his policies, even after being confronted with hard facts.  He is heedless of the concerns of others, even major allies.

He is president of the greatest power in the world, but he still craves acceptance in the select clubs of the rich and powerful.  He likes to associate with fellow billionaires and with national leaders who can wield dictatorial powers. 

At the same time, he continually and immodestly asserts that what he is doing exceeds the accomplishments of any predecessor and that the results are historic.  He feeds on the praise of others and lavishes it on himself.  He shows no embarrassment when other national leaders and his own agents shower him with compliments.

The result is the most personal presidency in American history.  His desire to add Greenland and Canada and maybe even Panama and Gaza to the U.S. seems to be more about his desire to find a place in history for himself than the demands of political or military reality.

Many of Trump’s personal and political characteristics differ from any previous president. He seems ready to inspire fear as an instrument of his style of government. Thus far, he is unchecked by other branches of government, and he intimidates his critics.

His lack of respect for history, cooperation and compromise, and the concerns of others represents change, which voters said they wanted. But change under Trump may come at a high price for the country and its standing in the world.

Experts may opine about the reasons why Donald Trump is the man and president he is.  His business background, his family, and his lack of relationships with average people have undoubtedly shaped him.

I leave psychological or medical judgments to others.  Donald Trump most reminds me of a kid in fifth grade who is not yet mature enough to understand history or how to relate effectively with others, but is strong enough to bully his classmates. 

Republican lawmakers challenge government chief

 

Gordon L. Weil

Only two elements of the federal government seem capable of halting President Trump’s overreach in using his powers – the courts and at least some Republican members of the House and Senate who could join the Democrats in reclaiming congressional powers.  So far, it’s not the GOP, with one Republican senator admitting she’s afraid of Trump.

But there’s at least one clear case of GOP legislators pushing back against an executive effort not only to fire experienced personnel but to slash or abolish a government agency.  It happened in Oklahoma this month.

Governor Kevin Stitt is a Republican.  At the start of the current session, the House was composed of 80 Republicans and 20 Democrats.  The Senate was composed of 39 Republicans and 8 Democrats.  Stitt should be able to get backing for almost any action.

In mid-March, Oklahoma experienced major wildfires, which state and local firefighters struggled to extinguish.  The Oklahoma Forestry Service, the key state agency, had undergone staff cuts under Stitt and was limited in how far it could extend its resources. But the governor claimed that it had deployed only about half of its personnel on the peak day of the fires.

He promptly fired the head of the OFS, a highly respected person who had worked at the agency for 40 years.  The governor also cut other top managers.  He went even further, questioning the need for the agency and proposing almost fatal cuts to its budget.

In Trump’s Washington, the president could have gotten away with such moves.  But not in Oklahoma City.

The House Speaker and the Senate president pro tem both spoke against Stitt’s actions. They pledged to ensure that OFS funding would be locked in.  Their stance mattered because, even after Stitt implicitly admitted that the entire state force had been deployed, he did not back off. Only after public opinion swung to back the legislative leaders, he said OFS would survive.

Why could Oklahoma Republicans oppose their own governor, while the GOP in Congress acquiesces in Trump’s moves, even at the expense of their own constitutional powers?

With political support that cannot be attributed to Stitt’s endorsement, the Oklahoma members may feel more loyal to their constituencies than to their governor.  Local opinions mattered more than the demands of a governor placing his views ahead of the public interest. In relatively small districts, voters could get to know members, rather acceding to Stitt’s influence.

The split between the two branches of government went a step further.  The governor complained that the legislature had passed some bills sponsored by Democrats.  One-party rule, obviously possible, suited him.  So much for meeting public sentiments in favor of government cooperation.

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert responded to Stitt.  He noted that 20 percent of the House was Democratic, but only six percent of the bills passed had been sponsored by Democrats. 

Apart from the specific issues, the Oklahoma case reveals the survival of institutional checks and balances can take place even when one party completely dominates and that bipartisanship can happen even in a setting far more partisan than Washington.

 

[If you like this blog, please share it with others and recommend they read it regularly.]