The 2020 USA POTUS election politics, the civil war, and the world war (Part 1)

The below piece, by Peggy Noonan, appeared today in the Wall Street Journal. For anyone unaware, be advised Ms. Noonan, a Manhattanite, detests Trump. She is the quintessential “never Trumper”, and she has criticized Trump relentlessly in her writings.

Democrats, when they’re feeling alarmed or mischievous, will often say that Ronald Reagan would not recognize the current Republican Party. I usually respond that John F. Kennedy would not recognize the current Democratic Party, and would never succeed in it.

Both men represented different political eras but it’s forgotten that they were contemporaries, of the same generation, Reagan born in 1911 and JFK in 1917. They grew up in the same America in different circumstances, one rich, one poor, but with a shared national culture. By the 1950s, when JFK was established in the political system and Reagan readying to enter it, bodacious America had settled into its own dignity. It had a role in the world and needed to act the part. Both men valued certain public behaviors and the maintenance of a public face. It involved composure, coolness, a certain elegance and self-mastery. They felt they had to show competence and professionalism. They knew they were passing through history at an elevated level, and part of their job was to hold high its ways and traditions.

Their way is gone, maybe forever. Democrats blame this on Donald Trump, and in the area of historical consciousness he is, truly, a hopeless cause. But this week Democrats joined him in the pit.

Do they understand what a disaster this was for them? If Mr. Trump wins re-election, if in fact it isn’t close, it will be traceable to this first week in February.

Iowa made them look the one way a great party cannot afford to look: unserious. The lack of professionalism, the incompetence is the kind of thing that not only shocks a party but shadows it. They can’t run a tiny caucus in a tiny state but they want us to believe they can reinvent American health care? Monday night when the returns were supposed to be coming in, it was like the debut of ObamaCare when the website went down.

Iowa, which for almost half a century has had a special mystique, has lost it. It will never be first-in-the-nation again. The candidates, who worked so hard for so long, were denied their victory moment. Did the movers, operatives and networkers who were behind the app and the technology have any consciousness of what they were changing, of the history they were changing, if they failed? The professionals were detached from their own voters, and not invested enough to give them a functioning primary.

You know what Iowa really tells us? Anything can happen now—anything. Because rigor in politics is waning, the old disciplines are not holding, old responsibilities are being thrown off. It was a failure of competence by people who were just passing through and burnishing their personal brands.

What a disaster.

And what happened a day later in the House was just as bad.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi shattered tradition, making faces, muttering, shaking her head as the president delivered his State of the Union address. At the end she famously stood, tore the speech up and threw down the pieces.

“But he didn’t shake her hand.” So what? Her great calling card is she’s the sane one.

She introduced him rudely, without the usual encomiums. Oh, snap.

The classy lady was not classy. She forgot she has a higher responsibility than to her base, but—yes, how corny—to her country, the institution, the young who are watching and just getting a sense of how to behave in the world.

If she was compelled to show symbolic fealty to the “resistance” she should have taken it outside the chamber. That place is where Daniel Webster debated; she occupies the chair of Henry Clay and “Mr. Sam.”

And she set a template: Now in the future all House Speakers who face presidents from the opposing party at the State of the Union will have to be rude fools.

Remember those videos that used to be all over the internet, with members of the Korean congress punching each other in the face on the floor of the legislature? Man, we used to laugh. Now in the future that can be us.

This is how a great lady becomes just another hack.

Some progressive members refused to attend, or walked out during the speech—one said, without irony, that she was “triggered.” Those who came slouched angrily in their seats, looking down, refusing to rise for all the heroes in the balcony. Why do they think that is a good look?

Those who didn’t come were unprofessional, but it was also a practical failure. They abandoned the field and let the Congress of the United States look like one big, cheering, unified bastion of boisterous Republicans, with a few grim women dressed in white in the corner. That’s what you want America to see?

The speech itself was shrewd and its political targeting astute. There were the usual boasts: “The unemployment rate is the lowest in half a century”— but they had force in the aggregate. The policy that was emphasized (opportunity zones, expanded vocational education, neonatal research combined with a call to ban late-term abortions, expanded child credits) combined with the heroes in the balcony (a Border Patrol agent, a kid trying to get into a charter school, the brother of a victim of crime) was powerful and rich in inference.

More than ever, more showily, this was an aligning of the GOP, in persons and symbols, with “outsiders”—with those without officially sanctioned cultural cachet, with the minority, the regular, the working class. It was plain people versus fancy people—that is, versus snooty liberals and progressives who talk a good game about the little guy but don’t seem to like him much; who in their anger and sarcasm, in their constant censoriousness and characterological lack of courtesy, have managed to both punch above their political weight and make a poor impression on the national mind.

This was the president putting the Republican Party on the side of the nobodies of all colors as opposed to the somebodies. (Van Jones on CNN had it exactly right: Trump is going for black and Hispanic men, and the Democrats are foolish not to see it.) This is a realignment I have supported and a repositioning I have called for and I’d be lying if I said it didn’t please me to see it represented so effectively, and I very much regret that the president is a bad man and half mad because if he weren’t I’d be cheering.

Yes it was bread and circuses, and yes it was like a reality TV show. There should be a word for “I know I’m being manipulated but I am moved anyway.” We need that word because it is the essence of our entire media/entertainment/political culture. But if you weren’t moved by the mother of the baby born prematurely and the 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman there’s something wrong with you, and in your attempts to maintain a fair minded detachment you’ve become distanced from your fellow humans.

Republicans in the Reagan era used to say, and think, that we were the Main Street party, not the Wall Street one. In the three decades since, small-town America has fallen apart and Main Street disappeared into broken up, lonely, ex-urban places. Mr. Trump is saying he’s for the people who live there, in Main Street’s diaspora.

Whatever happens with him, that is the party’s future. Whatever happens with the Democrats they cannot afford another week like this.

Confirmation bias is something to watch out for.

You’re right about Ms. Noonan being a never-Trumper. I’ve enjoyed many of her speeches and columns, and respect her viewpoint for what it is.
While appreciating a lot of her comments in this article, I can’t understand a couple of her comments. I mean, you don’t have lie to be nice.

Does she really think the Iowa caucus was more disastrous for the Democrats than the rushed, delayed, and whined-about impeachment?

When was the last time you heard, or even thought “great lady” in regards to Ms. Pelosi?
How many decades of doing classless things removes the “classy lady” moniker. Is there any evidence that it ever applied?

Agreed. But the “ladies” these days like to stick together and Pelosi is all they have.

“Ladies” above refers not to average American women, but to those who regard themselves as being members of the elite, “we know better than you”, class. Trump is taking down the elites, all of them, brick by brick. He is not one of them, they know it, and they are fighting back against him and his supporters mightily.

And finally, “elites” as just mentioned wear no particular party label. Noonan is one, so is Romney, and neither is a Democrat . . . . at least not nominally.

Hey now, Trump is learning . . . . only three years too late!!

Trump is finally doing what he should have known enough to do three years ago; he is cleaning the Obama acolytes out of his White House. I don’t want to accuse Trump of being stupid; after all I support him. But I do have to observe, reluctantly, he needed to suffer an impeachment before realizing a POTUS cannot surround himself, inside his own White House, with members of the opposing party who hate him.

So at the bottom line guess I do think Trump was stupid. He needed to fire a whole lot of people when he took over. He did not do so. He has paid a high price and so has this country.

Trump behaved three years ago just exactly like a Republican. Republicans, too many of them anyway, do not believe we are in a (so far cold) civil war (see thread title). They could not be more in error. Indeed, this is a key reason I’m no longer a Republican.

ETA

For the record there are some Republicans who “get it”. They constitute a minority of party members. But they are good people, they are patriots, and I have nothing but respect for them.

1 Like

So true! :rage:

Remember when he came in, he had everything Republican. House & Senate…
So now he has to take back the House & keep the Senate. (in November)

Also now, as he is starting to do. Get rid of Obama left over’s in his own White House!!

Respectfully, pattyb53:

He was not in great shape with that Senate and especially not with that House. I mean, straight up Paul Ryan was, and he remains, a Democrat . . . like his running mate Romney.

And Trump back then found people like John McCain, Jeff Flake, and that Obama-loving idiot “Republican” from Tennessee (Corker) in his (supposedly) Republican Senate. Those jackasses are now gone . . . thanks be to Almighty God. But they did not leave soon enough.

Anyway, with people like that in the House and Senate, Trump really had his hands full. It was like “RINO city”!!

ETA

Much credit to the people of Tennessee who replaced RINO Bob Corker with Senator Marsha Blackburn, a true Conservative. Blackburn is a wonderful Senator and she is a patriot. But she did not come on the scene until later.

1 Like

As usual, you are right again, shinobi. :relaxed:

I forgot about all those Rino’s.
Thank goodness for Mitch! He’s got my money…

I don’t think Pelosi at any point believed that the senate would convict, because it required too many senators to vote against their own party’s potus and (only?) nominee. IMO any coverage in the media labeling this as some kind of failure is pretty dumb (the article above is TL;DR so I just skimmed it and figure that was the gist of it). Both parties did exactly what they were expected to do. The point was to get everyone who cares to the polls in November, IMO.

3 Likes

Although I agree, it’s still hard to accept/come to grips with. I appreciate that you, and I hope a lot of other people, see it for what it’s worth.

Which part? I think the politicians did what their constituents expected them to do. Or at least what they thought their constituents expected.

True and well stated. All but his highness, Mitt Romney. Mitt knows better than his constituents. He once ran for President of the United States of America. His constituents are below him.

To be fair, we dont elect representatives to do our bidding. We elect them to make their own informed decision on each matter, regardless of what we want. We elect them because we trust them to be pragmatic and unbiased (essentially, to be better than us), not to simply act as our surrogate or proxy.

2 Likes

The part that any politician party would use impeachment to get voters to the polls. Yes, I know that some of them lie/steal/cheat, and as a party, they will … 'er … stretch the truth when it comes to their opponents. But, impeachment? I think a lot of people considered that to be sacrosanct.

Sadly, not any more.

1 Like

Since the two threads are mostly an echo chamber now, I don’t see any point in arguing who is wrong or right, because nobody here is receptive to it and few like to accept criticism. But I can try to explain how it is possible. You need to only accept that Democratic voters (and Democratic office holders) truly believe in their hearts and minds that Trump is a criminal who must be stopped. The reasons for this are all public – cheated on wife with pornstar and paid her off from campaign funds, the Mueller report, and Ukraine aid, to name the most serious and memorable ones. Ds hated him before he was even elected (because he’s a liar, a narcissist, a dummy not qualified for the job, who surrounds with himself with other liars and conspiracy theorists). They should have acted on the Mueller report, but I guess they just didn’t think it was enough to tie Trump directly and personally to it. Once the “perfect phone call” was out, it was, to them, a clear violation that was very directly tied to Trump. They didn’t have to prove that he made the call or that he withheld aid, those were facts that nobody disputed. Even if they knew that the senate would not convict, the house dems had no choice. I wouldn’t say they “used” impeachment to get voters to the polls, they used it to demonstrate that potus is a criminal and GOP is enabling him, they did all they could and now it’s on the people.

1 Like

The appellation “representatives” is not for nothing. We elect them to represent us and our collective viewpoints. The overwhelming collective viewpoint in Utah, for goodness sake, is pro-Trump. Period

Mitt did a great job of representing, instead, the collective viewpoint in Massachusetts . . . which is his real home state. But as between Massachusetts and Utah, the politics is VERY different.

Accepted. No dispute.

To take it a step further, what we are witnessing is a massive, overwhelming, surrogacy. Trump is the standard bearer for approaches and ways of doing things, across a BROAD spectrum of issues, vehemently disliked and disagreed with by persons with liberal viewpoints. If they can take Trump down it’s a big win for their side. And goodness knows Trump is about as far as you can get from being some sort of choir boy. He has personal failings making his a target rich zone.

There is one other aspect of the current situation:

Trump is unique. His followers have no other leader a quarter as able to bear up under the withering fire Trump has experienced and withstood (how, I do not know). Trump’s followers know this. Liberals know this. If they can just find a way to take Trump out, only Republican squishes will remain in their way. So the effort becomes “by all means necessary”.

So far it’s not been successful. I don’t know how much more of this Trump possibly can withstand. He is one tough dude. But he’s not some sort of political Superman . . . I don’t think.

1 Like

You’re revealing the facts of your own subgroup (which is NOT a majority. It’s a plurality of a plurality of a plurality): Pro-Trump, not Pro-America. Fortunately the oath of office is pretty explicit, even though it may not be taken very seriously by many elected officials. Country before party. And also county before self political interests (re- election).

2 Likes

I misunderstood:

I accept that Democrats truly believe that President Trump is evil, a criminal, etc. However, I think that belief is strongly influenced by the fact that President Trump:

  1. is effective.
  2. fights like they fight, and just like them, doesn’t back down.
  3. has the opportunity to bring a large number of victims out of victimhood, which could make the Democrat Party re-think their current strategy.
  4. is filling judgeships with so called “constitutionalist” judges which will eventually remove a frequently used route of Democrats to slow, stop, or reverse laws that are popular with the public.
  5. speaks in plain terms and brags on himself.
  6. gets his message out despite network news coverage/filtration.
  7. repeats his message as often as Democrats.

I’m sure there are others.

Finally a bright spot for the Democrats. If he is such a dummy, and has done any of the illegal things listed, he will end up in jail. The Democrats have unlimited funds to create/investigate whatever they want, and they may have 5 more years to do it. President Trump may have the singular distinction of being impeached more than once, presuming the current majorities remain the same.

Opinion is running rather strong in New Hampshire. U Mass Lowell conducted a poll of likely NH Democrat voters asking whether they would prefer a Trump victory on November third or a meteor striking earth and wiping out ALL life. The poll outcome was remarkable and you can find it in this Time article:

Time reveals anti-Trump feelings run strong among NH Democrats

Here is a pull quote:

Released on Monday, the survey asked voters their opinion of the President. Ninety-five percent of likely Democratic primary voters indicated they disapproved of the job Trump’s doing. And when asked which of the outcomes they would prefer on Nov. 3, 2020, “Donald Trump wins re-election” or “a giant meteor strikes the earth, extinguishing all human life,” 62% chose the meteor.

It’s important to remember this is New England, a small and wildly unrepresentative region of America . . . . thank goodness.

1 Like