Our 45th president: Why I will cringe and bear his antics
Many years ago, in my youth, during one of our frequent family and friend gatherings that often included spirited political “discussions,” I exposited for all in the room to hear a cogent argument on the irrationality of unemployment benefits. In that room was a wonderful friend, Mike, who, at that time, was unemployed. The room went silent, Mike’s face went flush, and the discussion ended abruptly. In a separate private conversation with another family member, I sought to find some justification for my insensitivity by explaining the integrity of my position on the issue, when that family member responded, “I agree with you; I just wouldn’t have said it to Mike!” I cringed.
For many a conservative in today’s highly charged political environment, there is widespread optimism with what we have seen transpire over these first weeks of the Trump administration. Truth be told, it’s moving faster than anticipated. But, truth be admitted, some of us are having difficulty with our new president’s rhetorical responses to his critics. Many would like to see President Donald Trump’s Twitter account retired. Three steps forward then, BAM! One tweet backward. But, Twitter is only the vehicle; it’s the New York City, in-your-face, counter-punch response, and the unmeasured exaggerations right out of the movie, “Glengarry Glen Ross.”
This is not just un-presidential, it’s downright WWF! I cringe. Howcan this be defended?
Yet, I am beginning to ask myself, does it need to be defended? Likeminded friends will remind methat I never would have approved of such boorish behavior in my children when they were growing up, a claim to which my children would attest. However, the standards upon which that teaching was based assumes a shared conviction by all. Respect for one institution is predicated upon
respect for all of our institutions. Are we still required to comply with standards of behavior that others need not respect? If the ends justify the means for the other side, why should we handcuff ourselves with self-imposed and self-righteous constraints from another time? I would love to believe that a yellowing, 227-year old parchment can still be used to bring order to this democracy, but it is hard to put much trust in any standard when the Constitution is used by politically-motivated judges as toilet paper.
If that statement offends you, it should! Not because it was said but because that is what is happening. Accountability goes both ways. Any standards of behavior that apply to the president must apply to: the judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump’s predecessors, the press and Trump’s detractors. If the president was dictatorial to criticize Judge James Robart, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington state, with his tweets, why then was Presi- dent Barack Obama not called dangerous when he famously tongue-lashed the justices of the Supreme Court during the State of the Union in 2010? If President Trump is a fascist for calling the press dishonest, why was President Obama not the same for telling an audience that if he watched Fox News he would not have voted for himself either? Who is boycotting Senate committee votes in an effort to obstruct Cabinet nominations? Those on the other side weep, obstruct, riot, rant, demean and pepper-spray young women wearing red gimme caps, and this is Trump’s fault? Organized black-hooded anarchists can descend upon Berkeley and burn it, and we need safe zones from Trump supporters?
The Trump Kool-Aid is an acquired taste. Bartender, serve me up another one, please. Trump’s success with defeating the establishment during the long primary season and the painful general election despite his boorish, bullying style remains befuddling but irrefutable. Why would he change the playbook as he begins the even more difficult task of governing?
Every president comes to Washington believing he can steer this ship of state, only to find that the establishment has already created the agenda and is prepared to use whatever means necessary in order to protect their interests. What Trump’s predecessors have learned is that dialogue is fruitless, and diplomacy is considered weakness. What Trump is learning is that his success requires neither.
I apologized to my friend, Mike, the morning after my insensitive remarks. I have never forgotten that life lesson, although I have made several hundred mistakes like it since. But, what is the lesson? The American people, as my friend did with me, have reacted with decorum and grace to their government’s insensitivity in not meeting their needs. I would not have blamed my friend if he had punched back, and I cannot blame the American people for electing a president who will punch back on their behalf. I will cringe and bear it.