The Jewish Passover song "Dayenu"
is a whole list of many great things God has done. The word "dayenu"
means roughly "It would have been enough". It would have
been enough if he had brought us out of Egypt, it would have been
enough if he had slain their first-born, it would have been enough if
he had parted the waters for us. But he did all those things, and all
together he is even more worthy of worship and praise.
I am tempted to use the same format in
describing my objections to Donald Trump.
It would have been enough if he was a
Republican, which in the last several decades implies a strong
conservatism -- notably a sense that a social safety net is a bad
thing, and that the government can't possibly be the solution to any
problem. While he tossed out a few populist ideas on the campaign
trail, in office he has stayed strictly with the Republican agenda.
It would have been enough that he is an
unashamed pussy-grabber. It would have been enough that he fuels
racial hatred. It would have been enough that he attacks all his
opponents viciously. It would have been enough that he lies blatantly
and repeatedly and claims that the mainstream press offers nothing
but fake news. It would have been enough that he started a pointless
trade war. It would have been enough that he let down the Kurds on
some sort of personal whim. I have no doubt forgotten many others. It
is a frightening thought that by law he can at his sole discretion
order a nuclear attack if that is his whim. The only thing that might
prevent this is the refusal of his subordinates to carry out the
order.
But all those things pale in
significance against his assault on the US form of constitutional
government. In the clearest case to date, he believes he can withhold
aid from a US ally until they undertake an investigation and claim
wrongdoing by his domestic political opponent for his own political
gain. He can viciously attack the constitutionally mandated
investigation of his possible wrongdoing by the Congress. It seems
his obstruction is just beginning.
Trump himself would be nothing if a
substantial minority of the country hadn't elected him. He would soon
become nothing if a significant part of that same substantial
minority abandoned him. The combination of malice and ignorance that
motivate ardent Trump supporters in various proportions is
frightening. In the long term, we should be able to work on the
ignorance, though malice is a harder problem. But in the mean time
they are still a minority and one that can be thwarted at the ballot
box.
It's hard to exaggerate how much has
changed in the last few decades. Certainly in 1980, prior to the
Reagan revolution, and for some time after that, a president behaving
as Trump is would have been impeached and removed from office by a
nearly unanimous vote of the Senate. This appears unlikely now
because Republicans refuse to abandon him. To what extent that is due
to their own firm convictions and to what extent it is fear of
getting "primaried" by Trump supporters really doesn't
matter. And that means that these Republican officials too are a
serious threat to our constitutional form of government. It is a
sobering thought that if Trump goes, others will likely rise to take
the same approach to undermining the constitution. They likely will
not repeat Trump's ineptitude and impulsiveness, and so they might be
even more of a threat.
The Republican party itself has become
a threat to the constitution. The solution is to vote this party out
of office until such time as the party re-invents with respect for
the constitution.
I have always thought such sentiments
as, "Don't vote, it only encourages them" and "Politicians
are all alike", and "Politicians should be changed
frequently, like diapers, and for the same reason" were
unhelpful and silly. At this point, I feel they are a deadly threat
to our democracy. There is nothing more important than protecting our
democratic form of government. Within our system partisan gridlock is
frustrating, but we can work for its eventual resolution.
Occasionally there is bipartisan consensus and things do get done.
Without respect for the constitution, all of that is at risk. There
is an aversion to comparing anyone to Hitler, but in one particular
respect there is an apt analogy here: Hitler came to power largely
through free and fair elections. He was only able to cancel further
elections because of widespread support. We all know that didn't end
well.
To make the seriousness of my position
clear, if Trump's opponent in the fall of 2020 was Mitt Romney, I
would strongly support Mitt Romney. If it was a modern incarnation of
George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, I would strongly support them. If it
was Michael Pence as he was in the summer of 2016, I would support
him, though I'm not sure if his defense of Trump since then has
corrupted his own support for the constitution. I find the politics
of all of those people to be repulsive. But if indeed they support
and respect the constitution, I would favor them strongly and work
for their election.
Needless to say, I will strongly
support his actual Democratic opponent, whoever that might be. My
view tends to make "electability" a prime concern.
Moderation in many Democratic legislators, if not partisan gridlock,
is likely to prevent major policy initiatives being passed anyway,
but return to respect for the constitution is an achievable goal.
And in November of 2020, I will
consider anyone who stays home because it doesn't matter to be a
gravely mistaken and morally bankrupt person. Similarly with anyone
who votes Republican except out of ignorance.
No comments:
Post a Comment