The widespread demonstrations protesting the stunning Republican victories earlier this month – the GOP will now control the presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the governor’s house or state legislative chamber in 44 states with full control in 25 states – indicate that many Democrats are not yet ready to see their party function as a loyal opposition.
And hortatory comments from Democratic luminaries suggest that confrontation will not only be a feature of the Democratic street but also a driving force for elected Democrats. Absent in all of this is the traditional notion that the victors were better at attracting the votes they needed than the vanquished, and that the task at hand for the losing party is to find out, in advance of the next election, why they lost.
Thus, for example, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said the Trump victory made him “soul sick for the America that I know and I love.… If there is a move to deport immigrants then I say start with me….I am a son of immigrants….”
Actually he is a grandson of immigrants and he is certainly here legally.
Gov. Cuomo went on to say, “New York’s message is a message of tolerance, brotherhood, and unity…. New York is going to lead the way in showing the way for positive growth.” The governor announced plans to create “a public-private legal defense fund to provide immigrants who can’t afford their own defense the legal assistance they need.”
And the governor waxed eloquent in his outrage: “You spread fear and we will spread love…. You try to pull us apart and we will stand stronger for each other….Yes, we are black, white, and brown – but we are one…. We are gay and straight – but we are one as a community…..Yes, we are Christian, Muslim, and Jews – but we are one….Yes, we are individuals but we are also one community. One family.”
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio weighed in with a recitation of the horrors he feared to be in the offing if the incoming Trump administration has its way. He warned of an increase in hate crimes; widespread loss of health insurance; tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby impoverishing the state; and the breakup of families through deportations of the undocumented.
He went on to say: “To all Latinos who heard their culture denigrated – we stand by you. To all the African Americans who heard their history denied – we stand by you. To all the women who heard their rights being threatened – we stand by you. To all those in the Jewish community who heard a resonance from history that gave them real fear and pause – we stand by you. To all those in the LGBT community who heard a message of taking us backward – we will never go backward. We stand by you.”
(Do Messrs Cuomo and de Blasio use the same speechwriters?)
We’re not sure what the mayor meant by his comment about “fear” and “pause” in the Jewish community, but more to the point, totally absent is any attempt to critique the logic of even one Trump campaign initiative on the merits. Indeed, there is nothing about how to address the presence of millions of people who are here by virtue of having broken our laws. Nothing about how it is important to preserve our borders and prevent criminals and terrorists from embedding themselves in the general immigrant groups. All that we get is hyperbole and rhetoric and declarations of political war.
And it was particularly troubling to hear that he will actively seek to subvert federal initiatives that will challenge the status quo in New York City respecting immigration, policing, and funding for social programs – he refers to his stance against those initiatives as a national model of resistance and a “better way.”
It therefore comes as no surprise that so far there is not one person either chosen or considered for an important position by President-elect Trump who has not been demonized by Democrats. One gets the sense that the approach ordained by Democrat Central is not to evaluate objectively but rather to bend over backward to find negatives that might in some way seem to support a predetermined adverse judgment. An example of this is the attempt to subvert the appointment of Stephen Bannon, former executive chair of Breitbart News, to a top White House staff position on the flimsiest of hearsay – anecdotal allegations (by his ex-wife during unusually vitriolic divorce proceedings) of anti-Semitism.
One of the more egregious examples of this sort of thing came from someone we thought knew better New York Representative Jerrold Nadler. Here are excerpts from a statement issued by Mr. Nadler after the Bannon appointment was announced:
I am appalled and disgusted that Donald Trump is doubling-down on hatred and racism in his very first action as president-elect. Instead of calling on the nation to end the violence, racism, and bigotry that is sweeping communities across the country, he has selected a known anti-Semitic, white nationalist, racist – Steve Bannon – to serve at the highest level of the executive branch….
Whoever [Trump] appoints to serve in a position of leadership in our country must serve all of the people and must denounce the type of racism, white nationalism, and bigotry that, unfortunately, Steve Bannon represents to millions of Americans.
We suggest to Mr. Nadler that emptying a thesaurus (or having a staff member do it for him) is no substitute for providing facts.
This is not to say that no case of legitimate concern has transpired. Retired General James Mattis, reportedly a leading candidate for the position of defense secretary, has said some very negative things about Israel as an American ally and its settlement policy. (See news story, page 3.)
To be sure, if Gen. Mattis had been proposed by President Obama we would be unequivocal in our concern, given Mr. Obama’s track record on the Middle East. But as Donald Trump during his presidential campaign pursued a wholly different dynamic in terms of support for Israel, we will withhold further comment until we hear more from the Trump transition team.