In bed with the enemy
21/9/17 18:55![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYeah, Trump again. Got fed up with these Trump posts, eh? Can't help it, sorry. :-)
He may've been a major douche, but for the last couple of weeks he has strained the nerves of his fellow party clergy to the brink. I'm talking about the debt ceiling deal, where he decided to side with the Dems and postpone the debates on the debt ceiling for another 3 months. Oh, and he also may've supported a motion to legalize the status of illegal immigrants (DACA), and even had a dinner with Pelosi and Schumer over the issue.
He heeded Pelosi's request and wrote some tweets that was meant to calm down the immigrants that they wouldn't be deported (let me note again that nobody from Trump's PR team has any control over what he tweets - well, turns out, Nancy Pelosi might have). Then he supported Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D) who had some, let's call them difficulties before the election. And now he's hinting that the US might actually stay in the Paris Agreement. What the hell's happening?
The results were soon to follow. While Trump's fan base are wondering if they should be disappointed from his cooperation with the Dems, or jubilant with the public humiliation of the GOP establishment, Trump's enjoying a generally positive coverage by the mainstream media for the first time. They're calling his actions statemanlike, presidential, bipartisan, responsible. There are a few conclusions we could make about GOP's near past and Trump's near future from all this:
1. The Republicans have squandered their dominant majority. They didn't reconcile with Trump the candidate last summer, they relied on his inexperience as a politician, and they expected that once he becomes president, they could control him and make him sign whatever bills they placed on his desk. But they failed to assess the risk that if they couldn't put anything on his desk, he'd rather be a bipartisan broker and start playing with the Democrats for the sake of getting any results out of Congress and the Senate, and because of his dropping approval ratings of course (he cares very much about those things). The Republican majority managed to fracture itself into various selfish factions: Libertarians, Neocons, Moderates, etc. And that hinders unity on any issues of reform, be it in health-care, the tax code, infrastructure, the military, etc.
2. Trump could essentially revive Bannon's doctrine through a potential alliance with the Dems. If Trump, Pelosi and Schumer manage to provide a significant bipartisan majority for adopting DACA in return for funding enhanced border control, and this new role appeals to the president, more big deals (ha!) could follow. For instance, Pelosi and Schumer could propose a 44% income tax on the richest (5+ million of annual income), which was Bannon's idea. That, in return of tax cuts for the middle class, and doubling the tax loans for children (Ivanka's idea).
This would make everyone happy except the right-wing Republicans, of course. Or they could make Trump abandon the huge corporate tax cut in return for funding Bannon's trillion-dollar infrastructure project (which many Dems happen to support anyway). The combination of Trump's populist right-wing rhetoric with practical left-wing economy measures would very much resemble Bannon's vision for America, and deliver a knock-down punch to the GOP. In a way, Bannon might've been right when he said "The fight isn't over, it's only just beginning" upon his departure from the White House.
3. Mind you, the Dems could hurt themselves in the long-run if they play with Trump for too long. Schumer insists for a "working Congress", which may sound nice in principle, but it doesn't seem logical, coming from someone who's the opposition. If a Republican congress keeps being dysfunctional, perpetually blocked by internal discrepancies, that would only help the Dems in the 2018 campaign.
In the meantime, Trump's warming up to his opponents, and his painting as an agreeable and responsible president, is angering the Dems' base. Pelosi was confronted by a number of Democratic activists during a recent press conference. She was criticized for talking with Trump. In truth, the Dems need polarized relations with Trump just as the GOP does, because their problem (which made Hillary lose the election) is that they cannot mobilize their base to go out and vote for them. So they need an open conflict, not bipartisanship. The same way the Republicans needed a war with Obama to keep their electorate on its toes.
Trump is the ultimate winner from such an unlikely alliance, because he may be able to re-shape his image into that of a bipartisan leader, who's finally able to do some reform, and most importantly, publicly humiliate the Republicans (Ryan and McConnell). Most of his supporters would be happy with such an outcome, and they're much more prone to turning the other way to the more unpleasant part than the Dems' base is.
He may've been a major douche, but for the last couple of weeks he has strained the nerves of his fellow party clergy to the brink. I'm talking about the debt ceiling deal, where he decided to side with the Dems and postpone the debates on the debt ceiling for another 3 months. Oh, and he also may've supported a motion to legalize the status of illegal immigrants (DACA), and even had a dinner with Pelosi and Schumer over the issue.
He heeded Pelosi's request and wrote some tweets that was meant to calm down the immigrants that they wouldn't be deported (let me note again that nobody from Trump's PR team has any control over what he tweets - well, turns out, Nancy Pelosi might have). Then he supported Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D) who had some, let's call them difficulties before the election. And now he's hinting that the US might actually stay in the Paris Agreement. What the hell's happening?
The results were soon to follow. While Trump's fan base are wondering if they should be disappointed from his cooperation with the Dems, or jubilant with the public humiliation of the GOP establishment, Trump's enjoying a generally positive coverage by the mainstream media for the first time. They're calling his actions statemanlike, presidential, bipartisan, responsible. There are a few conclusions we could make about GOP's near past and Trump's near future from all this:
1. The Republicans have squandered their dominant majority. They didn't reconcile with Trump the candidate last summer, they relied on his inexperience as a politician, and they expected that once he becomes president, they could control him and make him sign whatever bills they placed on his desk. But they failed to assess the risk that if they couldn't put anything on his desk, he'd rather be a bipartisan broker and start playing with the Democrats for the sake of getting any results out of Congress and the Senate, and because of his dropping approval ratings of course (he cares very much about those things). The Republican majority managed to fracture itself into various selfish factions: Libertarians, Neocons, Moderates, etc. And that hinders unity on any issues of reform, be it in health-care, the tax code, infrastructure, the military, etc.
2. Trump could essentially revive Bannon's doctrine through a potential alliance with the Dems. If Trump, Pelosi and Schumer manage to provide a significant bipartisan majority for adopting DACA in return for funding enhanced border control, and this new role appeals to the president, more big deals (ha!) could follow. For instance, Pelosi and Schumer could propose a 44% income tax on the richest (5+ million of annual income), which was Bannon's idea. That, in return of tax cuts for the middle class, and doubling the tax loans for children (Ivanka's idea).
This would make everyone happy except the right-wing Republicans, of course. Or they could make Trump abandon the huge corporate tax cut in return for funding Bannon's trillion-dollar infrastructure project (which many Dems happen to support anyway). The combination of Trump's populist right-wing rhetoric with practical left-wing economy measures would very much resemble Bannon's vision for America, and deliver a knock-down punch to the GOP. In a way, Bannon might've been right when he said "The fight isn't over, it's only just beginning" upon his departure from the White House.
3. Mind you, the Dems could hurt themselves in the long-run if they play with Trump for too long. Schumer insists for a "working Congress", which may sound nice in principle, but it doesn't seem logical, coming from someone who's the opposition. If a Republican congress keeps being dysfunctional, perpetually blocked by internal discrepancies, that would only help the Dems in the 2018 campaign.
In the meantime, Trump's warming up to his opponents, and his painting as an agreeable and responsible president, is angering the Dems' base. Pelosi was confronted by a number of Democratic activists during a recent press conference. She was criticized for talking with Trump. In truth, the Dems need polarized relations with Trump just as the GOP does, because their problem (which made Hillary lose the election) is that they cannot mobilize their base to go out and vote for them. So they need an open conflict, not bipartisanship. The same way the Republicans needed a war with Obama to keep their electorate on its toes.
Trump is the ultimate winner from such an unlikely alliance, because he may be able to re-shape his image into that of a bipartisan leader, who's finally able to do some reform, and most importantly, publicly humiliate the Republicans (Ryan and McConnell). Most of his supporters would be happy with such an outcome, and they're much more prone to turning the other way to the more unpleasant part than the Dems' base is.
(no subject)
Date: 21/9/17 18:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/9/17 19:09 (UTC)Give Pelosi and Schumer some credit - they at least appear to be coming around to the idea that whining and blaming Russia and racism for all life's problems won't turn the tables in their favor - will the rest of the party get on board with that?
34 seats are up. 25 Democrat, 9 Republican. 8 of the 9 Republican seats up are in states Trump won. 11 of 25 Democrat seats are also in states Trump won.
What this means is - barring a disaster - Republicans are more likely to gain seats than lose them. By disaster, I mean a real disaster - not a mean tweet, not Melania wearing the wrong kind of shoes - Trump has to seriously fuck up - an obvious, absolute fuck up - not one that depends on how you look at it.
(no subject)
Date: 21/9/17 21:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/9/17 23:15 (UTC)I'm just making up a number here, but I'm guessing he would have to piss off or make >40% registered voters feel unsafe. Not out of the question, but not likely at all - not worth relying on in place of coming up with a better plan of beating him or working with him.
(no subject)
Date: 22/9/17 05:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/9/17 22:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/9/17 13:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/9/17 18:46 (UTC)If Mr. Trump is going to lose support, it's going to be from a poorly performing economy or something similar.
(no subject)
Date: 23/9/17 13:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/9/17 13:10 (UTC)I'm not saying I have reason to be optimistic, but I think that we're deep enough in it that we're past just pointing at the map.