Although long, this excellent article by Prof. Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, is well worth the time to read. (Thanks, Doug, for sharing this.)
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The Anti-Trump Party: How The Democratic Party Has Lost Its Defining Values In The Obsession With Trump
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the evolution of the Democratic Party under the Trump Administration.
Here is the column:
Washington
has long been a stranger to principle other than the principle of self
advancement. Yet, something new seems to be emerging across the country.
Politicians have long felt the need to disguise raw political agendas
in the pretense of principle. That pretense has disappeared.
In this age
of rage, voters seem to have no patience, let alone need, for leaders
speaking of abstract principles. They want immediate unequivocal action
in supporting or opposing President Trump.
For Democrats, that all consuming purpose has led to the abandonment of
core unifying values, including many that first drew me to the
Democratic Party. While they would vehemently deny it, Trump is remaking
the party in his inverse image. This past month shows how far that
transformation has gone.
The
remaking of the Democratic Party was evident last week with the reaction
to the decision to withdraw troops from Syria. There was a time when a
sizable number of Democrats opposed undeclared wars and unending
military campaigns. Now, they are appalled that Trump would not continue
a war in one of the myriad countries with American troops engaged in
combat operations. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the withdrawal a “Christmas gift to Vladimir Putin,” while Tim Kaine, David Cicilline, and other Democrats called it “irresponsible” or “hasty.”
Of course,
this “hasty” move is after seven years of intervention in the civil war,
including personnel on the ground since 2012. Our military also has
been in Iraq since 2003 and in Afghanistan since 2001. One study
estimated the costs of the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan at $5.6 trillion. More importantly, thousands of military
personnel have been killed and tens of thousands have been wounded. Yet,
Democrats now espouse the same lines denounced during the Bush
administration.
Popular
cable programs with Democratic and liberal viewers are equally full of
recriminations over withdrawing from these wars. MSNBC host Rachel
Maddow criticized the plan to withdraw troops as merely an effort to
distract the public, despite Trump campaigning in 2016 on promises to
withdraw from such wars. “Morning Joe” host and former Republican
congressman Joe Scarborough denounced the president as a “quivering
coward” who failed to understand that we must fight “enemies like ISIS
abroad, so we do not have to fight them in our own schools, churches and
airports.” Liberals once rejected the premise that we should engage in
continual wars in other countries or face terrorism on our streets at
home.*
Democrats
are now defined by Trump the way that antimatter is defined by matter,
with each particle of matter corresponding to an antiparticle. Take the
secrecy. Democrats once were the party that fought against the misuse of
secret classification laws by the FBI and other agencies. They demanded
greater transparency from the executive branch, which is a position
that I have readily supported. Yet, when oversight committees sought
documents related to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
investigation of Trump associates, Democrats denounced the very thought
that Republicans would question the judgment of the FBI that any such
disclosures would be tantamount to jeopardizing national security.
Democratic
Party leaders including Pelosi declared that the oversight committees
had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our
national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice
Department and the FBI.” Likewise, House Intelligence Committee ranking
minority member Adam Schiff expressed shock that the FBI was not given deference in withholding the information in the surveillance investigation.
Yet, when
the information was finally forced out of the FBI, including the
disclosure of previously redacted material, it was clear that the FBI
had engaged in overclassification to shield not national security but to
shield the bureau itself from criticism. It included discussion of the
roles of high ranking FBI officials and their reliance on such sources
as the Christopher Steele dossier, which were already publicly known.
Democratic House members like Schiff presumably knew what was in the
redactions and, nevertheless, wanted deference to the classification
decisions of the FBI.
In
supporting the investigation of Trump, Democrats have embraced expanding
definitions of crimes like obstruction, conspiracy, and the like.
Historically, Democrats have resisted such efforts to stretch the
criminal code to criminalize broader and broader areas of conduct.
During the Trump administration, Democrats sound like legal hawks in
demanding criminal charges for conduct long treated as civil matters,
such as campaign finance violations and foreign agent registration
violations.
In pursuing
Trump, Democrats have also adopted a type of “red scare” mindset. While
Republicans long pumped up the Russian menace as a political Cold War
narrative, Democrats are now adopting the same type of rhetoric over the
Russian attempt to interfere with the 2016 president election.
Democrats for the past two years speak about how Russians “stole” the
election or destroyed the legitimacy of the results, with little
empirical data to support such irresponsible and unfounded claims.
While many
of us support the Mueller investigation and the need for sanctions
against Russia for its interference, Democrats now routinely refer to
Russia as our “enemy” and accuse any people with alleged connections to
Russians as “traitors.” Special counsel Robert Mueller may
have more to reveal on Russian hacking, but there is little evidence
that either the trolling operation or leaked emails of the Hillary Clinton campaign had a material impact on the 2016 presidential election.
In building
up the Russian menace, Democrats ignore that we have not only hacked
the emails of our enemies but of our allies as well for years. Moreover,
we have routinely intervened in or influenced foreign elections.
Likewise, other nations from Israel to Mexico to China and many more,
have long tried to influence our elections. Still, Democrats are
escalating their calls for greater action against Russia, including
criticism of being too dovish in not confronting Russian military
elements around the world.
A party
requires more than hatred for an individual. A party has to stand for
something that transcends the immediate or the visceral. Yet, in the age
of Trump, the public is not interested in nuance or niceties. The
watchword is “resist” and that means to push back at all costs, even
against our core values. So the question is not what the Democratic
Party will do but what it will be after Donald Trump eventually leaves
office.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
* Prof. Turley’s
paragraph I’ve changed into italicized font in the above article reveals
accurately just how irrational the Media (D) has become with Trump as president.
I recall that 12 years ago, Glenn Beck was telling us that soon things would
turn inside out and upside down. And it certainly has! The argument which Prof.
Have we forgotten the multitude of terrorist incidences we’ve had over the last
ten years? The Army base massacre in Texas, the Boston Marathon bombing, the
night club in Florida… need I go on?
As I’ve long
maintained in prior posts, these liberal/socialists early on were the ones
defending, if not encouraging, Muslims coming into the country and claiming that
they were not a threat to the security of our country. However, what they were
not admitting to as part of their agenda was that they were looking long-term
at taking over total control of the country through sheer numbers. If it is to
take decades, then so be it.
Haven’t they
denied past “lone wolf” terrorist acts having connection with the Jihadis of
Islam? Why? Because they know they need to assuage the fears and concerns of
the general public about the multiple and repeated incidences. They know that
if they’re patient long enough, they’d eventually have sufficient numbers to
implement Sharia Law in a majority of urban centers across the land. They aren’t
called “progressives” for nothing!
