After November 8 Earthquake . . . Is The Political Landscape Settling Back?
By DEXTER DUGGAN
New Zealand had a November earthquake causing serious damage. But in the U.S., the shaken landscape following the seismic upheaval of the November 8 elections seemed to be settling back into place with little disruption in some spots.
Reince Priebus, in many ways a settled establishment Republican, named chief of staff for temblor-causing President-elect Donald Trump. Paul Ryan, an open-borders, deal-cutting GOP international trader, quickly affirmed for his post as speaker of the U.S. House. Ryan and Priebus, moreover, are buddies.
Veteran New York liberal Republican Rudy Giuliani being considered for a heavyweight position?
National radio talk host Mark Levin said that “all I see is the establishment all over the place.”
Trump’s new White House chief strategist and senior counselor, conservative Steve Bannon, being ripped apart by the dominant media as a “racist” and “anti-Semite.”
The familiar condemnation of conservatives goes forward as business as usual. The left-wing journos hadn’t changed their bilge too much after supposedly being so contrite over having gotten the election campaign so wrong.
Nor had rioting left-wing activists aflame against Trump’s victory changed the way they operate. They continued to think they make up the rules as they please, while conservatives meekly should obey. Assassination threats by the leftists were as common as moral arrogance at a Democratic Party rally.
Lo and behold, the Mexican flag was flying again at some of these radicals’ demonstrations, reminding us that the radicals apparently like patriotism fine after all, just not patriotism toward the land right under their stomping feet.
And when the leftists were getting paid to riot, that’s even better than being paid to eat pizza and drink beer while receiving unemployment. Socialism with a capitalist sneer. Does starting fires bring a bonus?
When a candidate like Trump runs as an outsider, it’s inevitable he needs to consult someone experienced if he wins. But how about a lot of face time with someone dedicated to a smaller-government philosophy, like newly re-elected Sen. Rand Paul, of Kentucky, and his staff, and less time with the Giuliani types?
Much remained to develop before Trump’s inauguration scheduled for January 20. However, the way some small policy details were being picked over by critics missed the important picture.
All along Trump had said he wanted a wall against massive illegal immigration. Was it possible he’d settle for a fence in places instead? If we define either a wall or a fence as a strong, effective barrier, it shouldn’t matter.
We’re not talking about a little wire to keep the chipmunks away. A high double or triple-layered fence with lights and a patrol road down the middle has been proven to work. As Trump said about a barrier on the November 13 60 Minutes program, “I’m very good at this. It’s called construction.”
What doesn’t sound so good is an establishment GOP type like California Cong. Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, floating the idea of a “virtual fence.” You know, something like cameras and drones patrolling over open territory. A sure-fire loser of an idea.
If Trump had campaigned as favoring a “virtual fence,” his candidacy would have been left wandering futilely in the desert.
And if Mexico would please just police its own border, the U.S. would need no fence at all.
Speaking of the border, some conservative radio talkers recalled that when Arizona passed a law in 2010 that simply mirrored federal law against illegal immigration, Barack Obama quickly sued the Grand Canyon State because the state, his administration said, shouldn’t have its own such law.
However, the radio talkers continued, Obama was perfectly happy to have “sanctuary cities” passing laws that directly defied and disobeyed federal immigration law. The talkers wondered how the Trump administration would tolerate these “sanctuary” lawbreakers now.
Then there was the rustle over whether Trump wanted to repeal 100 percent of Obamacare, or was there something he’d retain? It seemed Trump liked two items, the provision for covering pre-existing conditions, and for keeping offspring on their parents’ plan to age 26.
That’s not like Obamacare is being kept in place. It’s being thrown out, and its replacement includes these two features. Even strongly conservative radio talk host Levin said on November 14 that who’d object to this if the GOP managed to do away with the rest?
As for the matter of naming a Supreme Court justice: On the same 60 Minutes program, Trump said, “The judges will be pro-life.” That’s not only the position he has committed to, but was backed up by the list of names he offered earlier as those he’d choose among for a justice.
This is certainly better than pro-lifer Ronald Reagan, who popped the awful surprise of making the nationally unknown Arizona pro-abortionist Sandra O’Connor his first High Court appointment.
On the other hand, conservatives celebrated when George W. Bush named Chief Justice John Roberts. Their cheering stopped when Roberts turned the law on its head not once but twice to save unconstitutional Obamacare.
So, no guarantees, just the hope that a principled conservative justice like Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas will fill the court vacancy created by the death of principled conservative Antonin Scalia.
Trump also said the High Court’s decision in 2015 creating “same-sex marriage” is settled law.
One can certainly wonder how a so-called right to abortion invented back in 1973 is subject to being overturned, while a so-called right to “gay marriage” invented just last year already is settled law.
Apparently like other politicians, Trump sometimes just fills in the blanks as he speaks, and it doesn’t matter how the words fit together. Trump certainly has shown openness to champions of homosexuality, even making Peter Thiel a major speaker the same night of Trump’s acceptance speech as the presidential nominee at the GOP national convention.
Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, proceeded to attack “fake culture wars” that night as a diversion from economic problems.
However, these culture wars always seem to get started when social liberals like Thiel launch them against conservatives, then complain that the conservatives aren’t surrendering fast enough.
While Republicans gained strength around the nation in various elective posts on November 8, some journalists acknowledged that the Democrats had dug themselves into a deep hole.
For instance, reporter Jonathan Martin posted at The New York Times on November 14: “The Democrats’ stunning defeat in the presidential race and continued struggles in lower-level contests have jolted party leaders into concluding that their emphasis on cultural issues has all but crippled them by diverting voters’ attention from the core Democratic message of economic fairness.”
Don’t worry, though. Every few election cycles the Democrats get a whupping from the voters for being cultural and social leftists, their media fans bemoan the result, then all is forgiven and dominant media fall silent as the Democrats repeat their mistakes again.
The media prefer not to call them to account, and many establishment Republicans are scared to. Will Trump make a difference, for a change? Onward to January 20!