Conservative columnist and analyst Mona Charen just published an an article on Politico, titled, "How a Democrat Can Win Over a Never-Trumper: And if you don't think you need us, you should think twice," and I felt the need to comment on it.
First off, for those who don't know, a "Never-Trumper" is a conservative/Republican who can't stand Donald Trump and vows to never vote for him.
In her article, Ms. Charen defines the term, tells us why she constitutes as a Never-Trumper, and shares her semi-willingness of voting for a Democrat in the 2020 presidential election. Here are a few snippets on which I'd like to comment:
- "You may think you don't need us-but you'd be wrong. I know things are looking good for you: Trump's approval rating has never topped 46 percent, and among younger voters, millennials and Gens Zers, his support is 30 percent or below. But Trump was elected with the lowest approval ratings of any major candidate in history."
- "While we're on the subject of the midterms, remember that your 2018 victories were not a left-wing triumph. Your 40-seat pickup was due in no small measure to Republicans and independents who voted Democrat. In other words: Voters like me."
- "But that's not the tone you are adopting. First, you seem taken with the idea of executive overreach. At the second candidate debate, Senator Kamala Harris declared that 'When elected president of the United States, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to pull their act together ... and put a bill on my desk for signature' for new gun control measures. And if Congress does not, she said, she will take executive action to put in the 'most comprehensive background check policy we've had,' require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to take the licenses of gun dealers who break the law and ban the import of assault weapons. She further declared her intention to reinstate Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status on 'Day One,' not just for those brought here as children but for their parents and for veterans."
- "By what authority? This is precisely the kind of power grab that Trump engaged in when declaring his spurious state of emergency to redirect funds to his border wall. And though Democrats' frustration with his lawlessness is justified, this would represent a total vindication of it. If Democrats respond to Trump's arrogation of power by doing the same thing, our constitutional system is threatened."
- "The assertion of unlimited executive power is not just contrary to the Constitution; it's also a recipe for rising political tensions."
- "Second, have some respect for the norms and institutions that undergird our system's stability. You claim to be dismayed by Trump's norm-shattering ways, and yet your proposals are political earthquakes. At least four Democratic presidential contenders-Kirsten Gillibrand, Pete Buttigieg, O'Rourke and Warren-have endorsed eliminating the Electoral College, and one, Harris, has pronounced herself 'open' to it. Warren, Bill De Blasio and Harris would abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ...Harris and Buttigieg also favor packing the Supreme Court..."
- "There's a clear way forward, Democrats, and it is grounded in the Constitution. ...No sweeping, federalism-smashing plans to overhaul everything in the name of your preferred policies. And please, don't call for the abolition of traditions and constitutional structures, like the Electoral College, that make voters nervous about your stewardship."
Before I go any further, keep in mind Ms. Charen has authored the following books:
- Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense
- Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First
- Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the Rest of Us)
Judging by her history, while Mona Charen may currently label herself as a Never-Trumper, she has, throughout her career, come across as a Never-Liberal.
First thing's first, whoever the Democratic nominee winds up being, he or she does not need Never-Trumpers to win the election. In 2016, while Ms. Charen is right about Trump having the lowest approval rating of an eventual president heading into election day, many Democrats and left-leaning Independents thought Hillary Clinton was a sure-fire victor and/or felt a lack of enthusiasm for the Democratic nominee, so they didn't vote. This isn't even taking into consideration the potential impact Russia had in impacting the election results. So look, while I'm sure the Democratic candidate would be thrilled to win over some Never-Trumpers, it's not an essential ingredient to victory. As progressives and Democrats alike showcased in 2018, they're not going to be complacent with Trump on the ballot again.
Speaking of which, again, while Ms. Charen has a point about Independents and Never-Trumper Republicans playing a part in Democrats flipping 40+ seats in the house to retain control of it in the 2018 midterms, she's still giving those demographics a bit too much credit. Republicans have historically voted more regularly than Democrats in midterm elections. That wasn't the case in 2018. When Democrats get out there to vote, Democrats tend to win (with exceptions, of course).
As for the rest of her piece, Ms. Charen appears to be playing the double-standard and not-with-the-times cards. Like it or not, executive orders have long been a part of our government. It's not like they started with Donald Trump. Yet why is it that Charen claims if a Democrat wins the 2020 election and pushes forth executive action, he or she will threaten our Constitution when Republican presidents, including Donald Trump, have done similarly? What, if a Democrat makes an executive order, it's Constitution-defying, but when a Republican makes an executive order, it's perfectly alright (with the exception being Donald Trump)? While Donald Trump has averaged 46.3 executive orders per year thus far and that's the second highest per-year average of the past six presidents, here's how the rest rank (counting down):
6) Barack Obama (Democrat): 34.6
5) George W. Bush (Republican): 36.4
4) George H.W. Bush (Republican): 41.5
3) Bill Clinton (Democrat): 45.5
2) Donald Trump (Republican): 46.3
1) Ronald Reagan (Republican): 47.6
So over the past close to 40 years, the president who passed the least executive orders was a Democrat in Barack Obama and the president who passed the most executive orders was a Republican in Ronald Reagan. Apparently, if there's a (D) next to your name and you've made 35 executive orders in a year, that's unconstitutional, but if there's an (R) next to your name and you've made 47 executive orders in that same time-frame, it's Constitutionally acceptable. Like I said, double-standard...
When it comes to the specific executive actions and policy positions, Ms. Charen appears to be out of touch. Roughly 90% of the public want extended background checks implemented for firearm purchases. A semi-large percentage think the government should do more about climate change. In a fairly recent POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, it showed 50% believe the president should be elected via popular vote, while just 34% believe in the current electoral college format. So, Ms. Charen, it's not that Democrats are far left of public opinion; it's just that public opinion is far left of you.
While I'll be the first to say I think Democrats should do a better job with their messaging to elders, rural communities, veterans, and even moderate Republicans and Independents, that doesn't mean they should change their policy positions or simmer them some to make folks like Mona Charen more comfortable in voting for them. Just make a persuasive argument. Share your idea, provide substantial evidence, and walk away with the ball in your Never-Trumpers' court. If your idea and argument frighten them to the point they vote for a 3rd-party candidate, effectively helping Trump win reelection, so be it, but don't change who you are to appease anti-progressives like Ms. Charen. With or without her vote in the 2020 election, we'll come out in droves, much like 2018, to end Trump's circus act in Washington.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/09/never-trumpers-2020-democrats-227255
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/poll-popular-vote-electoral-college-1238346
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/poll-popular-vote-electoral-college-1238346
First off, for those who don't know, a "Never-Trumper" is a conservative/Republican who can't stand Donald Trump and vows to never vote for him.
In her article, Ms. Charen defines the term, tells us why she constitutes as a Never-Trumper, and shares her semi-willingness of voting for a Democrat in the 2020 presidential election. Here are a few snippets on which I'd like to comment:
- "You may think you don't need us-but you'd be wrong. I know things are looking good for you: Trump's approval rating has never topped 46 percent, and among younger voters, millennials and Gens Zers, his support is 30 percent or below. But Trump was elected with the lowest approval ratings of any major candidate in history."
- "While we're on the subject of the midterms, remember that your 2018 victories were not a left-wing triumph. Your 40-seat pickup was due in no small measure to Republicans and independents who voted Democrat. In other words: Voters like me."
- "But that's not the tone you are adopting. First, you seem taken with the idea of executive overreach. At the second candidate debate, Senator Kamala Harris declared that 'When elected president of the United States, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to pull their act together ... and put a bill on my desk for signature' for new gun control measures. And if Congress does not, she said, she will take executive action to put in the 'most comprehensive background check policy we've had,' require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to take the licenses of gun dealers who break the law and ban the import of assault weapons. She further declared her intention to reinstate Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status on 'Day One,' not just for those brought here as children but for their parents and for veterans."
- "By what authority? This is precisely the kind of power grab that Trump engaged in when declaring his spurious state of emergency to redirect funds to his border wall. And though Democrats' frustration with his lawlessness is justified, this would represent a total vindication of it. If Democrats respond to Trump's arrogation of power by doing the same thing, our constitutional system is threatened."
- "The assertion of unlimited executive power is not just contrary to the Constitution; it's also a recipe for rising political tensions."
- "Second, have some respect for the norms and institutions that undergird our system's stability. You claim to be dismayed by Trump's norm-shattering ways, and yet your proposals are political earthquakes. At least four Democratic presidential contenders-Kirsten Gillibrand, Pete Buttigieg, O'Rourke and Warren-have endorsed eliminating the Electoral College, and one, Harris, has pronounced herself 'open' to it. Warren, Bill De Blasio and Harris would abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ...Harris and Buttigieg also favor packing the Supreme Court..."
- "There's a clear way forward, Democrats, and it is grounded in the Constitution. ...No sweeping, federalism-smashing plans to overhaul everything in the name of your preferred policies. And please, don't call for the abolition of traditions and constitutional structures, like the Electoral College, that make voters nervous about your stewardship."
Before I go any further, keep in mind Ms. Charen has authored the following books:
- Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense
- Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First
- Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the Rest of Us)
Judging by her history, while Mona Charen may currently label herself as a Never-Trumper, she has, throughout her career, come across as a Never-Liberal.
First thing's first, whoever the Democratic nominee winds up being, he or she does not need Never-Trumpers to win the election. In 2016, while Ms. Charen is right about Trump having the lowest approval rating of an eventual president heading into election day, many Democrats and left-leaning Independents thought Hillary Clinton was a sure-fire victor and/or felt a lack of enthusiasm for the Democratic nominee, so they didn't vote. This isn't even taking into consideration the potential impact Russia had in impacting the election results. So look, while I'm sure the Democratic candidate would be thrilled to win over some Never-Trumpers, it's not an essential ingredient to victory. As progressives and Democrats alike showcased in 2018, they're not going to be complacent with Trump on the ballot again.
Speaking of which, again, while Ms. Charen has a point about Independents and Never-Trumper Republicans playing a part in Democrats flipping 40+ seats in the house to retain control of it in the 2018 midterms, she's still giving those demographics a bit too much credit. Republicans have historically voted more regularly than Democrats in midterm elections. That wasn't the case in 2018. When Democrats get out there to vote, Democrats tend to win (with exceptions, of course).
As for the rest of her piece, Ms. Charen appears to be playing the double-standard and not-with-the-times cards. Like it or not, executive orders have long been a part of our government. It's not like they started with Donald Trump. Yet why is it that Charen claims if a Democrat wins the 2020 election and pushes forth executive action, he or she will threaten our Constitution when Republican presidents, including Donald Trump, have done similarly? What, if a Democrat makes an executive order, it's Constitution-defying, but when a Republican makes an executive order, it's perfectly alright (with the exception being Donald Trump)? While Donald Trump has averaged 46.3 executive orders per year thus far and that's the second highest per-year average of the past six presidents, here's how the rest rank (counting down):
6) Barack Obama (Democrat): 34.6
5) George W. Bush (Republican): 36.4
4) George H.W. Bush (Republican): 41.5
3) Bill Clinton (Democrat): 45.5
2) Donald Trump (Republican): 46.3
1) Ronald Reagan (Republican): 47.6
So over the past close to 40 years, the president who passed the least executive orders was a Democrat in Barack Obama and the president who passed the most executive orders was a Republican in Ronald Reagan. Apparently, if there's a (D) next to your name and you've made 35 executive orders in a year, that's unconstitutional, but if there's an (R) next to your name and you've made 47 executive orders in that same time-frame, it's Constitutionally acceptable. Like I said, double-standard...
When it comes to the specific executive actions and policy positions, Ms. Charen appears to be out of touch. Roughly 90% of the public want extended background checks implemented for firearm purchases. A semi-large percentage think the government should do more about climate change. In a fairly recent POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, it showed 50% believe the president should be elected via popular vote, while just 34% believe in the current electoral college format. So, Ms. Charen, it's not that Democrats are far left of public opinion; it's just that public opinion is far left of you.
While I'll be the first to say I think Democrats should do a better job with their messaging to elders, rural communities, veterans, and even moderate Republicans and Independents, that doesn't mean they should change their policy positions or simmer them some to make folks like Mona Charen more comfortable in voting for them. Just make a persuasive argument. Share your idea, provide substantial evidence, and walk away with the ball in your Never-Trumpers' court. If your idea and argument frighten them to the point they vote for a 3rd-party candidate, effectively helping Trump win reelection, so be it, but don't change who you are to appease anti-progressives like Ms. Charen. With or without her vote in the 2020 election, we'll come out in droves, much like 2018, to end Trump's circus act in Washington.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/09/never-trumpers-2020-democrats-227255
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/poll-popular-vote-electoral-college-1238346
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/poll-popular-vote-electoral-college-1238346
Comments
Post a Comment