Author- Right Pragmatist
The benefit of Donald Trump has always been unpredictable predictability (you read that correctly). The left, and never-Trumpers, would always jump on the chance to cry incompetence, or having access to the nuclear codes, and then he would proceed to do something benign or beneficial. This has been a big part of my support – even though at heart, he’s not a full conservative, I at least had a sense of where he was going next. As a Canadian anyway, I had an outside look at it all, separate from the cult of personality in the states (which isn’t a bad thing, mind you).
Lately though, I’ve been a bit confused. Presentation, strategy, and words seem to imply a position being taken that’s contrary to what was being campaigned on, even outside the standard, “politicians always lie,” paradigm. The past couple of days are requiring me to take a very deep look at long term effects, and what their true intention may be – and if those intentions are good, do they outweigh the cost? I’ve been presented with the four-dimensional intergalactic backgammon argument as well, but I’m not sure I’m quite there. Let’s go over where I’m at.
So the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton, set out an ultimatum saying that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) needed to be rescinded based on constitutional grounds. If this was not met by 5 September 2017, it was to be taken to court, where it would have to be defended by US AG Jeff Sessions. Keep in mind that Sessions was extremely critical of former president Obama’s order, and that letting the case progress through court to be struck down would be a major win with the conservative, anti-illegal alien crowd. Sessions would get his groove back, Trump would start saying nice things about him again, and everybody would likely be happy.
Instead, Trump rescinds DACA himself (still, not a bad thing), but then heads onto the old Twitter account and states that if Congress could not legalize DACA within six months, he would “revisit the issue.” What could be interpreted from this, other than some form of soft – or even, permanent – amnesty for “dreamers?” The octuple-dimensional Hungry-Hungry-Hippos argument for this is that Trump is attempting to push Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell further to the right and actually get some legislature through, and the reward would be that the 2018 midterms would go a lot better for the Republicans than they would if held right now.
Not a terrible strategy, but things start to get muddied up. Soon after, the president comes out and makes a speech about he has a “great love” for the people protected by DACA. Even later, he puts out a tweet saying there will be “no action” taken on these people during this six month congressional deadline. Further still, we see Democratic House Majority Leader, the illustrious Nancy Pelosi, speaking of how she had a phone conversation urging Trump to put out a “reassurance” for these people. So the tweet, really, was hers. Apparently Pelosi is the only one who can control what Donnie tweets. Interesting.
Trump and Pelosi have not always had a bad relationship, in fact it has been relatively amicable until the election cycle. Verbosity aside, Trump has brought up on a few occasions that their history has been good, and that he thought that they would be able to work together (he said the same about Chuck Schumer, but that’s another story). This is important, due to a meeting had yesterday with many House officials, and Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin, in regard to raising the debt ceiling. After many legitimate (but not perfect) offers were made by his party, the right were cast aside for a 3-month speaking bill proposed by the Democrats (the only benefit to this would be that maybe registered Democrats would be disgusted by their party siding with Trump, and split the vote. Maybe.). Couple that with Trump’s rave review of Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, and you really get flabbergasted.
I’m not “rescinding” my support for Donald – make no mistake, I am critical of even my fondest leaders. But this is a situation where criticism gives way to outright disgust, when complete disregard for one’s party leads to sleeping with the enemy. It seems as though it’s a psychological motivation, to work with people he likes, and shut down people he doesn’t like. This is a John McCain-esque move, and it’s dangerous. Last time we had one of those situations, we saw that Obamacare remained fully intact. I do not want to see the Republican Party turn into an unconstitutional bill, and I definitely do not want to see them turn into a haven for international criminals. Time will tell.