Liddick: GOP unity is a Trumpster fire (column)
On your right
Now Republican leadership has had its little conclave: Donald came to town and sat to chat for a bit; Paul Ryan, the latest member of the cringeocratic chorus on the Right, gave him the back of his hand.
Note to Speaker Ryan: if it’s unity you crave, it’s not only Donald Trump who has to work for it. Since he beat your champions like a pack of rented mules, you might put forth a little effort to try to figure out how the party apparat and its frontrunner can work together to ensure that the only public housing in Hillary Clinton’s future might involve Leavenworth, Kansas.
Start the process by developing a unified public position. The Trumpster has already announced he would provide a list of possible nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court. That should be followed by announcement of a putative Trump cabinet and a short list he and congressional leaders agree should be the first things of a new administration. Yes, this is unorthodox. But no more so than the campaign has been to date.
Such announcements should also include a general statement about the character and goals of the campaign — not so much a manifesto as an agreement about what the subjects are to be, and what will be disregarded. As such, it should emphasize the following.
This campaign is not about racism, even the unfocussed sort typified by “Black Lives Matter.” It is, instead, about honoring those who follow the law and about discovering and punishing those who do not. This is not a campaign about Nativism. It is instead about honoring our country and its traditions, recognizing that immigrants who share our cultural values and practices have the surest road to success and the most to contribute to both the nation’s security and prosperity.
This campaign is not a “war on the poor.” It is instead a campaign to honor all those who work hard and who strive to improve their lot — even though their labor is discounted by those who insist their taxes be raised because they are not doing their “fair share” to pay for the free stuff they promise to those who are not gainfully employed and do not see being so as paramount.
This campaign is not about the depredations the one percent and their rented and purchased solons visit on the poor. Both Democrat and Republican favorites are filthy rich and have given money and political favors enough to buy a boatload of friends. It is instead about how the policies of each will affect both the poor and the country as a whole.
Will the policies of the Obama administration, beloved and embraced by the Democrat frontrunner, continue? If so, expect the current record-high rate of nonparticipation in the labor force to continue as far as the eye can see. Anticipate anemic economic growth through the end of the decade.
A Republican campaign should remind people that a Hillary Clinton presidency would bode ill for our nation’s security. This is the person who couldn’t be bothered to spellcheck “reset” in Russian before making a public presentation of a gift so labelled to Vladimir Putin’s Foreign Minister. Who saw no problem toppling the government of Libya without any plan for the day after. Who thought the American people so stupid we would believe our ambassador and three other embassy employees were killed over an internet video — and when asked in a Congressional hearing about it, didn’t see why lying about the cause of death mattered a whit.
That level of self-serving cynicism takes decades of practice to perfect but is susceptible to an opposition that works night and day to show the public that it will work on their behalf and will speak frankly about the problems the country faces, regardless of whose feelings are hurt.
Both Trump and Hillary’s septuagenarian nemesis Bernie Sanders seems to have a better handle on the real-world effects of Obamanomics than the Democrat frontrunner. As we saw in West Virginia, when confronted by a blue-collar type about the carnage Obama’s economic and environmental policies have wrought on families and communities, Hillary appeared flummoxed by the question and not a little uneasy to share the room with one of the hoi polloi Democrats profess to love. Look for no solutions or sympathy there. So proposals that mix national needs – infrastructure redevelopment, for example – with new approaches or reinventions like a return to Clinton-era “workfare” programs that address unemployment on a national scale might have an outsized appeal.
Simple? No. If it was simple, everyone would do it. But it can be done and given the alternative — it must. So everyone with something to contribute, off the sidelines.
You, too, Mr. Ryan.
Morgan Liddick writes a weekly column for the Summit Daily.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.