U.S. Politics Has Gotten Corrupt: How Controversial Is That?
In response to my post on Donald Trump’s cabinet nominations, in which I asserted that ripping apart our government with the appointment of hateful, unqualified yes-man bozos is a criminal act, frequent commenter MarcoPolo notes: “It’s a great shame when you employ excessive hyperbole to accuse those you consider political/ideological/philosophical opponents, with abusive, inaccurate and extravagantly emotive labels.” I respond:
I’m sure you realize that you’ve been making this very point, a couple of times per week, over the past six years. Your motive? I don’t know. In any case, I actually got it the first time, and when the 447th rolled around recently, I REALLY got it. 🙂
The actions of certain politicians are selfish, criminal, corrupt, and evil, and what’s happening here in the U.S. at this point is far worse than anyone anywhere in the world could have possibly believed. You think this is hyperbole. Got it.
Craig,
Ah, but do others reading your observations get it ?
If you really got my message (which is the same message to all environmentalist advocates who indulge in extreme or completely fanciful rhetoric ), you would moderate your terminology to be more accurate and accurate.
Just because you say something is corrupt, doesn’t make it so !
You may detest Donald Trump and his associates, but until they break the law or act unconstitutionally, all they are really doing is dissenting from what you believe. Not agreeing with you, is just not corrupt, certainly not criminal, and not really evil.
Show me a law the president-elect has broken, and I’ll agree. Show me an unconstitutional act and I’ll join you in condemning that behaviour, but if you can’t, all you are doing is yelling impotent insults.
My concern is the damage you do to both your own credibility and the credibility of the environmental message.
Donald Trump and those in his administration will, in all likelihood implode by themselves. Wild inaccurate accusations leveled against populist demagogues by opponents is the oxygen they need to detract attention from their own shortcomings.
You are correct, for years I’ve been warning such hyperbole and extremist remarks of an emotive nature would prove counter-productive. The result is the Trump presidency !
In these difficult times you along with all environmental advocates are faced with two choices .
1) Ramp up the abuse and hyperbole in the hope that what has prove ineffective and counter-productive may suddenly work if you yell really, really loudly !
2) Try a different, more moderate, more accurate, more responsible approach. Well reasoned, tolerant, calmly rational advocacy designed to restore credibility and broaden your appeal to reach the undecided majority.
I don’t know if I’m right, but surely it ‘s worth a try ?
I think it’s safe to assume that my readers don’t object to my use of language and willingness to call ’em as I see ’em. Otherwise they would be ex-readers.
Craig,
That depends on who you want to reach, a small group of like minded followers, or a wider group including the undecided or people who may agree and admire many of your principles, including your promotion of clean tech, but don’t concur with your more extreme political attitudes.
That’s always a danger for advocates, once it becomes easier just preaching to a small group of the converted, the more the advocate draws comfort from a lack of challenge from the outside world.
Now is the time for moderate advocates to re-consider how to sell the message.
The appointments made by McDonald Trumpet, while not totally guaranteeing corruption, make corruption almost inevitable. People who do not see that need appointments with their optometrists.
There is no way to know what will actually happen. It is at least slightly possible that his nominees for cabinet positions will not be confirmed by the senate. The Democrats, although a minority in both houses of Congress, are not totally helpless. They, together with a minority of sensible Republicans, could block some of the more egregious actions of Trumpet and his fellow travelers. The value of the filibuster could become greatly appreciated. Probably Trumpet will have no more than two years to implement his damaging and nefarious intentions since when enough people see the results, they will vote out the members of Congress who have acquiesced.
It is likely that when the public sees the results of Trumpet’s actions, the Republicans in Congress will perceive that if they continue to support Trumpet they will not be re-elected, will stop supporting Trumpet, and deny that they had ever supported Trumpet. If that seems farfetched, note that it is now very difficult to find anyone who supported the Viet Nam war who will admit it.
We are in for an interesting time. About all we can do now is wait and see what happens.
Frank,
I think you miss the point. Just because you don’t like a nominee or believe a nominee unsuitable, doesn’t render the nominee or President-elect corrupt.
They may not be your choice, or mine for that matter, but the incoming President is entitled to choose the best candidate he believes can best serve his administration.
The President and his nominees can only be judged by what they do, not what they might do ! The Senate can block appointments, but if unreasonably, they will be punished by the electorate.
In reality, the Senate has rejected only nine of over 500 nominees, so it’s an unusual occurrence. Since one of Trump’s election platforms was to curb the influence the Washington political class, it’s most unlikely that Senators would like to be seen as obstructionist.
Once again, it’s very early days. The new President hasn’t yet taken office, so to be fair it’s a little early to be calling him “corrupt” for allegations of what he could do in the future !
Marcopolo,
You wrote, “The President and his nominees can only be judged by what they do, not what they might do!”.
It seems that you feel that senatorial approval of the president’s nominees should simply be pro forma. In that case, the requirement that nominees be submitted for approval would be totally meaningless. Do you then favor ignoring ALL items in the constitution, or only that one?
What do you think about the refusal of the senate to approve Obama’s choice for someone to replace the late justice Scalia?
Hi Frank,
Your criticism is valid, my observation was ambiguous and needs qualification. (my comment really concerned calling of someone “corrupt” in the present tense, based on an assumption of some act he may, or may not, do in the future)
What I should have stated was that the Senate should not refuse Presidential nominees without very valid reasons that can be publicly justified.
Refusal to ratify a nomination should be very well substantiated and not based on political bias. The constitution allows the Senate the authority to refuse nominations, but it must do so at it’s electoral peril.
What should be a strength in the US system can easily prove a weakness as the 7 year failure to appoint a head for the ATF agency proved. A bloody minded Senate can make life very difficult for Presidents and their nominees.
Justice Scalia died in an election year, it’s not without precedence for nominations to be delayed until the election of a new President. The idea that the US supreme court can’t function with only eight members for a few months is a little far fetched.
I realize the fear by Democrats that a Republican President could appoint a more conservative candidate whose views may be less favorable, but that’s the system laid down by the Constitution.