NAncy Pelose’s frivolity has made the Americans view the impeachment process as a purely political matter, and as a purely political matter, the impeachment process is as dead as your remaining Christmas turkey.
Just a few days after the impeachment vote, President Donald Trump achieved his best job approval rating in the Quinnipiac poll. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is ready to mess around the process like a domestic cat tormenting a sparrow. The magic bullet is missing, and now Democrats have to make a more common argument against Trump.
The problem is: you don’t know how.
The case against Trump in 2016 was that he is not suitable for the office. The case against Trump in 2020 is – or should be – that he’s not very good at his job.
In 2016, Trump promised Americans sustainable economic growth of 3 percent, but the economy has not reached that standard. He promised to reduce the trade deficit, but the trade deficit has increased. He promised to build a wall along the southern border and have Mexico pay for what he didn’t do. As for the core issues of economic growth, trade, and immigration, President Trump failed on his own terms.
But the Democrats are poorly positioned to get Trump into the woods on these issues.
Consider immigration. In 2016, Senator Bernie Sanders toured Iowa union halls with an immigration message that wasn’t too different from Trump’s. He denounced the “open borders” as a billionaire conspiracy to flood the US market with cheap labor. At that time, the Democrats were still talking about illegal immigration. , , illegal.
In 2020, democratic ascendant Pete Buttigieg just released a plan to reduce the deportation of illegal immigrants, including those who are guilty of certain crimes, and Democrats as a whole have invested a lot of political capital in fighting Trump’s efforts to control illegal immigration.
Why? A majority of Americans say they are personally concerned about illegal immigration, and a large majority – 77 percent in the recent Gallup poll – see illegal immigration as a “critical threat” or “major threat” to illegal immigration In response, the Democrats have taken a position that is both bad politics and bad politics.
As for trade, the Democrats did the opposite: instead of blindly opposing a fundamentally good policy, they adopted Trump’s worst ideas. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s nationalist stance that trade is a question of “loyalty to America” and that American business people “have no patriotism.” Among other things, their proposals would essentially prohibit trade agreements with China and Mexico. But two-thirds of Americans say Trump’s trade war is unlikely to improve their lives, and one-third says they will be worse off, a hill/ HarrisX survey. Warren is unlikely to surpass Trump on the agenda of nationalism, but she has still put herself in a position that is both bad politics and bad politics.
Trump has had modest success in the economy after tax cuts and deregulation efforts. The Democrats are against it for ideological reasons, but also because they have the stench of Trump.
A smarter approach for Democrats (and for us, few anti-Trump conservatives) would be to admit that the President’s positions on issues such as illegal immigration and trafficking encounter real and legitimate concerns, while indicating that he is active was the main ineffective or really destructive. But Democrats feel so committed to their exotic fairy tale – Trump is a monster, Trump is a Nazi, Trump is a white nationalist, etc. – that they have forgotten how to run an ordinary campaign against ordinary failure.
National Review Institute (NRI) is the nonprofit journalistic think tank 501 (c) (3) that supports the NR mission and 14 NRI fellows (including this author!) So they can do what they do best. The NRI is currently in the middle of its fund appeal process at the end of the year and is seeking to raise over $ 200,000 to support the work of the NRI Fellows. Please consider making a generous tax-deductible year-end contribution to NRI. Your gift, along with all those of the NR Nation, will provide the essential fuel for our mission to defend the principles for which the National Review has fought since 1955 and for which it will carry the struggle far into the future with your support. Thanks for your consideration.