By Kevin D. Williamson
Friday, August 11, 2017
Donald Trump is on the hunt for a scapegoat, and he has
settled on Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. He isn’t entirely wrong to
do so.
As a candidate, Trump promised big doings: repealing the
Affordable Care Act and replacing it with — well, he was never very clear on
that point. He promised big tax reform and sweeping regulatory reform, improved
trade terms, and a big, beautiful wall paid for by a magical surcharge on
Mexicans. None of that has come to pass, and Trump, who is constitutionally
incapable of acknowledging his own surfeit of personal and professional
failures, blames Congress.
Trump presented himself to the voters as a master
negotiator and dealmaker, but that of course was the character he played on
television, not the actual man. Trump cannot sit down with congressional
Republicans — much less a bipartisan coalition — and negotiate a deal on
health-care reform. The reasons for this are straightforward: There is
disagreement among Republicans about what policies should be forwarded, and
President Trump does not know what he himself thinks about any of them, because
he does not think anything about any of them, because he doesn’t know about
them. Trump does not do details — he does adjectives. He wants a “terrific”
health-care system. So does Bernie Sanders, but the two of them don’t agree on
what that means in practice. At least, they don’t agree anymore: Trump has in
the past endorsed the same single-payer system that the grumpy little socialist
Muppet from Vermont prefers, which he, or whoever writes the books published
under his name, described at some length in his 2000 offering The America We Deserve. He pointed to
Canada as an example of how health care in the United States should be
organized. He might even have believed that for a week or two, but Trump is
simply too lazy to do the intellectual work necessary to develop a coherent
position beyond his facile superlatives.
Trump’s lazy ignorance encompasses much more than health
care. In his decades as a vocal NAFTA critic, he has never offered in any
specific detail any proposal for reforming any particular provision of NAFTA,
and he has on occasion made it clear that he does not know what is actually in
the accord. His public statements about tax reform have been all over the map,
out-lefting Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren with his attacks on the
carried-interest treatment of some financial firms’ income and then doing his
best impersonation (which is a very poor one) of Larry Kudlow preaching the
gospel of pro-growth tax cuts. He once reversed and then reverse-reversed himself
on H-1B visas over the course of a few hours. Expecting Donald Trump to act as
a chief executive, lead negotiator, and deal-artist on recondite questions of
policy and politics is foolish. His petulant tweets at Mitch McConnell — “Baby want sumthin to sign!” —
communicate his expectations of himself quite well.
So why hasn’t McConnell sent him something to sign?
The president is a weak leader, especially when it comes
to questions of substance, but McConnell is not, and neither is Speaker of the
House Paul Ryan. But — and I write this as an earnest admirer of both men —
they may be the wrong men for the job. The wily McConnell and the steadfast
Ryan were fine and effective opposition leaders. But they are not in the
opposition any more. McConnell has been the Senate majority leader since
January 3, 2015. Paul Ryan has passed through a series of senior leadership posts
since 2011: chairman of the Budget Committee, chairman of Ways and Means,
speaker of the House. They have had a long time to get their legislative acts
together. Of course, it would be easier to forge consensus if they had a
president who knew or cared about the substance of the policy questions before
them, but in the absence of such a president, it falls to the legislative
leaders to do what needs doing. The British dumped Winston Churchill after the
war, considering him a wartime leader unsuited to the needs of peacetime. If
McConnell and Ryan do not want to be considered opposition leaders — and if the
Republican party does not want to be considered an opposition party incapable
of government — then now is the time to give us all reason to think otherwise.
Give the damned fool something to sign.
Dwight Eisenhower was happy to see off the Republican
Senate majority in 1955, finding Lyndon Johnson’s Democrats easier to work with
than William Knowland and the Taftite Republicans who wanted to reverse the New
Deal. (My people.) Trump, a dedicated explorer on the path of least resistance,
may be making a similar calculation: Working with congressional Republicans is
more work than working against them. Why let them be stumbling blocks when they
are such handy whipping boys?
McConnell probably is safe for now, mainly because he has
a job no one else wants. He is one of the few Republicans in the Senate not
possessed by the delusion that he is fated to be president. If one of those
promising young men bruised by the ugly 2016 Republican presidential primaries
should ever come to his senses and decide that Senate majority leader is
actually a pretty good job, things might go differently. Ted Cruz seems to like
being a senator and might benefit from meditating upon the career of Lyndon
Johnson. Marco Rubio actually has the political skills and personal ability to
be a real leader in the Senate, but he doesn’t seem quite convinced that’s
worth doing. Rand Paul is a bit of a lone wolf. Put your ear to the ground and
you won’t hear a stampede to Rob Portman or Pat Toomey. Ben Sasse would elevate
the office.
However that goes, Republicans need congressional
leadership. As ridiculous as it is to see the president of these United States
bawling on social media that he just wants something to sign, McConnell and
Ryan really ought to send him something to sign. If they cannot get that done,
then they should make room for new leaders who can. Unified Republican control
of the executive and legislative branches is not going to last forever, and
there is much that needs to be done before the fickle fancy of the voters
alights upon some new shiny object.
No comments:
Post a Comment