How Long Does a Collaborative Tantrum Last?

"How long does a tantrum last?"  That was the question my best girl asked me here a few minutes ago, and it struck a chord with me.

The "tantrum" she was referring to was by the comedy-writer-turned-curmudgeonly-senator representing the state of Minnesota, the friendly Al Franken.  Franken had gone off on President Trump in a CNN interview, calling him a liar and impugning his capacity to lead the nation, saying we shouldn't have a president like that, wah, wah, wah.  Then he pointed out that some people (presumably Democrat senators) thought he was mentally ill.

Now let's get this out of the way right off the top.  You lost!  Get over it!

Ahhhhh. That feels better.  So what the missus was talking about, of course, is the continued vitriolic unwillingness of the left, as borne out by the actions of Democrats in the House and Senate, to move forward and try to be a part of what the country said and did this past election day.

Think about it for a moment.  Donald Trump won the presidency, though not in the "landslide" he occasionally refers to.  We know that only a finite number of states (fewer than 50) were part of the campaign (several, like California and New York on the left, and Texas on the right, were conceded to the other candidate and were almost absent from the campaign entirely).

Trump overwhelmingly won the count of contested states; his "landslides" can only be regarded as having won all the contested states, save Virginia and perhaps one or two others.  That doesn't mean that those who did not vote for him are irrelevant.  Their elected representatives should be expected to carry the views of all of their voters, of course, but certainly Democrats in those districts and states are the primary voices of that side of things.

I surely cannot speak for Democrats, their proposals do not work; they have no fiscal sense in the sense that they do not recognize the need for the Government to balance its budget; worst of all, they do not understand that "The Government should pay ..." means "The taxpayer should pay ..."  And don't get me started on identity politics, or their unwillingness to admit their failures.

But they voted, and their elected representatives should indeed represent them.

So I think it is not just that words like Franken's and Elizabeth Warren's and Chuck Schumer's are far over the top.  It is that they are not trying to work with the new president on his solutions.  I think it was unfortunate that the Obama people refused to allow the Republican minority in 2009-10 to participate in designing bills like Obamacare.  I have not heard at all, and I think I would know, that the Trump Administration had come across as not being open to soberly-delivered input from Democrats.

There simply is no such input.  What has come from the Democrats has been vitriol, over-the-top language and condemnation.  They have delayed and delayed and delayed in allowing Trump's appointees to Cabinet positions to be given a vote -- solely to delay, not for any productive investigatory reason.  There has been, with pretty much the sole exception of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), no effort to be part of the solutions.

They're going to get left behind.  Donald Trump is a builder and a CEO.  He has high-level goals and solutions and he is not waiting around to get started.  He is pushing Congress to get going (and it should be noted that Speaker Paul Ryan, who had definitely not been a Trumpist, has seemed positively giddy about the opportunity to step past gridlock and actually work on legislative solutions, knowing his president would sign them).

The Democrats should be trying to be part of that.  But no, they are protesting until it gets old, they are resorting to calling names and rioting in the streets, all when Chuck Schumer could pick up the phone, call the president and say that he is ready to be a part of the solution and the next two years.  Wouldn't that be easier?  Trump and Schumer go back a long way.  If Schumer were to stop the rhetoric and get his caucus in line, and tell them that they could get more done for the country if they equated "loyal opposition" with "participation", Trump would happily allow their input.

But no; that would entail "leadership", and a party that has leaders like Schumer, Warren, Bernie Sanders (whose words against Trump have been equally vitriolic and contemptible) and Nancy "You'll have to pass it ..." Pelosi, who has long since ceased to know what she is talking about, is not a party that wants to work together.

The collective tantrum is easier than actually reaching out to help.  And you know what?  The voting public, the ones who came forward in November 2016, they see it.  They already made their statement once about the kind of politics are playing now.

They -- we -- can do it again.

Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.