SOTU: Someone Should Tell Dems They Can Hate Trump and Support Veterans
The most talked-about moment of President Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday was probably House speaker Nancy Pelosi ripping up the speech on-camera after it had ended.
It was, truly, a bizarre moment. I myself have appeared on countless panels alongside people with whom I’ve disagreed, at times even vehemently — and yet, the thought of closing out those segments by grabbing their notes and ripping them up has never even crossed my mind. After all, I have always preferred to express my disagreement using counterarguments, finding them much more effective than temper tantrums.
The truth is though, that Pelosi’s speech-shredding was just one of many instances of Democrats using the SOTU to display their all-consuming hatred of Trump.
I’m not, of course, saying that Trump’s speech was perfect. In fact, it included several things — such as his touting the importance of a wall along the Mexican border — that had me shaking my head in disagreement on my couch. It’s not the first time I’ve disagreed with him, either. In fact, I didn’t vote for him in the last election, and I won’t vote for him in the next one. (Every time I’ve voted, I’ve always voted strictly libertarian — writing in my cat’s name when there’s no libertarian option.)
Despite this, though, there were certainly some things in Trump’s speech that I supported. Moreover, some of them (such as him referencing low unemployment and honoring Tuskegee Airman Charles McGee and his grandson) seemed too objectively support-worthy to be controversial.
They seemed that way — but apparently, they weren’t.
See, when Trump was celebrating the good economy, and lawmakers got up to cheer it, many Democrats (such as House impeachment managers Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff) remained seated. Even more shockingly, Democratic representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib refused to join their fellow lawmakers in standing and cheering for McGee and his service.
Clearly, their most important goal on Tuesday night was to show that they hate Trump and to steer clear of doing anything that could look even remotely like they were supporting him. That’s their choice and their right, but they really should ask themselves: At what cost am I doing this? And is it worth it?
The reality is that refusing to celebrate objectively good developments (such as low black unemployment and fewer opiate deaths) and noble deeds (such as risking your life to serve your country) puts you in a position to risk offending the associated groups — such as black Americans who are doing better financially than in the past, people with family members who have struggled with drug addiction, and veterans.
What’s more, you also risk looking like you care more about racking up burn-points in a political feud than you do about the welfare of the country. You’re showing that you can’t celebrate good things, just because those things happened during the tenure of a president you can’t stand.
Unfortunately for them, these lawmakers’ behavior ultimately hurts their own credibility more than anything else. A common Republican talking point, after all, is that Democrats’ objections to Trump’s policies and presidency boil down to nothing more than “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Think about it: Refusing to join in on honoring someone who risked his life for your freedom, just because Trump is the one prompting you to do so, sends the message that you’ll never be happy with anything that Trump says or does, strictly because Trump is the one saying or doing it.
The problem here is that you’ll make it more difficult for people to believe that any of your future opposition to Trump is rooted in research, principle, or legitimate consideration, even if it really is. Like it or not, you’re making it harder for people to believe that you’re ever objecting for any good reason — because you have already shown them that you’ll still object without one.
