randombio.com | political commentary
Saturday, February 04, 2017

How to avert the coming Constitutional crisis

The Democrats are up to something, but the Republicans can defeat it by being subtle

L ast week's pussy hat demonstrations seemed harmless, almost cute. It was a big Halloween party complete with witches and people dressed up as genitalia making ridiculously over-the-top speeches that sounded radical but made absolutely no sense. If the news media are now post-truth, these people were post-demonstrators.

I had a bunch of pussy hat jokes ready to go for this article. But what's coming is no laughing matter. The Democrats have decided to test President Trump's resolve. They're already starting to accuse Trump of creating a Constitutional crisis. This can only mean one thing: that is what they intend to do.

It's a risky strategy, but they're desperate. They know if Trump is successful, they're looking at eight, maybe 16 years of Republican leadership that will sweep PC and identity politics into the toxic waste dump of history. So they believe they have no choice.

Last week's Milo riots in Berkeley showed us the template. When it became clear that an ordinary demonstration would not prevent Milo from speaking, they turned to rioting, window smashing, and Starbucks roasting. It's a dog whistle to the rest of us that the left will ramp up the violence as needed to accomplish its goals. Here are photos of the rioters by the samizdat photo­journalist Zombie (h/t Monica Showalter).

True, they're creating chaos. But it's a mistake to call them anarchists. Unlike anarchists, and despite Sarah Silverman's call for a coup, they're not trying to eliminate the government. Far from it. Their power is based on dividing America along lines of race, sex, and class. Paradoxically, the more they succeed in dividing America, the more they weaken it, and thereby jeopardize their goal of centralization of power. Their concept of collectivism is flawed, and it is their greatest weakness.

The next battle will decide whether the Federal government will remain in control or whether it will slowly be chipped away and devolve into nothingness.

The goal is to create a sanctuary city crisis, hoping Trump will overreact. This strategy is a classic one, followed by agitators and terrorists alike: to provoke a crackdown which they believe would prove their complaints are a justified struggle against fascism. They will then “solve” the crisis by trying to impeach Trump.

Since they don't have a majority in either the House or the Senate, the crisis would have to be severe enough to get a number of Republicans on board. In this, the never-Trumpers have played a role in keeping alive the idea that this could happen. Indeed, they helped create the original myth of Trump as an authoritarian.

If you actually believed Trump is a law-and-order fascist, you'd conclude he wouldn't be able to resist asserting his authority to restore order. He'd call in the National Guard. The news media would hype the story, throwing in a few fake News™ stories to embellish it. The Dems would declare a national crisis and appeal to foreign countries for help. They won't, of course, but the Democrats would move to impeach as a way to solve the problems they created.

But if that's really the Dems' plan, it will fail because of one simple fact: The Wall is needed because there are sanctuary cities. As long as they exist, a wall remains imperative. The Dems are creating the very thing they're fighting against. They're merely expending energy as heat.

What should Trump do? He could call out the Guard, but as they say in New Jersey, that ain't subtle. Contrary to what some believe, Trump is perfectly capable of subtlety (you guys at NR, stop laughing!). He could, for instance, announce plans to relocate Federal facilities to other locations, emphasizing that it's just a way to consolidate operations, reduce costs, and improve security. Meanwhile Congress could begin discussions on entitlement reform.

Trump can't negotiate away the wall in exchange for eliminating the sanctuary cities because there'd be no way to ensure the Dems keep their word: the Feds can make deals, but they can't force people to do their jobs.

But he could say that the reforms are for the sole purpose of reducing the debt and helping the economy, which remains his top priority. This would earn the admiration of small-government conservatives. Soon the Dems' paranoia will kick in. The media will try to incite more riots, but as long as Trump makes no linkage, they will fizzle.

The Democrats would either capitulate to maintain access to Federal resources, or they'd keep their meaningless sanctuaries. Meanwhile, as progress on the wall continues, the reason for the existence of sanctuary cities evaporates.

Last edited Feb 06 2017 6:36 am

Related Articles

Why academics dislike Donald Trump
The only reason intellectuals dislike Trump is that he doesn't talk like one.

Conspiracy theories and the implosion of the Democrat-media-snowflake complex
The snowflakey histrionics would be scary if it weren't so gosh-darned amusing.

American samizdat
Only two years ago the New York Times was criticizing Russia for trying to censor the Internet.

On the Internet, no one can tell whether you're a dolphin or a porpoise
Name and address
book reviews