The Blurry Line between Party and Country

The latest summit between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un highlights the ever-increasing chasm between Democrats and Republicans. The rivalry and animosity has become so intense between warring political factions that the economy/employment, energy production, world events and international relations are no longer judged by the big-picture yardstick of whether or not it’s good for the country, but instead, through the myopic, competitive lens of how any particular development or occurrence affects one’s favored political allies.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, there was an immediate patriotic rush to enlist in the armed forces and strike back at the enemy. People weren’t asking what party you belonged to, nor were the major media outlets (in those days, radio and newspapers) questioning whether Pearl Harbor was actually the fault of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt. There was some muted criticism of his handling of Japanese relations in the months leading up to the attack, but it did not dominate the media coverage.

Likewise, when the Soviets placed offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba in October 1962, everyone in this country -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- was transfixed and riveted on the crisis, hoping that President John F. Kennedy could extricate us from the mess and find a way out that spared the world from a potentially disastrous nuclear exchange. There was exceedingly little talk of “this was a Democratic President’s fault.” Instead, there was an overriding feeling within the country that we -- as one nation -- had to be successful.

As recently as 9/11/01, the country reacted as one to the terror attacks on the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA. The anger over the attack was almost universally directed at the attackers and their mastermind, Osama Bin Laden. Who can forget the image of our Washington D.C. lawmakers, standing as one body, singing God Bless America in the immediate aftermath of the attack?

Does anyone think that such a show of national unity would be repeated today?

The first thing that would happen in the event of another crippling multi-thousand-casualty terror attack would be party-based finger-pointing:

“Trump is more interested in giving tax cuts to his rich buddies than he is in keeping the country safe.”

“Yesterday’s terror attack highlights the Democrats’ weakness on national security.”

Today, seemingly every comment or analysis is party-based. Since President Trump is a Republican, any positive results from his policies that benefit the entire country -- or worse yet, accrue largely to the benefit of a Democratic voting bloc -- are either ignored by Democratic politicians and the Democratic-leaning media or dismissed by them as not resulting from his administration’s actions at all.

There are many such examples:

Black, Hispanic and female unemployment is at an all-time low, yet because it’s the result of President Trump’s common-sense business-friendly policies, it’s overlooked.

The stock market, GDP growth/job creation and energy production -- real indicators of the general quality of life for average Americans -- are all uniformly excellent, but because these positive developments are occurring under the Trump administration, no Democratic politician or commentator will credit President Trump’s policies with any of these positive results, lest such public credit strengthen Trump’s electoral chances in 2020. The Pelosis and Schumers of the world would rather see their constituencies suffer a reduced quality of life than give President Trump any credit at all. Let that thought settle in.

The liberal media and hyperpartisan Democratic politicians openly root for President Trump to be unsuccessful when he meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un or China’s Premier Li Keqiang or when he meets with a NATO country or a Middle East oil producer. President Trump’s political enemies would actually rather see an adversarial foreign nation continue to be a destabilizing threat on the world stage or for France to criticize us or for Saudi Arabia to raise oil prices than to cede any credit to President Trump for improving an international situation. Democrats will gladly accept a disadvantageous foreign policy circumstance for America if it means gaining political advantage over the Republicans.

The same holds true with border security. Democrats are well-documented as being in favor of a physical wall and strong border security as recently as during the Obama administration, but now that President Trump wants the wall, the Democrats are against it, wailing in their pathetically disingenuous voice that it’s “immoral” as they hide in their walled-in private residences. The Democrats -- bolstered by the Democratically-dominated media, as always -- would gladly take uncontrolled illegal immigration with all of its drugs, violence, and negative economic upheaval to the country’s detriment than allow President Trump to achieve what they deem is a political “victory.”

Although throughout history both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty at times of allowing party-based favoritism to take precedence over national common interests, there is very little question that today such behavior is far more prevalent and deeply-held among Democrats. Their open personal disdain and their nonacceptance of Donald Trump’s legitimacy as President has no previous analogue in modern American political history. While Republicans certainly didn’t hide their disregard for the hapless Jimmy Carter, the slick-talking, womanizing Bill Clinton or the socialist/politically-correct, anti-military Barack Obama, the presence of those Democratic presidents just motivated Republicans to offer a stronger candidate next time and endeavor to defeat the Democrats within the rules -- by winning the election.

Democrats -- office-holders, liberal media members and rabid partisan supporters alike -- would much rather see President Trump “fail,” even if that means that the economy worsens, employment prospects for their pet constituencies decline, the country becomes less safe and we become more dependent on unstable, anti-American foreign sources of energy, as long as that failure and its concomitant short-term misery portends a near-future Democratic Presidential victory. And they will rationalize and justify their own behavior all day long, indefensible and disgraceful as such behavior is.

Today’s Democrats epitomize the lowest standard of political conduct: “Party before Country.”

The latest summit between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un highlights the ever-increasing chasm between Democrats and Republicans. The rivalry and animosity has become so intense between warring political factions that the economy/employment, energy production, world events and international relations are no longer judged by the big-picture yardstick of whether or not it’s good for the country, but instead, through the myopic, competitive lens of how any particular development or occurrence affects one’s favored political allies.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, there was an immediate patriotic rush to enlist in the armed forces and strike back at the enemy. People weren’t asking what party you belonged to, nor were the major media outlets (in those days, radio and newspapers) questioning whether Pearl Harbor was actually the fault of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt. There was some muted criticism of his handling of Japanese relations in the months leading up to the attack, but it did not dominate the media coverage.

Likewise, when the Soviets placed offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba in October 1962, everyone in this country -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- was transfixed and riveted on the crisis, hoping that President John F. Kennedy could extricate us from the mess and find a way out that spared the world from a potentially disastrous nuclear exchange. There was exceedingly little talk of “this was a Democratic President’s fault.” Instead, there was an overriding feeling within the country that we -- as one nation -- had to be successful.

As recently as 9/11/01, the country reacted as one to the terror attacks on the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA. The anger over the attack was almost universally directed at the attackers and their mastermind, Osama Bin Laden. Who can forget the image of our Washington D.C. lawmakers, standing as one body, singing God Bless America in the immediate aftermath of the attack?

Does anyone think that such a show of national unity would be repeated today?

The first thing that would happen in the event of another crippling multi-thousand-casualty terror attack would be party-based finger-pointing:

“Trump is more interested in giving tax cuts to his rich buddies than he is in keeping the country safe.”

“Yesterday’s terror attack highlights the Democrats’ weakness on national security.”

Today, seemingly every comment or analysis is party-based. Since President Trump is a Republican, any positive results from his policies that benefit the entire country -- or worse yet, accrue largely to the benefit of a Democratic voting bloc -- are either ignored by Democratic politicians and the Democratic-leaning media or dismissed by them as not resulting from his administration’s actions at all.

There are many such examples:

Black, Hispanic and female unemployment is at an all-time low, yet because it’s the result of President Trump’s common-sense business-friendly policies, it’s overlooked.

The stock market, GDP growth/job creation and energy production -- real indicators of the general quality of life for average Americans -- are all uniformly excellent, but because these positive developments are occurring under the Trump administration, no Democratic politician or commentator will credit President Trump’s policies with any of these positive results, lest such public credit strengthen Trump’s electoral chances in 2020. The Pelosis and Schumers of the world would rather see their constituencies suffer a reduced quality of life than give President Trump any credit at all. Let that thought settle in.

The liberal media and hyperpartisan Democratic politicians openly root for President Trump to be unsuccessful when he meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un or China’s Premier Li Keqiang or when he meets with a NATO country or a Middle East oil producer. President Trump’s political enemies would actually rather see an adversarial foreign nation continue to be a destabilizing threat on the world stage or for France to criticize us or for Saudi Arabia to raise oil prices than to cede any credit to President Trump for improving an international situation. Democrats will gladly accept a disadvantageous foreign policy circumstance for America if it means gaining political advantage over the Republicans.

The same holds true with border security. Democrats are well-documented as being in favor of a physical wall and strong border security as recently as during the Obama administration, but now that President Trump wants the wall, the Democrats are against it, wailing in their pathetically disingenuous voice that it’s “immoral” as they hide in their walled-in private residences. The Democrats -- bolstered by the Democratically-dominated media, as always -- would gladly take uncontrolled illegal immigration with all of its drugs, violence, and negative economic upheaval to the country’s detriment than allow President Trump to achieve what they deem is a political “victory.”

Although throughout history both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty at times of allowing party-based favoritism to take precedence over national common interests, there is very little question that today such behavior is far more prevalent and deeply-held among Democrats. Their open personal disdain and their nonacceptance of Donald Trump’s legitimacy as President has no previous analogue in modern American political history. While Republicans certainly didn’t hide their disregard for the hapless Jimmy Carter, the slick-talking, womanizing Bill Clinton or the socialist/politically-correct, anti-military Barack Obama, the presence of those Democratic presidents just motivated Republicans to offer a stronger candidate next time and endeavor to defeat the Democrats within the rules -- by winning the election.

Democrats -- office-holders, liberal media members and rabid partisan supporters alike -- would much rather see President Trump “fail,” even if that means that the economy worsens, employment prospects for their pet constituencies decline, the country becomes less safe and we become more dependent on unstable, anti-American foreign sources of energy, as long as that failure and its concomitant short-term misery portends a near-future Democratic Presidential victory. And they will rationalize and justify their own behavior all day long, indefensible and disgraceful as such behavior is.

Today’s Democrats epitomize the lowest standard of political conduct: “Party before Country.”