Executive Orders Versus Mean Tweets

Columnist seeks Common Ground

“And the parting on the left

Is now parting on the right

And the beards have all grown longer overnight”

The Who, “Won’t Get Fooled Again” 1971

In the last week – has it only been that long? – I have drafted several columns, only to have the subject stepped on by yet more action coming out of The White House. There are probably people everywhere who long for the days of mean tweets in the dark of night, with the leader of the free world in some stupid word contest with a person of no importance. The Executive Orders are coming at a dizzying pace.

And if one ponders it, as a populace we are pretty much in the same place as the first term of Donald J. Trump. During that term, there were those who found the extreme X’s (nee Tweets) cringe-worthy but put up with them because they liked the policy direction. I suspect there are many in that camp who now recoil at some of the Executive Orders and outlandish statements but are willing to accept them for the policy direction. It’s like they can hold their nose and support the policy direction of the country, guided by a person that perhaps 70% of the country did not want in the first place.

Similarly, it is evident that there are those who were both genuinely disgusted with the aforementioned X’s and are even more alarmed about both the Executive Orders and the policy direction of the country. Not to mention the outcome of the presidential election. It is like their ox has been gored or something.

So, America remains divided across policy and political points of view. Seems that the party in power becomes hell-bent on being as irrational as possible, taking advantage of the wide lane created by the follies of their opponent when that party controlled our government. Senselessly surrendering their political capital by racing to the fringes has harmed both major parties, befuddling voters and driving the partisan divide to new depths.

FURTHER EXERCISE FOR FURTHER FUTILITY REVISITED

Which means we all arrive at a couple of truisms that are familiar to those following The Common Bridge:

• No amount of logical persuasion will drag a person from side A to side B, and vice versa. Likewise, no name-calling, deplatforming, threats, bullying, cancelling, spurious prosecuting, etc. will have the intended effect of the person(s) attempting the persuading or other means to try to change another person’s opinion.

• Tribalism can only work if one tribe is completely and permanently annihilated. Note to everyone of every political view, “that ain’t gonna happen.” In biblical times, the conquered would have to give up their language and use the language of the victor. So if you are seeing the same old talking points you know that things are different today.

• The person, entity, or nation that starts a street fight, a lawsuit or a military action usually does not get to decide how that fighting ends. Same goes with censorship, riots, lawfare, character assassination, outlandish EO’s or other means used to express grievances or attack the other side. It is amusing to observe one tribe implement a maneuver and then be surprised when the tables are turned on them or the entire situation escalates.

IS AGREEMENT STILL POSSIBLE?

Is there agreement any place? It is increasingly more difficult to get consensus on anything. As an example, during the period when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka, Obamacare was being drafted, I was attending a workshop at Harvard University. One session leader, a key drafter of the legislation, acknowledged there were strong policy differences and offered that all in the room could start from a place of agreement. He suggested that perhaps all could agree that murder was wrong. A murmur of assent rippled through the room, and universal head nods in agreement. Then respectful, learned discussion followed. Contrast that with the entirely different kind of debate after a murder of a healthcare executive on the streets of midtown Manhattan.

Areas where most of America agrees might include the following.

• It would be nice to know who the January 6^th bomber(s) were.

• It would be nice to know who is entering the country, and for what purpose.

• A family should be able to live in dignity with available work.

• Access to affordable healthcare should be broad based.

• Everyone should have access to affordable, healthy food in sufficient quantities.

• Everyone should have opportunity to develop their talents.

• Everyone should expect competent public services including sanitation, clean water, clean air, police response, and fire protection.

• Everyone should expect our government to spend the people’s tax money – especially the spend against future taxes (deficit spending) to be reasonable in scale, focused in scope, of value to the populace and controlled by those elected to administer it.

Maybe even add these areas of agreement?

• We don’t want our president to be in verbal sparring matches with talk show hosts, singers, actors or anyone in the entertainment industry. You all live in separate worlds so keep it that way.

• We don’t want our president unilaterally and capriciously stopping authorized spending. Great companies have collapsed under the weight of similar decrees. Returning the power of the purse to the US House of Representatives over the entrenched agencies and other bureaucrats could reconnect accountability to voters perhaps?

• Obtaining full disclosure of Epstein’s visitors would be great.

• Finally learning about the origins of COVID-19, and who or what is responsible? Maybe go out on a limb here and ask how the various medical, social and preventive policy prescriptions actually worked. I’d like to know.

• Having human or animal poop in our streets is a bad thing.

Let’s go further out on a limb, could we all agree that:

• If someone is getting a pardon or commutation, could we, the people at least know what they were charged with or perhaps might have been charged with? Plus, an honest reporting of the reason(s) for the charges? It is a statistical near-certainty that the pardon-fests (plural intended) let people avoid full accountability for their actions.

• And it is easy to agree that Nancy Pelosi was treated the same as Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase because neither got a pre-emptive pardon. Dimon is still prohibited from insider trading, and that is both a topic for another day and a place where people could or should agree.

• Even if everyone drove an electric car and got rid of their gas stoves, California would still have wildfires.

• That criminal investigations start with suspicion of a crime, not finding a person and creating the illusion of a crime?

• Trials-by-media, especially convictions-by-media are exhausting and not satisfying. It would be easy to suggest that all agree turning off this hype, but it is too big a business with too many of PT Barnum’s customers consuming the stuff to go away any time soon.

There are undoubtedly other points of agreement. Each reader might suggest one or more.

The “wipe out the other side” is not a policy answer. That tact has been tried.

If so desired, everyone could find at least one thing that might be acceptable to people across the political spectrum.

Onward