Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pelosi’s Open Bluff
Nancy Pelosi is in a staredown with Donald Trump over the building of a wall along parts of our southern border. Pelosi has the support of Democrats, the media, progressives, and anti-Trump Republicans. Trump has the support of some Republicans and his ego. So I would argue that Trump has more support than Pelosi.
Trump is pushing this because it’s one of his campaign promises, but also apparently because he thinks border security is an important problem facing American citizens. Pelosi has spoken in favor of a wall in the past, but in her current political situation, it makes more sense for her to oppose the wall, President Trump, and her own former statements. Politics can put people into awkward positions sometimes. It happens.
So in this staredown, who will blink first? I find it exceedingly unlikely that Trump will back down. First of all, that’s not his style. He may negotiate and meet her halfway (and he has publicly offered to do exactly that already), but he will not abandon his cause. Suppose he loses more and more Republican support as the government shutdown becomes more politically difficult over time – I just don’t think that will matter. Trump was elected without the support of the Republican establishment. He’ll take their support where he can get it, but he’s certainly not dependent on it. And anyone who looks back on Trump’s life will find many character flaws, but they will not find that he is prone to crippling self-doubt. He’s just not going to back down. All he has to do is say, “I’m doing this for the good of American citizens. If Pelosi has her way, American citizens will get hurt.” That is a plausible position. He doesn’t have to back down.
What about Pelosi? First of all, she’s a political animal. She is in her position solely because of the support of her political allies. If they start to get cold feet, she’ll find herself in a very awkward position very quickly. She may then be forced to appeal to them by pointing out the reasons for her opposition to the wall, but that will quickly become even more awkward. What will she say?
She could say that if the government shutdown persists, then hundreds of thousands of government workers will not get their paychecks. These people will get hurt more and more the longer this goes on.
So what happens if she agrees to the wall? Well, all those government workers start getting paid, so they’d be happy.
But she can’t back down. She just can’t agree to the wall. Why not? Well, Pelosi would say that people will get hurt if she agrees to the wall. But here’s the trick: Who are those people? I’m not sure how she would answer that.
It’s obvious that if she agrees to the wall, there will be some happy government workers, because they’ll get paid. But who will be unhappy?
Illegal immigrants. They’re the only ones I can think of who will be hurt by the construction of a wall along parts of our southern border. It won’t hurt legal immigrants – they don’t enter the country by sneaking through the desert. It won’t hurt American citizens – it will help them. It won’t hurt government workers – it will help them – they’ll finally get paid.
So the only people who will be hurt if Pelosi agrees to a wall are illegal immigrants. They are the only reason she cannot agree to the wall. So illegal immigrants are apparently more important to Pelosi than government workers, or American citizens in general. I would think that this would put an elected official into an awkward position.
I would also think this bargain would be a tough sell for Pelosi to maintain her support. And if those who support her start to figure this out, I think Pelosi may have no choice but to agree to the wall.
I also suspect that Trump has already figured all this out, and he knows that he’s negotiating from a position of strength. He won’t back down. Because he doesn’t have to. And he knows it.
I suspect Pelosi knows it, too. I’m pretty sure Chuck Schumer knows it. Pelosi may be as stupid as she sounds, although that seems unlikely. But Schumer is not stupid. They’re in an impossible situation. Surely they must see that as clearly as Trump and everyone else does.
Sometimes a bluff works in a game of poker, even if you have no cards in your hand. But that only works if everybody else can’t see your cards.
It seems to me that Pelosi and Schumer are bluffing even though everybody in the game knows they have a losing hand. That seems like odd behavior for professional politicians. So perhaps I’m missing something.
What do you think?
Published in General
Is it decided for sure that it’s not going to be built of concrete?
Nancy wants it made out of invisible nanoparticles.
It’s interesting to see how concerned Trumps opponents are all-of-sudden about the wall, and who’s paying for it.
Honestly, I don’t think they are even close to understanding his supporters.
We knew all along that “ and Mexico will pay for it” was a hyperbolic tag line for effect. Look, we don’t believe politicians and we didn’t ‘believe ‘ Trump, we did believe he was going to actually do something about the immigration problems. And he is. It’s a major issue, and we are having it out with the Democrats. It’s a throw-down. That means it’s important. Trump loses zero support as long as he plays hard.
You’re probably right about that. Most will forgive him for failing, anyway, since there was never going to be bipartisan or even Republican agreement on the wall or anything related to immigration.
Though I’m not convinced Trump can or should use Executive actions to bypass Congress on the issue, I don’t see the problems being stemmed otherwise.
I’m pretty sure he’s already ruled it out. And I agree. This is a political showdown on both sides. An Executive order won’t really help and it would hurt politically.
We’d like it. Maybe if we just got the contract for 100 miles.
This is the advantage of a truly political outsider. He is not beholden to the party apparatchik or donors.
He can veto bills that provide no funding for border security each time. If eventually there are enough Rs in the House and Senate to override it—it’s on them. And if that were to occur, yes, it would be time to panic.
I haven’t followed this whole thread, but I think the ideal outcome would be for Trump to use executive actions to build the wall, and for Congress to respond (either before or after) by revoking a lot of the “emergency” powers and other powers it has ceded to the president and administrative agencies, thus ensuring that no president will be able to casually invoke emergency powers again. No more pen-and-a-phone stuff, not from Democrats and not from Republicans.
Building the wall is important. Having Congress take back its legislative powers is even more important.
And those who employ them at below market and/or legal wages paid in cash to avoid taxes as well as mandated benefits and other employer expenses. So there is that. But I do agree that Trump isn’t likely to blink first.
As often as people fret about the tyrannical potential of the Executive branch, legislators are not victims of lawless overreach. Congress ceded its own authority time and time again. It created the regulatory state which now writes most of our laws. It is the duty of Congress to undo its own errors.
I’m curious: Are there any prominent Republicans who oppose the wall (or some type of barrier) that aren’t also anti-Trump? If so, what reasons do they give for opposing the wall?
Now that is a very good question.
I know this much. Currently, there are no prominent Republicans who oppose the wall and give opposition to Trump as a reason. So every reason you read about given by prominent Republican is included in the answer to your question. Don’t know if this helps.
If I understand that as you mean, the reason is McCain, Flake, and Corker are no longer members of the Senate. The senatoresses from Alaska and Maine still are. But they tend to wait for the last moment to insert their cold knives into our back. We now also have Romney who has unsheathed his already.
Not sure if he has announced his position on border security yet, but he will also vote against it, because—Trump.
Thanks for the reply, toggle.
I think you’ve read something into my comment that I didn’t write, and you’ve not responded to the one thing that I did.
OK. Those comments are too opaque for my cobwebbed mind. Can you be a little more explicit so as I may understand what you do mean ?
Plus, I think Trump realizes if he caves, this will be his “Read my lips, no new taxes” moment.
Here are my answers
1. It was difficult. Pundits keep saying that if Trump really cared about the wall, he could have done it while Republicans had the majority in both houses. This is 85% disingenuous. Getting the wall funded requires 60 votes in the senate (and I don’t know how many in the House.) At no time has Trump had the votes to proceed without Democratic support.
2. He was busy. The pundits seem to have amnesia, or they are hoping we do. There has been no time in the past two years without drama. Now, you may say “Drama, sharma! The time is always right for your top priority.” To you I say, “see #4”.
3. The fight would been against a half-dozen Republicans. That’s bad politics and a losing battle. I’m willing to believe Cocaine Mitch was always on board, loyal and capable. The man who isn’t vice-president, no so much. Some senators would have grumbled. Some congressmen would have dodged and weaved. The optics throughout would have been of a Republican party in chaos and Democrats unified. Today, the message is, Trump and all Republicans fight for public safety, opening government, legal immigration and America against Democrats who fight for illegal immigration and voter fraud. It ends with either “Democrats fragment; Trump wins” or “Republicans take the seats of every moderate Democrat in the house”.
4. The timing is better now. Immigration was the #1 winning issue in 2016. Trump would love to campaign for 2020 on the same issue again. The only thing better is entering 2020 with a recent win.
Yes, sorry it wasn’t clear
When I said that you’ve read something I didn’t write, I mean that these two sentences seem to be responding to something that I didn’t write in the Comment that you were responding to. I did not write anything about any of those Senators or former Senators.
The reasons I referred to in my Comment are “reasons given for opposing the wall by prominent Republicans.” None of the facts you give about who is or was a Senator is given as a reason for opposing the wall by prominent Republicans.
It may be clearer if you know this:
All of these, especially number 4, put the lie to the idea that this is a national emergency.
That would be great if an emergency wall was the last “emergency” and that Congress accepted its responsibility again.
Who gets to decide that? The house? The Senate?