There’s a difference between principled opposition and knee-jerk contrarianism. The former normally deals with the “what” of an issue, while the latter usually obsesses over the “who.”
When it comes to President Trump, Democrats appear to be a lot more knee-jerk than principled. Call it the “Trump effect,” where good things are now bad and where “resisting” means opposing previously held positions.
Conservative columnist Marc Thiessen argues this point in a Washington Post op-ed, titled, “To understand why Trump won, look at Democratic hysteria.” He posits that anti-Trump contrarianism has led Democrats to flip-flop on long-held foreign and domestic policy positions.
“No matter what Trump does, the Democratic reaction is the same: Outrage,” he writes.
Thiessen is more bullish on Trump than I am, but he’s not wrong when he notes the brand of anti-Trump opposition adopted by a great number of Democrats has made the party look small-minded and pitifully partisan.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for example, criticized the president last Thursday on the floor of the U.S. Senate for saying North Korea’s Kim Jong Un was “excellent” to three recently released American hostages.
The New York Senator called the president’s comment “troubling,” adding it “weakens American foreign policy and puts American citizens at risk around the world.”
“It’s like so many of the president’s foreign policy actions: quick, not thought through, related to show and to ego,” the senator said.
I agree that the president does harm when he commends tyrants like Kim. Praise lends an air of legitimacy. Praise can also confuse and dishearten our allies, while handing our enemies an easy propaganda win. But there’s also a difference between me pointing this out in a blog post the Senate minority leader vigorously denouncing the president on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the same day that he got three American hostages back onto American soil. Schumer looks like a fool.
Schumer’s reaction is small potatoes, however, compared to Democratic lawmakers’ newfound opposition to the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Not a single congressional Democrat attended the opening ceremony in Israel this week, despite receiving invites.
This is on top of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s, D-Calif., saying last year that “moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem now may needlessly spark mass protests, fuel tensions, and make it more difficult to reach a durable peace.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also condemned the decision, saying, “The future of Jerusalem is an issue that should be decided by Israel and the Palestinians, not unilaterally by the United States.”
Then there’s Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who said he worried the move would “further set back any hope of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.”
And so on.
The Democratic pushback is rather remarkable considering the U.S. Senate, including Feinstein and Murphy, voted 90-0 last June “for a resolution that ‘reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995,’ which mandated the embassy move (a bill that passed two decades ago with Pelosi’s vote),” Thiessen notes. Either they were never serious about relocating the embassy or they oppose it now because of who’s leading it. Take your pick.
It’s a bit too much to see lawmakers straining so hard to find the downside to things like the successful return of three American hostages. It isn’t so much principled opposition as it is just angry, knee-jerk anti-Trumpism. It makes these lawmakers look small and hopelessly partisan.
