On Shutdowns, Politics, Trump, and the Art of the Possible

Today I was rereading my last posts, written in 2017, and was forced to come to the conclusion that absolutely nothing has changed politically in this country, except of course for the length of this current shutdown of the government.

I was writing about Donald Trump then, and I am writing about him now. The major difference, though, is that back in 2017, I was pointing out what he was doing that was foolhardy and predicting what was probably going to be the outcome of it.

Unfortunately, I was right.

Mr. Trump has demonstrated over and over that he does not understand the difference between running a family business, where the worst it can do is go bankrupt, and running a highly complex, intertwined enterprise where the worst it can do it blow up the planet.

He doesn't recognize this because he can't divorce the personal from the professional. That is, he is too motivated by what makes him look good rather than by what is best in the interests of the nation.

Let me explain.

In my opinion, Mr. Trump lacks any concept of balance, an idea critically important to the founding fathers. In a nation of competing special interests, they said it was the role of the government to regulate in the national interest. 

This means that any time that the government is hijacked by one set of interests, it cannot fulfill its function. This is a concept that the current occupant of the White House does not understand and is unwilling to learn. He is supposed to be balancing different viewpoints, not subscribing to them (FOX commentators for example).

In a much earlier blog, I wrote about the difference between a corporation and a government. In my mind, the distinction was critical. I think it has something still to say.

My point was that corporations have one major goal: to make money. Making money is something that Mr. Trump understands and is probably one reason he ran for the presidency. Frank Bruni (the NY Times columnist) thinks that Mr. Trump may have seen the presidency as a marketing opportunity.

But corporations don't have to care if they ruin an economy. Their investors do not care if employees and customers are harmed as long as it does not affect the bottom line. Corporations can relocate to somewhere else and the executives get their bonuses as long as they stay profitable. Corporations are answerable to their investors, not the public.

Corporations are also pragmatic. They leave economic planning to the government and will adapt as needed. Corporate self-justifications show that they have an ideology or even a religion, promoting the idea that profit and growth, taken together, is the highest possible good.

They are definitely not whom a nation should want running the country. Evangelical corporations, in fact, are among the strongest and best-funded of the special interests that the founding father cautioned us about.

Ranged against the drive for profit at any cost are what the Greek philosopher Aristotle calls the people (as in the rich will always think the deserve power because the have the money, while the poor think they should because they have the numbers).

The people have their own religion, which promotes the ideals enshrined in the Constitution: equality of opportunity, freedom from persecution, and protections of rights. They want a government that protects them in a number of specific areas: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the areas that for them, taken together, is the highest good (not forgetting that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as people, which begs the question of whether corporations can really feel happiness).

Where is the reconciliation of these competing interests? Certainly not in corporate boardrooms where things like health care and education can damage the bottom line. Certainly not in communities where demanding that corporations pay for these services may drive businesses into bankruptcy.

According to the founding fathers, it falls to the government to do the reconciliation. In fact, it is the only place where these interests can be honored and balanced. It is also the only place where the debate can move forward on the basis of fact rather than prejudice and with an eye to the long-term survival of the nation.

OK, you may be thinking impatiently, this wander through history is all well and good, but what does it have to do with the current government shut down?

Here's my take.

Somewhere, some corporate interest is licking its chops for very lucrative contracts to build the wall. Five billion dollars is a very nice bottom line. My suspicion is that promises have been made, deals worked out in advance.

Somewhere, groups representing various constituencies are planning large demonstrations more or less on humanitarian grounds. They are buoyed by the chaos in the immigration system and religious teachings.

Somewhere, groups are encouraging anarchist tendencies and would love to see the government permanently shut down just on principle.

Somewhere, groups of people are choosing sides like the Super Bowl on the basis of pride in adhering to a set of values that are seen as "traditional," hearkening back to an America that once had a frontier.

Ranged against these groups (and there are others) is the fact of a planet that, for whatever reason, is changing and starting to foment the mass migrations that have always been part of the generational factors. Anyone who has had their DNA done knows that these migrations are real and usually unstoppable.

Its hard to see how all these interests and pressures can all be served. The answer is that they can't be. There must be balance and only the government can do it:

Corporations aren't set up to deal with anything larger than their own interests. Humanitarian groups and religions can't because they deal with individuals rather than international governments. Anarchists can't. They just want to blow up the world. Ordinary people can't because they lack power and information.

Rather than the enemy, it would seem that the government is the only thing standing between us and annihilation. So what possible use is there for shutting it down?

If I were Trump, I would do the good old American horse trade. I'd take two or so billion now to get the wall started, negotiate on beefed up surveillance and border patrol as well as a physical barrier,
make sure that the rest of the money was put in successive budgets, and take the high road of getting the government back to work "in the national interest" (and aren't I the greatest president in thinking about the country's needs?)

Of course, he won't, because he thinks he would look "weak." If only he could recognize that he already looks weak and foolish to boot.

It's really too bad that he's brought this on himself and others because he already had a budget deal for the wall and blew it.  If politics is the art of the possible, Mr. Trump's politics are the art of the petulant.

Come on, Mr. Trump and your supporters: recognize that winning is cleverly getting what you want in the end, not banging a shoe on the table.