I saw the headlines about Trump's call to governors. Maybe you've seen them too. Maybe you listened to the audio or read the transcript. For the past several years, particularly since 2016, I've tried to spend time on conservative news sites to provide some sort of balance to my preferred diet of NPR, the Atlantic and the Washington Post. So I check in on Fox, the National Review, the Federalist. I've been wanting to get a subscription to the Wall Street Journal and I think I'm ready to pony up for that. Anyway, I looked for some thoughtful analysis of the call (beyond the claim that Trump can and should call in the National Guard based on historical precedent, which is almost beside the point for me) on any of these conservative sites. Haven't found it yet.
I watched this interview with the police chief of Houston (where George Floyd was from) and it really captured how I feel about that call with governors. It's 10 minutes long but worth it.
I would really truly love to hear from any Trump supporters who might be reading this, who can explain to me why Trump's attitude about law and order is the right one. I read the transcript of yesterday's call with governors and was struck by the differences between the governors' comments and the president's comments.
Governors gave details about protests and conditions in their respective states; talked about the specific ways they were trying to achieve peace already, including incorporating the National Guard in some instances as well as meeting with leaders of the black community and faith leaders; one asked for specific help like more PPE and testing given the Covid spread that is probably happening at the protests; one asked Trump to back off on the inflammatory rhetoric (you may have seen the headlines on that one, "I don't like your rhetoric either"); one asked Trump if there is any intelligence indicating who the bad actors are that are infiltrating protests from out of state.
Trump made unproven generalizations about the bad actors ("They're Antifa and they're radical left"); described the presence of military police as "a beautiful thing"; called Minneapolis "a laughingstock all over the world"; cited a vague instance in Dallas "where they kicked a guy to death. I don't know if he died or not but if he didn't, it's a miracle"; and gave this advice to the governors on how to bring peace: "you have to dominate, and you have to arrest people, and you have to try people and they have to go to jail for long periods of time."
I don't know why I'm even regurgitating all of this. I am just trying to make sense of it. The typically conservative value of states' rights has become more important to me over the years and especially in the last few months where governors have shown much more leadership than our president has. (I told you I was getting more conservative.) I came across the below speech of Eisenhower explaining why the National Guard was showing up in Arkansas to maintain order at the time of the Little Rock Nine. In his speech he carefully explains his rationale for the military to enforce the rule of law in this instance. He is not political. He makes no generalizations. He doesn't indicate whether he has personal feelings about school integration.
Can you imagine that? I cannot imagine that.
Governors gave details about protests and conditions in their respective states; talked about the specific ways they were trying to achieve peace already, including incorporating the National Guard in some instances as well as meeting with leaders of the black community and faith leaders; one asked for specific help like more PPE and testing given the Covid spread that is probably happening at the protests; one asked Trump to back off on the inflammatory rhetoric (you may have seen the headlines on that one, "I don't like your rhetoric either"); one asked Trump if there is any intelligence indicating who the bad actors are that are infiltrating protests from out of state.
Trump made unproven generalizations about the bad actors ("They're Antifa and they're radical left"); described the presence of military police as "a beautiful thing"; called Minneapolis "a laughingstock all over the world"; cited a vague instance in Dallas "where they kicked a guy to death. I don't know if he died or not but if he didn't, it's a miracle"; and gave this advice to the governors on how to bring peace: "you have to dominate, and you have to arrest people, and you have to try people and they have to go to jail for long periods of time."
I don't know why I'm even regurgitating all of this. I am just trying to make sense of it. The typically conservative value of states' rights has become more important to me over the years and especially in the last few months where governors have shown much more leadership than our president has. (I told you I was getting more conservative.) I came across the below speech of Eisenhower explaining why the National Guard was showing up in Arkansas to maintain order at the time of the Little Rock Nine. In his speech he carefully explains his rationale for the military to enforce the rule of law in this instance. He is not political. He makes no generalizations. He doesn't indicate whether he has personal feelings about school integration.
I'm not saying Ike for president or anything, I'm just saying: There is a precedent for the National Guard to come in to unstable situations. Eisenhower and the Little Rock Nine. George H.W. Bush and the riots in L.A. after the Rodney King verdict. Etc. etc. I wonder what would happen if our current president chilled out for two seconds, paused from talking about himself or flexing his figurative muscles, tried to explain to the people of the country why he thinks the military should step in (something beyond "if you don't dominate, you'll look like a bunch of jerks").
Can you imagine that? I cannot imagine that.
1 comment:
I cannot either - that is what is so discouraging. I listened to both of these videos you posted - I recall that my mom wasn't really an Ike fan - and now I'm not sure why. But listening to anyone who speaks in complete sentences that have been carefully and thoughtfully composed - whether or not it was a speech writer does not matter - points out how irrational Trump is - and that is disturbing - and it is even more disturbing that it doesn't disturb others!
Post a Comment