I understand the belief that Senate Democrats should vote against every single one of Donald Trump's nominees. The argument for that is simple. Donald Trump is a fascist. His agenda is the agenda of a fascist who props up oligarchs. The actions he is taking now and many of the people whom he has nominated will hurt the country and most Americans. If you really believe these things, then shouldn't you oppose everything he does and every person he nominates?
There is a rational argument for a different perspective. A plurality of those who voted, 49.8% of those who voted, voted for Donald Trump. He won more than 77 million votes, the second most votes ever. Therefore, unless a nominee is clearly disqualified by dangerous, extremist ideology or character issues or both or the nominee is simply unqualified for the post, the nominee should be confirmed. When you are voting to reject or confirm the nominee, then that decision must be made on the merits of the nominee. The voters chose to elect Donald Trump. Despite all the reasons that prevent us from bestowing legitimacy on this administration, the attempted coup and the fascist nature of the newly elected president and his fascist and damaging choices and actions, a plurality of the voters did choose Donald Trump. This is a fact and it cannot be undone. The nominees must rise to confirmation or fail and be rejected based upon their individual merits. Both views have strong arguments for them. While I lean towards the former argument and not the latter, if a Democratic Senator ( example: Senator Cory Booker) has voted against all clearly disqualified and unqualified nominees, then blasting them for confirming a minority of Trump's nominees is absurd. That is not collaborating with fascism. It is recognizing that a vote to confirm or reject a nominee is not an opportunity to rerun the last presidential election. The voters already made their choice here, as ignorant as it was. This is voting to confirm or reject the nominees on their own merits and recognizing that a plurality of the voters did choose Donald Trump. It is a rational and defensible position even if I disagree with it. What former Governor Kristi Noem did based upon her own testimony to her dog is unspeakably cruel and seems to reflect a heartless human of no character. Nevertheless, is this a good enough reason to consider her clearly disqualified? For me, it would. Yet, is she not likely to be better than any replacement nominee? Can she perform the job that she would have if confirmed? Would she do that job to the best of her limited ability? Is she otherwise qualified for the post? Some Democratic Senators seem to have answered these last four questions in a way that led them to vote to confirm her. Senator Booker voted to reject most of Donald Trump's nominees and especially those who are the most obviously disqualified, but he did vote to confirm her. While I would differ with him on the Noem nomination, she was going to be confirmed anyway and there was a reasonable argument to vote to confirm her. She was not nearly as bad as the worst of Donald Trump's nominees, he did win the presidential election, and, again she was going to be confirmed no matter how he voted.
Senator Cory Booker is a good US Senator. While disagreeing with him on some of Trump's nominees and specifically former Governor Kristi Noem, Senator Booker is not the problem here. The Senate Democrats we should be targeting are those who voted to confirm any of the very worst of his nominees, those who are going along with Donald Trump's fascism. We must remember that Donald Trump and his Republican Party and the oligarchs are the enemy here. Too many people are spending more time and effort criticizing Senate Democrats, Democrats in Congress, and Democratic Party leaders and not enough time and effort criticizing Donald Trump, his fascist and dangerous, anti-American agenda, and his Republican Party.
Add comment
Comments